Dosificacion

Optimization of Aggregate Gradation Combinations to
Improve Concrete Sustainability
by
Majella Anson-Cartwright
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 Majella Anson-Cartwright 2011
Optimization of Aggregate Gradation Combinations to Improve

Concrete Sustainability
Majella Anson-Cartwright
Master of Applied Science
Department of Civil Engineering
University of Toronto
2011
Abstract
By optimizing the packing of the combined aggregate gradations, the cement paste content
needed to make concrete can be reduced, improving sustainability, cost, performance, durability,
and workability. Optimization can be achieved using theoretical and empirical techniques, or
waste concrete material as an intermediate size fraction. However, the potential for
improvement is currently limited by prescriptive grading specifications that require meeting
individual requirements for fine and coarse aggregates.
From this study, using various optimization techniques, it was found that by inclusion of an
intermediate sized aggregate material, a reduction in cement paste up to 16% is possible for 35
MPa and 50 MPa mix designs typically used in Ontario bridge decks. The aggregate materials
used were a natural sand, and two crushed limestones of 19.0 mm and 6.7 mm maximum size.
From these findings, recommendations are made for improving the current Ontario Provincial
Standard Specification (OPSS) 1002 used for concrete aggregates.
ii
Acknowledgments
I would first and foremost like to thank my supervisor, Professor R. Doug Hooton, for his
support and guidance. Furthermore, thank you to the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario for
the opportunity to conduct research on this specific topic. I thank Holcim for their generosity
and supply of all concrete constituent materials and ICAR rheometer used for this study.
The experimental work conducted for this study could not have been completed without the help
of the technical staff and concrete group, most notably: Olga, Joel, Renzo, Giovanni, Professor
Karl Peterson, Mila, Soley, Ahmad, Mahsa, Eric, Saeid, Adam, Dimitre, Andre, Ge-Hung, Ester,
Sonia, and Reza. I am extremely grateful to all of you for your help and kindness, thank you.
Last, but certainly not least, I could not have completed my M.A.Sc. degree without the endless
support and encouragement from my parents, brothers, and closest friends Ekaterina, Steve, Jen,
Marianne, Matt, and Lani.
I feel very fortunate to have such supportive and caring people surrounding me at school and at
home, thank you to you all.
iii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... iii
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ iv
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... viii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. xi
List of Appendices ..................................................................................................................... xviii
List of Abbreviations ..................................................................................................................... xx
Chapter 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background Information ...................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Research Objectives............................................................................................................. 3
1.3 Scope of Research................................................................................................................ 4
Chapter 2 Literature Review............................................................................................................ 6
2.1 Theoretical Particle Packing Models ................................................................................... 6
2.1.1
Modified Toufar Model ........................................................................................... 6
2.1.2
Theory of Particle Mixtures Particle Packing Model .............................................. 8
2.2 Empirical Charts ................................................................................................................ 10

2.2.1
Talbots Grading Curve ......................................................................................... 10
2.2.2
Shilstones Coarseness Factor Chart ..................................................................... 12
2.2.3
8-18 Distribution Chart .......................................................................................... 14
2.3 Summary of Recent Studies on Optimization Techniques for Combined Aggregate

Blends ................................................................................................................................ 16
2.4 Fresh Concrete Properties .................................................................................................. 17
2.4.1
Slump ..................................................................................................................... 17
2.4.2
Rheology ................................................................................................................ 17
2.5 Influence of Aggregate Shape and Texture ....................................................................... 26

2.6 Bulk Resistivity ................................................................................................................. 27
iv
Chapter 3 Experimental ................................................................................................................. 29

3.1 Materials for Laboratory Testing ....................................................................................... 29
3.1.1
Cementitious Material ........................................................................................... 29
3.1.2
Coarse Aggregate................................................................................................... 29
3.1.3
Fine Aggregate....................................................................................................... 34
3.1.4
Intermediate Aggregate ......................................................................................... 36
3.1.5
Chemical Admixtures ............................................................................................ 39
3.2 Mix Designs ....................................................................................................................... 39

3.3 Use of Existing Optimization Techniques to Design Mixtures ......................................... 40
3.3.1
Modified Toufar Particle Packing Model .............................................................. 40
3.3.2
Theory of Particle Mixtures Particle Packing Model ............................................ 41
3.3.3
Talbots Grading Curve ......................................................................................... 41
3.3.4
Shilstones Coarseness Factor Chart ..................................................................... 44
3.3.5
8-18 Distribution Chart .......................................................................................... 49
3.4 Range of Designed Combined Aggregate Gradations ....................................................... 52

3.5 Concrete Mix Design Methodology .................................................................................. 53
3.5.1
Stage 1 35 MPa, 360 kg/m3 cement content (typical), w/c = 0.39 ..................... 54
3.5.2
Stage 2 35 MPa, 330 kg/m3 cement content (reduced), w/c = 0.39 .................... 56
3.5.3
3.5.4
Stage 4 50 MPa, 390 kg/m3 cement content (reduced), w/c = 0.33 ................... 59
3.6 Mixing Procedure .............................................................................................................. 61

3.7 Workability Test Procedures ............................................................................................. 62
3.6.1
Air Content by Pressure Method ........................................................................... 63
3.6.2
Slump Test ............................................................................................................. 63
3.6.3
ICAR Rheometer ................................................................................................... 64
3.8 Evaluation of Fresh Concrete Properties ........................................................................... 73

v
3.9 Casting Test Procedures .................................................................................................... 74

3.10 Casting and Testing of Cylinder Procedures ..................................................................... 75
3.11 Casting and Testing of Concrete Prisms ............................................................................ 78
3.12 Curing Regime for Cylinders and Prisms .......................................................................... 79
Chapter 4 Results ........................................................................................................................... 80
4.1 Workability ........................................................................................................................ 80
4.2 Compressive Strength ........................................................................................................ 83
4.3 Linear Drying Shrinkage ................................................................................................... 85
4.4 Bulk Resistivity ................................................................................................................. 87
Chapter 5 Analysis and Discussion ............................................................................................... 90
5.1 Analysis of Optimization Techniques ............................................................................... 90
5.1.1
Analysis of Theoretical Particle Packing Models .................................................. 90
5.1.2
Analysis of Empirical Charts ................................................................................. 91
5.2 Analysis of Workability Results ........................................................................................ 92

5.2.1
5.2.2
5.2.3
5.2.4
5.2.5
Workability Boxes for Shilstones Coarseness Factor Charts ............................... 98
5.2.6
Slump and Static Yield Stress Correlation .......................................................... 101
5.2.7
Analysis of Rheology Test Results ...................................................................... 103
5.2.8
35 MPa Concrete Mixtures with Successful Workability ................................... 117
5.2.9
50 MPa Concrete Mixtures with Successful Workability ................................... 118
5.3 Analysis of Compressive Strength Results ...................................................................... 119

5.4 Analysis of Linear Drying Shrinkage Results ................................................................. 122
5.5 Analysis of Bulk Resistivity Results ............................................................................... 130
vi
5.6 Recommendations for the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario ................................... 143

Chapter 6 Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................... 157
6.1 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 157
6.2 Recommendations for Future Research ........................................................................... 159
References.................................................................................................................................... 164
Appendices .................................................................................................................................. 170
vii
List of Tables
Table 1.1: OPSS 1002 and ASTM C 33 Grading Requirements for Fine Aggregates .................. 3
Table 1.2: OPSS 1002 and ASTM C 33 Grading Requirements for Coarse Aggregates with
Nominal Maximum Size of 19.0 mm ............................................................................................ 3
Table 2.1: Zone and Workability Box Division Lines for Coarseness Factor Chart ................... 13
Table 2.2: Combined Individual % Retained Limits for 8-22 Distribution Chart ....................... 14
Table 2.3: Summary of Recent Studies on Optimization Techniques for Combined Aggregate
Blends .......................................................................................................................................... 16
Table 2.4: Influences of Mixture Proportioning of SCC on Rheological Properties (Koehler and
Fowler, 2004; 2007)..................................................................................................................... 20
Table 3.1: Cementitious Material Properties ............................................................................... 29
Table 3.2: Mixing Timeline and Coarse Aggregate Supply Used ............................................... 32
Table 3.3: Properties of Coarse Aggregate Used For Study........................................................ 33
Table 3.4: Properties of Fine Aggregate Used For Study............................................................ 36
Table 3.5: Properties of Intermediate Aggregate Used For Study .............................................. 38
Table 3.6: Properties of Chemical Admixtures Used For Study ................................................. 39
Table 3.7: Range of Combined Gradations Used in the Current Study....................................... 53
Table 3.8: List of Stage 1 (35 MPa, 360 kg/m3 typical cement content) Mix Designs ............... 54
Table 3.9: Material Contents and Dosages of Stage 1 (35 MPa, 360 kg/m3 typical cement
content) Mix Designs ................................................................................................................... 55
Table 3.10: List of Stage 2 (35 MPa, 330 kg/m3 reduced cement content) Mix Designs ........... 56
viii
Table 3.11: Material Contents and Dosages of Stage 2 (35 MPa, 330 kg/m3 reduced cement
Table 3.12: List of Stage 3 (50 MPa, 465 kg/m3 typical cement content) Mix Designs ............. 58
Table 3.13: Material Contents and Dosages of Stage 3 (50 MPa, 465 kg/m3 typical cement
Table 3.14: List of Stage 4 (50 MPa, 390 kg/m3 reduced cement content) Mix Designs ........... 60
Table 3.15: Material Contents and Dosages of Stage 4 (50 MPa, 390 kg/m3 reduced cement
Table 3.16: Admixture and Water Fraction Addition Times for All Stages ............................... 62
Table 3.17: Workability Testing Programme .............................................................................. 63
Table 3.18: Casting Mix Testing Programme ............................................................................. 75
Table 4.1: Workability Test Results and Evaluation ................................................................... 80
Table 4.2: Average Compressive Strength Results ..................................................................... 84
Table 4.3: Average Linear Drying Shrinkage Results Calculated Following Both OPSS LS-435
and ASTM C 157 Procedures ...................................................................................................... 85
Table 4.4: Average Merlin Test and RCPT Bulk Resistivity and Actual Charge Passed Results87
Table 5.1: Stages 1 and 2 35 MPa Concrete Mixtures with Successful Workability ................ 118
Table 5.2: Stages 3 and 4 50 MPa Concrete Mixtures with Successful Workability ................ 118
Table 5.3: Chloride Ion Penetrability Categories for RCPT, adapted from (ASTM C 1202, 2010)
................................................................................................................................................... 133
Table 5.4: Specific Criterion and Overall Successful Mixes for 35 MPa Design Strength....... 144
Table 5.5: Specific Criterion and Overall Successful Mixes for 50 MPa Design Strength....... 145
ix
Table 5.6: Summary of Test Results for 35 MPa Design Mixes Meeting All Criteria ............. 146
Table 5.7: Summary of Test Results for 50 MPa Design Mixes Meeting All Criteria ............. 147
Table 5.8: Range of Combined Gradations of 35 MPa and 50 MPa Design Mixes Meeting All
Criteria ....................................................................................................................................... 149
Table 5.9: Range of Combined Gradations of All Mixes Meeting All Criteria and OPSS 1002
Grading Requirements of 40% Fine Aggregate and 60% Coarse Aggregate ............................ 150
List of Figures
Figure 1.1: Gap-Graded vs. Well-Graded Combined Aggregate Gradation Curve by Individual
Percent Retained ............................................................................................................................ 2
Figure 2.1: Talbots Grading Curve Maximum Density Lines (for Various n Values) for 19.0
mm Nominal Maximum Size....................................................................................................... 11
Figure 2.2: Shilstones Coarseness Factor Chart ......................................................................... 13
Figure 2.3: 8-22 Distribution Well-Graded Combined Aggregate Blend Example .................... 15
Figure 2.4: Effect of Static and Dynamic Yield Stress for Complex Fluids exhibiting
Thixotropic Characteristics when a low shear strain rate is applied (Rheocentric Concrete
Technologies, 2006) .................................................................................................................... 18
Figure 2.5: Changes in Behaviour of SCC Yield Stress with Time (Koehler and Fowler, 2008)19
Figure 2.6: Schematic of Rheological Properties for Different Mixture Types when Bingham
Model Applied (reproduced from Rheocentric Concrete Technologies, 2006) .......................... 20
Figure 2.7: Typical Rheometer Configurations (Koehler, 2009a) ............................................... 22
Figure 2.8: Optimal Vane and Container Geometry (Koehler, 2009b) ....................................... 23
Figure 2.9: Flow Curves of Theoretical Models Applicable for Concrete (Koehler, 2009c) ...... 24
Figure 2.10: Coaxial Cylinder Configuration for Both Cases of All Material Flowing and Not
All Material Flowing (Koehler and Fowler, 2004) ...................................................................... 24
Figure 2.11: Correlation of Charge Passed vs. Conductivity (of initial RCPT) (Germann
Instruments, 2010) ....................................................................................................................... 27
Figure 3.1: Hopper Opening and Bin for 19.0 mm Coarse Aggregate ........................................ 30
Figure 3.2: Guideline for Visually Assessing Shape and Angularity of Aggregate (Koehler and
Fowler, 2007)............................................................................................................................... 30
xi
Figure 3.3: Round #1 of Coarse Aggregate Supply: Sieved, Left: 9.5 mm clear, Right: 4.75 mm
clear.............................................................................................................................................. 31
Figure 3.4: Round #2 of Coarse Aggregate Supply..................................................................... 31
Figure 3.5: Round #3 of Coarse Aggregate Supply..................................................................... 32
Figure 3.6: Hopper Opening and Bin for Fine Aggregate ........................................................... 34
Figure 3.7: Fine Aggregate Supply.............................................................................................. 35
Figure 3.8: Intermediate Aggregate Supply................................................................................. 37
Figure 3.9: Talbots Grading Curve Chart for Combined Binary and Ternary Aggregate Blends
of n = 0.40 .................................................................................................................................... 42
of n = 0.45 .................................................................................................................................... 43
of n = 0.50 .................................................................................................................................... 43
of n = 0.55 .................................................................................................................................... 44
Figure 3.13: Stage 1 Mix Plan Plotted on Coarseness Factor Chart ............................................ 45
Figure 3.17: 8-22 Distribution Chart for Binary 35 MPa Control Mix ....................................... 49
Figure 3.18: 8-22 Distribution Chart for Binary 50 MPa Control Mix ....................................... 50
Figure 3.19: 8-22 Distribution Chart for Ternary Blend Using the Modified Toufar Particle
Packing Model with Coarse Aggregate Supply #1 ...................................................................... 51
xii
Figure 3.22: Types of Slump Behaviour (Koehler, 2009a) ......................................................... 64
Figure 3.23: Rheometer Equipment Components (Rheocentric Concrete Technologies, 2006) 65
Figure 3.24: Full Container for Rheometer Testing (Concrete filled to top of vertical strips).... 65
Figure 3.25: Torque Resetting Position ....................................................................................... 66
Figure 3.26: Proper Placing of Vane in Concrete ........................................................................ 66
Figure 3.27: Frame Resting on Containers Supports, Rheometer Ready for Testing ................ 67
Figure 3.28: Stress Growth Test Software Output for 35 MPa Control (Mix #1), 1st Iteration .. 68
Figure 3.29: Stress Growth Test Software Output for 50 MPa Control (Mix #32d), 1st Iteration
..................................................................................................................................................... 69
Figure 3.30: Description of Generation of Flow Curve (Koehler, 2009b) .................................. 70
Figure 3.31: Bingham model represented graphically (Rheocentric Concrete Technologies,
2006) ............................................................................................................................................ 71
Figure 3.32: Flow Curve Test Software Output for 35 MPa Control (Mix #1), 1st Iteration ...... 72
Figure 3.33: Flow Curve Test Software Output for 50 MPa Control (Mix #32d), 1st Iteration .. 72
Figure 3.34: Hand Mixing in Wheelbarrow between First and Second Sets of Rheometer Testing
..................................................................................................................................................... 73
Figure 3.35: Merlin Bulk Conductivity Test Equipment (Germann Instruments, 2010) ............ 77
Figure 3.36: Merlin Bulk Conductivity Test Specimen Set-up (Germann Instruments, 2010)... 77
xiii
Figure 5.1: Flowability and Cohesion of First Slump Test for Mix #18 (Shilstone's Coarseness
Factor Chart - Zone 2, ternary, CF = 64.2, WF = 35.7)............................................................... 94
Figure 5.2: Segregation of Mix #17 (Shilstone's Coarseness Factor Chart - Zone 2, ternary, CF =
72.7, WF = 32.7) after First Slump Test ...................................................................................... 95
Figure 5.3: Result of Second Slump Test for Mix #31 (Theory of Particle Mixtures by Dewar,
binary) .......................................................................................................................................... 96
Figure 5.4: Coarseness Factor Chart Workability Box for Stage 1 Mixes .................................. 98
Figure 5.7: Coarseness Factor Chart Workability Box for Stage 4 Mixes ................................ 100
Figure 5.8: Static Yield Stress vs. Slump for Stage 1 Mixes..................................................... 101
Figure 5.9: Static Yield Stress vs. Slump for Stage 2 Mixes..................................................... 102
Figure 5.10: Static Yield Stress vs. Slump for Stage 3 Mixes................................................... 102
Figure 5.11: Static Yield Stress vs. Slump for Stage 4 Mixes................................................... 102
Figure 5.12: Stage 1, Static Yield Stress 1 Results Arranged by Workability Sufficiency.... 104
Figure 5.13: Stage 1, Dynamic Yield Stress 1 Results Arranged by Workability Sufficiency
................................................................................................................................................... 104
Figure 5.14: Stage 1, Plastic Viscosity 1 Results Arranged by Workability Sufficiency ...... 105
................................................................................................................................................... 106
xiv
................................................................................................................................................... 108
................................................................................................................................................... 109
................................................................................................................................................... 111
................................................................................................................................................... 113
................................................................................................................................................... 115
................................................................................................................................................... 116
xv
Figure 5.36: Linear Drying Shrinkage vs. Time of Drying for 35 MPa Mixes within Acceptable
Limit at 28 Days of Drying........................................................................................................ 124
Figure 5.37: Linear Drying Shrinkage vs. Time of Drying for 50 MPa Mixes within Acceptable
Limit at 28 Days of Drying........................................................................................................ 124
Figure 5.38: Linear Drying Shrinkage vs. Time of Drying for January 4, 2011 Cast Date ...... 125
Figure 5.39: Linear Drying Shrinkage vs. Time of Drying for January 10, 2011 Cast Date .... 126
Figure 5.46: Linear Drying Shrinkage vs. Time of Drying for May 12, 2011 Cast Date ......... 128
Figure 5.47: Average RCPT 5-minute Bulk Resistivity vs. Merlin Bulk Resistivity for 35 MPa
Mixes ......................................................................................................................................... 134
Figure 5.48: Average RCPT 5-minute Bulk Resistivity vs. Merlin Bulk Resistivity for 50 MPa
Mixes ......................................................................................................................................... 135
Figure 5.49: Average RCPT 6-hour Bulk Resistivity vs. Merlin Bulk Resistivity for 35 MPa
Mixes ......................................................................................................................................... 136
Figure 5.50: Average RCPT 6-hour Bulk Resistivity vs. Merlin Bulk Resistivity for 50 MPa
Mixes ......................................................................................................................................... 136
xvi
Figure 5.51: Average RCPT 6-hour Bulk Resistivity vs. 5-minute Bulk Resistivity for 35 MPa
Mixes ......................................................................................................................................... 137
Figure 5.52: Average RCPT 6-hour Bulk Resistivity vs. 5-minute Bulk Resistivity for 50 MPa
Mixes ......................................................................................................................................... 137
Figure 5.53: Average Merlin Bulk Resistivity for 35 MPa at 28 Days ..................................... 138
Figure 5.57: Average Actual Charge Passed for 50 MPa at 28 Days ........................................ 141
Figure 5.60: Coarse and Fine Gradations of 35 MPa Design Mixes Meeting All Criteria ....... 151
Figure 5.61: Coarse and Fine Gradations of 50 MPa Design Mixes Meeting All Criteria ....... 152
Figure 5.62: Coarse and Fine Gradations of All Mixes Meeting All Criteria ........................... 153
Figure 5.63: Combined Gradations of 35 MPa Design Mixes Meeting All Criteria................. 154
Figure 5.64: Combined Gradations of 50 MPa Design Mixes Meeting All Criteria................. 155
Figure 5.65: Combined Gradations of All Mixes Meeting All Criteria .................................... 156
xvii
List of Appendices
Appendix A: Master Mix Design List ....................................................................................... 170
Appendix B: Modified Toufar Model Spreadsheet ................................................................... 174
Appendix C: Theory of Particle Mixtures Spreadsheet ............................................................. 177
Appendix D: Talbots Grading Curve Spreadsheet ................................................................... 181
Appendix E: Combined Gradations for All Mix Designs ......................................................... 183
Appendix F: Compressive Strength Results for All Stages ....................................................... 186
Appendix G: Linear Drying Shrinkage Results for All Stages ................................................. 197
Appendix H: Bulk Resistivity Results for All Stages ................................................................ 206
Appendix I: Statistical Analysis of Compressive Strength Results at 28 Days with a 90%
Confidence Level ....................................................................................................................... 214
Appendix J: Ground Surface Smoothness at Age of 56 Days ASTM C 39 Check ................... 222
Appendix K: Statistical Analysis of Linear Drying Shrinkage Results at 35 Days with a 90%
Appendix L: Average Mass of Prism Specimens vs. Age ......................................................... 230
Appendix M: Statistical Analysis of Linear Drying Shrinkage Test Methods at 35 Days with a
90% Confidence Level .............................................................................................................. 232
Appendix N: Statistical Analysis of Merlin Bulk Resistivity Results with a 90% Confidence
Level .......................................................................................................................................... 234
Appendix O: Statistical Analysis of Bulk Resistivity Test Methods at 28 Days and 56 Days with
a 90% Confidence Level ............................................................................................................ 249
xviii
Appendix P: Statistical Analysis of 35 MPa Mixes Meeting All Criteria with a 90%
Appendix Q: Statistical Analysis of 50 MPa Mixes Meeting All Criteria with a 90% Confidence
Level .......................................................................................................................................... 257
xix
List of Abbreviations
ACI American Concrete Institute
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
CF Coarseness Factor (abscissa of Shilstones Coarseness Factor Chart)
CRD Difference between the Reference bar and Comparator reading (for linear drying
shrinkage measurements)
CSA Canadian Standards Association
GGBFS Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag
GU General Use (cement type)
HSF Hydraulic Portland/Silica Fume cement (blended GU cement with 8% silica fume)
ICAR International Center for Aggregates Research
LS Laboratory Standard (from MTO Laboratory Testing Manual)
MFA Manufactured Fine Aggregate
MTO Ministry of Transportation of Ontario
NRMCA National Ready Mix Concrete Association
OPSS Ontario Provincial Standard Specification
RCPT Rapid Chloride Permeability Test
SCC Self-Consolidating Concrete
SCM Supplementary Cementing Materials
SSD Saturated Surface Dry
WF Workability Factor (ordinate of Shilstones Coarseness Factor Chart)
xx
Chapter 1
Introduction
1
1.1 Background Information
From the production of concrete, cement is the most expensive material and can account for up
to 60% of the total materials cost (Quiroga, 2003). Its manufacturing process is also the largest
greenhouse gas contributor, and the most energy and resource intensive. Approximately 5% of
global carbon dioxide emissions are attributed to the manufacturing of cement. The paste
fraction of a concrete mix is usually 25% to 40% of the total volume. A portion of cement can
be substituted by supplementary cementing materials (SCMs), but there is greater potential to
reduce the cement content needed for concrete mixes by optimizing the combined aggregate
gradation of mixes. Optimizing the packing of the aggregate particles will improve concretes: i)
sustainability and cost by reducing cement content required; ii) durability by decreasing its
permeability and potential for drying shrinkage cracking; iii) workability by decreasing
segregation potential; and iv) structural performance by decreasing porosity and increasing the
total aggregate volume. The shape and texture of the aggregates have a significant effect on the
packing ability of individual aggregates, and, therefore, potential for optimizing blended
aggregates.
Typical concrete mixtures have a binary blend of fine and coarse aggregates, each meeting
gradation envelopes, which are often defined as gap-graded mixtures because of a lack of
intermediately sized particles ranging between 2.36 mm and 9.5 mm, as illustrated in Figure 1.1.
A well-graded mixture has a good distribution of aggregates including intermediate sized
particles. A well-graded combined aggregate blend can be achieved by using optimization
techniques (theoretical and empirical), or by adding low value or waste coarse aggregate
material as an intermediate size fraction. A significant percentage of quarried aggregate is
wasted per year from sieving to meet gradation specifications; therefore using ternary aggregate
blending is very cost-effective as well as environmentally sustainable.
The potential for
optimization is limited by specifications as they separate grading envelopes for fine and coarse
aggregate material.
Figure 1.1: Gap-Graded vs. Well-Graded Combined Aggregate Gradation Curve by Individual Percent
Retained
The Ontario Provincial Standard Specification (OPSS) 1002 from April 2004 is the current
specification used for aggregate in concrete in Ontario, and only considers gap-graded
concretes. The OPSS 1002 specifies the grading requirements for fine and coarse aggregate.
There is one grading envelope for fine aggregate and six for coarse aggregate, categorized by
structural or non-structural element and nominal maximum size. The OPSS 1002 also specifies
that fine and coarse aggregate grading must be analyzed individually, and cannot be analyzed
after being combined. This limits the potential for the optimization of the total aggregate
grading.
The OPSS 1002 gradation requirements are based on the American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) C 33-07 gradation requirements, which have not changed substantially for
several decades. For fine aggregates, the range of acceptable fineness modulus is 2.3 to 3.1 for
both specifications. The grading envelopes are also the same with the exception of the percent
passing sieves 300 m and 75 m, as shown in Table 1.1.
3
Table 1.1: OPSS 1002 and ASTM C 33 Grading Requirements for Fine Aggregates
OPSS Sieve Size

(ASTM Designation)
9.5 mm (-in.)
4.75 mm (No. 4)
2.36 mm (No. 8)
1.18 mm (No. 16)
600 m (No. 30)
300 m (No. 50)
150 m (No. 100)
OPSS 1002
ASTM C 33
Requirements
Requirements
100
100
95 100
95 100
80 100
80 100
50 85
50 85
25 60
25 60
10 30
5 30
0 10
0 10
0 3 Natural Sand
0 5 Natural Sand
75 m (No. 200)
0 6 Manufactured Sand 0 7 Manufactured Sand
Note: Fine aggregates shall have no more than 45% passing any sieve and
retained on the next consecutive sieve.
For coarse aggregates, with a nominal maximum size of 19.0 mm, the grading envelopes are the
same with the exception of percent passing sieves 19.0 mm, 16.0 mm, 2.36 mm and 75 m, as
shown in Table 1.2.
Table 1.2: OPSS 1002 and ASTM C 33 Grading Requirements for Coarse Aggregates with Nominal
Maximum Size of 19.0 mm
OPSS Sieve Size (ASTM

Equivalent Designation)
26.5 mm (1 in.)
19.0 mm (-in.)
16.0 mm
13.2 mm
9.5 mm (-in.)
6.7 mm
4.75 mm (No. 4)
2.36 mm (No. 8)
75 m (No. 200) (washed)
OPSS 1002
Requirements
100
85 100
65 90
20 55
0 10
0 1 Gravel
0 2 Crushed Rock
ASTM C 33
Requirements
100
90 100
20 55
0 10
05
0 1*
Maximum allowable can be increased under certain conditions as described

in ASTM C 33, Table 3, Note C
1.2 Research Objectives

The objective of this research is to find combined aggregate gradations, using Ontario aggregate
sources, which will significantly reduce the amount of cement required by 10% to 15% without
compromising concrete fresh properties including slump, static and dynamic yield stress and
plastic viscosity, and hardened properties including strength, drying shrinkage and permeability
(resistivity).
To achieve this objective, several optimization techniques will be applied to typical MTO bridge
deck designs for 35 MPa and 50 MPa strengths. These techniques include: (i) introducing an
intermediate aggregate with particle sizes mostly between 2.36mm to 9.5mm, which is intended
to fill the gap between the traditional binary combination of coarse and fine aggregates; (ii)
applying theoretical particle packing models, such as the Theoretical Packing Model by Dewar
and the Modified Toufar Model by Goltermann, Johansen and Palbol; and (iii) applying
empirical charts developed using various aggregate sources, such as the Coarseness Factor Chart
by J. M. Shilstone, and Talbots Grading Curve, which has been used by the asphalt industry for
over 50 years to produce the 0.45 Power Chart for standardizing aggregate gradations.
With this studys findings, recommendations for improving the OPSS 1002 specification with
respect to combined aggregate grading requirements will be addressed.
1.3 Scope of Research

This research study will examine the effectiveness of optimizing the combined aggregate
gradation to ultimately reduce the cement paste fraction required in concrete. Reducing the
cement paste fraction required will increase the performance, durability, and sustainability while
decreasing the cost. Cement is the most expensive material, and its manufacturing process is the
most energy and raw material intensive. Therefore, if less cement paste is required, then it will
be more sustainable and less expensive to produce concrete. For the current study, typical MTO
bridge deck mixtures with 28-day compressive strengths of 35 MPa and 50 MPa were the
control mixtures. The combined aggregate gradation was optimized by using both binary (stone
and sand) and ternary (stone, intermediate-sized chip, and sand) blends and applying the
existing optimization techniques as described in the literature review: the Modified Toufar and
Theory of Particle Mixtures by Dewar particle packing models, the Talbots Grading Curve
(Power Chart), and Shilstones Coarseness Factor Chart. Both the Coarseness Factor Chart and
8-18 Distribution were used to evaluate the combined gradations produced from the above
optimization techniques. The intermediate aggregate was used to fill in the gap between the 2.36
mm to 9.5 mm size range. Over 50% of quarried concrete stone is wasted per year from sieving
to meet gradation specifications (Bottero, 2011); therefore, using ternary aggregate blending is
very cost-effective as well as more environmentally sustainable.
For this study, the cementitious material was considered part of the cement paste, rather than
being included in optimizing the particle packing of all dry constituents. This is because there is
a lack of validity with some of the optimization techniques with the inclusion of cementitious
material, and the cementitious material is not inert and will hydrate; although the cementitious
particles would not change size significantly when the concrete is still fluid.
The current study was divided into four stages with two stages using the two typical MTO
bridge deck mixture proportions, and two stages using variations of the control mixtures
proportions with reduced cement content and increased total aggregate content. Brief
descriptions of the four stages are as follows:
Stage 1: 35 MPa, 360 kg/m3 cement content (typical), w/c = 0.39
Stage 2: 35 MPa, 330 kg/m3 cement content (reduced), w/c = 0.39
Stage 3: 50 MPa, 465 kg/m3 cement content (typical), w/c = 0.33
Stage 4: 50 MPa, 390 kg/m3 cement content (reduced), w/c = 0.33
Within each stage, each mix was batched twice: first a batch looking specifically at workability
properties, and second a batch to cast cylinders and prisms for hardened properties. The
workability properties measured governed whether to continue to cast cylinders and prisms.
To minimize effects due to shape and texture, the coarse and intermediate aggregate used for
this research came from the same source, Dufferin Aggregates Milton quarry, of Niagara
escarpment crushed dolomitic limestone. The maximum nominal size of the coarse and
intermediate aggregate was 19.0 mm and 6.7 mm, respectively. The fine aggregate used for this
research was natural sand (maximum nominal size of 4.75 mm), and came from Dufferin
Aggregates Mill Creek pit in Cambridge. Both the fine and coarse aggregates pass the OPSS
1002 grading requirements from Table 1.1 and Table 1.2, respectively. However, the
intermediate aggregates grading does not fit within the OPSS 1002 grading requirements,
shown in Table 1.1, as it is significantly coarser.
Chapter 2
Literature Review
2
2.1 Theoretical Particle Packing Models
2.1.1
Modified Toufar Model
This technique can be used to design multi-source aggregate blend volume proportions by
maximizing the packing degree of the combined gradation. The individual aggregate properties
required to be inputted for this particle packing model are the particle size distribution, relative
density (in SSD condition), and loose bulk density (in SSD condition).
In Europe, previous experimental testing has confirmed that the Toufar aggregate packing
model, which was developed in the 1970s, and later modified in the 1990s, is an effective
theoretical model that gives a good approximation of the packing degree for binary and ternary
aggregate combinations (Goltermann, Johansen and Palbol, 1997; Jones, Zheng and Newlands,
2002). The Modified Toufar model is currently being used in the commercial EUROPACK
program that proportionally optimizes binary and ternary aggregate combinations with other
concrete material constituents (Goltermann, Johansen and Palbol, 1997).
The Modified Toufar model first calculates the characteristic diameter (36.8% cumulatively
retained) using linear interpolation and packing degree for each aggregate material, as defined
by Equation 2.1.
i =
Where:
i
i w
= packing degree of an individual material
= bulk density of an individual material
= relative density of an individual material
= density of water = 1000 kg/m3 @ 4C
Equation 2.1
Once the packing degree and characteristic diameter for each aggregate material is calculated,
the packing degree of a binary blended combined gradation is isolated and maximized using the
Modified Toufar models theoretical prediction of the combined packing degree as described in
Equation 2.2.
=
Where:
1
y1 y 2
1 + 2 y 2 ( 2 1) kd ks
Equation 2.2
= packing degree of combined gradation
y1, y2 = volume fraction of the fine and coarse aggregates, respectively
1, 2 = packing degree of the fine and coarse aggregates, respectively

kd
= diameter ratio factor

=
(d 2 d 1)
where d1, d2 = characteristic diameter of the fine and coarse
( d 1 + d 2)
aggregates, respectively
ks
= statistical factor
x
=
xo
= 1
k o
(1 + 4 x)
(1 + x) 4
Where:
for x < xo
for x xo
xo = 0.4753
ko = 0.3881
y1 2

y 2 1
x=
(1 2)
For ternary blending, a stepwise binary blending process is used where the two aggregate
materials with the highest diameter ratio (finer/coarser) are first blended.
This theoretical model makes three unrealistic assumptions about aggregate packing: that all
aggregates are spherical in shape; all aggregates are monosized; and that fine and coarse
aggregates are different sizes (Goltermann, Johansen and Palbol, 1997). However, the first two
assumptions are corrected by the use of the characteristic diameter for the individual aggregates
based on the Rosin-Raimmler-Sperling-Benett particle size distribution curves where the
cumulative probability is 0.368, and also by using the packing degree for each aggregate
material (Goltermann, Johansen and Palbol, 1997). It is debatable though how effective using a
single sized characteristic diameter is to represent a graded material, especially when the bulk
density used is representative of the graded material (Dewar, 1999).
2.1.2
Theory of Particle Mixtures Particle Packing Model
This technique can be used to design multi-source aggregate blend volume proportions by
minimizing the voids ratio of the combined gradation. The same inputs are required for this
particle packing model as the Modified Toufar model. In Europe, previous experimental testing
confirmed that the Theory of Particle Mixtures by Dewar is an effective theoretical model that
gives a good approximation of the packing degree for binary and ternary aggregate
combinations (Jones, Zheng and Newlands, 2002).
This model first calculates log mean diameter and voids ratio for each aggregate for each
aggregate, as defined by Equations 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5.
log(di) = 0.5(log (dupper) + log(dlower))
log(dm) = yilog(di)
Ui =
Where:
i w
1
i
di
= log mean particle size between two sieve sizes
yi
= individual volume fraction retained per sieve size
dm
= log mean diameter of an individual material
Ui
= voids ratio of an individual material
Equation 2.3
Equation 2.4
Equation 2.5
Once the voids ratio and log mean diameter for each aggregate material are calculated, the voids
ratio of a binary blended combined gradation is isolated and minimized using the Theory of
Particle Mixtures theoretical prediction of the combined voids ratio as described in Equations
2.6 to 2.10, and from the points in the voids ratio vs. fine fraction diagram.
Un = n U 1"
U 0"
n=
(1 + U 0" + U 1" )
Equation 2.6
Equation 2.7
U 1" =
(1 + U 1 ) U 0"
1
(1 + U 0" ) (1 + Z ) 3
Z = k int + [(1 + U 0 )1 / 3 1 k int ] r
Equation 2.8
kp
Equation 2.9
U 0" = (1 + U 0 ) (1 + m r ) 3 1
Where:
Un
= voids ratio of combined gradation
= fine material volume fraction
Equation 2.10
U 0" , U 1" = effective voids ratio of coarse and fine aggregate particles, respectively when
aggregates blended
Z
= notional width factor
= fine/coarse log mean diameter ratio
= spacing factor; value dependent on point on voids ratio diagram
kint, kp = empirical factors; value dependent on point on voids ratio diagram

And:
Points of Voids Ratio Diagram

A (n = 0)
B
C
D
E
F (n = 1)
m
0
0.3
0.75
3
7.5
kint
0.12
0.06
0.015
0.0
-
kp
0.6
0.65
0.8
0.9
-
This theoretical model makes the assumption that concrete mixtures have a 50 mm slump and
will not significantly segregate, even though it is quite possible that segregation be induced by
mixing, compacting or placing (Dewar, 1999). To compensate for this assumption, an empirical
cohesion adjustment based on previous experimental work of Dewars is made to the minimized
Un value by applying Equations 2.11 and 2.12.
n x = n U min + 0.025
Ux =
(n x n U min )
(n h n U min )
(U h U min ) + U min
Equation 2.11
Equation 2.12
10
(n
Where:
U min
, U min
n , U
h
h
n , U
x
x
co-ordinates of lowest voids ratio

co-ordinates of point with next highest n value
co-ordinates of intermediate point for safe cohesion
Another assumption made by this model is that each individual material can be characterized by
a single sized diameter, while the bulk density used is representative of the graded material
(Dewar, 1999).
For ternary blending, a stepwise binary blending process is used where the two finest materials
are first blended.
2.2 Empirical Charts

2.2.1
Talbots Grading Curve
This technique can be used to design multi-source aggregate blend volume proportions by fitting
the maximum density line of the combined gradation to the target gradation of Talbots grading
curve (also known as the Power Chart) for a series of grading type factors. The concept of the
ideal gradation curve shape that would produce the best concrete performance was first
developed by Fuller and Thompson in 1907, then in 1923 Talbot and Richart developed the
equation for the maximum density line as shown by Equation 2.13 for concrete mixtures. It was
further developed and validated for various aggregate types for asphalt mixtures by Nijboer in
1948, Goode and Lufsey in the 1962, and the Asphalt Institute since the 1980's. The only
individual aggregate property required to be inputted for this technique is the particle size
distribution. For over 50 years, the 0.45 Power Chart (produced by using the Talbots Grading
Curve with an n value of 0.45) has been the method standardized by the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) for designing aggregate gradations for the hot mix asphalt industry
since the 1960s (Virtual Superpave Laboratory, 2005). It is now more readily being applied to
concrete mix designs.
Talbots grading curve or the Power chart refers to a chart with percent passing (by mass) as the
dependent variable, and sieve size raised to the nth power as the independent variable. The
choice of a lower n, the grading type factor, such as 0.35 is described as sandy while with a
higher n of 0.55 is described as rocky (Panchalan and Ramakrishnan, 2007). The asphalt
11
industry uses a standard n of 0.45 for optimal grading, as studies during development showed
that the highest strength could be obtained with an n of 0.45 (Panchalan and Ramakrishnan,
2007). Past studies have indicated that the highest density for spherical particles is reached when
n = 0.5 (Talbot and Richart, 1923); however, for crushed stone the maximum density is reached
for a lower n value, around 0.4 (Ekblad, 2004).
The Talbots Grading Curve is defined by the following equation:
d
P = 100
D
Where:
Equation 2.13
P = % passing (by mass)

d = sieve size
D = maximum sieve size
n = grading type factor
The maximum density line starts from the origin and continues to the maximum sieve size,
using the combined particle size gradation as the y-values, and sieve size raised to the nth power
as the x-values, as shown in Figure 2.1.
Figure 2.1: Talbots Grading Curve Maximum Density Lines (for Various n Values) for 19.0 mm Nominal
Maximum Size
Other than the n value, the maximum sieve size, D, influences the resulting target gradation.
There are discrepancies between the Asphalt Institute and ASTM C 125 with how D is defined
12
(Panchalan and Ramakrishnan, 2007). The Asphalt Institute defines the maximum aggregate
size as one size larger than the nominal maximum aggregate size, and the nominal maximum
size as one size larger than the first sieve to retain more than 10% (STP 1147, 1992). ASTM C
125 defines the maximum aggregate size as the smallest size to have 100% passing it, and the
nominal maximum size as one size smaller than the maximum aggregate size (ASTM C 125,
2007). For this study, the definition of ASTM C 125 was used, where D = 25.0 mm.
2.2.2
Shilstones Coarseness Factor Chart
Shilstones objective was to create a methodology for producing well-graded mixtures that have
a good distribution of aggregates including fine, intermediate, and coarse particles. Using
aggregate sources from Riyadh, Saudi Arabia and Dallas, Texas, Shilstone developed a tool for
determining a well-graded mixture, the Coarseness Factor Chart in 1990. The only individual
aggregate property required to be inputted for this technique is the particle size distribution. This
tool was incorporated into the American Concrete Institutes 2004 guideline ACI 302.1 R-04
Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab Construction, and it has also been adopted by several
departments of transportation in the United States. However, this empirical tool is chiefly
dependent on aggregate particle size, and neglects to fully consider different particle shapes,
which is also an important factor influencing mixture optimization.
The Coarseness Factor Chart, as shown in Figure 2.2, has five zones: Zone 1 gap-graded;
Zone 2 well-graded for maximum nominal coarse aggregate size between and including
19.0mm to 37.5mm; Zone 3 well-graded for maximum nominal coarse aggregate size less than
19.0mm; Zone 4 sandy; and Zone 5 rocky. Through recent research, a workability box
within Zone 2 has been established, and was implemented in the Texas Department of
Transportation in 2006 (TxDOT, 2006). This workability box highlights where gradations with
the best workability are in the Coarseness Factor Chart. The axes of this chart are two factors
that are defined as follows for a combined aggregate gradation:
Coarseness Factor (CF) =
% Cumulative Retained on 9.5mm Sieve

100
% Cumulative Retained on 2.36mm Sieve
Workability Factor (WF) = Cumulative % Passing the 2.36mm Sieve
13
Figure 2.2: Shilstones Coarseness Factor Chart
The zone and workability box division lines for the Coarseness Factor Chart used for this study
are stipulated in the Texas Department of Transportations Tex-470-A Optimized Aggregate
Gradation for Hydraulic Cement Concrete Mix Designs, and can be found in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1: Zone and Workability Box Division Lines for Coarseness Factor Chart
CF
WF
CF
WF
Zone 5 Division Zone 4 Division
Line with Zones
Line with
1-3
Zones 1-3
30
35
40
45
40
33.2
50
43.2
50
31.4
60
41.4
60
29.6
70
39.6
70
27.8
80
37.9
80
26.1
CF
WF
Zone 2
Division Line
with Zone 3
45
32.3
45
44
CF
WF
Zone 1
Division Line
with Zone 2
75
27
75
38.8
CF
WF
Workabilit
y Box
Points
52
34
52
38
68
32
68
36
The Coarseness Factor Chart was developed based on previous experimental work where the
mixes all had a cementitious content of 564 lb/yd3 (334 kg/m3) (TxDOT, 2006). Therefore, for
the Coarseness Factor Chart to be applicable for mixes with different cementitious contents, an
adjustment to the workability factor must be made. With every increase of 94 lb/yd3over 564
14
lb/yd3, the workability factor is increased by 2.5%, and similarly decreases by 2.5% with every
decrease of 94 lb/yd3 under 564 lb/yd3 (TxDOT, 2006).
2.2.3
8-18 Distribution Chart
The 8-18 distribution chart, which specifies an 8% minimum and 18% maximum of total
combined fine and coarse aggregate retained on any one main sieve, was introduced by Holland
in 1990 with the objective to improve concrete performance, durability, and workability for
critical structural elements like high tolerance floor slabs. The results from testing showed that
the concrete mixtures required less paste, had improved workability, early strength, and reduced
shrinkage. The only individual aggregate property required to be inputted for this technique is
the particle size distribution. The 8-18 distribution concept was incorporated into the American
Concrete Institutes 2004 ACI 302.1 R-04 Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab Construction. The
ACI 302.1 R-04 Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab Construction stipulates that for a large
maximum coarse aggregate size such as 37.5mm that the limits are between 8% and 18%;
however for a smaller maximum coarse aggregate size such as 19.0mm or 25.0mm, the lower
limit remains 8% while the upper limit of 18% is increased to 22%. The combined individual %
retained limits of the 8-22 distribution charts used for this study are stipulated in the ACI 302.1
R-04 Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab Construction, and can be found in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2: Combined Individual % Retained Limits for 8-22 Distribution Chart
Sieve Size
(mm)
37.5
25
19
16
9.5
6.7
4.75
2.36
1.18
0.6
0.3
0.15
0.075
0
% Retained
(low limit)
0
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
2
0
0
% Retained
(high limit)
0
4
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
15
15
5
3.5
0
15
Figure 2.3 illustrates examples of gap-graded and well-graded combined gradation with a
maximum coarse aggregate size of 25.0 mm, where the limits of the 8-22 distribution are
denoted by the shaded area.
Figure 2.3: 8-22 Distribution Well-Graded Combined Aggregate Blend Example
A survey conducted by the National Ready Mix Concrete Association (NRMCA) in 1990 of
several commercial concrete mix designs found that the majority of the combined aggregate
blends did not completely fall within the limits of the 8-18 distribution, but all concrete mixtures
had adequate workability and finishability (Meininger, 2003). It has also been found that it is
difficult to get a combined aggregate blend that falls entirely within the limits of the 8-18
distribution (Harrison, 2004; Meininger, 2003); therefore, the successful application of this
technique is significantly dependent on the individual gradations of each aggregate source used.
The effectiveness of this optimization technique has been criticized in recent studies as results
have greatly varied, and can in fact produce aggregate blends with a greater amount of fine or
intermediate sized particles than coarse sized particles yielding concrete that is harder to finish
(Harrison, 2004; Meininger, 2003). It has been recently indicated that this technique would not
solely produce meaningful results, and is recommended only to be used to evaluate mixture
gradations in conjunction with another method, such as the Coarseness Factor Chart (Harrison,
2004).
16
2.3 Summary of Recent Studies on Optimization Techniques for

Combined Aggregate Blends
The results of previous research varied greatly as different methodologies and aggregate sources
were used. The results are summarized in Table 2.3.
Table 2.3: Summary of Recent Studies on Optimization Techniques for Combined Aggregate Blends
Researcher(s)
Goltermann,
Johansen and
Palbol (1997)
Dewar (1999)
Methodology
Modified Toufar
Model
Aggregate
Source
Denmark
Theory of Particle
Mixtures
United
Kingdom
Jones, Zheng
and Newlands
(2002)
Modfied Toufar
Model, Theory of
Particle Mixtures
Scotland
Panchalan and
Ramakrishnan
(2007)
Shilstone
(1990)
Talbots Grading
Curve
South Dakota
Coarseness Factor
Chart
Holland (1990)
8-18 Distribution
Riyadh, Saudi
Arabia
Dallas, TX
Atlanta, GA
NRMCA
(Meininger,
2003)
8-18 Distribution
United States
Obla and Kim

(2008)
8-18 Distribution
and Coarseness
Factor Chart
Jacksonville, FL
Atlanta, GA
Denver, CO
Maryland
Results (highlighted)
Effectively optimizes packing of
aggregates for binary and ternary
blends
Effectively optimizes packing of
aggregate blends
water demand maintaining
adequate cohesion to resist
segregation
Both packing models are effective
at optimizing packing of
aggregates for binary and ternary
blends
compressive and flexural
strength for n = 0.45 with adequate
workability
water demand
workability
compressive strength
water demand
cement demand
drying shrinkage
workability
Difficult for combined aggregate
blends to fall within limits, and is
also not a necessity for combined
aggregate blends to fall within
limits to have adequate workability
and finishability
water demand
drying shrinkage
finishability
17
2.4 Fresh Concrete Properties

2.4.1
Slump
The slump test was standardized by ASTM, and has been used in the concrete industry since
1922, and is still the primary workability measuring test used to this day (Koehler and Fowler,
2004). In the early 20th century, a concrete was made from only cement, stone, sand, and water.
Now, concrete is also composed of supplementary cementitious materials and chemical
admixtures that improve both fresh and hardened concrete properties. With all these additions to
concrete mixtures and different application types, the slump test is becoming insufficient in
measuring workability adequately.
Through previous studies, the slump test was determined to give erroneous and unreliable
results, especially for mixtures with fiber reinforcement, SCC, ground granulated blast furnace
slag, high-microfine aggregate, and/or a variety of chemical admixtures (Koehler and Fowler,
2004). The main advantages to the slump test that have kept it the predominantly used
workability test for the field have been that it is quick, simple, and inexpensive. No other test
methods that have been developed since the early 20th century have matched the slump tests
advantages. However, the slump tests main disadvantage is that it only looks at the static state
of a concrete sample, anticipating that gravity will be able to overcome the static yield stress
required to induce the sample to flow. Test results are also heavily dependent on how the test is
performed and measured.
2.4.2
Rheology
Rheology is defined as the study of the behaviour of fluids (Koehler and Fowler, 2004).
Common measured rheological properties are static and dynamic yield stress, and plastic
viscosity. The static yield stress is defined as the minimum stress needed to initiate flow
(Rheocentric Concrete Technologies, 2006), and usually expressed in units of Pascals [Pa]. The
dynamic yield stress is defined as the minimum stress needed to maintain flow (Rheocentric
Concrete Technologies, 2006) after the effects of thixotropy are overcome, and usually
expressed in units of Pascals [Pa]. The plastic viscosity is defined as the resistance to flow after
the yield stress has been surpassed (Rheocentric Concrete Technologies, 2006), and usually
expressed in units of Pascal-seconds [Pas]. Thixotropy is defined as the reversible, time-
18
dependent decrease in viscosity of a fluid that experiences constant shearing (by shear stress or
shear rate) (Koehler and Fowler, 2005).
A complex fluid, such as fresh concrete, that is significantly affected by shear history, or
exhibiting thixotropic characteristics, will have a higher static yield stress than dynamic yield
stress as shown graphically in Figure 2.4 when a low shear strain rate is applied (Rheocentric
Concrete Technologies, 2006). The static yield stress and dynamic yield stress are initially
equal, immediately after mixing, since at this point in time there is no thixotropic build-up.
Referring to Figure 2.4, starting from a testing time of zero, shear stress is built up until the
static yield stress is reached and the concrete starts to flow. Once the concrete starts to flow, the
shear stress required to maintain that flow decreases to the dynamic yield stress (Rheocentric
Concrete Technologies, 2006). Since fresh concrete exhibits thixotropic characteristics, it can
return to its static yield stress, and follow the same behaviour to the dynamic yield stress, if the
sample is left to remain static without any shear strain applied (Rheocentric Concrete
Technologies, 2006).
Figure 2.4: Effect of Static and Dynamic Yield Stress for Complex Fluids exhibiting Thixotropic
Characteristics when a low shear strain rate is applied (Rheocentric Concrete Technologies, 2006)
However, it is important to note that with time, starting from when the water made contact with
the cement, continuing cement hydration and the diminishing performance of water-reducing
admixtures will increase both the static and dynamic yield stresses (Rheocentric Concrete
Technologies, 2006). Static yield stress also increases with time due to thixotropic build-up
19
from its shear history. Figure 2.5 illustrates how the yield stress of SCC changes with time from
mixing, specifically for dynamic yield stress (complete breakdown, no thixotropy) and two
cases for static yield stress with full thixotropic build-up from no disturbances; and with
incomplete thixotropic build-up due to transport and pouring disturbances for a precast
placement. If a concrete is described as being highly thixotropic, the rate of increase of static
yield stress is high (Koehler and Fowler, 2008).
Figure 2.5: Changes in Behaviour of SCC Yield Stress with Time (Koehler and Fowler, 2008)
Comparing the different types of mixtures, a conventional concrete has a higher static yield
stress than SCC because it decreases formwork pressure and improves cohesion once placed
(Rheocentric Concrete Technologies, 2006). In qualitative terms, Figure 2.6 shows
schematically what dynamic yield stresses and plastic viscosities to expect (or want) for
different mixture types, relative to each other, when the Bingham model is applied. SCC has a
lower dynamic yield stress (y-intercept), characteristically less than 100 Pa, than conventional
concrete because it improves pumpability, placement, and consolidation under its self-weight
(Rheocentric Concrete Technologies, 2006; 2007). The plastic viscosity (slope) of the mixtures
affects the cohesion and potential for segregation when flowing (Rheocentric Concrete
Technologies, 2006). Therefore, the plastic viscosity of the conventional concrete and optimal
SCC will be very similar. From Figure 2.6, a viscous SCC mixture type that is sticky and not
easy to pump, place or finish will have a high plastic viscosity (Rheocentric Concrete
Technologies, 2006), contrary to a segregating SCC mixture type where its plastic viscosity is
too low. Generally, a SCC mix will segregate when a high dosage rate of a high-range water
reducer is used to compensate for a low paste fraction, and causes bleeding (Koehler and
20
Fowler, 2007). An optimal SCC mixture type will not segregate because it has a moderate
plastic viscosity.
Figure 2.6: Schematic of Rheological Properties for Different Mixture Types when Bingham Model Applied
(reproduced from Rheocentric Concrete Technologies, 2006)
Although the results of workability and rheology tests are significantly dependent on the sources
of material, mixture proportions, and mixture combinations, generalizations of various material
type influences can be made based on previous research. Influences of mixture proportioning of
conventional concrete and SCC on rheological properties based on previous studies are
summarized in Table 2.4; however, it should be noted these are only general trends and there are
exceptions for all instances.
Table 2.4: Influences of Mixture Proportioning of SCC on Rheological Properties (Koehler and Fowler,
2004; 2007)
Change in Mixture
Yield
Plastic
Proportion
Stress
Viscosity
Aggregates
Volume Fraction ()

Max. Size ()

Grading (optimize)

Angularity ()

Shape (equidimensional)

Cement Paste
Paste volume ()

Water/powder ()

Supplementary Cementing Materials
Fly Ash

21
Change in Mixture
Yield
Proportion
Stress
Slag

Silica Fume (low %)

Silica Fume (high %)

Admixtures
Viscosity Modifying

High-Range Water Reducing

Air Entraining
Plastic
Viscosity

Previous studies have shown that slump test measurements have a strong correlation with yield
stress, and weak correlation with plastic viscosity (Koehler, 2009a). Generally, an increase in
slump will result in a decrease in yield stress (Koehler and Fowler, 2007).
Workability tests that not only look at the static behaviour of concrete mixtures, but also the
dynamic behaviour of concrete mixtures are more practical and appropriate for concrete since
there are now so many different types of materials, mixture proportioning, and concrete material
and construction applications used. Evaluating only the static behaviour of concrete is not good
enough anymore, and limits the breadth of workability ranges utilized, especially for more
thixotropic concrete mixtures.
To prevent a mix from segregating requires both sufficient static and dynamic characteristics.
Characteristics that influence the potential for segregation are the relative densities of the
aggregate and paste, change in paste rheological properties with time, aggregate source
(including shape and grading), and cohesion (Koehler and Fowler, 2007). Segregation can be
prevented by using well-graded aggregate blend, using less angular and rounded aggregate
particles, reducing the maximum aggregate size, increasing the paste volume, and decreasing the
high-range water reducing admixture dosage (Koehler and Fowler, 2007). In terms of
rheological properties, to increase segregation resistance the yield stress and plastic viscosity
should be increased; however, to increase flowability, the yield stress and plastic viscosity
should be decreased (Koehler and Fowler, 2007). From a previous study, a minimum static yield
stress of 40 Pa is required to prevent segregation (Koehler and Fowler, 2008). Ultimately, an
adequately high static yield stress and low dynamic yield stress are desirable rheological
properties to resist segregation and increase flowability, respectively (Koehler and Fowler,
2008).
22
The International Center for Aggregates Research (ICAR) rheometer used for this study was
purchased from Germann Instruments. The ICAR rheometer was developed at the University of
Texas to characterize the workability of fresh mortar and concrete mixes in terms of rheological
properties including plastic viscosity, and static and dynamic yield stress using a shear rate
controlled rheometer with coaxial cylinders configuration (as opposed to the other typical
configurations shown in Figure 2.7). The purpose of the ICAR rheometer is to give a better
representation of the workability of mortar or concrete than the established and standardized
workability related tests such as the slump test.
Figure 2.7: Typical Rheometer Configurations (Koehler, 2009a)
Although the concrete industry has been developing technology to measure the rheological
properties of fresh concrete since the 1970s (Tattersall and Banfill, 1983), a test method for
using a rheometer has not been standardized yet, as the use of preceding rheometer prototypes in
the field have been scarce due to their high costs, and large, non-portable sizes (Koehler and
Fowler, 2005). Since this technology is also still developing, there are multiple designs and
prototypes of rheometers, that can have different results for the same concrete sample, that make
it difficult to standardize rheological properties testing (Koehler and Fowler, 2005). This ICAR
rheometer has been designed to be a portable size and low in cost (Koehler and Fowler, 2005). It
has tolerance ranges of 6 mm to 40 mm for maximum aggregate size; 50 mm to SCC for slump;
and 0.001 rps to 0.6 rps for vane rotation speed (Rheocentric Concrete Technologies, 2007). It
was been tested and developed based on the results of over 100 concrete mixture types with
various materials and applications (multiple aggregate sources and gradations, use of fly ash,
silica fume, ground granulated blast furnace slag, and air-entraining, viscosity modifying, and
23
water reducing admixtures) and expected workabilities (ranging from 50 mm to SCC) to

successfully demonstrate its effectiveness (Koehler and Fowler, 2004). There were seven
aggregate sources that were tested that included: coarse aggregate of river gravel, crushed
limestone, and blast furnace slag; crushed limestone intermediate aggregate (same source as
coarse); and fine aggregate of natural sand and granite manufactured sand (Koehler and Fowler,
2004). It should be noted that even though the minimum tolerance for slump is 50 mm, this
rheometer increases in effectiveness with increasing slump as the concrete mixtures will tend to
act increasingly like a homogeneous fluid (Koehler and Fowler, 2004).
For the ICAR rheometer, the volume of the container used is dependent on the maximum
nominal aggregate size in the concrete sample to be tested. When the rheometer and vane
apparatus is in position, as shown in Figure 2.8, the gap size between the vane and the top of the
concrete sample, as well as the bottom and sides of the container must be at least four times the
maximum aggregate size in distance to make certain that there is proper uniformity throughout
the concrete sample (Germann Instruments, 2008). This optimal gap size was determined by
experimentation with several different concrete mixtures with a 1-inch maximum aggregate size,
ranging from gap sizes of 2.5 to 5.5 (Koehler and Fowler, 2004). The torque results were
affected more with a smaller gap size by interlocking effects of the aggregate, and hence the
smallest gap size with minimal aggregate effects was chosen of four times the maximum
aggregate size (illustrated in Figure 2.8) (Koehler and Fowler, 2004). The container also has
evenly spaced plastic vertical strips around its inner wall to prevent the sample from slipping
and rotating with the vane as shown in Figure 2.8 (Germann Instruments, 2008).
Figure 2.8: Optimal Vane and Container Geometry (Koehler, 2009b)
24
To measure the dynamic yield stress and plastic viscosity, the Bingham model was chosen to be
used to develop the flow curve behaviour for the ICAR Rheometer software, as opposed to the
Herschel-Bulkley, Power-Law (Shear Thickening), Newtonian, and Power-Law (Shear
Thinning) models (shown in Figure 2.9) because of its accuracy and simplicity in establishing a
linear relationship between shear stress and shear rate, and also because it includes dynamic
yield stress as a parameter (Koehler and Fowler, 2004).
= 0 + a& b
= 0 + &
= a& b
= &
= a& b
Figure 2.9: Flow Curves of Theoretical Models Applicable for Concrete (Koehler, 2009c)
It is a possibility that not all the concrete material will flow during testing of dynamic yield
stress and plastic viscosity, and a dead zone is created, as shown in Figure 2.10. However, these
cases are accounted for in the ICAR rheometer software provided.
Figure 2.10: Coaxial Cylinder Configuration for Both Cases of All Material Flowing and Not All Material
Flowing (Koehler and Fowler, 2004)
25
Since fresh concrete exhibits thixotropic characteristics, it can return to its static yield stress, and
if the sample is left to remain static without any shear strain applied, it will follow the same
behaviour to the dynamic yield stress (Rheocentric Concrete Technologies, 2006). Therefore,
rheometer testing can be repeated. However, it is important to note that with time, starting from
when the water made contact with the cement, continuing cement hydration and the diminishing
performance of water-reducing admixtures will increase both the static and dynamic yield
stresses (Rheocentric Concrete Technologies, 2006). Although test results are affected by the
shear history of the concrete material, comparing between rounds of testing will provide
information about the segregation potential and water-reducing admixtures effectiveness.
Variability in test results due to shear history can be reduced by rodding or vibrating to help
uniformly compact the concrete sample (Koehler and Fowler, 2004).
Critical feedback was given during the development of the ICAR rheometer about how the
rheological properties like plastic viscosity and yield stress translate for dry-consistency
concrete mixtures that have slumps less than 100 mm, and would rather know what the energy
required to initiate or move concrete, and keep the concrete cohesive (Koehler and Fowler,
2004). The development criteria for the ICAR rheometer based on feedback from industry,
government and academia, as well as existing workability tests, were: be able to measure static
and dynamic properties accurately for a wide range of slumps and aggregate sizes; be a durable
piece of equipment that can be used on a construction site; be a cost-effective option; fast;
simple to use for one person; portable; and parameter calculating software (Koehler and Fowler,
2004). During the development process, six types of impellers were tested with various concrete
mixtures, and the vane with 127 mm (5 in.) height and diameter was chosed because it was the
best a minimizing segregation compared to the egg-beater, half egg-beater, offset egg-beater,
joint compound paddle, and spiral (Koehler and Fowler, 2004). The segregation in the concrete
was identified by the reduction in torque over time, which is due primarily to structural
breakdown (aggregate particles falling out of cement paste suspension) of the material (Koehler
and Fowler, 2004). A low torque may indicate that only a small section of the sample is moving
(Koehler and Fowler, 2004), meaning that that the sample has segregated.
From a previous study for evaluating and trying to define good or acceptable rheological values,
workability boxes for plastic viscosity vs. yield stress were defined based on a visual assessment
of segregation resistance rating, and overall workability (combination of visual assessment of
26
segregation resistance, flowability, richness, bleeding, and finishability) (Koehler and Fowler,
2004). All workability boxes could not clearly classify an acceptable range of rheological values
as some acceptable mixes were not included in the boxes while bad mixes were (Koehler and
Fowler, 2004). However, a wide range of concrete mixes were evaluated collectively rather than
separating the concrete mixes based on their specific characteristics like cementitious materials
used, w/c, paste content, water-reducing admixtures used and their dosages. In summary, an
acceptable range of rheological properties could not be defined.
It is not only important to achieve adequate workability, but also to retain it for a desirable
length of time. There are several factors that affect workability retention including; type and
dosage of high-range water reducers (most notably polycarboxylate-based high-range water
reducers) and set retarders; cementitious material; weather conditions; construction practices;
and rheology where a more viscous concrete is more likely to have longer workability retention
(Koehler and Fowler, 2007). However, if a low yield stress is maintained with high dosages of
high-range water reducing, as well as set retarding admixtures for SCC, formwork pressures
would be high and close to hydrostatic pressure (Koehler, Keller, and Gardner, 2007). Although,
dynamic and static yield stress will inevitably increase with time as hydration progresses, and
the effectiveness of the admixtures reduces, and thixotropy specifically for static yield stress.
2.5 Influence of Aggregate Shape and Texture

With every aggregate source, the shape and texture will vary. These aggregate characteristics
significantly affect the packing ability of the individual aggregates, as well as of the combined
aggregate blends, and thus individual and combined aggregate gradations (De Larrard, 1999;
Dewar, 1999; Harrison, 2004). Consequently, they have a significant effect on both fresh and
hardened concrete properties including workability, finishability, pumpability, segregation
potential, density, strength, drying shrinkage, and permeability (Quiroga, 2003). Round or
cubical, smooth particles, as opposed to elongated or angular, flaky particles, will produce
concrete mixtures with better workability, pumpability, finishability, strength and less shrinkage
(Shilstone, 1990).
It was proposed from previous research that texture alone did not have a signficant effect on
rheology (Tattersall, 1991) or workability (Koehler and Fowler, 2007); however, shape alone
does significantly effect rheology and workability (Tattersall, 1991). Spherical particles have the
27
lowest specific surface area, resulting in less demand for cement paste. Generally, less cement
paste demand will reduce the resistance to flow, which will decrease both the yield stress and
plastic viscosity.
2.6 Bulk Resistivity

Two resistivity tests were used for this study to indirectly measure the permeability, and
therefore the durability, of the concrete specimens by the relation of current to the continuity
and conductivity of the saturated capillary pore system and pore fluid (Hooton, 2001): the Rapid
Chloride Permeability Test (RCPT) and the Merlin Bulk Conductivity Test.
The RCPT is destructive, uses an instantaneous 60 V direct current (DC), and also measures the
bulk electrical conductivity of a specimen by measuring the current over six hours (at 5 minute
intervals) to calculate the charge passed by integration. The Merlin Bulk Conductivity Test is
non-destructive (does not affect the composition or properties of the concrete specimen), uses an
alternating current (AC), and can measure the instantaneous bulk electrical conductivity or
resistivity of a sample.
Calculating the bulk conductivity from the initial current (within t < 1 min) measured during
RCPT, follows the same methodology as the Merlin test, and was found from previous research
to have a strong linear relationship with the charge passed calculated over the six hours of
testing, as represented by dots in Figure 2.11 (Germann Instruments, 2010).
Figure 2.11: Correlation of Charge Passed vs. Conductivity (of initial RCPT) (Germann Instruments, 2010)
28
When comparing the actual charge passed to the theoretical charge passed using the same bulk
conductivity value and Equations 3.4 and 3.6 (which assumes that current is constant over the
six hours), there is a slight divergence starting at 6 mS/m that becomes greater with increasing
conductivity, as shown in Figure 2.11 represented by the lines (Germann Instruments, 2010).
This is due to the assumption that current is constant over the six hours when in reality the
temperature of the pore fluid increases due to heat release from ion-ion and ion-solid collisions,
therefore increasing the current flow (Nokken and Hooton, 2006).
Therefore, Merlin bulk conductivity measurements should be most comparable to the bulk
conductivity calculated from the RCPTs initial current, rather than comparing the charge
passed over the six hours of testing from RCPT to the calculated charge passed from Merlins
bulk conductivity measurements. However, previous research has shown that a strong linear
correlation exists between the bulk conductivity calculated from the RCPTs initial current and
the charge passed over the six hours of testing.
29
Chapter 3
Experimental
3
3.1 Materials for Laboratory Testing
3.1.1
Cementitious Material
Three cementitious material products were used for this study: General Use (GU) Portland
cement, ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS), and blended GU Portland cement with
8% silica fume. All the products were supplied by Holcim from the Mississauga cement plant.
The relative densities found in Table 3.1 were used for mixture proportioning calculations, and
were provided by Holcim.
Table 3.1: Cementitious Material Properties
Cementitious Material
General Use (GU) cement
GranCem (GGBFS)
Hydraulic Portland/Silica Fume
(HSF) cement (blended GU
cement with 8% silica fume)
3.1.2
Relative
Density
3.15
2.89
3.00
Coarse Aggregate
The coarse aggregate used for this study was supplied by Holcim, from the Dufferin
Aggregates Milton quarry. Two gradation test reports were provided by Dufferin Aggregates
for the 19.0 mm crushed dolomitic limestone concrete stone sampled from two different
stockpiles in November 2009. This source is typically supplied and used for concrete. There
were three rounds of pre-washed aggregate supply that were used for this study. The first round
was delivered by truck load in the summer of 2010, and was deposited into a hopper with an
approximate capacity of 1 m3, which was then lowered into a bin with an approximate capacity
of 0.5 m3 shown in Figure 3.1.
30
Figure 3.1: Hopper Opening and Bin for 19.0 mm Coarse Aggregate
Once the bin was close to being empty, the hopper would be opened to replenish the bin. The
second round was delivered in December 2010 in 20 kg sample bags, and was very similar
visually to the first round in terms of colour and shape. The third round was delivered by truck
load in January 2011, and was darker in colour, more cubic in shape, and less angular than the
first and second rounds by visual inspection. A previous research project from the International
Center for Aggregates Research (ICAR) created a guideline for visually assessing the shape and
angularity of any aggregate, shown in Figure 3.2, to develop a guideline for SCC mixture
proportioning with various aggregate characteristics (Koehler and Fowler, 2007).
Figure 3.2: Guideline for Visually Assessing Shape and Angularity of Aggregate (Koehler and Fowler, 2007)
31
Based on Figure 3.2, the first and second rounds had a rating of 4 while the third round had a
rating of 3. Samples of each round of coarse aggregate supply are shown in Figure 3.3 to Figure
3.5.
Figure 3.3: Round #1 of Coarse Aggregate Supply: Sieved, Left: 9.5 mm clear, Right: 4.75 mm clear
Figure 3.4: Round #2 of Coarse Aggregate Supply
32
Figure 3.5: Round #3 of Coarse Aggregate Supply
The mixing timeline of the current study (Table 3.2) shows the round of coarse aggregate supply
used by stage, and workability and casting mixtures.
Table 3.2: Mixing Timeline and Coarse Aggregate Supply Used
Workability
Stage
1
2
3
4
Time
Oct. 22, 10 - Nov. 12, 10
Dec. 3, 10 - Dec. 9, 10
Dec. 15, 10 - Jan. 5, 11
Mar. 24, 11 - May 12, 11
Casting
Coarse
Aggregate
Supply Used
Supply #1
Supply #2
Supply #2
Supply #3
Time
Jan. 4, 11 - Jan. 12, 11
Jan. 18, 11 - Jan. 25, 11
Jan. 12, 11 - Jan. 17, 11
Jan. 26, 11 - Jan. 31, 11**
Coarse
Aggregate
Supply Used
Supply #2
Supply #3
Supply #2*
Supply #3
* Except for Mix #41, this used coarse aggregate from Supply #3
** Re-cast of Mix #47 prisms, and Mix #50 prisms and cylinders on May 12, 2011, this used coarse aggregate
from Supply #3
In the preliminary experimental research plan for this study, a representative particle size
distribution based on the gradations determined from Dufferin Aggregates two stockpiles
(Table 3.3) was to be sieved out for each mixture to decrease variability between mixtures.
However, for this research to be as practical as possible, it is more applicable to take a
representative sample of the aggregate supply provided rather than sieve out the individual sized
particles to fit a specific gradation. After conducting three sieve analyses of the first round of
aggregate supply (with different representative samples used), the particle size distributions
were similar enough that the aggregate could be used as is, and the variability of sampling
33
gradations would be controlled. The particle size distributions, absorptions and densities for all
aggregate supplies used for this study are shown in Table 3.3. All material properties were
measured by the author in the University of Torontos laboratory facilities, with the exception of
the two Dufferin Aggregates stockpiles particle size distributions, which were measured at the
Milton quarry. All coarse aggregate supplies pass the OPSS 1002 grading requirements.
Table 3.3: Properties of Coarse Aggregate Used For Study
Dufferin
Aggregates
Stockpile #1
Sieve Size
[mm]
26.5
19
16
9.5
4.75
Pan
Absorption
Relative
Density (SSD)
Rodded Bulk
Density (SSD)
[kg/m3]
Loose Bulk
Density (SSD)
[kg/m3]
Dufferin
Aggregates
Stockpile #2
Supply #1, Bin

(Oct. 22, 10 Nov. 26, 10)
Supply #2,
Sample Bags
(Dec. 2, 10 Jan. 17, 11)
Supply #3, Bin

(Jan. 17, 11
May 12, 11)
% Passing
100
94
81
37
5
0
100
90
71
28
5
0
100
88
70
23
3
0
100
89
69
30
3
0
100
96
85
33
2
0
N/A
N/A
1.41%
1.57%
1.85%
N/A
N/A
2.72
2.72
2.72
N/A
N/A
1607
1565
1617
N/A
N/A
1540
1464
1518
The sieve analyses conducted at the University of Torontos laboratory followed the procedure
from the CSA A23.2-2A Sieve Analysis of fine and coarse aggregate standard. For all particle
size distributions, the material finer than the 75 m sieve by washing was 1%, and therefore is
below the maximum acceptance requirement of 2.0% as stipulated in OPSS 1002 for crushed
rock. The procedure of LS-601 Materials Finer than 75 m Sieve in Mineral Aggregates by
Washing was used to check this requirement. These particle size distributions were used for
determining the aggregate material proportions for all of the optimization techniques used. The
absorption and relative density tests followed the procedure from the CSA A23.2-12A Relative
density and absorption of coarse aggregate standard, and were used for the theoretical particle
packing model optimization techniques and all aggregate material mixture proportioning. All
absorption values were below the maximum acceptance requirement of 2.0% as stipulated in
OPSS 1002. The rodded and loose bulk density tests followed the procedure from the CSA
34
A23.2-10A Bulk density of aggregate standard with a slight modification to Supply #2 and
#3s densities of measuring in the oven-dried condition then multiplying the mass by the
absorption to calculate the densities in the saturated surface dry condition. The loose bulk
densities were used for determining the aggregate material proportions for the theoretical
particle packing model optimization techniques.
3.1.3
Fine Aggregate
The fine aggregate used for this study was also supplied by Holcim, from the Dufferin
Aggregates Mill Creek pit. A gradation test report was provided by Dufferin Aggregates for
this natural sand from November 2009. This source is typically supplied and used for concrete.
There was only one delivery of fine aggregate used, therefore there were no issues with
continuity of material properties throughout the experimental research. The aggregate supply
was delivered by truck load in the summer of 2010, and was deposited into a hopper and bin
system as shown in Figure 3.6, identical to the first and third rounds of coarse aggregate supply.
Figure 3.6: Hopper Opening and Bin for Fine Aggregate
Based on the guideline for visually assessing the shape and angularity of any aggregate from the
ICAR research as shown in Figure 3.2, the sand had a rating of 1. A sample of the fine aggregate
is shown in Figure 3.7.
35
Figure 3.7: Fine Aggregate Supply
distribution based on the gradation determined from Dufferin Aggregates stockpile, shown in
Table 3.4, was to be sieved out for each mixture to decrease variability between mixtures.
particles to fit a specific gradation. After conducting three sieve analyses of the aggregate
supply (with different representative samples used), the particle size distributions were similar
enough that the aggregate could be used as is, and the variability of sampling gradations would
be controlled. The average particle size distribution, absorption and densities for the fine
aggregate used for this study are shown in Table 3.4. All material properties were measured by
the author in the University of Torontos laboratory facilities, and compared to the Dufferin
Aggregates data on particle size distribution, measured at the Mill Creek pit. The fine aggregate
passes the OPSS 1002 grading requirements.
36
Table 3.4: Properties of Fine Aggregate Used For Study
Sieve Size [mm]

9.5
6.7
4.75
2.36
1.18
0.6
0.3
0.15
0.075
Pan
Fineness Modulus
Absorption
Relative Density (SSD)
Rodded Bulk Density
(SSD) [kg/m3]
Loose Bulk Density
(SSD) [kg/m3]
Dufferin
U of T Lab
Aggregates (Oct. 22, 10 Stockpile
May 12, 11)
% Passing
100
100
100
100
100
99
90
89
71
67
48
44
20
18
5
5
1
2
0
0
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.8
1.11%
2.73
N/A
1885
N/A
1744
The sieve analyses conducted at the University of Torontos laboratory followed the procedure
from the CSA A23.2-2A Sieve Analysis of fine and coarse aggregate standard. The average
particle size distribution shown in Table 3.4 was used for determining the aggregate material
proportions for all the optimization techniques used. The absorption and relative density tests
followed the procedure from the CSA A23.2-6A Relative density and absorption of fine
aggregate standard, and were used for all aggregate material mixture proportioning. The rodded
and loose bulk density tests followed the procedure from the CSA A23.2-10A Bulk density of
aggregate standard with a slight modification of measuring the densities in the oven-dried
condition then multiplying the mass by the absorption to calculate the densities in the saturated
surface dry condition. The loose bulk densities were used for determining the aggregate material
proportions for the theoretical particle packing model optimization techniques.
3.1.4
Intermediate Aggregate
The intermediate aggregate used for this study was also supplied by Holcim, from the Dufferin
Aggregates Milton quarry. A gradation test report was provided by Dufferin Aggregates for the
chip material in October 2009. This source was washed residual material from the coarse
37
aggregate crushed dolomitic limestone used for this study. Several sample bags, each 20kg,
were supplied to the University of Toronto. There was only one aggregate supply that was used,
therefore there were no issues with continuity of material properties throughout the experimental
research.
Based on the guideline for visually assessing the shape and angularity of any aggregate from the
ICAR research as shown in Figure 3.2, the intermediate aggregate had a rating of 4. A sample of
the fine aggregate is shown in Figure 3.8.
Figure 3.8: Intermediate Aggregate Supply
distribution based on the gradation determined from Dufferin Aggregates stockpile, shown in
Table 3.5, was to be sieved out for each mixture to decrease variability between mixtures.
particles to fit a specific gradation. After conducting three sieve analyses of the aggregate
supply (with different representative samples used), the particle size distributions were similar
enough that the aggregate could be used as is, and the variability of sampling gradations would
be controlled. The average particle size distribution, absorption and densities for the
intermediate aggregate used for this study are shown in Table 3.5. All material properties were
measured by the author in the University of Torontos laboratory facilities, and compared to
Dufferin Aggregates data on particle size distribution, measured at the Milton quarry. The
38
intermediate aggregate does not pass the OPSS 1002 grading requirements for fine aggregates,
and is significantly coarser. An intermediate aggregate with a coarser gradation was chosen to
be used to fill in the intermediate sizes (2.36 mm to 9.5 mm) of the combined gradation all the
concrete mixtures. It should be noted, however, that the intermediate aggregate does fit the
OPSS 1002 grading requirements for coarse aggregate for structural concrete, sidewalks, and
curb and gutters for a nominal maximum size of 6.7 mm.
Table 3.5: Properties of Intermediate Aggregate Used For Study
Sieve Size [mm]

9.5
6.7
4.75
2.36
1.18
0.6
0.3
0.15
0.075
Pan
Fineness Modulus
Absorption
Rodded Bulk Density
(SSD) [kg/m3]
Loose Bulk Density
(SSD) [kg/m3]
Dufferin
U of T Lab
Aggregates (Oct. 22, 10 Stockpile
May 12, 11)
% Passing
100
100
90
94
65
60
16
14
4
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
N/A
N/A
5.2
1.79%
2.73
N/A
1552
N/A
1448
The sieve analyses conducted at the University of Torontos laboratory followed the fine
aggregates procedure from the CSA A23.2-2A Sieve Analysis of fine and coarse aggregate
standard. The average particle size distribution shown in Table 3.5 was used for determining the
aggregate material proportions for all the optimization techniques used. The absorption and
relative density tests followed the procedure from the CSA A23.2-6A Relative density and
absorption of fine aggregate standard, and were used for all aggregate material mixture
proportioning. The rodded and loose bulk density tests followed the procedure from the CSA
A23.2-10A Bulk density of aggregate standard with a slight modification of measuring the
densities in the oven-dried condition then multiplying the mass by the absorption to calculate the
39
densities in the saturated surface dry condition. The loose bulk densities were used for
determining the aggregate material proportions for the theoretical particle packing model
optimization techniques.
3.1.5
Chemical Admixtures
All admixtures were supplied by Holcim, and produced by the Euclid Chemical Company. Four
admixtures were used: Eucon WR, Eucon 37, Eucon 727, and Airextra. The classifications,
compositions and relative densities of the chemical admixtures used for this study are shown in
Table 3.6. All product information from Table 3.6 was found from the technical and material
safety
data
sheets
found
on
the
Euclid
Chemical
Companys
website
(www.euclidchemical.com). The relative densities were used for all chemical admixture
proportioning.
Table 3.6: Properties of Chemical Admixtures Used For Study
Product
ASTM C-494
Classification
Purpose for
Use
Composition [wt %]
> 60%
Relative
Density
Water
15-40% Calcium lignosulfonate
Eucon
WR
Type A
Eucon
37
Type F
Eucon
727
Type D
Airextra
Water reducer
10-30% Sodium lignosulfonate

1-5%
Triethanolamine
< 1%
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
(PCMC)
Superplasticizer/ 40-70% Water

High range
30-60% Naphthalene sulfonate
water reducer
1-5%
Sodium sulfate
Water reducer Double metallo-organic salt derived
and set retarder from hydroxycarboxylic acids
Air entrainer
Liquid solution of sulfonated fatty

acids
1.185
1.203
1.160
1.007
3.2 Mix Designs

As previously stated, the experimental programme for the current study was divided into four
stages with two stages using the two typical MTO bridge deck mixture proportions (for 35 MPa
and 50 MPa compressive strengths), and two stages using variations of the control mixture
proportions with reduced cement content and increased total aggregate content. Within each
40
stage, binary and ternary aggregate blends were optimized using the following existing
optimization techniques: the Modified Toufar and Theory of Particle Mixtures by Dewar
particle packing models, the Talbots Grading Curve (Power Chart), and Shilstones Coarseness
Factor Chart. Both the Coarseness Factor Chart and 8-18 Distribution were used to evaluate the
combined gradations produced from the above optimization techniques. Each mix design was
first batched for specifically looking at fresh concrete properties, and if the mix design displayed
good workability characteristics then the mix was batched again for casting cylinders and prisms
to evaluate hardened concrete properties. The evaluation of good workability characteristics will
be described in Section 3.8.
Stage 1 mixes batched for workability testing were the first set of mixes to be tested. The mixes
batched for workability testing for the remaining stages followed sequentially. The mix design
lists for Stages 2 and 3 were governed by the success of Stage 1s workability results, while
Stage 4 was governed by Stage 3s success.
The subsections to follow will describe in detail how the optimization techniques were used to
develop optimized binary and ternary aggregate blends, as well as explain the approach used to
developing the mix design list. A master list of all concrete mixture design proportions can be
found in Appendix A.
3.3 Use of Existing Optimization Techniques to Design Mixtures

The following subsections describe how the existing optimization techniques previously
described in the literature review were used to design and/or evaluate mixtures for this
experimental programme. All techniques outputted the volume proportions of the individual
aggregate materials.
3.3.1
Modified Toufar Particle Packing Model
This technique was used to design the binary and ternary aggregate blend volume proportions by
maximizing the packing degree of the combined gradation. The individual aggregate properties
required to be input for this particle packing model are the particle size distribution, relative
density (in SSD condition), and loose bulk density (in SSD condition).
A spreadsheet in Excel was developed using the Solver function to maximize the packing degree
and output the volume proportions for the individual aggregate materials, which can be seen in
41
Appendix B. The coarse aggregate material information inputted into Appendix B is that of
Supply #1. This spreadsheet has been formatted for the application of binary and ternary
blending for any two or three aggregate sources.
3.3.2
minimizing the voids ratio of the combined gradation. The same inputs are required for this
particle packing model as the Modified Toufar model.
A spreadsheet in Excel was also developed, as shown in Appendix C; however, the Solver
function was not required to minimize the voids ratio and output the volume proportions for the
individual aggregate materials. The coarse aggregate material information inputted into
Appendix C is that of Supply #1. This spreadsheet has been formatted for the application of
binary and ternary blending for any two or three aggregate sources.
3.3.3
fitting the maximum density line of the combined gradation to the target gradation of Talbots
grading curve (also known as the Power chart) for a series of grading type factors. The
individual aggregate property required to be inputted for this technique is the particle size
distribution.
For this study, a series of n values of 0.4, 0.45, 0.5 and 0.55 were chosen for designing mixes, so
that not only would the 0.45 and 0.5 optimal curves be looked at, but also a finer (0.4) and
coarser (0.55) be looked at. This is because the source of aggregate used will affect the
effectiveness of this method in terms of choosing the best n value for finding the maximum
density.
A spreadsheet in Excel was developed using the Solver function to fit the maximum density line
of a combined gradation to the target gradation calculated by the Equation 2.13 of the specified
ns grading curve, where D = 25.0 mm, as shown in Appendix D. The maximum density line
starts from the origin and continues to the maximum sieve size, using the combined particle size
gradation as the y-values, and sieve size raised to the nth power as the x-values. Solver was used
to minimize the deviation between fitting: i) the complete and ii) only intermediate sized
42
particles combined gradation by mass to the target gradation. The mass proportions used for
blending were translated to volume proportions using the material grain densities (relative
densities multiplied by density of water @ 4C). The coarse aggregate material information
input into Appendix D is that of Supply #1.
Both minimization methods yielded consistent volume proportion results for both binary and
ternary aggregate material blends with except for ternary blends for n values of 0.4 and 0.45.
Therefore, the full combined gradation for fitting to the target gradation was used for final mix
design proportioning. This spreadsheet has been formatted for the application of binary and
ternary blending for any two or three aggregate sources.
Figure 3.9 to Figure 3.12 illustrate graphically Talbots Grading Curves for all eight cases, and
how the combined aggregate gradation fits to the maximum density line. Note that the abscissa
is sieve size to the power of n. The combined aggregate gradations for both binary and ternary
blends fit closely to their respective maximum density lines; however, the ternary blends are
significantly closer.
Figure 3.9: Talbots Grading Curve Chart for Combined Binary and Ternary Aggregate Blends of n = 0.40
43
44
3.3.4
This technique was used to design and also evaluate the quality of the combined gradations
produced from all optimization techniques. As previously mentioned, the Coarseness Factor
Chart was developed based on previous experimental work where the mixes all had a
cementitious content of 564 lb/yd3 (334 kg/m3) (TxDOT, 2006). For this study, adjustments to
the workability factors were made to every stage as stipulated in Section 2.2.2 due to the
variations in cementitious content. The mix designs generated by the use of the previous three
optimization techniques (Modified Toufar Model, Theory of Particle Mixtures Model, and
Talbots Grading Curve) were first evaluated. The zone of Stage 1s 35 MPa control mixture on
the Coarseness Factor Chart varied depending on coarse aggregate source used. For Supply #1,
it was located in Zone 4, and for Supply #2, Zone 2. The zone of Stage 3s 50 MPa control
mixture is in Zone 4, close to the dividing line between Zone 2. Stages 2 and 4s control based
mixtures are both in Zone 2.
For Stage 1, it was found that the binary aggregate blended mix designs points on the
Coarseness Factor Chart, as denoted by circles in Figure 3.13, clustered to the top left corner of
Zone 2 and Zone 4 (spreading from the bottom to off the chart), with Mix #11 (Talbots Grading
Curve, binary, n = 0.55) using coarse aggregate Supply #2 the only binary blend fitting within
the workability box. Mix #s 2-A2 (Modified Toufar, binary, Supply #2 coarse aggregate only), 4
(Theory of Particle Mixtures, ternary) and 8 (Talbots Grading Curve, binary, n = 0.4) do not
45
plot within the chart as their workability factors are higher than 45.0. The lowest and highest
coarseness factors were 64.4 and 73.7 respectively, and the lowest and highest workability
factors were 35.6 and 55.2.
Figure 3.13: Stage 1 Mix Plan Plotted on Coarseness Factor Chart
The ternary aggregate blended mix design points on the Coarseness Factor Chart, denoted by
triangles in Figure 3.13, are more scattered than the binary points; however, binary and ternary
point clustered areas do not overlap (ternary points have smaller coarseness factors). The
majority of the ternary points are in Zone 2 (in, above and below the workability box); however,
there were some found in Zone 5. Mix #s in the workability box are 5-A1 (Modified Toufar,
ternary, Supply #1 coarse aggregate only) and 13 (Talbots Grading Curve, ternary, n = 0.45).
The lowest and highest coarseness factors are 46.9 and 59.8 respectively, and the lowest and
highest workability factors are 25.3 and 40.3. It should be noted that the maximum coarseness
factor possible (coarse aggregate mass proportion is 1.0) for coarse aggregate Supply #1 crosses
through Zones 4, 5 and most notably Zone 1, while Supply #1 limits blends to Zone 2
46
(difference in coarseness factor values of 7.2). Therefore, the choice of coarse aggregate is
significant in the evaluation and design of concrete mixtures with the Coarseness Factor Chart.
To re-iterate, the mix designs used for Stage 2 were based on the success of Stage 1s mix
designs. From Figure 3.14, for Stage 2, all mixtures were above the workability box spread in
Zones 2 and 4. The binary aggregate blend points are clustered towards the centre of Zone 2 and
up to Zone 4 (spreading from the bottom to off the chart). Mix #31 (Theory of Particle Mixtures,
binary) does not plot within the chart as its workability factor is higher than 45.0. The lowest
and highest coarseness factors were 61.2 and 66.3 respectively, and the lowest and highest
workability factors were 37.4 and 53.9. The ternary aggregate blend points are in Zone 2, but do
not overlap with the binary points (ternary points have smaller coarseness factors). The lowest
and highest coarseness factors were 46.9 and 54.4 respectively, and all workability factors were
38.9.
47
To re-iterate, the mix designs used for Stage 3 were based on the success of Stage 1s mix
designs. From Figure 3.15, for Stage 3, all mixtures were above the workability box spread in
Zones 2 and 4. The binary aggregate blend points are clustered in Zone 4, spreading from the
bottom to off the chart. Mix # 33 (Talbots Grading Curve, binary, n = 0.45), 34 (Modified
Toufar, binary), 39 (Theory of Particle Mixtures, binary) and 40 (Talbots Grading Curve,
binary, n = 0.4) does not plot within the chart as their workability factors are higher than 45.0.
The lowest and highest coarseness factors are 61.2 and 67.0 respectively, and the lowest and
highest workability factors are 40.2 and 59.9. The ternary aggregate blend points are in Zone 2
and Zone 4, but do not overlap with the binary points (ternary points have smaller coarseness
factors). The lowest and highest coarseness factors were 46.9 and 54.4 respectively, and the
lowest and highest workability factors were 39.7 and 44.9.
To re-iterate, the mix designs used for Stage 4 were based on the success of the Stage 3 mix
designs. From Figure 3.16, for Stage 4, the binary aggregate blend points are clustered in Zones
48
2 and 4, with Mix #51 (Talbots Grading Curve, binary, n = 0.55) binary blend fitting within the
workability box. The lowest and highest coarseness factors were 62.3 and 64.4 respectively, and
the lowest and highest workability factors were 35.5 and 44.9. The ternary aggregate blend
points are all in Zone 2, but do not overlap with the binary points (ternary points have smaller
coarseness factors). Mix #52 (Talbots Grading Curve, ternary, n = 0.45) is the only ternary
blended mix in the workability box. The lowest and highest coarseness factors were 46.7 and
52.1 respectively, and the lowest and highest workability factors were 36.3 and 41.6.
Once all of the previous optimization techniques were evaluated, points on the CF Chart were
chosen in Zone 2 in the gaps where none of the previous optimization techniques reached. A
total of seven mixes were designed using the Coarseness Factor Chart and particle size
distributions of the individual aggregates. These mixes are denoted by diamonds for binary and
squares for ternary blends in Figure 3.13 to Figure 3.16.
49
3.3.5
Previous research also indicated that this optimization technique would not necessarily produce
mix designs that would yield meaningful results. Therefore, this technique was used only to
evaluate the quality of the combined gradations produced from all optimization techniques as
this was recommended through past studies. Since the maximum aggregate size used for this
study was 25.0mm, distribution charts with an upper limit of 22% rather that 18% were used
(lower limit remained 8%).
None of the mix designs optimized by the previous techniques (Modified Toufar Model, Theory
of Particle Mixtures Model, Talbots Grading Curve, and Coarseness Factor Chart) fell
completely within the 8-22 Distribution Charts limits. Figure 3.17 and Figure 3.18 exemplify
how the 35 MPa and 50 MPa control mixes combined gradations fit of within the limits of the
8-22 Distribution Chart. It was found that for most of the 8-22 Distribution Charts that the 2.36
mm and 9.5 mm individual % retained values for the combined gradations were out of the
limits, and the Supply #2 coarse aggregate, as compared to the two other coarse aggregate
supplies, was the closest to fitting within the distributions limits. Therefore, the choice of
aggregate sources used is important.
Figure 3.17: 8-22 Distribution Chart for Binary 35 MPa Control Mix
50
Figure 3.18: 8-22 Distribution Chart for Binary 50 MPa Control Mix
The ternary blends generally drew the sections of the combined binary gradations that were out
of the limits closer to the limits. However, none of the combined ternary gradations still fell
completely within the limits. The mix design with the combined gradation closest to falling with
the distribution limits is the ternary Modified Toufar Particle Packing Model blend, as shown in
Figure 3.19 to Figure 3.21 with the three coarse aggregate supplies. Figure 3.19 to Figure 3.21
also show the high sensitivity of this optimization technique to the aggregate material chosen,
where Supply #2 of the coarse aggregate was the closest to falling within the distribution limits.
51
Figure 3.19: 8-22 Distribution Chart for Ternary Blend Using the Modified Toufar Particle Packing Model
with Coarse Aggregate Supply #1
52
The four binary Talbots Grading Curve mix designs had generally the same combined
gradation shape, but as the n value increased, the individual % retained on the 9.5 mm sieve
increased farther above the 22% limit. The four ternary Talbots Grading Curve mix designs
also had generally the same combined gradation shape, and as the n value increased, the same
trend as found from the binary mix designs occurred.
3.4 Range of Designed Combined Aggregate Gradations

From all of the current studys design mixes, including the 35 MPa and 50 MPa control mixes
and optimized mixes (binary and ternary) using the Modified Toufar particle packing model,
Theory of Particle Mixtures by Dewar, Talbots Grading Curve (n = 0.40, 0.45, 0.50 and 0.55),
and Shilstone's Coarseness Factor Chart, the range of the combined gradations from the
complete mix design list using the three aggregate sources individual gradations is shown in
Table 3.7. For a complete list of all combined gradations used for this current, refer to Appendix
E.
53
Table 3.7: Range of Combined Gradations Used in the Current Study
% Passing
Sieve
Size
[mm]
26.5
19
16
9.5
6.7
4.75
2.36
1.18
0.6
0.3
0.15
0.075
0
Individual Materials
19.0 mm Concrete Stone
6.7 mm Concrete
Sand
Supply #1 Supply #2 Supply #3 Chip
100
100
100
100
100
88
89
96
100
100
70
69
85
100
100
23
30
33
100
100
94
100
3
3
2
60
99
14
89
3
67
1
44
1
18
1
5
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
Range of Combined
Gradations from
Mix Design List
Min
Max
100
92
79
47
39
32
24
17
11
5
2
1
0
100
98
94
73
65
60
54
41
27
12
3
2
0
3.5 Concrete Mix Design Methodology

All mixes were designed using the absolute volume method for mixture proportioning.
For the control mixtures for the Stage 1 35 MPa and the Stage 3 50 MPa mixes used the
cementitious, water, air and coarse aggregate contents, and Eucon WR (water reducer) dosage as
prescribed by Holcim. For the 35 MPa control mixture, the prescribed Eucon 37
(superplasticizer) dosage by Holcim was used; however for 50 MPa mixtures, dosages for
Eucon 37 and Eucon 727 (set retarder) were determined by trial and error. The Airextra (air
entraining admixture) dosage was added to both mixtures, and the fine aggregate content for
both mixtures were calculated by subtracting the absolute volumes of all materials and air from
one cubic metre.
For all other mixtures, the volume proportions for all individual aggregate materials were
calculated using the optimization techniques. As previously stated, a master list of all concrete
mixture design proportions can be found in Appendix A.
54
3.5.1
Stage 1 35 MPa, 360 kg/m3 cement content (typical), w/c = 0.39
Stage 1 mixes were the first set of mixes to be tested. All mix designs using the optimization
techniques, a total of 20 mixes as described in Table 3.8, were cast for measuring fresh property
testing. If the mix design displayed satisfactory workability characteristics then the mix was
batched again for casting cylinders and prisms to evaluate hardened concrete properties. Table
3.8 shows the total aggregate volume fractions for both batches of the same mix (if batched
twice) as the total aggregate volume fractions differ for the particle packing model mix designs,
Mix #s 2, 4 and 5. This is due to the change in coarse aggregate supply used, which have
different particle size distributions. The total aggregate volume fractions for the Talbots
Grading Curve mix designs only changed slightly. The cementitious, water and air contents,
total aggregate absolute volume, and admixture dosages were consistent throughout, and are
shown in Table 3.9.
Table 3.8: List of Stage 1 (35 MPa, 360 kg/m3 typical cement content) Mix Designs
Mix
#
Mix Description
Control (binary)
Particle packing model (binary) [Toufar]
Particle packing model (binary) [Dewar]
Particle packing model (ternary) [Toufar]
Particle packing model (ternary) [Dewar]
Talbot's Grading Curve (binary) [n=0.40]
10
11
12
Talbot's Grading Curve (ternary) [n=0.40]
13
Type
W
C
W
C
W
C
W
C
W
W
C
W
C
W
C
W
C
W
C
W
C
CA
Supply
Used
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
Aggregate Volume
Fraction
CA
IA
FA
0.584
0.416
0.584
0.416
0.550
0.450
0.508
0.492
0.424
0.576
0.402
0.598
0.445 0.184 0.372
0.410 0.192 0.399
0.559 0.217 0.224
0.508
0.492
0.508
0.492
0.552
0.448
0.552
0.448
0.591
0.409
0.591
0.409
0.627
0.373
0.627
0.373
0.473 0.118 0.410
0.474 0.116 0.410
0.516 0.139 0.346
0.516 0.139 0.346
55
Mix
#
Type
CA
Supply
Used
Aggregate Volume
Fraction
CA
IA
FA
Mix Description
14
0.522 0.184 0.294
15
0.561 0.184 0.255
16
Shilstone's Coarseness Factor Chart - Zone

2, binary, CF = 74.9, WF = 29.8
0.694
17

2, ternary, CF = 72.7, WF = 32.7
0.647 0.016 0.337

2, ternary, CF = 64.2, WF = 35.7
0.546 0.093 0.361

2, ternary, CF = 58.3, WF = 35.7
0.546 0.093 0.361

2, ternary, CF = 64.2, WF = 32.0
0.576 0.107 0.317

2, ternary, CF = 64.2, WF = 39.9
0.511 0.078 0.411

2, ternary, CF = 58.3, WF = 39.9
0.511 0.078 0.411
21

2, ternary, CF = 73.8, WF = 29.8
0.684 0.012 0.304
22

2, binary, CF = 74.1, WF = 33.7
0.649
18
19
20
0.306
0.351
W = measuring workability properties; C = casting of prisms and cylinders for measuring hardened
properties
Table 3.9: Material Contents and Dosages of Stage 1 (35 MPa, 360 kg/m3 typical cement content) Mix
Designs
Material
Total Cement
Content or Dosage
360 kg/m3
General Use (GU)

GranCem (GGBFS)
270
90
Water Content
Total Aggregate
Absolute Volume
Air
Airextra
Eucon WR
Eucon 37
142 kg/m3
0.67
6.5%
20 mL/100 kg
250 mL/cwt
500 mL/cwt
56
3.5.2
Stage 2 35 MPa, 330 kg/m3 cement content (reduced), w/c =

0.39
Stage 2 mixes batched for workability testing were the second set of mixes to be tested. The mix
design list for Stage 2 was governed by the success of Stage 1 workability results. A total of 8
mixes as described in Table 3.10, were cast for fresh property testing. The mixture proportions
were altered by trial and error to reduce the cementitious material content while maintaining the
same GU %, GranCem %, w/c, and air content. Therefore, the total aggregate absolute volume
was increased, and three dosages of the admixtures (except for Eucon WR) were altered.
If the mix design displayed satisfactory workability characteristics then the mix was batched
again for casting cylinders and prisms to evaluate hardened concrete properties. Table 3.10
shows the total aggregate volume fractions for both batches of the same mix (if batched twice)
as the total aggregate volume fractions differ for Mix #24b. This is due to the change in coarse
aggregate supply used, which have different particle size distributions. The total aggregate
volume fractions for Mix #s 25e and 31 only changed slightly.
The cementitious, water and air contents, total aggregate absolute volume, and admixture
dosages were consistent throughout, and are shown in Table 3.11.
Table 3.10: List of Stage 2 (35 MPa, 330 kg/m3 reduced cement content) Mix Designs
Mix
#
Mix Description
Type
CA
Supply
Used
Aggregate Volume
Fraction
W
C
W
C
2
3
2
3
CA
0.508
0.536
0.552
0.553
Shilstone's Coarseness Factor Chart Zone 2, ternary, CF = 58.3, WF = 38.6
0.511 0.078 0.411
0.511 0.078 0.411
27
W
C
2
3
0.474 0.116 0.410

0.474 0.116 0.410
28
0.591
Control (binary) reduced cementitious

content
W
C
W
2
3
2
0.584
0.416
0.584
0.416
0.410 0.192 0.399
24b
25e
26
29
30
IA
-
FA
0.492
0.464
0.448
0.447
0.409
57
Mix
#
Mix Description
31
Particle packing model (binary) [Dewar]**
Type
CA
Supply
Used
W
C
2
3
Aggregate Volume
Fraction
CA
0.402
0.400
IA
-
FA
0.598
0.600
properties
**
Failed in workability evaluation
Table 3.11: Material Contents and Dosages of Stage 2 (35 MPa, 330 kg/m3 reduced cement content) Mix
Designs
Material
Total Cement
3.5.3
Content or Dosage
330 kg/m3
General Use (GU)

GranCem (GGBFS)
247.5
82.5
Water Content
Total Aggregate
Absolute Volume
Air
Airextra
Eucon WR
Eucon 37
130 kg/m3
0.69
6.5%
15 mL/100 kg
250 mL/cwt
625 mL/cwt
Stage 3 mixes batched for workability testing were the third set of mixes to be tested. The mix
design list for Stage 3 was governed by the success of the Stage 1 workability results. A total of
12 mixes as described in Table 3.12, were cast for fresh property testing.
shows the total aggregate volume fractions for both batches of the same mix (if batched twice)
as the total aggregate volume fractions differ for Mix #41. This is due to the change in coarse
aggregate supply used, which have different particle size distributions.
58
Table 3.12: List of Stage 3 (50 MPa, 465 kg/m3 typical cement content) Mix Designs
W
C
W
C
W
C
W
C
W
C
W
C
W
C
W
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Aggregate Volume
Fraction
CA
IA
FA
0.628
0.372
0.628
0.372
0.448
0.552
0.552
0.448
0.492
0.508
0.508
0.492
0.511 0.078 0.411
0.511 0.078 0.411
0.474 0.116 0.410
0.474 0.116 0.410
0.591
0.409
0.591
0.409
0.410 0.192 0.399
0.410 0.192 0.399
0.402
0.598
40
0.508
0.492
41
Talbot's Grading Curve (binary)

[n=0.55]**
42
43
W
C
W
C
W
C
2
3
2
2
2
2
0.627
0.644
0.516
0.516
0.546
0.546
0.139
0.139
0.093
0.093
0.373
0.356
0.346
0.346
0.361
0.361
Mix
#
Mix Description
32d
Control (binary)
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
CA
Type* Supply
Used
properties
**
59
Table 3.13: Material Contents and Dosages of Stage 3 (50 MPa, 465 kg/m3 typical cement content) Mix
Designs
Material
Total Cement
GUb-8SF (HSF)
GranCem (GGBFS)
Water Content
Total Aggregate
Absolute Volume
Air
Airextra
Eucon WR
Eucon 727
Eucon 37
3.5.4
Content or Dosage
465 kg/m3
349
116
155 kg/m3
0.62
6.0%
15 mL/100 kg
250 mL/cwt
160 mL/100 kg
1000 mL/100 kg

0.33
Stage 4 mixes batched for workability testing were the last set of mixes to be tested. The mix
design list for Stage 4 was governed by the success of the Stage 3 workability results. A total of
10 mixes as described in Table 3.14, were cast for fresh property testing. The mixture
proportions were altered by trial and error to reduce the cementitious material content while
maintaining the same GUb-8SF %, GranCem %, w/c, and air content. Therefore, the total
aggregate absolute volume increased, and the dosages of the admixtures (except for Eucon WR
and 727) were altered.
shows the total aggregate volume fractions for both batches of the same mix (if batched twice).
All aggregate volume fractions are the same for both batches of each mix because the same
coarse aggregate supply was used.
60
Table 3.14: List of Stage 4 (50 MPa, 390 kg/m3 reduced cement content) Mix Designs
Mix
#
CA
Type* Supply
Used
Mix Description
44c
45

content**
46
47

2, ternary, CF = 55.8, WF = 41.2
48
49
50
51
52
Talbot's Grading Curve (ternary) [n=0.45]**
53

2, ternary, CF = 55.8, WF = 37.0**
W
C
W
C
W
C
W
C
W
C
W
C
W
C
W
C
W
C
W
C
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Aggregate Volume
Fraction
CA
IA
FA
0.409
0.591
0.591
0.409
0.628
0.372
0.628
0.372
0.553
0.447
0.553
0.447
0.511 0.078 0.411
0.511 0.078 0.411
0.474 0.116 0.410
0.474 0.116 0.410
0.432 0.178 0.390
0.432 0.178 0.390
0.536
0.464
0.536
0.464
0.644
0.356
0.644
0.356
0.516 0.139 0.346
0.516 0.139 0.346
0.546 0.093 0.361
0.546 0.093 0.361
properties
**
Table 3.15: Material Contents and Dosages of Stage 4 (50 MPa, 390 kg/m3 reduced cement content) Mix
Designs
Material
Total Cement
GUb-8SF (HSF)
GranCem (GGBFS)
Water Content
Total Aggregate
Absolute Volume
Air
Airextra
Eucon WR
Eucon 727
Eucon 37
Content or Dosage
390 kg/m3
292.5
97.5
130 kg/m3
0.67
6.0%
10 mL/100 kg
250 mL/cwt
160 mL/100 kg
1500 mL/100 kg
61
3.6 Mixing Procedure

The procedure used for all concrete mixing, including both workability and casting mixes, for
this study followed the ASTM C 192 Standard Practice for Making and Curing Concrete Test
Specimens in the Laboratory with some exceptions.
All aggregate material used was in a moist condition for mixing. The 19.0 mm stone was
washed in advanced to rinse away coatings of dust surrounding the individual aggregate
particles. The sand was taken straight from the laboratory bin. The chip was taken straight
from the sample bags as it was pre-washed at the Milton quarry. The moisture contents of the
individual materials were taken for each batch, and the batch proportions were subsequently
adjusted. All materials including aggregates, cementitious material and admixtures were stored
in the laboratorys mixing area; therefore they were kept at a consistent temperature with
mixing. All materials were batched by mass, with the exception of the admixtures by volume.
The same mixer was used for all mixes. The mixer has a capacity of 60 L, with rotational paddle
speed of 119 rpm.
For the casting mixes, the cylinder and prism moulds were oiled the day before, and
immediately before casting any excess oil was wiped off. This was to prevent any oil seepage
into the hardening concrete, affecting its setting and hardened properties. The prism studs were
fastened into the moulds after oiling, and the gauge lengths of each were recorded to be used to
calculate drying shrinkage values.
All materials, including the water and admixtures, were measured out immediately before
casting. The water was divided into proportions as shown in Table 3.16, and specific admixtures
were added to the specific water fractions depending on the stage of mixing; however, they
remained constant for each design mix between the workability and casting mixes.
62
Table 3.16: Admixture and Water Fraction Addition Times for All Stages
Water
%
Stage #1 - 35 MPa,
Typical Cement
Content (360 kg/m3)
Stage #2 - 35 MPa,
Reduced Cement
Content (330 kg/m3)
Stage #3 - 50 MPa,
Typical Cement
Content (465 kg/m3)
Stage #4 - 50 MPa,
Reduced Cement
Content (390 kg/m3)
Admixture
Added
Admixture
Dosage [mL/ mass
of cementitious
content]
20 mL/100 kg
250 mL/cwt
500 mL/cwt
15 mL/100 kg
250 mL/cwt
Addition Time
75
Airextra
Eucon WR
Eucon 37
Airextra
Eucon WR
25
Eucon 37
65
Airextra
Eucon WR
15 mL/100 kg
250 mL/cwt
At beginning of mixing
10
Eucon 727
160 mL/100 kg
Immediately after adding

Eucon Airextra and WR
25
Eucon 37
1000 mL/100 kg
Delay of 30 seconds after

start of mixing
65
Airextra
Eucon WR
10 mL/100 kg
250 mL/cwt
10
Eucon 727
160 mL/100 kg
Immediately after adding

Eucon Airextra and WR
25
Eucon 37
1500 mL/100 kg

start of mixing
100
625 mL/cwt
start of mixing
The aggregate and cementitious materials were first placed in the mixing bowl where the
proportion of 19.0 mm stone was added first, followed by the chip (if required), GU cement
or GUb-8%SF (depending on the required strength), slag, and then sand on top. These materials
were mixed for 1 minute, then while the mixer was left running, the mixing water fractions were
added as specified in Table 3.16. The materials were mixed for 3 minutes, starting at the first
water to cement contact point. The mixer was then stopped for a 3 minute rest period, then
started again for an additional 2 minutes of mixing. This completed the mixing process.
3.7 Workability Test Procedures

Workability is defined in terms of flowability, placeability, consolidation, transportability, and
finishability. The air content (by pressure method) and slump tests for the mixes were started
immediately after the mixing process was completed. This was then followed by measuring the
63
rheological properties with the ICAR rheometer, then lastly another slump test was conducted.
A description of the timing of tests and volume required can be found in Table 3.17.
Table 3.17: Workability Testing Programme
Property
Slump
Air Content by
Pressure Method
Static and
Dynamic Yield
Stress, and
Plastic Viscosity
Description
At 15 and 45 minutes
after water/cement
contact
Within 20 minutes of
water/cement contact
Within 45 minutes of
water/cement contact
(2 repetitions)
Testing Standard or
Equipment
ASTM C 143 Standard Test
Method for Slump of
Hydraulic-Cement Concrete
Method for Air Content of
Freshly Mixed Concrete by
the Pressure Method
ICAR Rheometer
Minimum Total Volume Required per Mix =

Adjusted Total Volume per Mix [1.1*Minimum] =
3.6.1
Litres
per
Mix
6
20
33 L
36 L
Air Content by Pressure Method
The procedure used for measuring the air content of all mixes was in accordance with the CSA
A23.2-4C Air Content of Plastic Concrete by the Pressure Method test procedure. The air
meter container was filled with fresh concrete in 3 equal layers, and rodded 25 times and tapped
around the outer surface 10 times after every layer.
3.6.2
Slump Test
The procedure used for measuring the slump of all mixes was in accordance with ASTM C 143
Standard Test Method for Slump of Hydraulic-Cement Concrete to characterize the consistency
of the fresh concrete from all the mixes. The slump cone was filled with fresh concrete in 3
equivalent layers, and rodded 25 times after every layer. After the slump cone was filled, the
excess concrete was struck off the top and removed from the area surrounding the base of the
cone. Once the cone was removed, the distance between the displaced centre of the samples top
surface and the top of the cone mould was recorded as the slump. All slump tests were
performed and measurements made by the same individual to minimize the variance between
results.
64
If the sample, once the cone was removed, showed falling away or shearing off behaviour, as
illustrated in Figure 3.22, the test was discounted and repeated using a new sample. However, if
this behaviour recurred on the subsequent test, the mix was deemed unworkable as it lacked
proper consolidation and flowability.
Figure 3.22: Types of Slump Behaviour (Koehler, 2009a)
3.6.3
ICAR Rheometer
The International Center for Aggregates Research (ICAR) rheometer used for this study
characterizes the workability of fresh mortar and concrete mixes in terms of rheological
properties including plastic viscosity, and static and dynamic yield stress using a shear rate
controlled rheometer with coaxial cylinders configuration.
Using the rheometer for a 19.0 mm stone requires a sample size of 20 L (Germann Instruments,
2008). The 20 L container used for this study included 15 vertical strips around its inner wall (to
prevent the sample from slipping and rotating with the vane), which has a 143 mm inner radius
(measured to the inside of the vertical strips). The top of the strips indicates the limit to filling
the container. Before filling the container, the bottom of the plate is secured to the frame, and
the four-blade vane must be inserted as far as possible into the keyless chuck at the end of the
rheometer, shown in Figure 3.23 (to avoid the vane from loosening and sitting too low in the
container) (Germann Instruments, 2008). The portable driver has a width and length of 110 mm,
height of 400 mm, weight of 6 kg without the attachment of vane and frame, and weight of 18
kg with all attachments (Koehler, 2009b). Then the frame, with the rheometer and vane
attached, is placed on the containers supports checking that the gap size between the vane and
the top of the concrete sample, as well as the bottom and sides of the container are at least four
times the maximum aggregate size in distance to make certain that there is proper uniformity
throughout the concrete sample.
65
Figure 3.23: Rheometer Equipment Components (Rheocentric Concrete Technologies, 2006)
For this study, the container was filled in 3 equal layers and rodded 25 times after every layer, to
the top of the vertical strips as shown in Figure 3.24.
Figure 3.24: Full Container for Rheometer Testing (Concrete filled to top of vertical strips)
Rodding was conducted between the layers to consolidate the concrete, 25 times with a 10 mm
diameter rod. Before every set of tests, right before inserting the vane into the concrete sample,
the torque was reset to zero to ensure accuracy of testing results. While resetting the torque, no
load was applied to the vane, and the rheometer was kept vertically aligned as shown in Figure
3.25, so as not to affect the torque reset reading (Germann Instruments, 2008).
66
Figure 3.25: Torque Resetting Position
Within the ICAR rheometer software, and before performing the tests, the geometry of the vane
and container were set to: vane radius = 63.5 mm, vane height = 127.0 mm, and container radius
= 143.0 mm (specific to the 20 L bucket). The vane dimensions remain constant for all
aggregate sizes up to a maximum of 40 mm; however the shaft length varies with the container
size (Germann Instruments, 2008). The vane, attached to the rheometer, was then inserted
vertically downwards into the concrete sample, while the frame rested on the containers
supports, as shown in Figure 3.26 and Figure 3.27.
Figure 3.26: Proper Placing of Vane in Concrete
67
Figure 3.27: Frame Resting on Containers Supports, Rheometer Ready for Testing
The accuracy of testing results is affected significantly if the vane is inserted on an angle or
twisted into the concrete sample, since this influences the thixotropic characteristics of the
sample (Germann Instruments, 2008).
There were two tests conducted for every round of testing, with each test taking under a minute
to perform. The first was the Stress Growth Test to measure the static yield stress, output by the
software in units of Pascals [Pa]. The test speed parameter was set to 0.025 rps, as this value
was previously tested and suggested for many different concrete samples by the ICAR
Rheometer Manual (Germann Instruments, 2008; Koehler and Fowler, 2004). Previous research
showed that from a testing speed range of 0.00833 rev/sec (0.5 rpm) to 0.1833 rev/sec (11 rpm),
0.025 rps (1.5 rpm) was found to be the optimum speed (resulting in the lowest static yield
stress). Lower and higher speeds would both lead to inaccurately high static yield stresses
(Koehler and Fowler, 2004). If the speed is too low then the sample will be able to recuperate
from the torque applied increasing the peak torque, and if the speed is too high then the viscous
and dynamic forces can aid in increasing the torque required to initiate flow (Koehler and
Fowler, 2004). For this test, a low and constant speed is applied while the test outputs a torque
[Nm] vs. time [s] graph immediately after the vane starts to rotate. This test is stopped manually
after the peak torque has been reached, and the software calculates the yield stress based on the
68
maximum torque and vane dimensions. When calculating the static yield stress, the software
assumes that the shear stress is uniformly distributed over the ends and side of the vane, and is
equal to the static yield stress when the maximum torque is achieved (Germann Instruments,
2008). This test is conducted first because measuring static yield stress accurately is extremely
sensitive to the thixotropic characteristics of the sample (Germann Instruments, 2008).
Examples of the software output of the Stress Growth Test for both 35 and 50 MPa mixes are
shown in Figure 3.28 and Figure 3.29.
Figure 3.28: Stress Growth Test Software Output for 35 MPa Control (Mix #1), 1st Iteration
69
Figure 3.29: Stress Growth Test Software Output for 50 MPa Control (Mix #32d), 1st Iteration
The second test performed was the Flow Curve Test to measure the dynamic yield stress and
plastic viscosity by adding energy to the sample, output by the software in units of Pascals [Pa]
and Pascal-seconds [Pas], respectively. For this test, there is an initial breakdown period where
no measurements are made and the maximum input speed is constantly applied to reduce the
effects of thixotropy. After this initial breakdown period, the flow curve graph (torque [Nm] vs.
vane rotation speed [rps]) is generated based on a number of input points, following the steps as
shown in Figure 3.30.
70
Figure 3.30: Description of Generation of Flow Curve (Koehler, 2009b)
These test parameters were set to: breakdown time = 20 sec., breakdown speed = 0.5 rps,
number of points (for graph) = 7, time per point = 5 sec., initial speed = 0.5 rps, and final speed
= 0.05 rps. The breakdown and initial speeds should be the same. The breakdown, initial and
final speeds were chosen to be these values based on correspondence with Dr. Eric P. Koehler
who recommended that at least one order of magnitude between the breakdown/initial and final
speeds be used, such as 0.05 to 0.5 rps (Koehler, 2010). Generally for most types of mixtures, an
adequate breakdown time is 25 to 30 seconds (Koehler and Fowler, 2004).
This test stops automatically, and estimates the dynamic yield stress and plastic viscosity by first
fitting a trend line to relative units of the flow curve graph by using Equation 3.1, assuming zero
torque acting on the ends of the vane (Germann Instruments, 2008), and then translating those
results using the Bingham model as shown in Equation 3.2 and Figure 3.31. This requires the
vane dimensions and container inner radius as well, to output the dynamic yield stress and
plastic viscosity.
71
T = Y + VN
Where:
= torque [Nm]
= rotation speed [rps]
= relative yield stress [Nm]
= relative plastic viscosity [Nms]
= 0 + &
Where:
= shear stress [Pa]
= dynamic yield stress [Pa]
= plastic viscosity [Pas]
&
= shear strain rate [1/s].
Equation 3.1
Equation 3.2
Figure 3.31: Bingham model represented graphically (Rheocentric Concrete Technologies, 2006)
The Bingham model was chosen to be used to develop the flow curve behaviour for the ICAR
Rheometer software because of its accuracy and simplicity in establishing a linear relationship
between shear stress and shear rate, and also because it includes yield stress as a parameter as
shown in Equation 3.2 (Koehler and Fowler, 2004).
Examples of the software output of the Flow Curve Test for both 35 and 50 MPa mixes are
shown in Figure 3.32 and Figure 3.33.
72
Figure 3.32: Flow Curve Test Software Output for 35 MPa Control (Mix #1), 1st Iteration
Figure 3.33: Flow Curve Test Software Output for 50 MPa Control (Mix #32d), 1st Iteration
73
Repeatability is affected by variation in sampling, testing, and materials (Koehler and Fowler,
2004). A previous study showed that variation in testing was low between two sets of tests
(Koehler and Fowler, 2004). Therefore, for this study, two sets of testing using the rheometer
were chosen, and also for timing. Although each test takes under a minute to complete, filling,
emptying, and remixing is time consuming. Variation in sampling and materials should be
minimized by the individual(s) mixing and conducting the tests.
The repeatability of the tests is influenced by the slump of the concrete being tested, where SCC
has shown to have the best repeatability upon previous study (Koehler, 2010). Since the
concrete mixes used for this study have such a high slump range, good repeatability is expected
for these mixes.
For this study, once a round of testing was completed, the vane was removed from the container,
and the concrete sample was emptied from the container into a rinsed wheelbarrow and
manually remixed for 10 to 20 seconds, as shown in Figure 3.34. The concrete sample was then
re-used for another round of testing. It is important to remix the sample in between the sets of
tests to get good repeatability by improving consolidation.
Figure 3.34: Hand Mixing in Wheelbarrow between First and Second Sets of Rheometer Testing
3.8 Evaluation of Fresh Concrete Properties

This section explains how the fresh properties measured were evaluated to determine sufficient
mixture workability. As previous described in Table 3.17, for this study the fresh properties that
were measured were air content (by the pressure method), slump, and rheological properties
74
(including static and dynamic yield stress, and plastic viscosity). Mixes were also visually
assessed for segregation and flowability.
Air content was only an indicator, and had no influence in deciding the success of mixture
workability. Since the ICAR rheometer tests are not standardized, and acceptable ranges of yield
stress and plastic viscosity for good workability have not been identified, it was difficult to
evaluate the measurements from these tests alone without relying on a visual assessment of the
mixes and the measurements from the slump tests.
A system for determining the overall success or failure of the workability for all mixtures was
created for this study. Successful mixes required a fluid and cohesive visual description, an
acceptable slump loss, and two sets of adequate rheometer testing results. Governing points of
workability failure were: segregation, unacceptable slump loss, shearing behaviour shown
during slump test, and concrete sample being too harsh to insert the vane or complete rheology
testing properly. All workability results can be found in Table 4.1 (organized by best to least
workable for every stage), with a detailed analysis found in Section 5.2. Concrete mixtures that
were successful (passed or barely passed) were then batched again to cast cylinders and
prisms for hardened properties testing.
3.9 Casting Test Procedures

The testing regime for the casting mixes is described in Table 3.18, and spanned over 91 days.
Linear drying shrinkage, compressive strength and resistivity were measured using the testing
standard or equipment described in Table 3.18. The volume required for each casting mix can be
also found in Table 3.18.
75
Table 3.18: Casting Mix Testing Programme
Property
Drying
Shrinkage
Compressive
Strength
Resistivity
Description
Testing Equipment or
Standard
At 1, 7, 14, 28, 35, 56, and 91

days
(Prism dimensions:
75*75*320 mm)
OPSS LS -435 Method of Test

for Linear Shrinkage of
Concrete
Method for Length Change of
Hardened Hydraulic-Cement
Concrete
At 1, 3, 7, 28, 56, and 91 days ASTM C 39 Standard Test
(Cylinder dimensions:
Method for Compressive
100*200 mm, 2 per test day)
Strength of Cylindrical Concrete
Specimens
At 28 and 56 days
(Cylinder dimensions:
Method for Electrical Indication
100*200 mm, 1 per test day of Concretes Ability to Resist
cut into 3 slices)
Chloride Ion Penetration; Merlin
Bulk Conductivity Tester
Minimum Total Volume Required per Mix =
Adjusted Total Volume per Mix [1.1*Minimum] =
Number
of
Samples
Litres
per
Mix
12
19
29 L
32 L
3.10 Casting and Testing of Cylinder Procedures

For each casting mix, 14 cylinder moulds with nominal dimensions of 100 mm by 200 mm were
required for the testing programme, as described in Table 3.18. The cylinders were filled in 3
equal layers and rodded 10 times after every layer. As stated in the CSA A23.2-3C Making and
curing concrete compression and flexural test specimens standard, for concrete that has a greater
slump than 180 mm, only 40% of the number of strokes to rod per layer as stipulated in CSA
A23.2-3C. CSA A23.2-3C states a stroke number of 20, meaning that only 8 strokes are
required per layer for this studys cylinder specimens as all the mixes had an initial slump over
180 mm. After the excess concrete was struck off the top surface, they were then capped and
placed on a flat surface in an area that would not be subject to any vibrations for the initial
curing period of 24 hours.
Compressive strength measurements followed the procedure of ASTM C 39 Standard Test
Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens. For this study, as shown
in Table 3.18, two cylinders were tested per day at 1, 3, 7, 28, 35, 56, and 91 days of age after
water and cement contact during casting in the saturated surface dry condition. The average of
the two cylinders results estimated the compressive strength for the specific age day tested. It
76
should be noted that two different machines were used to test the cylinder specimens for
compressive strength; a smaller machine, with a lower capacity of 2000 kN was used for all
specimens up to and including 28 days of age, and a larger machine with a higher capacity of
3000 kN was used at 56 and 91 days. Also, caps were used for the only some of the 1 day old
specimens, more specifically for Mix #s 24b, 25e, 26, 27, 29, 31, 44c, 45, 46, and 47.
Two resistivity tests were used for this study to indirectly measure the permeability, and
therefore the durability, of the concrete specimens by the relation of current to the continuity
and conductivity of the saturated capillary pore system and pore fluid (Hooton, 2001).
Resistivity measurements for the Rapid Chloride Permeability Test (RCPT) followed the
procedure of ASTM C 1202 Standard Test Method for Electrical Indication of Concretes
Ability to Resist Chloride Ion Penetration. Measurements for the Merlin Bulk Conductivity Test
followed the guidelines and instructions of the test equipments operation manual provided by
manufacturer Germann Instruments, as the test procedure has not been standardized. For this
study, as shown in Table 3.18, one cylinder per day at 28 and 56 days of age after water and
cement contact during casting was cut into three slices each with a nominal thickness of 50 mm.
They were conditioned following ASTM C 1202 with the exception of electrical tape
substituting for the electrically non-conductive coating around the cylindrical side surface of the
specimens.
The Merlin Bulk Conductivity Test is non-destructive (does not affect the composition or
properties of the concrete specimen), uses an alternating current (AC), and can measure the bulk
electrical conductivity or resistivity of a specimen with varying thickness (from 50 mm to 200
mm) in one to two seconds (Germann Instruments, 2010). The specimen, at SSD, is placed in
this measuring device between damp sponges (no electrode gel required) on either end, as
shown in Figure 3.35 and Figure 3.36, where the voltage drop is measured by the voltmeter and
the current is measured by the ammeter (Germann Instruments, 2010). The resistivity and/or
conductivity can then be calculated using Equations 3.3 and 3.4.
77
Figure 3.35: Merlin Bulk Conductivity Test Equipment (Germann Instruments, 2010)
Figure 3.36: Merlin Bulk Conductivity Test Specimen Set-up (Germann Instruments, 2010)
Where:
I L
VA
Equation 3.3
Equation 3.4
R=
V
I
Equation 3.5
I=
Q
t
Equation 3.6
= electrical resistivity [m]

= electrical conductivity [mS/m]
78
Q = charge passed [Coulombs = Asec]

L = length of specimen [m]
V = voltage [V]
t = time [sec]
A = cross-sectional area [m2]
R = resistance []
I = current [A]
A verification cylinder (100 mm by 200 mm), as shown in Figure 3.35 on the left, is supplied to
check that the test equipment is working properly (Germann Instruments, 2010). Before every
testing period, the test equipment was verified with this cylinder.
The RCPT is destructive, uses an instantaneous 60 V direct current (DC), and also measures the
bulk electrical conductivity of a specimen by measuring the current over six hours (at 5 minute
intervals) to calculate the charge passed by integration. The Germann Instruments PROOVEit
software was used for the RCPT. For RCPT the current should remain constant; however when
the temperature of the pore fluid increases due to heat release from ion-ion and ion-solid
collisions, the conductivity increases, therefore increasing the current flow (Nokken and
Hooton, 2006). Therefore, measurements were taken using the Merlin test before the RCPT.
3.11 Casting and Testing of Concrete Prisms

For each casting mix, 3 prism moulds with cross section of 75 mm by 75 mm and length of 320
mm (nominal gauge length of 285 mm) were required for the testing programme, as specified by
OPSS LS-435 R23 Method of Test for Linear Shrinkage of Concrete and ASTM C 157 Standard
Test Method for Length Change of Hardened Hydraulic-Cement Concrete. The prisms were
filled in two equal layers, and rodded with a 10 mm diameter rod 10 times per layer. Vibrating
the moulds for 2 to 3 seconds was not required, as the slump of mixes was very high (usually
above 200 mm). After the excess concrete was struck off the top surface, the four sides of the
moulds were each lightly tapped twice. They were then placed on a flat surface in an area that
would not be subject to any vibrations for the initial curing period of 24 hours.
79
Length change readings for linear shrinkage measurements followed the procedure of OPSS LS435 R23; however, initial comparator reading on samples in the saturated surface dry condition
were also taken at least 30 minutes after being submerged in lime-saturated water following
ASTM C 157. Although OPSS LS-435 R23 specifies that the final comparator readings should
be taken at an age of 35 days, for this study the final comparator readings were taken at 91 days.
For this study, as shown in Table 3.18, linear drying shrinkage measurements were taken at 1, 7,
14, 28, 35, 56, and 91 days of age after water and cement contact during casting.
3.12 Curing Regime for Cylinders and Prisms

As stipulated by ASTM C 192 Standard Practice for Making and Curing Concrete Test
Specimens in the Laboratory, all cylinder specimens were cured and covered for the first 24 8
hours, after contact of water with cement, with wet burlap and plastic at 23 2C. All prism
specimens followed the same procedure; except for they were de-moulded within 24 hours,
as indicated in OPSS LS-435 R23. After de-moulding all the specimens, they were submerged
in lime-saturated water, with a Ca(OH)2 concentration of 3g/L and temperature of 23 0.5C.
The cylinders were kept in the lime-saturated water until testing. Following ASTM C 157, initial
comparator readings on samples in the saturated surface dry condition were taken at least 30
minutes after being submerged in lime-saturated water. The prism specimens were then placed
back and left in the lime-saturated water until an age of 7 days. Following OPSS LS-435 R23,
another set of initial comparator readings were then taken. The prism specimens were then
transferred to and remained in a drying room with temperature of 23 2C and relative humidity
of 50 4%.
80
Chapter 4
Results
4
4.1 Workability
The results from the workability tests are shown in Table 4.1, organized by best to least
satisfactory workability for every stage. The system for determining the overall success or
failure of the workability for all mixtures is described in Section 3.8. The rheology test results
were measured by the ICAR rheometer software, and recorded, to one decimal place where
some results displayed, consequently, more than three significant figures.
Table 4.1: Workability Test Results and Evaluation
Mix
#
Air
[%]
Slump
[mm] at
(minutes)
Static
Yield
Stress
[Pa] 1
Dynamic
Yield
Stress
[Pa] 1
Plastic
Viscosity
[Pas] 1
Static
Yield
Stress
[Pa] 2
Dynamic
Yield
Stress
[Pa] 2
Plastic
Viscosity
[Pas] 2
Visual
Description*
Evaluation
Stage 1: 35 MPa, 360 kg/m3 cement content, w/c = 0.39

20
10
(14)
235 (13),
230 (35)
245.0
58.0
48.8
248.0
68.7
54.2
F, C
Pass
6.5
(22)
230 (11),
225 (41)
281.6
58.5
53.1
348.7
82.4
55.9
F, C
Pass
10
6.5
(22)
215 (13),
210 (50)
378.8
55.9
72.1
564.3
32.9
93.2
F, C
Pass
7.5
(40)
230 (45,
80)
419.1
62.4
62.8
752.4
95.4
61.5
F, C
Pass
8
(45)
230 (14,
41)
646.6
66.1
86.3
461.3
222.2
35.5
F, C
Pass
9.5
(16)
230 (13),
225 (46)
704.2
68.4
61.9
468.5
92.3
56.0
F, C
Pass
12
7.5
(16)
230 (12),
215 (40)
341.0
174.1
26.5
637.0
124.5
49.5
F, C
Pass
18
8.5
(16)
220 (14,
45)
1224.0
48.9
68.5
805.3
84.1
58.0
F, C
Barely
Pass
8
(18)
240 (23),
195 (49)
425.9
155.4
57.1
684.1
148.5
92.3
F, C,
very
sandy
Barely
Pass
13
7
(14)
220 (12),
215 (42)
505.8
53.3
71.1
1091.1
75.9
80.6
F, C
Barely
Pass
81
Mix
#
Air
[%]
Slump
[mm] at
(minutes)
Static
Yield
Stress
[Pa] 1
Dynamic
Yield
Stress
[Pa] 1
Plastic
Viscosity
[Pas] 1
Static
Yield
Stress
[Pa] 2
Dynamic
Yield
Stress
[Pa] 2
Plastic
Viscosity
[Pas] 2
Visual
Description*
Evaluation
11
6
(17)
220 (12),
215 (45)
695.3
104.3
70.2
812.8
66.9
108.4
F (less),
C
Barely
Pass
7.5
(17)
230 (21),
225 (55)
599.7
136.0
76.5
1083.4
161.2
95.9
F (less),
C
Barely
Pass
19
7.5
(14)
220 (17),
195 (52)
1411.4
87.7
68.1
4100.6
Concrete sample too

harsh to complete
testing
F
(barely),
C
Fail
14
7
(22)
220 (11),
185 (45)
1093.7
75.1
96.8
5673.7
Concrete sample too

harsh to complete
testing
F
(barely),
C
Fail
21
6
(13)
230 (16)
5428.3
Concrete sample too harsh to complete testing
H, C
Fail
15
7
(15)
210 (12)
5566.0
H, C
Fail
16
7
(30)
220 (25)
Concrete sample too harsh to insert vane
H, S
Fail
22
6.5
(23)
220 (13)
H, S
Fail
17
6.5
(14)
215 (13),
200 (32)
H, S
Fail
4
(20)
165 (16)
H, S
Fail

10
240 (12),
26
321.2
97.2
63.8
(16)
230 (36)
431.7
92.6
72.1
F, C
Pass
27
9.5
(16)
235 (13),
215 (37)
489.0
65.7
81.3
680.6
67.4
93.7
F, C
Pass
25e
9
(13)
240 (14),
220 (35)
546.8
118.2
88.8
969.9
129.1
121.8
F, C
Pass
24b
9.5
(15)
235 (16),
200 (46)
636.6
92.9
104.6
974.3
92.1
133.4
F, C
Pass
29
9
(18)
235 (12),
220 (39)
759.4
50.7
105.8
858.9
59.4
109.9
F, C
(less)
Barely
Pass
31
11
(16)
215 (11),
140 (37)
986.7
221.9
106.3
1553.6
242.2
136.1
F, C,
very
sandy
Fail
82
Mix
#
Air
[%]
Slump
[mm] at
(minutes)
Static
Yield
Stress
[Pa] 1
Dynamic
Yield
Stress
[Pa] 1
Plastic
Viscosity
[Pas] 1
Static
Yield
Stress
[Pa] 2
28
9
(16)
235 (17),
185 (51)
898.6
70.9
108.6
1537.5
30
8.5
(16)
225 (12),
shearing
behaviour
(30, 32)
1908.3
Dynamic
Yield
Stress
[Pa] 2
Plastic
Viscosity
[Pas] 2
Concrete sample too

harsh to complete
testing
Visual
Description*
Evaluation
F, C
(less)
Fail
F, C
(less)
Fail

37
7
(18)
220 (12),
210 (35)
539.8
134.7
46.8
483.2
194.5
41.6
F, C
Pass
38
8.5
(19)
235 (11),
215 (34)
569.7
227.4
35.4
481.1
196.7
47.3
F, C
Pass
36
6.5
(24)
220 (13),
195 (38)
513.7
193.4
41.6
772.0
276.8
44.6
F, C
Pass
42
7.5
(21)
230 (11),
190 (34)
766.9
140.9
62.8
715.4
232.6
60.3
F, C
Pass
33
8.5
(15)
225 (13),
185 (42)
589.3
210.2
40.4
660.8
315.3
39.9
F, C
Pass
35
8
(23)
225 (15),
185 (44)
574.1
194.6
52.7
955.9
324.7
62.7
F, C
Pass
34
8.5
(14)
225 (17),
175 (45)
597.7
285.3
37.5
947.5
407.2
50.2
F, C
Barely
Pass
32d
7.5
(15)
220 (12),
175 (38)
840.8
199.5
59.9
1144.3
358.1
49.2
F, C
Barely
Pass
43
7
(20)
220 (13),
160 (40)
716.3
193.4
52.9
1251.2
351.9
64.5
F, C
Barely
Pass
41
7.5
(17)
220 (19),
shearing
behaviour
(47, 52)
428.4
123.4
48.1
893.2
209.6
55.2
F, C
Fail
40
8.5
(18)
205 (17),
125 (45)
810.0
405.3
33.4
1425.6
676.7
35.9
39
7.5
(19)
230 (12),
130 (41)
776.4
403.6
44.0
1397.4
716.6
50.1
F, C,
very
sandy
F, C,
very
sandy
Fail
Fail
83
Mix
#
Air
[%]
Slump
[mm] at
(minutes)
Static
Yield
Stress
[Pa] 1
Dynamic
Yield
Stress
[Pa] 1
Plastic
Viscosity
[Pas] 1
Static
Yield
Stress
[Pa] 2
Dynamic
Yield
Stress
[Pa] 2
Plastic
Viscosity
[Pas] 2
Visual
Description*
Evaluation
50
6.5
(20)
240 (14),
220 (43)
311.6
30.8
62.8
412.6
17.4
75.4
F, C
Pass
47
8
(15)
235 (11),
205 (35)
326.6
79.7
49.6
661.8
85.9
76.1
F, C
Pass
46
7.5
(17)
225 (12),
215 (41)
556.6
85.5
81.9
790.7
115.0
100.7
F, C
Pass
51
6.5
(16)
230 (11),
215 (35)
772.7
43.6
91.4
1324.4
81.7
107.9
F, C
Pass
48
7
(15)
230 (12),
205 (36)
599.7
51.8
106.6
1210.9
88.7
103.6
F, C
Pass
44c
7
(21)
220 (14),
185 (45)
696.9
72.3
102.6
1396.0
168.2
118.9
F, C
Barely
Pass
49
7
(16)
225 (11),
185 (42)
839.6
74.7
115.6
1448.9
97.5
124.0
F, C
Barely
Pass
53
5
(15)
230 (21),
200 (37)
730.0
46.3
83.8
1935.1
Concrete sample too

harsh to complete
testing
F, C
Fail
52
5.5
(15)
225 (11),
210 (30)
883.2
34.3
84.2
1184.3
Concrete sample too

harsh to complete
testing
F, C
(less)
Fail
45
5.5
(16)
220 (11),
80 (35)
1721.2
H, C
(less)
Fail
F = Fluid; H = Harsh; S = Segregated; C = Cohesive
4.2 Compressive Strength

As previously stated, two cylinders were tested at each test age in the saturated surface dry
condition. The ages tested were 1, 3, 7, 28, 56 and 91 days. The average peak stress results from
the compressive strength tests for each test age are shown in Table 4.2. Mixes are organized
numerically for each design strength (35 MPa and 50 MPa).
The individual cylinder, as well as average, compressive strength results are shown in Appendix
F. The average diameter (two top and two bottom measurements) and the resulting peak load of
each cylinder were measured and recorded, and are also shown in Appendix F. The individual
compressive strengths were calculated from these measurements. An average of the two
compressive strength results per test age was calculated for all mixes, with the only exception of
84
Mix #42 at 28days where the first cylinder peak load was disregarded due to improper
alignment over the top and bottom bearing plates.
Table 4.2: Average Compressive Strength Results
Mix #
1
3
35 MPa Design Strength
19.7
24.8
1
17.3
21.9
2
3.8
15.9
4
14.8
19.7
5
3.6
20.5
8
14.7
19.2
9
4.8
27.4
10
2.7
24.7
11
4.2
23.9
12
4.1
26.9
13
19.0
27.2
18
16.9
23.6
20
2.2
22.8
24b
3.4
20.8
25e
2.8
22.9
26
1.0
21.6
27
1.5
18.6
29
2.3
23.3
31
10.2
40.0
32d
10.5
39.3
33
29.7
38.3
34
30.7
31.3
35
11.2
33.9
36
13.5
37.1
37
6.2
32.3
38
13.6
38.5
41
7.0
32.0
42
2.5
33.8
43
1.0
33.8
44c
5.4
34.6
45
0.8
32.0
46
0.3
32.1
47
Test Age
7
28
56
91
34.1
25.0
42.0
31.5
49.0
45.1
53.9
46.8
24.0
24.3
29.4
26.3
39.2
33.2
34.0
39.2
39.7
33.2
28.9
26.4
32.4
31.8
31.7
34.6
26.2
36.3
34.2
30.4
43.1
40.6
40.3
45.8
50.8
42.4
37.1
38.3
40.3
42.5
39.3
45.6
28.6
45.9
38.8
41.0
54.1
44.1
43.8
50.8
56.1
47.5
44.7
45.6
48.5
44.9
43.9
49.1
31.5
43.0
40.9
41.8
50.8
48.3
46.1
50.5
59.2
48.7
44.9
45.7
48.9
45.0
46.9
52.3
58.8
57.4
55.6
54.3
50.1
50.0
44.9
53.1
45.8
48.8
49.9
56.2
46.8
50.5
72.1
70.6
66.5
60.0
55.4
64.4
61.0
67.7
62.0
59.9
68.7
69.4
60.6
64.6
72.9
73.5
71.1
71.4
67.4
70.5
65.9
74.7
70.2
68.6
68.0
76.4
71.2
61.8
75.9
78.6
70.5
64.2
62.6
70.4
70.5
71.6
68.9
64.0
73.4
72.9
66.0
64.5
85
Mix #
48
49 - 1
49 - 2
50
51
52
53
1
26.3
28.3
29.4
19.6
27.6
28.6
30.7
Test Age
7
28
48.5
59.0
51.2
63.9
58.1
70.1
43.6
56.2
53.4
65.8
54.4
70.2
55.8
64.2
3
32.0
33.4
35.8
34.0
30.6
36.6
36.8
56
66.0
65.3
71.9
61.7
67.2
72.1
70.8
91
66.5
64.0
70.6
60.0
69.9
73.1
70.2
4.3 Linear Drying Shrinkage

As previously stated, the length changes of three prisms per mix were measured in accordance
with the OPSS LS-435 procedure at ages of 1, 7, 14, 28, 35, 56, and 91 days. Length change
values following the ASTM C 157 procedure were also calculated. The average length change
results following both procedures are shown in Table 4.3. Mixes are organized numerically for
each design strength (35 MPa and 50 MPa).
The individual, as well as average, length change results are shown in Appendix G. The gauge
length of each prism was measured and recorded before casting. The mass and difference
between the reference bar and comparator reading (CRD) of each individual prism were
measured and recorded for each test age. The individual prism length change values were
calculated using the gauge length, CRD at the specific age, and the 7 day CRD as the initial
CRD (after 7 days curing in lime-saturated water, as per OPSS LS-435 R23). An average length
change was then calculated from the three prisms individual length change results. Length
change measurements following the ASTM C 157 procedure using the 1 day CRD as the initial
CRD are also recorded in Appendix G.
Table 4.3: Average Linear Drying Shrinkage Results Calculated Following Both OPSS LS-435 and ASTM C
157 Procedures
Shrinkage (%) LS-435 R23

Mix #
Test Age
14
28
35
56
91
Shrinkage (%) ASTM C 157 (Modified)

Test Age
14
28
35
56
91
1*
-0.020
-0.024
-0.032
-0.045
-0.046
-0.014
-0.019
-0.026
-0.039
-0.041
2*
4
-0.011
-0.024
-0.022
-0.050
-0.029
-0.055
-0.040
-0.060
-0.046
-0.065
-0.005
-0.013
-0.016
-0.039
-0.023
-0.044
-0.034
-0.050
-0.040
-0.054
5*
-0.021
-0.028
-0.036
-0.049
-0.053
-0.013
-0.021
-0.028
-0.041
-0.045
86
Mix #
8
14
-0.026
Shrinkage (%) LS-435 R23

Test Age
28
35
56
-0.048 -0.055 -0.059
-0.018 -0.027
9*
-0.021 -0.041
10
-0.020 -0.039
11
-0.022 -0.041
12
-0.021 -0.036
13
-0.023 -0.027
18
-0.021 -0.031
20
-0.036
24b
-0.040
25e
-0.037
26
-0.030 -0.047
27
-0.023 -0.042
29
-0.037 -0.059
31
-0.015 -0.020
32d
-0.019 -0.026
33
-0.027 -0.026
34
-0.028 -0.028
35
-0.026 -0.032
36
-0.032 -0.037
37
-0.022 -0.043
38
-0.026 -0.035
41
-0.021 -0.041
42
-0.020 -0.043
43
-0.014 -0.037
44c
-0.014 -0.037
45
-0.006 -0.030
46
-0.026 -0.039
47
-0.027 -0.044
48
49 - 1 -0.026 -0.044
49 - 2 -0.027 -0.045
-0.028 -0.040
50
-0.028 -0.043
51
-0.024 -0.038
52
-0.025 -0.041
53
*
91
-0.064
Shrinkage (%) ASTM C 157 (Modified)

Test Age
14
28
35
56
91
-0.001 -0.023 -0.031 -0.035 -0.039
-0.033
-0.046
-0.047
-0.046
-0.044
-0.041
-0.046
-0.043
-0.045
-0.044
-0.049
-0.043
-0.060
-0.046
-0.049
-0.052
-0.050
-0.048
-0.045
-0.050
-0.048
-0.050
-0.048
-0.056
-0.052
-0.068
-0.052
-0.056
-0.054
-0.056
-0.053
-0.049
-0.054
-0.055
-0.057
-0.055
-0.063
-0.057
-0.075
-0.012
0.000
0.001
-0.004
-0.005
-0.017
-0.012
0.004
0.002
0.009
-0.021
-0.021
-0.018
-0.024
-0.020
-0.021
-0.022
-0.023
-0.027
-0.022
-0.012
-0.017
-0.012
-0.028
-0.026
-0.027
-0.029
-0.028
-0.035
-0.037
-0.030
-0.032
-0.029
-0.014
-0.018
-0.014
-0.041
-0.028
-0.031
-0.033
-0.032
-0.039
-0.042
-0.035
-0.037
-0.033
-0.021
-0.027
-0.022
-0.047
-0.036
-0.033
-0.039
-0.037
-0.043
-0.045
-0.042
-0.044
-0.040
-0.029
-0.032
-0.029
-0.034
-0.040
-0.041
-0.042
-0.044
-0.053
-0.052
-0.047
-0.047
-0.050
-0.039
-0.040
-0.032
-0.043
-0.043
-0.042
-0.040
-0.045
-0.042
-0.035
-0.037
-0.037
-0.042
-0.044
-0.046
-0.042
-0.053
-0.051
-0.046
-0.048
-0.050
-0.047
-0.045
-0.034
-0.048
-0.057
-0.055
-0.050
-0.050
-0.051
-0.044
-0.046
-0.042
-0.047
-0.048
-0.049
-0.047
-0.060
-0.057
-0.051
-0.055
-0.057
-0.049
-0.050
-0.045
-0.051
-0.052
-0.052
-0.051
-0.054
-0.050
-0.045
-0.046
-0.011
-0.009
-0.023
-0.024
-0.017
-0.023
-0.005
-0.021
-0.017
-0.013
0.000
-0.001
-0.001
-0.019
-0.014
-0.009
-0.009
-0.020
-0.007
0.000
-0.012
-0.015
-0.016
-0.022
-0.024
-0.022
-0.029
-0.026
-0.031
-0.037
-0.036
-0.023
-0.024
-0.026
-0.032
-0.031
-0.026
-0.027
-0.032
-0.023
-0.014
-0.028
-0.030
-0.030
-0.037
-0.038
-0.034
-0.045
-0.034
-0.043
-0.043
-0.043
-0.025
-0.027
-0.028
-0.036
-0.029
-0.024
-0.022
-0.037
-0.021
-0.011
-0.023
-0.032
-0.032
-0.039
-0.041
-0.033
-0.044
-0.034
-0.042
-0.044
-0.043
-0.033
-0.032
-0.030
-0.041
-0.043
-0.037
-0.032
-0.042
-0.030
-0.020
-0.033
-0.037
-0.037
-0.043
-0.045
-0.038
-0.051
-0.040
-0.046
-0.050
-0.049
-0.036
-0.037
-0.041
-0.045
-0.038
-0.035
-0.033
-0.046
-0.029
-0.021
-0.032
35 day values linearly interpolated between 28 day and 42 day data
87
4.4 Bulk Resistivity

As previously stated, the resistivity of each mix was measured at ages of 28 days and 56 days
using two different tests methods: ASTM C 1202 Standard Test Method for Electrical
Indication of Concretes Ability to Resist Chloride Ion Penetration, and the Merlin Bulk
Conductivity Test. Three slices, each with a nominal thickness of 50 mm, of a 100 mm by 200
mm cylinder were tested for each test.
The average bulk resistivity results for both the Merlin test and RCPT (for initial 5-minute and
final 6-hour time intervals), and actual charge passed from the RCPT are shown in Table 4.4.
Mixes are organized numerically for each design strength (35 MPa and 50 MPa).
The average and individual bulk resistivity results for both the Merlin test and RCPT (for initial
5-minute and final 6-hour time intervals) are shown in Appendix H. Appendix H also includes
the individual specimens average diameter, thickness, and specific to the RCPT, the initial 5minute and final 6-hour temperature readings, the actual and adjusted charges passed, chloride
ion penetrability category, and current measured at five minutes (initial) and six hours (final).
Table 4.4: Average Merlin Test and RCPT Bulk Resistivity and Actual Charge Passed Results
Age of 28 Days
Avg.
Avg.
Avg. 6-hr
Merlin
RCPT
5RCPT
Mix #
Bulk
min Bulk
Bulk
Resistivity Resistivity Resistivity
[m]
[m]
[m]
152.5
135.1
1
Age of 56 Days
Avg.
RCPT
Actual
Charge
Passed
[C]
Avg.
Avg.
Avg. 6-hr
Merlin
RCPT 5RCPT
Bulk
min Bulk
Bulk
[m]
[m]
[m]
Avg.
RCPT
Actual
Charge
Passed
[C]
149.3
1300
155.6
196.2
250.4
848
147.4
132.6
150.7
1304
160.9
181.2
243.6
864
137.9
153.2
170.
1248
152.8
187.2
235.5
888
169.9
136.2
161.6
1239
170.2
196.9
244.2
868
164.0
147.7
178.5
1192
161.1
227.4
264.0
794
144.6
141.5
167.0
1206
170.7
192.3
261.0
812
10
127.4
148.9
195.6
1088
162.5
200.7
268.4
784
11
123.6
158.0
185.8
1135
163.2
210.1
259.1
818
12
112.7
133.0
175.3
1211
157.1
209.4
261.8
811
13
179.0
157.7
181.7
1159
163.4
227.9
312.0
698
88
Age of 28 Days
Avg.
Avg.
Avg. 6-hr
Merlin
RCPT 5RCPT
Mix #
Bulk
min Bulk
Bulk
[m]
[m]
[m]
Age of 56 Days
Avg.
RCPT
Actual
Charge
Passed
[C]
Avg.
Avg.
Avg. 6-hr
Merlin
RCPT 5RCPT
Bulk
min Bulk
Bulk
[m]
[m]
[m]
Avg.
RCPT
Actual
Charge
Passed
[C]
18
124.0
143.1
176.0
1184
167.2
194.0
256.1
823
20
131.6
138.6
165.2
1259
161.4
210.8
253.2
844
24b
100.3
124.4
152.1
1387
142.1
167.1
203.8
1047
25e
101.1
121.7
154.9
1334
134.8
153.1
188.9
1115
26
102.6
121.2
156.7
1291
154.4
180.5
221.9
949
27
89.2
110.1
150.8
1420
119.6
156.8
195.3
1085
29
94.7
112.9
133.1
1604
122.0
153.6
192.9
1107
31
90.3
113.8
133.6
1611
135.0
152.9
190.8
1111

32d
333.0
323.9
406.8
509
349.2
545.3
558.6
381
33
292.4
287.1
351.1
573
369.5
426.1
547.8
388
34
302.1
346.3
412.9
507
398.3
478.9
599.5
352
35
322.9
460.2
469.6
434
449.6
528.3
667.0
323
36
287.5
346.6
402.8
512
355.0
496.8
524.2
406
37
263.7
326.0
383.1
532
304.2
385.6
498.8
425
38
204.6
255.0
290.5
704
278.8
334.3
436.5
486
41
284.5
309.0
368.3
554
356.5
427.7
518.6
406
42
225.9
266.9
340.7
598
303.0
370.2
440.9
484
43
281.8
297.8
393.2
529
305.1
354.5
458.5
457
44c
218.6
263.0
323.5
664
304.3
347.4
451.0
464
45
207.4
259.3
347.9
615
310.3
371.9
482.7
434
46
212.9
293.6
367.1
575
329.7
370.3
478.5
443
47
216.5
265.8
342.6
623
302.4
350.7
434.4
481
48
226.2
255.0
298.4
704
265.1
323.2
403.2
534
49 - 1
294.1
425.2
458.2
473
386.1
444.2
545.0
401
49 - 2
304.1
345.1
415.3
507
376.2
436.9
534.6
402
50
169.9
204.2
225.7
859
267.3
343.1
418.7
506
51
316.2
453.3
476.8
463
377.7
441.4
549.1
397
52
314.1
364.5
451.2
470
355.2
420.0
525.1
413
89
Age of 28 Days
Avg.
Avg.
Avg. 6-hr
Merlin
RCPT 5RCPT
Mix #
Bulk
min Bulk
Bulk
[m]
[m]
[m]
53
302.8
515.8
471.5
Age of 56 Days
Avg.
RCPT
Actual
Charge
Passed
[C]
449
Avg.
Avg.
Avg. 6-hr
Merlin
RCPT 5RCPT
Bulk
min Bulk
Bulk
[m]
[m]
[m]
395.4
450.6
553.4
Avg.
RCPT
Actual
Charge
Passed
[C]
389
90
Chapter 5
Analysis and Discussion
5
5.1 Analysis of Optimization Techniques
5.1.1
Analysis of Theoretical Particle Packing Models
The theoretical particle packing models only consider volume proportioning of aggregates to fill
in voids, which is acceptable because the relative densities are so similar for aggregates and they
are considered when calculating the packing degree and voids ratio. Therefore, segregation
potential is not increased. However, the Theory of Particle Mixtures developed by Dewar does
take into consideration minimizing segregation with requiring bulk densities of the aggregate
materials loosely packed, and a safe cohesion factor of 0.025 added to the fine material volume
fraction n once the voids ratio is minimized.
Finding the bulk density in loose condition was highly subjective, since when leveling off the
top of the container, as stipulated in the CSA A23.2-10A Bulk density of aggregate standard, it
is left up to the judgment of the researcher to balance the projections and voids on the top
surface, which can result in significant changes in mass measured. Since the bulk densities are
used to calculate the packing degree and voids ratio, which are the optimized variables for the
respective particle packing models, the resulting volume proportions of the aggregate materials
are significantly sensitive to changes in the bulk densities.
The detail of the particle size distributions measured for each aggregate also affects the results
of the particle packing models. The more detailed the gradations, the more accurate will be the
blending process and calculation of the characteristic diameter (for the Modified Toufar Model)
and the mean size (for the Theory of Particle Mixtures Model) will be.
The greatest criticisms of the theoretical particle packing models are that they do not consider
source (shape and texture), and only aggregate blending without considering concrete mix
design aspects such as the total aggregate volume, cement paste volume, w/c, and admixture
dosages. Another criticism is that each individual material is characterized by a single sized
91
diameter, while the bulk density used is representative of the graded material (Dewar, 1999). It
is questionable how effective it is to represent a graded material by a single sized diameter.
5.1.2
Analysis of Empirical Charts
The only individual aggregate property required as input for Talbots Grading Curve,
Shilstones Coarseness Factor Chart, and the 8-18 (8-22) Distribution Chart is the particle size
distribution, as compared to the theoretical particle packing models that require the relative and
loose bulk densities in the SSD condition.
The greatest criticisms of the empirical charts are that they do not consider sources (shape and
texture) other than the ones that were used to create these techniques, and only aggregate
blending without considering concrete mix design aspects such as the total aggregate volume,
cement paste volume, w/c, and admixture dosages. Shilstones Coarseness Factor Chart does,
however, take into consideration the cement content when calculating the workability factor.
5.1.2.1
As illustrated in Figure 3.9 to Figure 3.12, the combined aggregate gradations for both binary
and ternary blends fit closely to their respective maximum density lines; however, the ternary
blends are significantly closer. This indicates that with the increasing number of aggregate
sources used for blending, the closer the fit to the maximum density line. The detail of the
particle size distributions measured for each aggregate also affects the results of this
optimization technique. The more detailed the gradations, the more accurate the blending
process.
From previous study of Talbots Grading Curve for n = 0.45, it was indicated that since the
cement particles are not considered during aggregate blending, that the combined aggregate
blends should fall below the maximum density for 600 m and smaller to compensate for the
cement particles (Neville, 1995). As shown in Figure 3.9 to Figure 3.12, all eight cases for
aggregate blending in this study show that the combined gradation curves drop below the
maximum density lines around 600 m and smaller.
5.1.2.2
For Shilstones Coarseness Factor Chart, detailed particle size distributions are not required for
the individual aggregates, since the only values needed to calculate the coarseness and
92
workability factors are the % passing the 9.5 mm and 2.36 mm sieves. It was found from this
study that the maximum coarseness factor possible (coarse aggregate mass proportion is 1.0) is
completely influenced by the choice of coarse aggregate, and can control or safeguard against
mixtures falling in the gap-graded zone, Zone 1.
5.1.2.3
The current research, along with previous studies, has found that it is difficult to get a combined
aggregate blend that falls entirely within the limits of the 8-18 (or 8-22) distribution. For this
study, since none of the combined gradations fit completely within the limits, and even though
the ternary blends generally improved the number of sections of the combined gradations within
of the limits, the combinations of the three particular aggregates selected for this study do not
completely satisfy this techniques requirements. Therefore, the successful application of this
technique is either significantly dependent on the individual gradations of each aggregate source
used, or requires more than three aggregate sources for blending. The current research, along
with previous studies, has also shown that it is not a necessity for combined aggregate blends to
fall within limits to have adequate workability and finishability.
5.2 Analysis of Workability Results

All workability results can be found in Table 4.1. The system for determining the overall
success or failure of the workability for all mixtures is described in Section 3.8. Concrete
mixtures that were successful (passed or barely passed) were then batched again to cast
cylinders and prisms for hardened property testing. Although, five mixes that failed in
workability were also cast, and their hardened properties were analyzed. These mixes include:
Mix #31 (Stage 2, Theory of Particle Mixtures by Dewar model, binary), Mix #41 (Stage 3,
Talbot's Grading Curve, binary, n = 0.55), Mix #45 (Stage 4, control binary, reduced
cementitious content), Mix #52 (Stage 4, Talbot's Grading Curve, ternary, n = 0.45), and Mix
#53 (Stage 4, Shilstone's Coarseness Factor Chart - Zone 2, ternary, CF = 55.8, WF = 37.0).
The governing points of workability failure for this study were: segregation, unacceptable slump
loss, shearing behaviour shown during slump test, and concrete sample being too harsh to insert
the vane or complete rheology testing properly. Each stage had a different set of points of
workability failure, as well as different trends that are described in the follow subsections.
93
5.2.1
The initial target slump for this stage was 230 mm, as this was what was measured for the 35
MPa control mixture, Mix #1.
Slump loss is not a relevant workability indicator. For the second slump test (at 45 minutes after
water and cementitious content contact), none of the mixes displayed shearing behaviour or
unacceptable slump loss. However, a second slump test was not conducted for all mixes,
specifically for the mixes that failed because the vane could not be inserted into the concrete
sample for the first set of rheology tests and the concrete sample was too harsh to complete
rheology testing because the vane could not rotate properly on 1st Flow Curve test. For the
mixes that were too harsh to complete resting with the rheometer, the initial slumps (measured
at 15 minutes after water and cementitious content contact) ranged from 165 mm to 230 mm.
All Flow Curve test results (dynamic yield stress and plastic viscosity) are adequate and less
variable; however, the static yield stress results were more variable, with a larger range, and
more effective in reaffirming the workability of the mixes as characterized by the visual
assessment, and the rheometers test limitations.
For the first slump test, all of the measured slumps were above 165 mm (Mix #7). An example
of a mixture that did not segregate and was fluid was Mix #18 (Shilstone's Coarseness Factor
Chart - Zone 2, ternary, CF = 64.2, WF = 35.7). Figure 5.1 shows the flowability and cohesion
of Mix #18 after the first slump test.
94
Figure 5.1: Flowability and Cohesion of First Slump Test for Mix #18 (Shilstone's Coarseness Factor Chart Zone 2, ternary, CF = 64.2, WF = 35.7)
Chronological governing points of failure in workability tests for this stage include:
Concrete sample was too harsh to insert vane for first set of rheology tests (Mix #s 7, 16,
17, and 22);
Concrete sample was too harsh to complete rheology tests because the vane could not
rotate properly on 1st Flow Curve test (Mix #s 15 and 21);
rotate properly on 2nd Flow Curve test (Mix #s 14 and 19);
Mixture segregation (Mix #s 7, 16, 17, and 22). The segregation of Mix #17 (Shilstone's
Coarseness Factor Chart - Zone 2, ternary, CF = 72.7, WF = 32.7) after 5 minutes of the
first slump test is illustrated in Figure 5.2.
95
Figure 5.2: Segregation of Mix #17 (Shilstone's Coarseness Factor Chart - Zone 2, ternary, CF = 72.7, WF =
32.7) after First Slump Test
5.2.2

0.39
MPa control mixture, Mix #1.
For the first slump test (at 15 minutes after water and cementitious content contact), all of the
measured slumps were above 215 mm (Mix #31). None of the mixes failed due to segregation.
However, slump loss and shearing behaviour, and the visual assessment were relevant
workability indicators.
All Flow Curve test results (dynamic yield stress and plastic viscosity) were adequate and less
variable (with the exception of Mix #31); however, the static yield stress results were more
variable, with a larger range, and more effective in reaffirming the workability of the mixes as
characterized by the slump loss and failure behaviour, visual assessment, and the rheometers
test limitations.
In comparison to Stage #1, the Flow Curve test measurements for plastic viscosity are notably
higher, which could be due to both a decrease in paste volume fraction and increase in aggregate
fraction. A higher viscosity yields longer workability retention and improves segregation
resistance.
96
rotate properly on 1st Flow Curve test (Mix #30);
rotate properly on 2nd Flow Curve test (Mix #28);
The second slump test displayed shearing behaviour (Mix #30). Two consecutive tests
on different samples confirmed failure;
Slump loss of 75 mm (Mix #31). This second slump for Mix #31 (Theory of Particle
Mixtures by Dewar, binary) is illustrated in Figure 5.3.
Figure 5.3: Result of Second Slump Test for Mix #31 (Theory of Particle Mixtures by Dewar, binary)
5.2.3
MPa control mixture, Mix #32d.
measured slumps were above 205 mm (Mix #40). None of the mixes failed due to segregation.
However, slump loss and shearing behaviour were relevant workability indicators.
Plastic viscosity measurements from Flow Curve test results were adequate and less variable.
The static yield stress results were also less variable; however, the dynamic yield stress results
97
were more variable, with a larger range, and more effective in reaffirming the workability of the
mixes as characterized by the slump loss and failure behaviour, and visual assessment.
In comparison to Stage #1, the Flow Curve test measurements for dynamic yield stress were
notably higher, which could be due to a decrease in w/c ratio.
The second slump test displayed shearing behaviour (Mix #41). Two consecutive tests
on different samples confirmed failure;
Slump loss of 80 mm (Mix #40) and 100 mm (Mix #39).
5.2.4

0.33
MPa control mixture, Mix #32d.
measured slumps were above 220 mm (Mix #s 44c and 45). None of the mixes failed due to
segregation. However, slump loss and the visual assessment were relevant workability
indicators
All Flow Curve test results (dynamic yield stress and plastic viscosity) were adequate and less
variable; however, the static yield stress results were more variable, with a larger range, and
more effective in reaffirming the workability of the mixes as characterized by the slump loss
and visual assessment.
In comparison to Stage #3, the Flow Curve test measurements for dynamic yield stress were
notably lower, and notably higher for plastic viscosity. Lower dynamic yield stress could be
attributed to an increase in high-range water reducing admixture, Eucon 37, increasing
flowability. Higher plastic viscosity could be attributed to a dual decrease in paste volume
fraction and increase in aggregate fraction. A higher viscosity yields longer workability
retention and improves segregation resistance.
98
rotate properly on 1st Flow Curve test (Mix #45);
rotate properly on 2nd Flow Curve test (Mix #s 52 and 53);
5.2.5
Slump loss of 140 mm (Mix #45).
Workability Boxes for Shilstones Coarseness Factor Charts
Based on the mixtures with sufficient workability results, workability boxes were produced for
each stage, specific to the aggregate sources and mixtures proportions used in this study
(including cement paste volume, total aggregate volume, w/c, and admixture dosages) as shown
in Figure 5.4 to Figure 5.7. The workability boxes define the areas where mixes with sufficient
workability are located on the Coarseness Factor Chart.
Figure 5.4: Coarseness Factor Chart Workability Box for Stage 1 Mixes
99
100
The workability boxes in Figure 5.4 and Figure 5.5 include all mixtures with sufficient
workability from Stages 1 and 2, respectively. The workability boxes for Stages 3 and 4 were
more difficult to define. The Stage 3 workability box includes all mixtures with sufficient
workability, as well as two mixtures that failed, Mix #s 40 and 41 (Talbots Grading Curve,
binary, n = 0.40 and 0.55, respectively). The Stage 4 workability box includes all mixtures with
sufficient workability, except for Mix #51 (Talbots Grading Curve, binary, n = 0.55).
The workability boxes produced for this study, as compared to the workability box in Zone 2
developed by the Texas Department of Transportation, are much larger, which can be attributed
to either the different aggregate sources used or different criteria set to define sufficient
workability. Producing workability boxes by stage was only possible because if the stages were
combined to produce one workability box, it would be impossible to define one area that would
not include mixes with insufficient workability. Further validation of these workability boxes
would be required as they are estimations only based on the scope of the current test results.
101
5.2.6
Slump and Static Yield Stress Correlation
Slump and static yield stress cannot be compared statistically as they are measured in different
units; however, a correlation graph can be produced to determine how well the static yield stress
can be predicted knowing the slump.
The correlation between the slump and static yield stress values, found in Table 4.1, was
evaluated for each stage of the mixtures with sufficient workability, as the variations in mixture
constituent proportions inherently affect measurement results. Figure 5.8 to Figure 5.11
illustrate the correlations graphically per stage with trend lines and their respective R2 values.
The R2 values for all stages indicate a weak correlation between static yield stress and slump
(highest of 0.57 for Stage 4 and lowest of 0.01 for Stage 3); however, the small sample size and
reduced sensitivity of slump measuring could possibly be underestimating the true relationship
between these two workability properties.
Figure 5.8: Static Yield Stress vs. Slump for Stage 1 Mixes
102
103
5.2.7
Analysis of Rheology Test Results
The results from the rheology tests using the ICAR rheometer were analyzed by stage and
rheological property measured for each mix (2 repetitions of static yield stress, dynamic yield
stress, and plastic viscosity). Figure 5.12 to Figure 5.35 show graphically the ranges of values
measured for each rheological property (includes 2 repetitions) for each stage, arranged by the
mix evaluation of Pass, Barely Pass, and Fail as defined in Section 3.8. All rheology test
results are shown in Table 4.1.
For Stage 1, comparing between the ranges of the mixes that passed, barely passed and failed in
Figure 5.12 to Figure 5.17, all ranges overlap with the exception of Figure 5.15 for the failed
mixes of the second repetition of static yield stress, which were much higher. The highest value
for the Barely Pass mixes was 1,091 Pa, as opposed to the lowest value for the Fail mixes of
4,101 Pa. However, there is a general trend for both static yield stress repetitions and plastic
viscosity repetitions to result in an increase in value ranges from Pass to Fail mixes. The
dynamic yield stress repetitions do not follow a general trend in increasing or decreasing in
value ranges from Pass to Fail mixes. It should be noted that going from the first Stress
Growth Test to the Flow Curve Test, Mix #s 15 and 21 were not continued with, as well as from
the second Stress Growth Test to the Flow Curve Test with Mix #s 14 and 19 as they were too
harsh to complete the Flow Curve Tests. Comparing between the Pass and Barely Pass
mixes of the repetitions for each rheological property, the static yield stress results had similar
ranges of 245 Pa 1,224 Pa for the first repetition and 248 Pa 1,091 Pa for the second
repetition. The second static yield stress measurements shown in Figure 5.15 had very little
overlap, and shows promise for use as a way of determining mixtures with suitable workability.
The dynamic yield stress results had similar ranges of 49 Pa 174 Pa for the first repetition and
33 Pa 222 Pa for the second repetition. The plastic viscosity results had similar ranges of 27
Pas 86 Pas for the first repetition and 36 Pas 108 Pas for the second repetition. This
indicates that the repeatability was good for the mixes that passed and barely passed, and the
performance of the water-reducing admixtures did not diminish greatly after 45 minutes.
104
Figure 5.12: Stage 1, Static Yield Stress 1 Results Arranged by Workability Sufficiency
105
Figure 5.14: Stage 1, Plastic Viscosity 1 Results Arranged by Workability Sufficiency
106
Figure 5.18 to Figure 5.23, all ranges do not overlap with the exception of: Figure 5.19 for the
107
Pass and Fail mixes of the first repetition of dynamic yield stress; Figure 5.21 for the Pass
and Barely Pass mixes of the second repetition of static yield stress; and Figure 5.23 for the
Pass and Barely Pass mixes of the second repetition of plastic viscosity. All the rheological
property repetitions do not follow a general trend in increasing or decreasing in value ranges
from Pass to Fail mixes. It should be noted that going from the first Stress Growth Test to
the Flow Curve Test, Mix # 30 was not continued with, as well as from the second Stress
Growth Test to the Flow Curve Test with Mix # 28 as they were too harsh to complete the Flow
Curve Tests. Comparing between the Pass and Barely Pass mixes of the repetitions for each
rheological property, the static yield stress results had similar ranges of 321 Pa 759 Pa for the
first repetition and 432 Pa 974 Pa for the second repetition. However, the range for the second
repetition had slightly higher values. The dynamic yield stress results had similar ranges of 51
Pa 118 Pa for the first repetition and 59 Pa 129 Pa for the second repetition. The plastic
viscosity results had similar ranges of 64 Pas 106 Pas for the first repetition and 72 Pas
133 Pas for the second repetition. This indicates that the repeatability was generally good for
the mixes that passed and barely passed, and the performance of the water-reducing admixtures
did not diminish greatly.
108
109
110
Figure 5.24 to Figure 5.29, all ranges overlap with the exception of Figure 5.28 for the Pass
and Fail mixes of the second repetition of dynamic yield stress. All the rheological property
repetitions do not follow a general trend in increasing or decreasing in value ranges from Pass
to Fail mixes. Comparing between the Pass and Barely Pass mixes of the repetitions for
each rheological property, the static yield stress results had ranges of 514 Pa 841 Pa for the
first repetition and 481 Pa 1,251 Pa for the second repetition. The lower range values were
similar; however, the higher range value for the second repetition was notably higher. The
dynamic yield stress results had ranges of 135 Pa 285 Pa for the first repetition and 195 Pa
407 Pa for the second repetition, which are considerably different. The plastic viscosity results
had similar ranges of 35 Pas 63 Pas for the first repetition and 40 Pas 65 Pas for the
second repetition. This indicates that the repeatability was not as good for the mixes that passed
and barely passed for Stage 3 as opposed to Stages 1 and 2. The diminishing performance of the
water-reducing admixture dosages could have a considerable effect on the repeatability of the
rheology tests.
111
112
113
Figure 5.30 to Figure 5.35, all ranges overlap with the exception of: Figure 5.33 for the Pass
and Barely Pass mixes of the second repetition of static yield stress; and Figure 5.35 for the
114
Pass and Barely Pass mixes of the second repetition of plastic viscosity. All the rheological
property repetitions do not follow a general trend in increasing or decreasing in value ranges
from Pass to Fail mixes. It should be noted that going from the first Stress Growth Test to
the Flow Curve Test, Mix # 45 was not continued with, as well as from the second Stress
Growth Test to the Flow Curve Test with Mix #s 52 and 53 as they were too harsh to complete
the Flow Curve Tests. Comparing between the Pass and Barely Pass mixes of the
repetitions for each rheological property, the static yield stress results had ranges of 312 Pa
840 Pa for the first repetition and 413 Pa 1,449 Pa for the second repetition. The range for the
second repetition had higher values. The dynamic yield stress results had ranges of 31 Pa 86
Pa for the first repetition and 17 Pa 168 Pa for the second repetition. The lower range values
were similar; however, the higher range value for the second repetition was notably higher. The
plastic viscosity results had similar ranges of 50 Pas 116 Pas for the first repetition and 75
Pas 124 Pas for the second repetition. This indicates that the repeatability was not as good for
the mixes that passed and barely passed for Stage 4 as opposed to Stages 1 and 2. The
diminishing performance of the water-reducing admixture dosages could have a considerable
effect on the repeatability of the rheology tests.
115
116
117
Since many of the rheology test results have overlapping ranges for the mixes that passed,
barely passed and failed for all stages, it is difficult to define numerical ranges for static and
dynamic yield stress, and plastic viscosity that would ensure satisfactory workability. The most
likely candidate for a workability parameter obtained from Stage 1 and 2 results is the second
set of static yield stress values.
5.2.8
35 MPa Concrete Mixtures with Successful Workability
The mixes with successful workability for both Stages 1 and 2 35 MPa concrete mixtures are
shown in Table 5.1. For Stage 1, there were 12 mixes with successful workability, including the
control binary mix. The mixtures that had better workability results than the control binary
mixture were: i) Shilstone's Coarseness Factor Chart - Zone 2, ternary, CF = 64.2, WF = 39.9,
ii) Talbot's Grading Curve (binary) [n=0.45]; iii) Talbot's Grading Curve (binary) [n=0.50]; and
iv) Particle packing model (binary) [Toufar]. For Stage 2, there were 5 mixes with successful
workability, including the control binary mix. All 4 mixes had better workability results than the
control binary mixture.
118
Table 5.1: Stages 1 and 2 35 MPa Concrete Mixtures with Successful Workability
Stage 1
Control (binary)
2, ternary, CF = 64.2, WF = 35.7
2, ternary, CF = 64.2, WF = 39.9
Stage 2
content
Shilstone's Coarseness Factor Chart - Zone 2,

ternary, CF = 58.3, WF = 38.6
As can be seen from Table 5.1, the most successful optimization techniques for both stages are
the Talbots Grading Curve, Modified Toufar Model, and Shilstones Coarseness Factor Chart.
The Theory of Particle Mixtures Model by Dewar was only successful for Stage 1; however,
that binary Mix #4 barely passed.
5.2.9
50 MPa Concrete Mixtures with Successful Workability
The mixes with successful workability for both Stages 3 and 4 50 MPa concrete mixtures are
shown in Table 5.2. For Stage 3, there were 9 mixes with successful workability, including the
control binary mix. All mixes had better workability results than the control binary mixture,
except for Shilstone's Coarseness Factor Chart - Zone 2, ternary, CF = 58.3, WF = 40.4. For
Stage 4, there were 7 mixes with successful workability, not including the control binary mix.
Hence, all mixes had better workability results than the control binary mixture.
Table 5.2: Stages 3 and 4 50 MPa Concrete Mixtures with Successful Workability
Stage 3
Control (binary)
Stage 4
119

2, ternary, CF = 58.3, WF = 44.6
2, ternary, CF = 58.3, WF = 40.4

Shilstone's Coarseness Factor Chart - Zone 2,
ternary, CF = 55.8, WF = 41.2
As can be seen from Table 5.2, the most successful optimization techniques for both stages are
the same as for Stages 1 and 2, including the Talbots Grading Curve, Modified Toufar Model,
and Shilstones Coarseness Factor Chart. The Theory of Particle Mixtures Model by Dewar was
not successful.
5.3 Analysis of Compressive Strength Results

As previously stated, two cylinders were tested at each test age in the saturated surface dry
condition. The ages tested were 1, 3, 7, 28, 56 and 91 days. The average peak stress results from
the compressive strength tests for each test age are shown in Table 4.2. The individual cylinder,
as well as average, peak compressive strength results are shown in Appendix F. The average
diameter (two top and two bottom measurements) and the resulting peak load of each cylinder
were measured and recorded. The individual compressive strengths were calculated from these
measurements. An average of the two compressive strength results per test age was calculated
for all mixes, with the only exception of Mix #42 at 28days where the first cylinder peak load
was disregarded due to improper alignment over the top and bottom bearing plates.
For some cylinders, most notably the 1 day tests, were tested a day later due to setting, machine
or timing issues. For all ages, with the exception of the 1 day tests, the specimen ends were
ground. For the 1 day test specimens, the end conditions varied, and are noted in Appendix F.
Some were ground, and others were unground (too soft to grind) and were either capped or not.
The ground specimens were Mix #s 18, 20, 34, 35, 48, 49-1, 49-2, 51, 52 and 53, and were all 2
days old when tested. The unground specimens that were capped were Mix #s 24b, 25e, 27, 29,
31, 36, 44c, 45, 46, 47 and 50, and were all 1 day old when tested. The unground specimens that
were not capped were of Mix #s 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 32d, 33, 36, 37, 38, 41, 42 and
43, and were 1 day old when tested with the exception of Mix #s 1, 2, 5 and 9 (2 days old).
Two compressive strength testing machines certified to ASTM E4 were used for this study. For
all mixes, up to and including the 28 day specimens were tested on the same machine
120
(Manufacturer: Sartell Instruments, Load Capacity of 2000 kN). For all mixes, the 56 day and
91 day specimens were tested on another testing machine (Manufacturer: Forney, Load Capacity
of 3000 kN).
The variation in end condition for the 1 day specimens and testing machines did affect the peak
compressive strength results. However, with respect to the variation in testing machines used, it
is consistent across ages; therefore, the results are comparable between each other.
It was observed that Mix #s 8 (Talbots Grading Curve, binary, n = 0.4) and 2-A2 (Modified
Toufar, binary, Supply #2 coarse aggregate only) have the same aggregate material volume
proportions (refer to Appendix A); therefore, their results are expected to be similar. When
comparing the results of Mix #s 2 and 8, they had statistically similar compressive strengths at
28 days, which were slightly less than 35 MPa; however, Mix #2 achieved 46.8 MPa at 91 days
as opposed to Mix #8 with 40.9 MPa. Refer to Appendix I for statistical analysis of 28 day
compressive strength results.
Also, Mix #49 was cast twice (with the same coarse aggregate supply; Supply #3); therefore,
both sets of results are expected to be similar. When comparing the results of Mix #s 49-1 and
49-2, they had statistically similar compressive strengths at 28 days, which were greater than 50
MPa; however, Mix #49-2 achieved 70.6 MPa at 91 days as opposed to Mix #49-1 with 64.0
MPa. Refer to Appendix I for statistical analysis of 28 day compressive strength results.
The smoothness of the ground end surfaces was checked using the ASTM C 39 procedure to
ensure that the compressive strength results would not be significantly affected by the planeness
of the end surface condition. The end surfaces that were checked were the specimens of Mix #s
44c, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49-1, 49-2, 51, 52 and 53 at 56 days. An average of three thickness
measurements were taken per surface, and then an average of the top and bottom surfaces for
each cylinder was calculated. The limit of plane deviation specified in ASTM C 39 is 0.05 mm,
and the results in Appendix J confirm that the majority of the ends, except for the average of one
cylinder of Mix #s 49-1 and 51, fail this check as plane deviation was greater than 0.05 mm
(greatest plane deviation was 0.08 mm). Therefore, the end surface condition of the cylinders
could have an effect by creating stress concentrations, ultimately reducing the compressive
strength results.
121
Not all mixes for Stages 1 and 2 had 28 day compressive strength results, as shown in Table 4.2,
equal to or greater than 35 MPa including: Mix #2 (Stage 1, Modified Toufar Particle Packing
Model, binary), Mix #4 (Stage 1, Theory of Particle Mixtures by Dewar Model, binary), Mix #8
(Stage 1, Talbot's Grading Curve, binary, n = 0.40), and Mix #9 (Stage 1, Talbot's Grading
Curve, binary, n = 0.45). The control binary mixture (Mix #1) had a 28 day compressive
strength of 42.0 MPa.
Mix #18 had statistically significantly higher 28 day strength than the control binary mixture,
with a value 50.8 MPa. Ten mixes, had significantly comparable compressive strength
development results to the control binary mixture at 28 days above 35 MPa: Mix #5 (Stage 1,
Modified Toufar particle packing model, ternary), Mix #10 (Stage 1, Talbot's Grading Curve,
binary, n = 0.50), Mix #11 (Stage 1, Talbot's Grading Curve, binary, n = 0.55), Mix #12 (Stage
1, Talbot's Grading Curve, ternary, n = 0.40), Mix #13 (Stage 1, Talbot's Grading Curve,
ternary, n = 0.45), Mix #20 (Stage 1, Shilstone's Coarseness Factor Chart - Zone 2, ternary, CF
= 58.3, WF = 39.9), Mix #25e (Stage 2, Talbot's Grading Curve, binary, n = 0.45), Mix #26
(Stage 2, Shilstone's Coarseness Factor Chart - Zone 2, ternary, CF = 55.8, WF = 38.6), Mix #27
(Stage 2, Talbot's Grading Curve, ternary, n = 0.40), and Mix #29 (Stage 2, control binary,
reduced cementitious content). Mix #s 10, 13, 20 and 27 had better 28 day strength than the
control binary mixture. Mix #31 (Stage 2, Theory of Particle Mixtures by Dewar model, binary)
failed in terms of workability; however, it had statistically significantly better 28 day strength
than the control binary mixture with a value of 45.6 MPa. Refer to Appendix I for statistical
analysis of 28 day compressive strength results.
All mixes for Stages 3 and 4 had 28 day compressive strength results greater than 50 MPa. The
control binary mixture (Mix #32d) had the highest 28 day compressive strength of 72.1 MPa.
Twelve mixes had statistically comparable compressive strength results to the control binary
mixture at 28 days: Mix #s 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 43, 44c, 46, 47, 49, and 51. Four mixes, Mix
#41 (Stage 3, Talbot's Grading Curve, binary, n = 0.55), Mix #45 (Stage 4, control binary,
reduced cementitious content), Mix #52 (Stage 4, Talbot's Grading Curve, ternary, n = 0.45),
and Mix #53 (Stage 4, Shilstone's Coarseness Factor Chart - Zone 2, ternary, CF = 55.8, WF =
37.0), failed in terms of workability; however, they were statistically comparable to the control
binary mixture at 28 day compressive strength. Refer to Appendix I for statistical analysis of 28
day compressive strength results.
122
5.4 Analysis of Linear Drying Shrinkage Results

As previously stated, the length changes of three prisms per mix were measured in accordance
with the OPSS LS-435 R23 procedure at ages of 1, 7, 14, 28, 35, 56, and 91 days. Length
change values following the ASTM C 157 procedure were also calculated. The average length
change results following both procedures are shown in Table 4.3. The individual, as well as
average, length change results are shown in Appendix G. The gauge length of each prism was
measured and recorded before casting. The mass and difference between the reference bar and
comparator reading (CRD) of each individual prism were measured and recorded for each test
age. The individual prism length change values were calculated using the gauge length, CRD at
the specific age, and the 7 day CRD as the initial CRD (after 7 days curing in lime-saturated
water, as per OPSS LS-435 R23). An average length change was then calculated from the three
prism length change results. Length change measurements following the ASTM C 157
procedure using the 1 day CRD as the initial CRD are also recorded in Appendix G.
To maintain consistency between mass and linear drying shrinkage results, the same
comparator, scale, and reference bar were used. Changes in the reference bar length (compared
to another reference bar) were measured and recorded monthly, and used to compensate for any
length change in the reference bar.
Some tests, most notably the 1 day and 7 day tests, were done at a later age due to setting,
comparator or timing issues. Mix #s 18, 20, 32d, 33, 34, 35, 44c, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49-1, 49-2, 51,
52, and 53 were tested at 2 days rather than 1 day as they were de-moulded after 2 days. Mix #s
4, 8, 10, 11, 12, and 13 were tested at 8 days rather than 7 days. Therefore, since the initial CRD
values are based on the 7 day measurements for OPSS LS-435 R23, the length change
measurements will be affected for all these mixes as the specimens were left to cure to limesaturated water for one less or one extra day.
Toufar, binary, Supply #2 coarse aggregate only) have the same aggregate material volume
proportions (refer to Appendix A); therefore, their results are expected to be similar. When
comparing the results of Mix #s 2 and 8, Mix #2 had statistically significantly lower shrinkage
at 35 days; however its rate of increase in shrinkage with age was greater. From 14 days to 91
days, shrinkage increased by a factor of 4.24 for Mix #2 and 2.45 for Mix #8. However, the
123
initial CRDs were based on 7 day measurements for Mix #2 and 8 days for Mix #8. This could
explain the overall lower shrinkage of Mix #2. Refer to Appendix K for statistical analysis of 35
day linear drying shrinkage results.
Also, Mix #49 was cast twice (with the same coarse aggregate supply; Supply #3); therefore,
both sets of results are expected to be similar. These mixes were also cast on the same day, so
all of the testing dates are the same. When comparing the results of Mix #s 49-1 and 49-2, they
had similar linear drying shrinkage results over the entire testing period. When comparing the
results specifically at 35 days of age, their results were statistically insignificantly different. This
indicates that there was consistency in measuring the CRD values. Refer to Appendix K for
statistical analysis of 35 days of age linear drying shrinkage results.
The mass of every prism was also recorded on every test day, and the values are shown in
Appendix G. The trends in average mass reduction for all 35 MPa and 50 MPa mixes are shown
graphically in Appendix L, and were used to check that there were no discrepancies with the
specimens. The mass reductions for all mixes display the same trend of an increase in mass
between the ages of 1 day (30 minutes submersion in lime-saturated water, surface dry) and 7
days (cured in lime-saturated water since de-moulding, surface dry) as the concrete swells, and
then a decrease for the rest of the testing period as the specimens were cured in a drying room
with relative humidity of 50%. This trend shows consistency between mixture specimens, and
indicates that possible erroneous data cannot be attributed to specimen discrepancies.
For both the 35 MPa and 50 MPa mixes with successful workability, the majority of the mixes
exhibited greater shrinkage than the controls, Mix #s 1 and 32d, respectively. For the 35 MPa
mix with failed workability, Mix #31, its measured shrinkage was the greatest compared to all
35 MPa mixes, and had statistically significantly higher shrinkage than the control at 35 days.
Refer to Appendix K for statistical analysis of 35 days of age linear drying shrinkage results.
For the 50 MPa mixes with failed workability (Mix #s 41, 45, 52 and 53), their shrinkage
measurements were also greater than the control, Mix #32d. At 35 days, the shrinkage for Mix
#s 52 and 53 are statistically comparable to the control, while for Mix #s 41 and 45 they have
statistically significantly higher shrinkage than the control. Refer to Appendix K for statistical
analysis of 35 days of age linear drying shrinkage results.
124
CSA A23.1 specifies an acceptable shrinkage limit for low-shrinkage concrete of 0.040% after 7
days of wet curing during 28 days of drying, as does MTO for repair concrete. Using this
criterion to analyze the results of this study, only a select set of 35 MPa and 50 MPa mixes had
less shrinkage than 0.040% at the age of 35 days, as shown in Figure 5.36 and Figure 5.37. For
both strength concretes, the controls were under the acceptable shrinkage limit.
Figure 5.36: Linear Drying Shrinkage vs. Time of Drying for 35 MPa Mixes within Acceptable Limit at 28
Days of Drying
Figure 5.37: Linear Drying Shrinkage vs. Time of Drying for 50 MPa Mixes within Acceptable Limit at 28
Days of Drying
For 35 MPa, only four mixes, Mix #s 1, 2, 5, 9, are lower than the acceptable shrinkage limit.
Mix #s 2, 5, and 9 all have statistically comparable shrinkage results at 35 days of age to the
control, and all have a cementitious content of 360 kg/m3. For 50 MPa, seven mixes, Mix #s
125
32d, 33, 44c, 45, 46, 52 and 53, are lower than the acceptable shrinkage limit; however Mix #s
45, 52 and 53 all failed during the workability phase. Mix #s 33 and 45 had statistically
significantly higher shrinkage than the control, Mix #32d, for shrinkage at 35 days of age;
however the rest, Mix #s 44c and 46, were statistically comparable to the control for shrinkage
at 35 days of age. Refer to Appendix K for statistical analysis of 35 days of age linear drying
shrinkage results. Both these mixes have a reduced cementitious content of 390 kg/m3. It was
expected that more mixes, especially from Stages 2 and 4 with the reduced cementitious
contents for the 35 MPa and 50 MPa mix designs, respectively, would have comparable or
lower shrinkage results than the controls since their cement paste fractions decreased by
approximately 8% and 16%, respectively.
The results (including failed mixes with workability) were then analyzed by cast date, as shown
in Figure 5.38 to Figure 5.46, to verify that the shrinkage results are accurate, even though the
procedure for measuring length change was consistent. The procedures for OPSS and ASTM are
also compared in Figure 5.38 to Figure 5.46, specifically to check the difference in shrinkage
with the acceptable shrinkage limit at 35 days of age. It should be noted, however, that the
curing procedure for ASTM differs from OPSS, specifying after an initial reading at 1 day,
submersion of specimens in lime-saturated water until an age of 28 days, then beyond 28 days a
choice between wet or dry curing.
Figure 5.38: Linear Drying Shrinkage vs. Time of Drying for January 4, 2011 Cast Date
126
127
128
Figure 5.46: Linear Drying Shrinkage vs. Time of Drying for May 12, 2011 Cast Date
The only possible discrepancies found in the shrinkage results are from January 12 and 31 cast
dates at 21 days of drying (Figure 5.40 and Figure 5.45), as these results fluctuate, not
displaying a progressive increase in shrinkage. The reason for the fluctuation is uncertain as
shrinkage measurements for other mixes on surrounding testing days were not affected. There is
a possibility that when this set of prisms was put back in the drying room, there was not enough
space left surrounding the specimens to circulate air around them; however, due to a frequent
series of testing dates from January, 2011 to April, 2011, the specimens were shuffled around
and changed positions often. These discrepancies are most likely due to a systematic error, and
therefore were disregarded. The dial stand and comparator bar may have not been working
129
properly on those particular dates, for example due to sand or grit becoming lodged in the lower
measurement collar.
Results for the ASTM procedure (with the curing regime of OPSS) were incrementally lower
than the OPSS procedure results. The results at 35 days of age for the control mixes, Mix #s 1
and 32d, are statistically significantly different at a 90% confidence level. However, the ASTM
procedure was modified by following the curing procedure in the OPSS procedure. Refer to
Appendix M for statistical analysis of 35 day linear drying shrinkage results.
For January 4 cast date, all shrinkage at 35 days (28 days after 7 days of curing in lime-saturated
water) was lower than the acceptable limit of 0.040%. For January 10 cast date, the only mixes
that were lower than the acceptable limit of 0.040% at 35 days of age were Mix #s 8, 10, 11, 12
and 13 following the ASTM procedure. For January 12 cast date, all shrinkage values at 35 days
of age were lower than the acceptable limit, except for Mix #s 18, 20, 34 and 35 following the
OPSS procedure. For January 17 cast date, the only mixes that were lower than the acceptable
limit of 0.040% at 35 days of were Mix #s 36 and 38 following the ASTM procedure. For
January 25 cast date, all mixes following the ASTM procedure were lower than the acceptable
limit of 0.040% at 35 days of age while the shrinkage values following the OPSS procedure
were greater. For January 26 cast date, all shrinkage at 35 days of age was lower than the
acceptable limit of 0.040%. For January 31 cast date, all shrinkage at 35 days of age was lower
than the acceptable limit of 0.040%, with the exception of Mix #s 48, 49-1, 49-2 and 51
following the OPSS procedure. For May 12 cast date, all shrinkage follow the ASTM procedure
at 35 days of age was lower than the acceptable limit of 0.040%.
For some mixes at an age of 14 days using the ASTM procedure, the length change results were
positive, indicating expansion. The results are shown in Appendix G for Mix #s 11, 27, 29, 31,
47, 50 and 52, with the highest expansion for Mix #31 at 0.009%. Comparing between the
ASTM and OPSS, ASTM results will display incrementally lower shrinkage because the
specimens expand after 7 days of submersion in lime-saturated water (compared to the 1 day
measurements after 30 minutes of submersion in lime-saturated water). In many cases, mixes
that exhibited greater shrinkage at 35 days than the acceptable limit of 0.040% following the
OPSS procedure passed below the limit following the ASTM procedure.
130
If the acceptable shrinkage limit were increased from 0.040% to 0.050% at 28 days of drying,
several more mixes would meet this criterion. All 35 MPa mixes, fall below 0.050% at 28 days
of drying with the exception of only three mixes including: Mix #4 with 0.055%, Mix #8 with
0.055, and Mix #31 with 0.060%. However, Mix #31 failed during the workability phase. All 50
MPa mixes, fall below 0.050% at 28 days of drying with the exception of only two mixes
including: Mix #37 with 0.053%, and Mix #38 with 0.052%. The ASTM C 157 test method has
stated a precision for air dried samples with an expected difference between two means, each
mean based on three replicates, not exceeding 0.0137% with a 95% confidence level. Therefore,
the acceptable shrinkage limit for this study could be raised to 0.0537%, and still be statistically
comparable to 0.040%. If it were raised to 0.0537%, then all 50 MPa mixes would meet this
criterion (including Mix #37 and Mix #38); although, for the 35 MPa mixes it would be the
same outcome as that of increasing the acceptable shrinkage limit from 0.040% to 0.050%.
5.5 Analysis of Bulk Resistivity Results

As previously stated, the resistivity of each mix was measured at ages of 28 days and 56 days
using two different tests methods: ASTM C 1202 Standard Test Method for Electrical
Indication of Concretes Ability to Resist Chloride Ion Penetration, and the Merlin Bulk
Conductivity Test. Three slices, each with a nominal thickness of 50 mm, of a 100 mm by 200
mm cylinder were tested for each test. For the Merlin Bulk Conductivity Tester, the three
specimens for each mix were tested consecutively in the sequence from top to bottom, while for
ASTM C 1202, they were tested simultaneously. This consistency in testing procedure ensured
that the resistivity results would be comparable between mixes, but also between the three
specimens of the same mix. The resistivity of the specimens was first measured with the Merlin
test, as it is non-destructive, then afterwards with the RCPT, which is destructive. A verification
cylinder (100 mm by 200 mm), as shown in Figure 3.35 on the left, is supplied for the Merlin
test to ensure the testing equipment is working properly. This verification cylinder was used
before every testing period, and no issues were found with the equipment at any point in time.
The average bulk resistivity results for both the Merlin test and RCPT (for initial 5-minute and
final 6-hour time intervals), and actual charge passed from the RCPT are shown in Table 4.4.
The average and individual bulk resistivity results for both the Merlin test and RCPT (for initial
5-minute and final 6-hour time intervals) are shown in Appendix L. Appendix L also includes
the individual specimens average diameter, thickness, and specific to the RCPT, the initial 5-
131
minute and final 6-hour temperature readings, the actual and adjusted charges passed, chloride
ion penetrability category, and current measured at five minutes (initial) and six hours (final).
All values were output by the test software, with the exception of the RCPT 5-minute and 6hour bulk resistivity values, which were calculated using Equations 3.3 to 3.6, where V = 60 V.
The calculated initial 5-minute bulk resistivity is based on the measured current at 5 minutes
(first measured reading), and the final 6-hour bulk resistivity calculation is based on t = 6 hrs
and Q = Actual Charge Passed (as opposed to Adjusted Charge Passed).
All specimens were conditioned following ASTM C 1202 with the exception of electrical tape
substituting for the electrically non-conductive coating around the cylindrical side surface of the
specimens. However, since the curing regime used for this study was submersion in limesaturated water from time of de-moulding through to the end of the testing period, conditioning
the samples under a vacuum for three hours was redundant. This was verified with the top sliced
specimen from Mix #36 at 28 days using the Merlin test method (as this test is non-destructive
while the RCPT is destructive). There was found to be an insignificant difference between
Merlin test results where conditioning the sample without vacuum saturation was 294.74 m
and with vacuuming was 294.56 m.
Since multiple mixes were cast on the same day, timing for testing all three slices per mix was
an issue. Many mix specimens were tested at ages of 29 days or 57 days, and some at 30 days,
58 days, and 59 days. The mix specimens tested at 29 days were Mix #s 4, 8, 12, 13, 18, 24b,
26, 27, 29, 31, 32d, 34, 35, 36, 38, 41, 43, 44c, 46, 47, 51, and 52. The mix specimens tested at
30 days were Mix #s 10, 11, 25e, 37, and 42. The mix specimens tested at 57 days were Mix #s
1, 5, 8, 10, 24b, 25e, 32d, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 51, and 53. The mix specimens tested at 58 days
were Mix #s 4, 13, 41, and 42. The mix specimens tested at 59 days were that of Mix # 26. Even
though these mix specimens were either 1 day to 3 days older in age, it is to be assumed they are
old enough that the variation in test day would be insignificant, and, hence, are still comparable.
There were some discrepancies with some RCPT measurements that have been excluded or
corrected. This includes discontinuing the RCP testing of the middle slice of Mix #48 at 28 days
since the sample was dropped, and subsequently split, after measuring resistivity with the
Merlin test. Thus, the average 5-minute and 6-hour RCPT bulk resistivity values only included
the top and bottom slice values. Another discrepancy was the measured current value at 5
minutes from RCPT for Mix #11s middle slice at 56 days. The current at five minutes was 23.8
132
mA and at ten minutes was 44.6 mA (with subsequent measurements similar to this), meaning
that it did not stabilize within the first five minutes of testing. The measured current reading at
ten minutes was consequently used for further calculations instead of the current reading
measured current reading at five minutes. There was also a discrepancy with the RCPT
machines measurements for Mix #s 2 and 5s middle slices at 56 days, Mix #20s bottom slice
at 56 days, and Mix #45s top slice at 28 days where the actual and adjusted charges passed, and
measured current at five minutes are all considerably lower than expected; therefore, they have
been excluded. These discrepancies in measurements were from different channels, where Mix
#2 and 5 were from Channel 2, Mix #20 from Channel 6, and Mix #45 from Channel 4.
Therefore, it is not a particular channel that caused these discrepancies, but possibly a particular
unreliable and damaged applied voltage cell.
For complete analysis of the data measured and calculated, the average bulk resistivity values
for each mix of the 35 MPa and 50 MPa mix lists were compared to other respective mixes, and
also compared specifically to their respective control mixes. As mentioned earlier in Section 2.6,
previous research has found a strong linear relationship with the bulk conductivity, and therefore
bulk resistivity, calculated from the initial current (within t < 1 min) measured and the charge
passed calculated over the six hours of RCP testing. This relationship will be evaluated for the
current study of both the Merlin and initial 5-minute RCPT bulk resistivity values with the final
6-hour RCPT bulk resistivity values. The Chloride Ion Penetrability Category for RCPT will be
commented on between the 28-day and 56-days specimens for each mix. The difference in the
current measured at five minutes and six hours will also be commented on, as the current is
expected to increase with increasing temperature.
Toufar, binary, Supply #2 coarse aggregate only) had the same aggregate material volume
proportions (refer to Appendix A); therefore, their results are expected to be similar. The Merlin
test average bulk resistivity measurements for 28 and 56 days, shown in Appendix L, were
147.4 m and 158.0 m, respectively for Mix #2, while they were 164.0 m and 161.1 m,
respectively for Mix #8. Both Merlin bulk resistivity values at 28 days and 56 days are
statistically comparable. Refer to Appendix N for statistical analysis of Merlin bulk resistivity
results. Between Mix #8's Merlin result for both ages, the resistivity at 28 days is higher than the
56 day cylinder, even though the 56 day cylinder should have greater resistivity due to
133
continued hydration, and hence increased discontinuity of the pore structure. The bulk resistivity
values at 28 days for Mix #8 for the top, middle and bottom slices of the cylinder differ with
132.3 m, 171.2 m, and 188.4 m, respectively where the middle and bottom values being
especially higher than the top. This difference is possibly due to the compaction of the fresh
concrete sample into the cylinders. Both average 5-minute and 6-hour bulk resistivity for the
two ages are higher, and the actual and adjusted charges passed are generally lower for Mix #8
than Mix #2. However, for each slice of each age, the chloride ion penetrability category is the
same.
Mix #49 was cast twice (with the same coarse aggregate supply; Supply #3); therefore, both sets
of results are expected to be similar. When comparing the results of Mix #s 49-1 and 49-2, all
measured and calculated values are similar with the exception of the 28-day top slice, as Mix
#49-1s measured current at five minutes, and actual and adjusted charges passed are lower than
the middle and bottom values of its mix and top slice of Mix #49-2. This could be again
attributed to an unreliable or damaged applied voltage cell, although, for each slice of each age,
the chloride ion penetrability category is the same. Both Merlin bulk resistivity values at 28 days
and 56 days are statistically comparable. Refer to Appendix N for statistical analysis of Merlin
bulk resistivity results.
The Chloride Ion Penetrability Categories for the RCPT results, which is based on the adjusted
charge passed (adjusted meaning that the diameter of the specimens is standardized to 95 mm),
were compared. The different categories are shown in Table 5.3. For the 35 MPa mixes, the 28
day results varied between the classification of Low or Very Low, and the 56 day results were all
in the classification of Very Low with the one exception of the top slice for Mix #29. For the 50
MPa mixes, all the results were classified as Very Low.
Table 5.3: Chloride Ion Penetrability Categories for RCPT, adapted from (ASTM C 1202, 2010)
Charge Passed (Coulombs)

> 4,000
2,000 4,000
1,000 2,000
100 1,000
< 100
Chloride Ion Penetrability

High
Moderate
Low
Very Low
Negligible
For RCPT the current should remain constant over the six hours when in reality the temperature
of the pore fluid increases due to heat release from ion-ion and ion-solid collisions, therefore
134
increasing the current flow (Nokken and Hooton, 2006). However, for the majority of specimens
in the current study, the temperature increased (largest increase was 10C) over the six hours of
testing while the current decreased from the initial 5-minute to 6-hour current measured. The
initial (at 5 minutes) and final (at 6 hours) temperatures are shown in Appendix G. This
tendency occurred for all specimens, with the exception for seven specimens: top slices at 28
days for Mix #s 1, 49-1 and 53; middle slice at 28 days for Mix #53; bottom slice at 28 days for
Mix #53; middle slice at 56 days for Mix #36; and bottom slice at 56 days for Mix #20. The
exceptional cases were tested on various days (except for Mix #53) and with various channels
(of the eight channels of the test device). There were also only six test cells that were used for
testing, and they were all used at once; therefore, these exceptional cases cannot be attributed to
one test cell. Hence, the only explanation for the current dropping for the majority of the tested
specimens is an internal RCPT machine error or a build-up of resistance at the electrodes.
Although the RCPT results could be inaccurate, it is still possible that the results could be
consistent since most of the results showed the same trend in the current dropping over the six
hour duration. This was checked by plotting the average RCPT 5-minute bulk resistivity vs.
Merlin bulk resistivity values for both the 35 MPa and 50 MPa mixes, as shown in Figure 5.47
and Figure 5.48.
Figure 5.47: Average RCPT 5-minute Bulk Resistivity vs. Merlin Bulk Resistivity for 35 MPa Mixes
135
Figure 5.48: Average RCPT 5-minute Bulk Resistivity vs. Merlin Bulk Resistivity for 50 MPa Mixes
For most cases, with the exception of one specimen tested (Mix #11 middle slice at 56 days) the
current stabilized within the first five minutes, therefore the correlation between the Merlin test
results and calculated RCPT 5-minute bulk resistivity values is expected to be strong. However,
all correlations were weak, with the two graphs (for both strengths) displaying a slightly weak
correlation with R2 values of 0.54 at 28 days and 0.65 at 56 days for 35 MPa, and 0.58 at 28
days and 0.71 at 56 days for 50 MPa. These weak correlations indicate that the results of the
Merlins instantaneous measurement of bulk resistivity, and the RCPTs calculated initial bulk
resistivity using the measured current at five minutes are not comparable. However, the bulk
resistivity results for both the 35 MPa and 50 MPa control mixes, Mix #1 and Mix #32d, at 28
days and 56 days are statistically comparable with a 90% confidence level. Refer to Appendix O
for statistical analysis of bulk resistivity results.
The correlation between the Merlin bulk resistivity values and calculated RCPT 6-hour bulk
resistivity results was also checked. Figure 5.49 and Figure 5.50 shows the average RCPT 6hour bulk resistivity vs. Merlin bulk resistivity values for both the 35 MPa and 50 MPa mixes.
136
Figure 5.49: Average RCPT 6-hour Bulk Resistivity vs. Merlin Bulk Resistivity for 35 MPa Mixes
Figure 5.50: Average RCPT 6-hour Bulk Resistivity vs. Merlin Bulk Resistivity for 50 MPa Mixes
The correlations for the average 35 MPa concretes were weak with R2 values of 0.23 at 28 days
and 0.69 at 56 days. The correlations of the 50 MPa concretes were moderately weak, except the
R2 value at 56 days was strong. The R2 values for 50 MPa were 0.75 at 28 days and 0.92 at 56
days. The bulk resistivity results for both the 35 MPa and 50 MPa control mixes, Mix #1 and
Mix #32d, at 28 days are statistically comparable, and at 56 days are statistically significantly
different with a 90% confidence level. Refer to Appendix O for statistical analysis of bulk
resistivity results. Since these correlations vary in strength and the statistical significance varies
137
for the control mixes, this indicates that the results of the Merlins instantaneous measurement
of bulk resistivity, and the RCPTs calculated final bulk resistivity using the measured actual
charge passed are not consistently comparable.
The initial and final RCPT bulk resistivity results were thus compared to determine if the RCPT
readings were consistent or precise. Figure 5.51 and Figure 5.52 show the average RCPT 6-hour
bulk resistivity vs. 5-minute bulk resistivity values for both the 35 MPa and 50 MPa mixes.
Figure 5.51: Average RCPT 6-hour Bulk Resistivity vs. 5-minute Bulk Resistivity for 35 MPa Mixes
Figure 5.52: Average RCPT 6-hour Bulk Resistivity vs. 5-minute Bulk Resistivity for 50 MPa Mixes
138
All correlations were generally moderately weak, with the two graphs (for both strengths)
displaying R2 values of 0.73 at 28 days and 0.88 at 56 days for 35 MPa, and 0.84 at 28 days and
0.81 at 56 days for 50 MPa. These moderately weak correlations indicate that the results of the
RCPT calculated initial bulk resistivity using the measured current at five minutes, and the
calculated final bulk resistivity using the measured actual charge passed do not show
consistency. However, the bulk resistivity results for both the 35 MPa and 50 MPa control
mixes, Mix #1 and Mix #32d, at 28 days and 56 days are statistically comparable at a 90%
confidence level. Refer to Appendix O for statistical analysis of bulk resistivity results.
There is a general weakness in the correlations between the bulk resistivity results. Although,
the statistical analysis indicates that even though the RCPT machine is consistent, it is possibly
not accurate in measurements taken over the six-hour duration.
To compare between the 35 MPa and 50 MPa mixes, the Merlin bulk resistivity values were
only considered as the accuracy of the RCPT machine is questionable. Figure 5.53 to Figure
5.56 show the average Merlin bulk resistivity for the 35 MPa and 50 MPa mixes at 28 days and
56 days, for all mixes including the five mixes (one with 35 MPa and four with 50 MPa) that
failed in workability.
Figure 5.53: Average Merlin Bulk Resistivity for 35 MPa at 28 Days
139
140
For the 35 MPa mixes at 28 days, there were only three mixes that had higher bulk resistivity
than the control, Mix #1 with 152.5 m, which were Mix #13 with 179.0 m, Mix #5 with
169.9 m, and Mix #8 with 164.0 m. However, they are all statistically comparable to the
control. Results that were below the control, but statistically comparable to it were Mix #s 2, 9,
4, 20, 10, and 11. At 56 days, there were ten mixes that had higher bulk resistivity than the
control with 155.6 m, which include: Mix #s 9, 5, 18, 13, 11, 10, 20, 8, 2, and 12, ranging in
resistivity from 170.7 m to 157.1 m. However, they are all statistically comparable to the
control. Results that were below the control, but statistically comparable to it were Mix #s 26, 4,
24b, 31 (failed in workability), 25e and 29. Refer to Appendix N for statistical analysis of
Merlin bulk resistivity results.
For the 50 MPa mixes at 28 days, the control, Mix #32d, had the highest bulk resistivity with
333.0 m. The mixes that were statistically comparable to Mix #32d were Mix #s 35, 51, 52
(failed in workability), 49-2, 53 (failed in workability), 34, 49-1, 33, 36, 41 (failed in
workability), and 43. At 56 days, there were ten mixes that had higher bulk resistivity than the
control with 349.2 m, which include: Mix #s 35, 34, 53 (failed in workability), 49-1, 51, 49-2,
33, 41 (failed in workability), 52 (failed in workability), and 36, ranging in resistivity from
449.6 m to 355.0 m. Mix #s 35 and 53 had statistically significantly higher Merlin bulk
resistivity results; however, the rest had statistically comparable results to the control. Results
141
that were below the control, but statistically comparable to it were Mix #s 46 and 45 (failed in
workability). Refer to Appendix N for statistical analysis of Merlin bulk resistivity results.
CSA A23.1 specifies an acceptable charge passed (from the RCPT) of 1500 C for 35 MPa
concrete and 1000 C for 50 MPa concrete at 56 days of age. OPSS specifies an acceptable
charge passed of 1000 C for 50 MPa concrete at 28 days of age. Even though the RCPT results
are questionable, the average actual charge passed values were compared to these limits as
shown in Figure 5.57 to Figure 5.59. For all cases, the results were below the limits specified,
where the highest value at 28 days for the 50 MPa concretes was 859 C for Mix #50; the highest
value at 56 days for the 35 MPa concretes was 1115 C for Mix #25e; and the highest value at 56
days for the 50 MPa concretes was 534 C for Mix #48.
Figure 5.57: Average Actual Charge Passed for 50 MPa at 28 Days
142
Since the RCPT results are questionably inaccurate due to the weak correlation between the
initial and final calculated bulk resistivity values with the Merlin bulk resistivity values, and
also the common discrepancy in the current decreasing while the temperature increases, it is
difficult to verify the reliability and accuracy of the Merlin test results. However, the
verification cylinder provided by Germann Instruments for ensuring the Merlin testing
equipment was working properly was used before every testing period. There were no issues
143
found with the Merlin testing equipment. Since the RCPT is destructive, it is difficult to prevent
erroneous data output. Therefore, the RCPT used for this study is not reliable. The RCPT
machine used for this study should be recalibrated and the equipments measuring output
verified.
5.6 Recommendations for the Ministry of Transportation of

Ontario
The 35 MPa and 50 MPa mixes were further compared based on their workability (based on
slump and rheological properties), compressive strength, linear drying shrinkage (following the
OPSS procedure) and resistivity (based on the Merlin test) results. The acceptable drying
shrinkage maximum value of 0.040% at 28 days after 7 days of curing in lime-saturated water
(age of 35 days) proved to be the limiting factor in evaluating the overall success of both the 35
MPa and 50 MPa mixes. The compressive strength limitations were, depending on the design
strength, a minimum of 35 MPa or 50 MPa at 28 days. CSA A23.1 specifies an acceptable
charge passed (from the RCPT) of 1500 C for 35 MPa concrete and 1000 C for 50 MPa concrete
at 56 days of age. OPSS specifies an acceptable charge passed of 1000 C for 50 MPa concrete at
28 days of age. For all cases, the results were below the limits specified. There were not any
acceptance limits placed on the resistivity values for this study. The chronological governing
points of failure for workability tests included: concrete sample was too harsh to insert vane for
first set of rheology tests; concrete sample was too harsh to complete rheology tests because the
vane could not rotate properly on the first or second Flow Curve test; the second slump test
displayed shearing behaviour; high slump loss; and mixture segregation.
Both control mixes did well overall, meeting all acceptable limits. For every criterion, not only
were the test mixes evaluated for meeting the acceptable limits (if any), they were compared to
their respective control mixs results as well. Table 5.4 and Table 5.5 list the 35 MPa and 50
MPa mixes, respectively, that were successful for each criterion.
144
Table 5.4: Specific Criterion and Overall Successful Mixes for 35 MPa Design Strength
Mix # with 35 MPa Design Strength

Workability
Pass or Barely
pass
1
2
4
5
8
9
10
11
12
13
18
Criterion
Compressive Strength Linear Drying Shrinkage
Comparable to control
Comparable to control and
and Above acceptable
Below acceptable limit
strength
1
1
5
2
10
5
11
9
12
13
18
20
25e
26
27
20
29
24b
31
Above acceptable
strength
24b
25e
26
27
29
Resistivity
Better than
control
1
2
5
8
9
10
11
12
13
18
20
Comparable
to control
4
24b
25e
26
29
31
Overall
1
5
145
Table 5.5: Specific Criterion and Overall Successful Mixes for 50 MPa Design Strength
Mix # with 50 MPa Design Strength

Workability
Pass or
Barely pass
32d
33
34
35
36
37
38
42
43
44c
46
47
48
49
Criterion
Linear Drying
Compressive Strength
Shrinkage
Comparable to
Comparable to control and
control and Below
Above acceptable strength
acceptable limit
32d
32d
33
44c
34
46
35
52
36
53
Below acceptable
37
limit
38
33
41
45
43
44c
45
46
47
49
50
51
51
52
53
Above acceptable strength
42
48
50
Resistivity
Overall
Better than control

32d
33
34
35
36
32d
33
44c
46
41
49
51
52
53
Comparable to control
43
45
46
Lower resistivity (no
limit)
44c
For the 35 MPa mixes, there were two mixes that met all criteria: Mix #1 Control, typical
binary bridge deck mix, cementitious content = 360 kg/m3; and Mix #5 Optimized, modified
Toufar particle packing model (ternary), cementitious content = 360 kg/m3. The test results for
these two mixes are summarized in Table 5.6. It should be noted that the coarse aggregate
supply used for the mixes batched for workability testing during Stage 1 were from Supply #1
and for the mixes batched for hardened property testing, Supply #2. The aggregate volume
proportions did not change from the coarse aggregate supply used as the grain density is the
same for all supplies used. However, the optimization technique used for Mix #5, the modified
146
Toufar particle packing model, requires the individual aggregate gradations as inputs; therefore,
the aggregate volume proportions change with different aggregate supplies.
Table 5.6: Summary of Test Results for 35 MPa Design Mixes Meeting All Criteria
Mix #
Description
Cementitious Content [kg/m3]

Binary or Ternary Aggregate Blend
Concrete Sand [fraction of total aggregate volume]
6.7 mm chip [fraction of total aggregate volume]
Concrete Stone [fraction of total aggregate volume]
Slump @ 15 min [mm]
Slump @ 45 min [mm]
Average Compressive Strength @ 28 d [MPa]
Average Linear Drying Shrinkage @ 35 d (OPSS LS435 procedure) [%]
Average Merlin Bulk Resistivity @ 28 d [m]
Average Actual Charge Passed from RCPT @ 28 d [C]
Average Actual Charge Passed from RCPT @ 56 d [C]
5
Modified Toufar
Typical
particle packing
MTO
model
Bridge
Coarse
Coarse
Deck
Aggregate Aggregate
Mix
Supply #1 Supply #2
360
Binary
0.416
0
0.584
230
230
42
360
Ternary
0.372
0.399
0.184
0.192
0.445
0.410
230
225
36
0.0316
0.0355
153
1300
156
848
170
1239
170
812
A statistical analysis was conducted to compare Mix #s 1, 2, and 5 to ultimately assess the
significance of introducing an intermediately sized aggregate material. Refer to Appendix P for
complete statistical analysis at a 90% confidence level of compressive strength at 28 days; linear
drying shrinkage at 35 days (OPSS method); bulk resistivity (Merlin test) at 28 days and 56
days; slump; static yield stress; dynamic yield stress; and plastic viscosity. Comparisons
between Mix #1 and Mix #2, Mix #1 and Mix #5, and Mix #2 and Mix #5 all showed their
results were statistically insignificantly different. Although the differences were statistically
insignificantly different, comparing between Mix #2 and #5 showed that introducing an
intermediately sized aggregate material resulted in an increase in compressive strength, linear
drying shrinkage, and bulk resistivity.
For the 50 MPa mixes, there were four mixes that met all criteria: Mix #32d Control, typical
binary bridge deck mix, cementitious content = 465 kg/m3; Mix #33 Optimized, Talbot's
147
Grading Curve (binary) [n=0.45], cementitious content = 465 kg/m3; Mix #44c Optimized,
Talbot's Grading Curve (binary) [n=0.50], cementitious content = 390 kg/m3; and Mix #46
Optimized, Talbot's Grading Curve (binary) [n=0.45], cementitious content = 390 kg/m3. The
test results for these four mixes are summarized in Table 5.7.
Table 5.7: Summary of Test Results for 50 MPa Design Mixes Meeting All Criteria
Mix #
Description
Cementitious Content [kg/m3]

Binary or Ternary
Concrete Sand [fraction of total aggregate
volume]
6.7 mm chip [fraction of total aggregate
volume]
Concrete Stone [fraction of total aggregate
volume]
Slump @ 15 min [mm]
Slump @ 45 min [mm]
Average Compressive Strength @ 28 d [MPa]
Average Linear Drying Shrinkage @ 35 d
(OPSS LS-435 procedure) [%]
Average Actual Charge Passed from RCPT @
28 d [C]
Average Actual Charge Passed from RCPT @
56 d [C]
32d
Typical
MTO
Bridge
Deck
Mix
465
Binary
33
44c
46
Talbot's
Grading
Curve
[n=0.45]
Talbot's
Grading
Curve
[n=0.50]
Talbot's
Grading
Curve
[n=0.45]
465
Binary
390
Binary
390
Binary
0.372
0.448
0.409
0.447
0.628
0.552
0.591
0.553
220
175
72
225
185
71
220
185
69
225
215
61
0.0342
0.0397
0.0387
0.0324
333
292
219
213
509
573
664
575
349
369
304
330
381
388
464
443
A statistical analysis was conducted to compare Mix #s 32d, 33, 37, 44c, and 46 to ultimately
assess the significance of reducing the cementitious content from 465 kg/m3 to 390 kg/m3. Refer
to Appendix Q for complete statistical analysis at a 90% confidence level of compressive
strength at 28 days; linear drying shrinkage at 35 days (OPSS method); bulk resistivity (Merlin
test) at 28 days and 56 days; slump; static yield stress; dynamic yield stress; and plastic
viscosity. The design mixes for Talbot's Grading Curve, binary, [n = 0.50], Mix #s 37 and 44c,
and the 50 MPa control, Mix #32d, were first compared. Mix #37 is statistically comparable to
Mix #32d, except that its linear drying shrinkage at 35 days is significantly higher and bulk
resistivity is significantly lower. Mix #44c is statistically comparable to Mix #32d, except that
148
its bulk resistivity is significantly lower. Mix #44c is statistically comparable to Mix #37, except
that its linear drying shrinkage at 35 days and bulk resistivity at 28 days are significantly lower.
Therefore, the reduction in cementitious content caused significant improvements in reducing
drying shrinkage making this mix design comparable to the control. However, its bulk resistivity
decreased at 28 days, and this mix designs bulk resistivity remained significantly lower than
that of the control.
The design mixes for Talbot's Grading Curve, binary, [n = 0.45], Mix #s 33 and 46, and the 50
MPa control, Mix #32d, were also compared. Mix #33 is statistically comparable to Mix #32d,
except that its shrinkage at 35 days is significantly higher. Mix #46 is statistically comparable to
Mix #32d, except that its bulk resistivity at 28 days is significantly lower. Mix #46 is
statistically comparable to Mix #33, except that its shrinkage at 35 days and bulk resistivity is
significantly lower. Therefore, the reduction in cementitious content caused significant
improvements in reducing drying shrinkage making it this mix design comparable to the control.
However, this mix designs bulk resistivity at 28 days was significantly lower than the controls.
Although, there was no acceptable limit placed on the resistivity values for this study.
Table 5.8 shows the combined gradations for the six mixes (including both 35 MPa and 50 MPa
mixes), and the ranges of the combined gradation of % passing that is graphically compared to
the OPSS 1002 grading requirements in Figure 5.60, Figure 5.61, Figure 5.63 and Figure 5.64.
149
Table 5.8: Range of Combined Gradations of 35 MPa and 50 MPa Design Mixes Meeting All Criteria
Design
35 MPa
Strength
Mix #
1
5
CA % vol 0.584 0.584 0.445 0.410
0
0
0.184 0.192
IA % vol
FA % vol 0.416 0.416 0.372 0.399
Coarse
1
2
1
2
Aggregate
Supply
Sieve Size
[mm]
100
100
100
26.5 100
93
94
95
96
19
82
82
87
87
16
55
59
66
71
9.5
49
49
60
63
6.7
43
43
49
52
4.75
38
38
37
39
2.36
29
29
26
28
1.18
19
19
17
19
0.6
9
9
8
8
0.3
3
3
2
3
0.15
1
1
1
1
0.075
0
0
0
0
0
50 MPa
RANGE
32d
33
44c
46
0.628 0.552 0.591 0.553
Combined
0
0
0
0
Gradation
0.372 0.448 0.409 0.447
Min Max
RANGE
Combined
Gradation
Min
Max
100
94
83
61
51
46
41
31
21
9
3
1
0
100
98
91
60
48
42
38
29
19
9
3
1
0
100
98
92
63
51
45
41
31
21
9
3
1
0
100
93
81
56
45
39
34
26
18
8
2
1
0
100
98
92
63
51
46
41
31
21
9
3
1
0
% Passing
100
93
82
55
49
43
37
26
17
8
2
1
0
100
96
87
71
63
52
39
29
19
9
3
1
0
100
93
81
56
45
39
34
26
18
8
2
1
0
Table 5.9 shows the combined gradation range off all six mixes meeting all criteria (Mix #s 1, 5,
32d, 33, 44c and 46), the OPSS 1002 fine and coarse grading requirements, and a combined
gradation using those requirements of 40% fine aggregate and 60% coarse aggregate by mass.
The comparison between the OPSS 1002 grading requirements and all mixes meeting all criteria
is shown graphically in Figure 5.62 and Figure 5.65.
150
Table 5.9: Range of Combined Gradations of All Mixes Meeting All Criteria and OPSS 1002 Grading
Requirements of 40% Fine Aggregate and 60% Coarse Aggregate
Mixes Meeting
All Criteria
(Both Design
Strengths)
OPSS 1002 Requirements

Gradation
Type
Fine
Coarse (19.0
mm)
40% Fine, 60%

Coarse
Combined
Min
Max
Limit Lower Upper Lower Upper

Sieve Size
% Passing
[mm]
100
100
100
100
100
26.5
100
100
85
100
91
19
100
100
65
90
79
16
100
100
20
55
52
9.5
95
100
0
10
38
4.75
80
100
32
2.36
50
85
0
20
1.18
25
60
0
10
0.6
10
30
0
4
0.3
0
10
0
0
0.15
0
3
0
2
0
0.075
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
100
94
73
46
40
34
24
12
4
1
0
Effective
Combined
Lower
Upper
100
93
81
55
39
34
26
17
8
2
1
0
100
98
92
71
52
41
31
21
9
3
1
0
Figure 5.60 illustrates the comparison between the fine and coarse grading envelope limits of
the OPSS 1002 grading requirements, and the grading envelope limits of the 35 MPa design
mixes meeting all criteria successfully (Mix #s 1 and 5) found in Table 5.8. The fine and coarse
grading envelopes based on Mix #s 1 and 5 are narrower than and fall out of the OPSS 1002 fine
and coarse grading envelopes around the intermediate sieve sizes, including 1.18 mm to 16. 0
mm.
151
Figure 5.60: Coarse and Fine Gradations of 35 MPa Design Mixes Meeting All Criteria
Figure 5.61 illustrates the comparison between the fine and coarse grading envelopes of the
OPSS 1002 grading requirements, and the grading envelope of the 50 MPa design mixes
meeting all criteria successfully (Mix #s 32d, 33, 44c and 46) found in Table 5.8. The fine and
coarse grading envelopes based on Mix #s 32d, 33, 44c and 46 are narrower and follow the
same trend as the 35 MPa design mixes falling out of the OPSS 1002 fine and coarse grading
envelopes around the intermediate sieve sizes, including 1.18 mm to 16. 0 mm.
152
Figure 5.61: Coarse and Fine Gradations of 50 MPa Design Mixes Meeting All Criteria
Figure 5.62 illustrates the comparison between the fine and coarse grading envelopes of the
OPSS 1002 grading requirements, and the grading envelope of the all mixes meeting all criteria
successfully (Mix #s 1, 5, 32d, 33, 44c and 46) found in Table 5.9. The fine and coarse grading
envelopes based on Mix #s 1, 5, 32d, 33, 44c and 46 are narrower and follow the same trend as
the 35 MPa and 50 MPa design mixes, as shown in Figure 5.60 and Figure 5.61, falling out of
the OPSS 1002 fine and coarse grading envelopes around the intermediate sieve sizes, including
1.18 mm to 16. 0 mm. In particular, the fine grading envelope based on the mixes meeting all
criteria, is narrower from sieve sizes 1.18 mm to 4.75 mm than in Figure 5.60 and Figure 5.61.
153
Figure 5.62: Coarse and Fine Gradations of All Mixes Meeting All Criteria
Figure 5.63 illustrates the comparison between the combined grading envelopes of the OPSS
1002 grading requirements, assuming aggregate proportioning of 41.6% fine and 58.4% coarse
(same as Mix #1, by mass), and the combined grading envelope of the 35 MPa design mixes
meeting all criteria successfully (Mix #s 1 and 5) found in Table 5.8. The combined grading
envelope based on Mix #s 1 and 5 is narrower and falls within the OPSS 1002 combined
grading envelope; however, the effective upper limit extends outside of the OPSS 1002 upper
limit at the 4.75 mm sieve size.
154
Figure 5.63: Combined Gradations of 35 MPa Design Mixes Meeting All Criteria
1002 grading requirements, assuming aggregate proportioning of 37.2% fine and 62.8% coarse
(same as Mix #32d, by mass), and the combined grading envelope of the 50 MPa design mixes
meeting all criteria successfully (Mix #s 32d, 33, 44c and 46) found in Table 5.8. The combined
grading envelope based on Mix #s 32d, 33, 44c and 46 is narrower and falls within the OPSS
1002 combined grading envelope; however, the effective upper limit extends outside of the
OPSS 1002 upper limit at the 2.36 mm and 4.75 mm sieve sizes.
155
Figure 5.64: Combined Gradations of 50 MPa Design Mixes Meeting All Criteria
1002 grading requirements, assuming aggregate proportioning of 40% fine and 60% coarse
(similar to the control mixes, by mass), and the combined grading envelope of all the mixes
meeting all criteria successfully (Mix #s 1, 5, 32d, 33, 44c and 46) found in Table 5.9. The
combined grading envelope based on Mix #s 1, 5, 32d, 33, 44c and 46 is narrower and falls
within the OPSS 1002 combined grading envelope; however, the effective upper limit extends
outside of the OPSS 1002 upper limit at the 2.36 mm and 4.75 mm sieve sizes.
156
Figure 5.65: Combined Gradations of All Mixes Meeting All Criteria
Figure 5.60 to Figure 5.65 indicate that the OPSS 1002 grading requirements are too restrictive
in the intermediate sieve size range (especially for the 2.36 mm and 4.75 mm sieve sizes), and
those sieve sizes surrounding them (1.18 mm and 16.0 mm). The current research has assisted in
identifying this, and has developed possible improvements to the OPSS 1002 with the
recommended effective combined grading envelopes in Figure 5.63 to Figure 5.65.
157
Chapter 6
Conclusions and Recommendations
6
6.1 Conclusions
Typical concrete mixtures use a binary blend of fine and coarse aggregates, which are often
defined as gap-graded mixtures. A well-graded mixture has a good distribution of
aggregates including intermediately sized particles between 2.36 mm and 9.5 mm. A wellgraded combined aggregate blend can be achieved by using optimization techniques, or by
adding low value or waste crushed aggregate material as an intermediate size. By optimizing the
packing of the combined aggregate gradation of concrete mixes, the cement paste content
needed can be reduced. It is possible to reduce the cement paste up to 16% without
compromising concrete performance. A significant percentage of quarried aggregate is wasted
per year from sieving to meet gradation OPSS individual specifications; therefore using ternary
aggregate blending is very cost-effective as well as environmentally sustainable. However, the
potential for optimization is limited by current OPSS (and CSA) specifications as they separate
grading envelopes for fine and coarse aggregate material.
6.1.1
Both the 35 MPa and 50 MPa control mixes were used as the standards for meeting all
specified criteria. For the 35 MPa design mixes, there were two mixes that met all
criteria successfully: Mix #1 Control, typical binary bridge deck mix, cementitious
content = 360 kg/m3; and Mix #5 Optimized, modified Toufar particle packing model
(ternary), cementitious content = 360 kg/m3. It should be noted that both mixes have the
same cementitious content, rather than the reduced (330 kg/m3); therefore, with the
allowable limits specified for the criteria for this current study, none of the mixes were
successful overall in reducing the cementitious content by 8%. However, using the
intermediate aggregate and creating a ternary aggregate blend (for Mix #5) was
successful. Using an intermediate aggregate, which is considered waste material, is both
economical and sustainable.
6.1.2
For the 50 MPa mixes, there were four mixes that were successful in meeting overall
criteria: Mix #32d Control, typical binary bridge deck mix, cementitious content = 465
158
kg/m3; Mix #33 Optimized, Talbot's Grading Curve (binary) [n=0.45], cementitious
content = 465 kg/m3; Mix #44c Optimized, Talbot's Grading Curve (binary) [n=0.50],
cementitious content = 390 kg/m3; and Mix #46 Optimized, Talbot's Grading Curve
(binary) [n=0.45], cementitious content = 390 kg/m3. All of the successful mixes had
binary aggregate blends; therefore, the intermediate aggregate was not useful. However,
Mix #s 44c and 46 had 16% reduced cementitious contents. Using less cementitious
material is both economical and sustainable.
6.1.3
Packing density is directly related to the source of aggregates, meaning specifically the
shape and texture. Less cement paste is needed for spherical, cubical and rounded
shapes, meaning less resistance to flow and better workability. However, the theoretical
particle packing models make assumptions about the shape. Often, the particles are
assumed to be perfect spheres, which is ideal for modeling but not realistic. The
empirical charts do consider aggregate source; however, only the characteristics of the
sources used to develop the empirical charts are considered. These are the greatest
criticisms of the theoretical particle packing models and empirical charts. Another
criticism is that the optimization techniques used for this study only focus on aggregate
blending (with the exception of the Coarseness Factor Chart to an extent) without
considering other concrete mix design aspects such as the total aggregate volume,
cement paste volume, w/c, and admixture dosages.
6.1.4
Approximately 34% of the mixes over the four stages failed the workability criteria for
this study because either: the concrete sample was too harsh to insert the vane into the
bucket for first set of rheology testing; the concrete sample was too harsh to complete
the rheology testing because the vane could not rotate properly on the first or second
Flow Curve test; the second slump test displayed shearing behaviour; high slump loss;
and mixture segregation. These points of failure could be attributed to the admixtures
used, specifically the superplasticizer, or the ICAR rheometers limitations. The
superplasticizer used in all mixes for this study was Eucon 37, which is a naphthalene
sulfonate. These types of superplasticizers are no longer used as commonly as
polycarboxylates as they are not considered as powerful cement particle dispersants.
6.1.5
The acceptable drying shrinkage criterion of 0.040% at 28 days of drying proved to be

the most limiting criterion, which greatly reduced the number of mixes that successfully
159
met all criteria for this study. If the acceptable shrinkage limit were increased from
0.040% to 0.050% at 28 days of drying, several more mixes would meet this criterion.
6.1.6
The results of the current study have demonstrated that optimizing aggregate gradation
combinations can improve concrete sustainability, workability, durability, strength, and
cost by introducing an intermediate sized aggregate material thus reducing the
cementitious content.
6.2 Recommendations for Future Research

6.2.1
The current study only used one source for each of the fine, intermediate, and coarse
(three supplies) aggregate to minimize the effect of shape and texture. The fine aggregate
was natural sand from Dufferin Aggregates Mill Creek pit. The coarse aggregate was
19.0 mm crushed pre-washed dolomitic limestone from Dufferin Aggregates Milton
quarry, and the intermediate aggregate was its waste material. To verify and validate the
successful improvements and proposed recommendations made for OPSS 1002, a
variety of other aggregate sources should be tested, such as gravels, and/or crushed
granites, gneisses and diabases, which are found and quarried in northern Ontario. Other
crushed limestone sources found and quarried in southern Ontario could be evaluated.
Also, other natural sands or manufactured fine aggregate (MFA) sources could be used.
The source of aggregates will vary the effectiveness of all optimization techniques;
therefore, the more sources tested, the more confidence in the optimization technique
will be accrued.
6.2.2
Continue investigating work with other aggregate sources, and also increase to more
multi-material aggregate blends using Talbots Grading Curve (specifically for n = 0.45
or 0.50) and Modified Toufar Model to design, and Shilstones Coarseness Factor Chart
to evaluate as they were the most successful optimization techniques for this study. The
only individual aggregate property required to be inputted for Talbots Grading Curve
and Shilstones Coarseness Factor Chart is the particle size distribution, as compared to
the theoretical particle packing models that require the relative and loose bulk densities
in the SSD condition; however, the Shilstones Coarseness Factor Chart also requires the
cement content to be considered for the workability factor. The Theory of Particle
Mixtures by Dewar was the least successful optimization technique, with mixes not even
160
passing the workability stage except for Mix #4. However, Mix #4s hardened properties
did not meet any allowable criteria, and had lower resistivity than the control mix.
Therefore, research with this technique should not be continued.
6.2.3
For Shilstones Coarseness Factor Charts, proper validation of the workability boxes
would be required as they are estimations only based on the scope of the current studys
results. This would require future study into using the Shilstones Coarseness Factor
Chart to design aggregate blends specifically in Zone 4, greater than a workability factor
of 45.0, and also towards the left side of Zone 2. It may also require setting different or
more restrictive criteria on defining sufficient workability as the workability boxes
produced for this study were much larger than the workability box developed by the
Texas Department of Transportation
6.2.4
For this study, none of the combined gradations fit completely within the 8-18 (or 8-22)
distribution limits, and even though the ternary blends generally drew the sections of the
combined gradations out of the limits closer to them, it could be with the combinations
of the three aggregates selected for this study that do not satisfy this techniques
requirements. Therefore, the successful application of this technique is significantly
dependent on the individual gradations of each aggregate source used, or requires more
than three aggregate sources for blending. Although, previous studies have also found
that it is not a necessity for combined aggregate blends to fall within limits to have
adequate workability. Therefore, investigating this empirical chart further is not
essential.
6.2.5
The particle packing models were only used to optimize the packing of the aggregate
fractions for this study because cement paste was considered another component where
the cement paste would fill in the voids. However, for future research, there could be the
possibility of including packing of aggregates plus cement. Although, this may influence
the amount of cement and sand required, and all the optimization techniques used do not
distinguish between inert and hydraulic components with the exception of Shilstones
Coarseness Factor Chart, which clearly separates the optimization of aggregates and
cement with the coarseness and workability factors.
161
6.2.6
Computer modelling for optimizing concrete design should be investigated. Computer

modelling is based on theoretical particle packing models and empirical charts; however,
they look at concrete design holistically, optimizing aggregate blending packing given
the concrete mixture constituents proportions and dosages. Examples of such computer
models include EUROPACK, based on Modified Toufar Model, and SeeMIX III based
on Shilstones Coarseness Factor Chart.
6.2.7
The research could also be extended beyond the provincial OPSS 1002 standard to the
national CSA A23.1 standard. CSA A23.1 stipulates grading requirements for fine and
coarse aggregate where individual materials do not necessarily need to meet the grading
requirements if more than one material is being blended, but the blended gradation must
meet the requirements. For fine aggregate there are two grading envelopes specified,
FA1 and FA2, where FA1 is the grading requirement for a typical concrete mixture, and
FA2 is to be used in conjunction with FA1 to optimize both the coarse and fine
aggregate components gradation. The ACI 302.1 R-04 Guide for Concrete Floor and
Slab Construction, has a preferred grading envelope guideline for fine aggregates (using
ASTM designated sieve sizes) that could also be evaluated in future research.
6.2.8
Binary and ternary aggregate blends were looked at in this study, and many of the
ternary aggregate blends were successful in meeting all criteria. Therefore, for future
research, multi-blending of aggregates could be investigated for further concrete
performance and cost improvements. All optimization techniques used in the current
study can be used for multi-blending.
6.2.9
Addition of microfine filler content, i.e., particles passing the 75 m sieve, such as
limestone or granite, high microfine MFAs (approximately 15% microfines), and/or
unwashed or finer graded intermediately sized waste material could be explored for
reducing the binder needed. Both types of additions would conceptually improve
concrete performance, as the microfine material fill in the voids between the other
aggregate materials, reducing the quantity of cement paste needed. Specifically, this
would reduce the drying shrinkage of the concrete, which was the criterion most limiting
the overall success of many mixes for both 35 MPa and 50 MPa design strengths in the
current study.
162
6.2.10 As previously stated, the superplasticizer used in all mixes for this study was Eucon 37,
which is a naphthalene sulfonate. These types of superplasticizers are no longer used as
commonly as polycarboxylates as they are not considered as powerful cement particle
dispersants. Therefore, for future research, a polycarboxylate-based superplasticizer
could be used, which would make the research findings more readily applicable to
industry projects.
6.2.11 Since the ICAR rheometer testing procedure is not standardized, and acceptable ranges
of yield stress and plastic viscosity for good workability have not been identified from
previous studies, it was difficult to evaluate the measurements from these tests alone
without relying on a visual assessment of the mixes and the measurements from the
slump tests. For this study, it was not possible to define numerical ranges for static and
dynamic yield stress, and plastic viscosity that would ensure satisfactory workability.
Therefore, for more effective use and evaluation of the rheological properties, a
standardized procedure and allowable ranges of yield stress and plastic viscosity for
good workability should be established, which would most likely require repetitive
batching and testing of individual mixes multiple times. Specifically, for more accurate
testing of static yield stress over time, separate samples in separate containers should be
tested, with no disturbances to the samples before testing. Also, for the mixes that were
too harsh to complete testing with the rheometer, the initial slumps ranged from 165 mm
to 230 mm. However, the rheometer did function properly for mixes that were described
as sandy with final slumps down to 125 mm (Mix #40 from Stage 3). It would be
beneficial for future research to establish a range of design proportions coupled with a
range of workable slumps that will assure proper functionality of the ICAR rheometer.
6.2.12 In many cases, mixes that exhibited greater shrinkage at 35 days than the acceptable
limit of 0.040% following the OPSS procedure exhibited less shrinkage than 0.040%
following the ASTM procedure. It should be noted, however, that their curing
procedures differ. This was the criterion limiting the overall success of many mixes,
especially those with ternary aggregate blends, and of Stages 2 and 4 with reduced
cementitious content. Therefore, for future work, it would be interesting to compare the
two procedures, with their respective curing regimes followed. Also, since it was
expected that more mixes would be comparable to the control mixes for both 35 MPa
163
and 50 MPa design mixes, particularly those of Stages 2 and 4 with the reduced paste
fractions by 8% and 16%, respectively, exploring other specimen types or procedures for
measuring shrinkage, and/or selectively duplicating mixes could be examined for future
research.
6.2.13 The admixtures used could have also had an effect on the initial 1- day length change
measurements made using the ASTM procedure. However, the OPSS procedure was the
primary procedure considered for the current study, and the initial 7-day length change
measurements would not have been affected by the admixtures performances.
6.2.14 There are many benefits to using the Merlin bulk resistivity test as opposed to the RCPT.
Most notably specific to this current research, the results from the Merlin test were more
reliable and accurate. The Merlin test also only takes one to two seconds to get results
while the RCPT takes 6 hours. Although this bulk resistivity test is not standardized yet,
it is more convenient to use, adjustable to various specimen lengths ranging from 50 mm
to 200 mm, and it is also non-destructive. This means that standard sized cylinders of
100 mm by 200 mm cast for the purpose of compressive strength testing can be tested
beforehand for resistivity, or samples cast for the purpose of resistivity testing can be reused at various ages consequently giving more confidence in results.
6.2.15 Batch mixing with a ready-mix producer to assess the quality of concrete of larger batch
volumes could also be conducted.
164
References
Abrams, D. A. (1918). Design of Concrete Mixtures. Chicago: Structural Materials Research
Laboratory, Lewis Institute.
American Concrete Institute. (2004). ACI 302.1 R-04 Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab
Construction. Farmington Hills, MI: ACI Manual of Concrete Practice.
ASTM C 1202. (2010). Standard Test Method for Electrical Indication of Concrete's Ability to
Resist Chloride Ion Penetration. ASTM Book of Standards, Volume 04.02, Concrete and
Aggregates. West Conshohocken, Pa.: ASTM International.
ASTM C 125. (2007). Standard Terminology Relating to Concrete and Concrete Aggregates.
ASTM Book of Standards, Volume 04.02, Concrete and Aggregates. West Conshohocken, Pa.:
ASTM International.
ASTM C 143. (2010). Standard Test Method for Slump of Hydraulic-Cement Concrete. ASTM
Book of Standards, Volume 04.02, Concrete and Aggregates. West Conshohocken, Pa.: ASTM
International.
ASTM C 157. (2008). Standard Test Method for Length Change of Hardened Hydraulic-Cement
Concrete. ASTM Book of Standards, Volume 04.02, Concrete and Aggregates. West
Conshohocken, Pa.: ASTM International.
ASTM C 192. (2007). Standard Practice for Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens in the
Laboratory. ASTM Book of Standards, Volume 04.02, Concrete and Aggregates. West
ASTM C 231. (2009). Standard Test Method for Air Content of Freshly Mixed Concrete by the
Pressure Method. ASTM Book of Standards, Volume 04.02, Concrete and Aggregates. West
ASTM C 33. (2007). Standard Specification for Concrete Aggregates. ASTM Book of Standards,
Volume 04.02, Concrete and Aggregates. West Conshohocken, Pa.: ASTM International.
165
ASTM C 39. (2010). Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete
Specimens. ASTM Book of Standards, Volume 04.02, Concrete and Aggregates. West
ASTM C 494. (2008). Standard Specification for Chemical Admixtures for Concrete. ASTM
Book of Standards, Volume 04.02, Concrete and Aggregates. West Conshohocken, Pa.: ASTM
International.
ASTM E4. (2010). Standard Practices for Force Verification of Testing Machines. ASTM Book
of Standards, Volume 03.01, Metals -- Mechanical Testing; Elevated and Low-Temperature
Tests; Metallography. West Conshohocken, Pa.: ASTM International.
Billberg, P. P. (1996). Proceedings from the Production Methods and Workability of Concrete
Conference: New Generation of Superplasticizers, 295-306. RILEM, E&FN Spon.
Bottero, S. (2011). Correspondence with Manager of Logistics and Yard Sales at Dufferin
Aggregates. MTO/UofT/HCA Meeting, May 19.
Canadian Standards Association. (2004). CSA A23.1 Concrete materials and methods of
concrete construction/CSA A23.2 Methods of test and standard practices for concrete.
Mississauga: Canadian Standards Association.
De Larrard, F. (1999). Concrete Mixture Proportioning: a Scientific Approach. London: E &
FN Spon.
Dewar, J. D. (1999). Computer Modelling of Concrete Mixtures. London: E & FN Spon.
Ekblad, J. (2004). Influence of Water on Resilient Properties of Coarse Granular Materials.
Stockholm: Licentiate Thesis, Kungliga Tekniska Hgskolan (KTH).
Faroug, F. S. (1999). Influence of Superplasticizers on Workability of Concrete. Journal of
Materials in Civil Engineering, 11(2), 151-157.
Fuller, W., and Thompson, S. E. (1907). The laws of proportioning concrete. American Society
of Civil Engineers, 33, 67-143.
166
Germann Instruments. (2010). Operation Manual MERLIN test system for measuring bulk
conductivity. Germann Instruments.
Germann Instruments, Inc. (January 2008). ICAR Rheometer Manual. Evanston, Illinois.
Ghezal, A., and Khayat, K. (2002). Optimizing Self-Consolidating Concrete with Limestone
Filler by using Statistical Factorial Design Methods. ACI Materials Journal, 99(3), 264-272.
Goltermann, P., Johansen, V., and Palbol, L. (1997). Packing of Aggregates: An Alternative
Tool to Determine the Optimal Aggregate Mix. ACI Materials Journal, 94(5), 435-443.
Goode, J. F. (1962). Proceedings from the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists: A New
Graphical Chart for Evaluation Aggregate Gradations, 31, 176-207.
Harrison, P. J. (2004). For the Ideal Slab-on-Ground Mixture. Concrete International, 26(3), 4955.
Holland, J. A. (1990). Mixture Optimization. Concrete International, 12(10), 10.
Hooton, R. D. (2001). Development of Standard Test Methods for Measuring Fluid Penetration
and Ion Transport Rates. Materials Science of Concrete: Fluid and Ion Transport Rates in
Concrete, 1-12. American Ceramic Society.
Hope, B. B. (1990). Proceedings of the International RILEM Colloquium on Properties of Fresh
Concrete: Statistical Analysis of the Influence of Different Cements on the Water Demand for
Constant Slump, 179-186. Chapman and Hall.
Jones, M. R., Zheng, L., and Newlands, M. D. (2002). Comparison of particle packing models
for proportioning concrete constituents for minimum voids ratio. Materials and Structures, 35,
301-309.
Koehler, E. P., and Fowler D. W. (2004). ICAR 105-3F: Development of a Portable Rheometer
for Fresh Portland Cement Concrete. Austin, Texas: International Center for Aggregates
Research, The University of Texas at Austin.
167
Koehler, E. P., and Fowler, D. W. (2005). Proceedings from 3th International RILEM
Symposium on Self-Compacting Concrete: A Portable Rheometer for Self-Consolidating
Concrete. China.
Koehler, E. P., and Fowler, D. W. (2007). ICAR Research Report 108-2F, Aggregates In SelfConsolidating Concrete. Austin: ICAR, University of Texas at Austin.
Koehler, E. P., Keller, L., and Gardner, N. J. (2007). Proceedings from 5th International RILEM
Symposium on Self-Compacting Concrete: Field Measurements of SCC Rheology and
Formwork Pressure. Ghent, Belgium.
Koehler, E. P., and Fowler, D. W. (2008). Proceedings from 6th International RILEM
Symposium on Self-Compacting Concrete: Static and Dynamic Yield Stress Measurements of
SCC. Chicago, IL.
Koehler, E. P. (2009a). Test Methods for Workability and Rheology of Fresh Concrete. ACI
Fall Convention.
Koehler, E. P. (2009b). Germann Instruments. Retrieved June 15, 2011, from ICAR Rheometer:
http://www.germann.org/Articles/download_files/Sevilla/Koehler_ICAR%20Rheometer_v1.ppt
Koehler, E. P. (2009c). Proceedings from Tenth ACI International Symposium on Recent
Advances in Concrete Technology and Sustainability Issues: Use of Rheology to Specify,
Design, and Manage Self-Consolidating Concrete. Sevilla, Spain.
Koehler, E. P. (2010). Correspondence with R&D Engineer at W. R. Grace & Co. Email: ICAR
Rheometer repeatability of readings, March 22.
Meininger, R. C. (2003). 8 to 18 Percent or Fight. Retrieved February 8, 2010, from Rock
Products: http://www.rockproducts.com/index.php/features/51-archives/2300.html
Mork, J. H. (1996). Proceedings of RILEM Conference on Production Methods and Workability
of Concrete: A Presentation of the BML Viscometer, 369-376. E&FN Spon.
Neville, A. M. (1995). Properties of Concrete, 4th ed. Harlow, England: Pearson Education
Limited.
168
Nijboer, L. W. (1948). Plasticity as a Factor in the Design of Dense Bituminous Road Carpets.
New York: Elsevier Publishing.
Nokken, M. R. (2006). Electrical Conductivity Testing: A Prequalification and Quality
Assurance Tool. ACI Concrete International, 28 (10), 58-63.
Obla, K. H., and Kim H. (2008). On Aggregate Grading. Concrete International, 30(3), 45-50.
OPSS 1002. (2004, April). Material Specification For Aggregates - Concrete. Ontario
Provincial Standard Specification.
OPSS LS-435. (2006). Method of Test for Linear Shrinkage of Concrete. Ministry of
Transportation, Ontario Laboratory Testing Manual.
OPSS LS-601. (2002). Materials Finer than 75 m Sieve in Mineral Aggregates by Washing.
Ministry of Transportation, Ontario Laboratory Testing Manual.
Panchalan, R. K., and Ramakrishnan, V. (2007). Validity of 0.45 Power Chart in Obtaining the
Optimized Aggregate Gradation for Improving the Strength Aspects of High-Performance
Concrete. American Concrete Institute.
Quiroga, P. N. (2003). The Effect of Aggregate Characteristics on the Performance of Portland
Cement Concrete, PhD Dissertation. Austin, TX: The University of Texas at Austin.
Rheocentric Concrete Technologies (2006). Test Systems. Retrieved May 30, 2011, from
Germann Instruments, Inc.:
http://www.germann.org/TestSystems/ICAR%20Rheometer/ICAR%20Rheometer.pdf
Rheocentric Concrete Technologies (2007). ICAR Rheometer Capabilities. Retrieved November
3, 2010, from Concrete Rheology.com: http://concreterheology.com/capabilities.aspx
Shilstone, J. M. (June 1990). Concrete Mixture Optimization. Concrete International, 12(6), 3339.
Smeplass, S. (1994). Proceedings from Conference on Special Concretes for Workabilit and
Mixing: Applicability of the Bingham Model to High Strength, 145-151. Paisley, Scotland:
RILEM.
169
STP 1147. (1992). Effects of Aggregates and Mineral Fillers on Asphalt Mixture Performance.
ASTM Special Technical Publication. West Conshohocken, Pa.: ASTM International.
Struble, L. J. (2004). Effects of Air Entrainment on Rheology. ACI Materials Journal, 101(6),
448-456.
Szecsy, R. S. (1997). Concrete Rheology, PhD Dissertation. Urbana, IL: University of Illionois
at Urbana-Champaign.
Talbot, A. N. (1923). The Strength of Concrete and Its Relation to the Cement, Aggregate, and
Water. University of Illinois Bulletin No. 137.
Tattersall, G. H. (1983). The Rheology of Fresh Concrete. Marshfield, MA: Pitman Publishing.
Tattersall, G. H. (1991). Workability and Quality Control of Concrete. London: E&FN Spon.
TxDOT. (2006). Tex-470-A Test Procedure for Optimized Aggregate Gradation for Hydraulic
Cement Concrete Mix Designs. TxDOT. Retrieved from ftp://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdotinfo/cst/TMS/400-A_series/pdfs/cnn470.pdf
Virtual Superpave Laboratory. (2005). Gradation & Size - Background. Retrieved July 18,
2011, from Virtual Superpave Laboratory:
http://training.ce.washington.edu/VSL/aggregate_tests/gs/gs_background.htm
170
Appendices
Appendix A: Master Mix Design List
9 Talbot's Grading Curve (binary) [n=0.45]
12 Talbot's Grading Curve (ternary) [n=0.40]
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24b Particle packing model (binary) [Toufar]
25e Talbot's Grading Curve (binary) [n=0.45]
Shilstone's Coarseness Factor Chart Zone 2, binary, CF = 74.9, WF = 29.8

Shilstone's Coarseness Factor Chart Zone 2, binary, CF = 74.1, WF = 33.7
7 Particle packing model (ternary) [Dewar]
5 Particle packing model (ternary) [Toufar]
4 Particle packing model (binary) [Dewar]
2 Particle packing model (binary) [Toufar]
1 Control (binary)
Mix Description
Stage Mix
#
#
1
2
3
2
3
W
C
W
C
W
W
W
C
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
W
C
W
C
W
C
W
C
W
W
C
W
C
W
C
W
C
W
C
W
C
CA
Type* Supply
Used
247.5
247.5
247.5
247.5
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
GU
82.5
82.5
82.5
82.5
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
617
560
955
1008
1038
1040
1183
1247 21
929
876
846
844
642
557
931 143 753
931 143 753
1051 196 579
994 171 660
994 171 660
1179 30
1264
1023 336 467
952 337 538
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
1380
1380
1380
1380
1100
1100
1100
1100
1100
1100
1100
1100
1100
1100
1100
15
15
15
15
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Aggregate
Admixture Dosage (mL/100 kg)
Air
Content (kg/m3)
w/c Content
Eucon Eucon Eucon
(%)
Airextra
GGBFS Gub-8SF
CA IA FA
WR
37
727
90
0.39
6.5
1065 - 761 550 1100
20
90
0.39
6.5
1065 - 761 550 1100
20
90
0.39
6.5
1002 - 824 550 1100
20
90
0.39
6.5
926 - 900 550 1100
20
90
0.39
6.5
772 - 1055 550 1100
20
90
0.39
6.5
732 - 1095 550 1100
20
90
0.39
6.5
811 336 680 550 1100
20
90
0.39
6.5
747 351 730 550 1100
20
90
0.39
6.5
1019 397 410 550 1100
20
90
0.39
6.5
925 - 901 550 1100
20
90
0.39
6.5
925 - 901 550 1100
20
90
0.39
6.5
1006 - 820 550 1100
20
90
0.39
6.5
1006 - 820 550 1100
20
90
0.39
6.5
1077 - 748 550 1100
20
90
0.39
6.5
1077 - 748 550 1100
20
90
0.39
6.5
1142 - 683 550 1100
20
90
0.39
6.5
1142 - 683 550 1100
20
90
0.39
6.5
862 216 751 550 1100
20
90
0.39
6.5
864 212 750 550 1100
20
90
0.39
6.5
941 254 633 550 1100
20
90
0.39
6.5
941 254 633 550 1100
20
(kg/m )
Cementitious Content
0.184
0.192
0.217
0.118
0.116
0.139
0.139
IA
FA
0.306
0.508
0.536
0.552
0.553
0.649
0.492
0.464
0.448
0.447
0.351
0.684 0.012 0.304
0.511 0.078 0.411
0.511 0.078 0.411
0.576 0.107 0.317
0.546 0.093 0.361
0.546 0.093 0.361
0.647 0.016 0.337
0.694
0.561 0.184 0.255
0.720
0.725
-
64.4
62.3
65.5
62.7
44.6
42.2
40.8
40.7
74.1 33.7
73.8 29.8
58.3 39.9
64.2 39.9
64.2 32.0
58.3 35.7
64.2 35.7
72.7 32.7
4
4
4
2
****
74.9 29.8 2
58.7 27.6
57.2 31.0
4
2
4
4
4
4
2**
2
5
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
Y
Y
CF WF Zone WB
Ux
Coarseness Factor
Chart
Optimized
Variable
0.416
72.8 39.4
0.416
66.1 39.4
0.450
0.732 72.0 42.3
0.492
0.720 64.4 46.0
0.576 0.371
68.2 53.3
0.598 0.386
67.3 55.2
0.372
0.754 53.9 37.7
0.399
0.743 46.9 40.2
0.224 0.401
56.7 25.3
0.492
70.9 46.0
0.492
64.4 46.0
0.448
72.0 42.2
0.448
65.5 42.2
0.409
72.9 38.8
0.409
66.3 38.8
0.373
73.7 35.6
0.373
67.0 35.6
0.410
59.6 40.3
0.410
54.4 40.2
0.346
59.8 35.0
0.346
54.4 35.0
0.522 0.184 0.294
0.584
0.584
0.550
0.508
0.424
0.402
0.445
0.410
0.559
0.508
0.508
0.552
0.552
0.591
0.591
0.627
0.627
0.473
0.474
0.516
0.516
CA
Aggregate Volume
Fraction
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
8-22
Chart
171
32d Control (binary)
39 Particle packing model (binary) [Dewar]

Talbot's Grading Curve (binary)
41
[n=0.55]*****
44c Talbot's Grading Curve (binary) [n=0.50]
Control (reduced cementitious content,

binary)*****
45
43
47
3
3
35

Control (reduced cementitious content,
binary)
Particle packing model (binary)
31
[Dewar]*****
29
Mix Description

26
Stage Mix
#
#
3
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
W
C
W
W
C
W
W
C
W
C
W
C
W
C
W
C
W
C
W
C
W
C
W
W
W
C
W
C
W
C
W
C
W
C
W
C
W
C
W
C
W
C
W
C
CA
Type* Supply
Used
247.5
247.5
247.5
247.5
247.5
247.5
247.5
247.5
-
247.5
247.5
GU
82.5
82.5
82.5
82.5
82.5
82.5
82.5
82.5
116
116
116
116
116
116
116
116
116
116
116
116
116
116
116
116
116
116
116
116
116
116
97.5
97.5
97.5
97.5
97.5
97.5
97.5
97.5
97.5
97.5
97.5
97.5
97.5
97.5
82.5
82.5
349
349
349
349
349
349
349
349
349
349
349
349
349
349
349
349
349
349
349
349
349
349
292.5
292.5
292.5
292.5
292.5
292.5
292.5
292.5
292.5
292.5
292.5
292.5
292.5
292.5
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.39
0.39
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6.5
6.5
891
891
1111
1099
1099
771
756
747
1060
1060
932
932
857
857
862
862
800
800
988
988
692
692
679
857
1058
1045
873
873
921
921
1077
1077
1145
1145
1008
1008
931
931
864
864
787
787
977
977
219
219
362
132
132
197
197
325
325
234
234
158
158
143
143
212
212
326
326
-
774
774
772
785
785
753
1128
1138
630
630
759
759
833
833
697
697
695
695
693
693
676
676
1013
834
632
645
586
586
612
612
748
748
680
680
818
818
753
753
750
750
714
714
849
849
960 147 776
960 147 776
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
1380
1380
1380
1380
1380
1380
1380
1380
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1380
1380
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
0.474
0.474
0.591
0.584
0.584
0.410
0.402
0.400
0.628
0.628
0.552
0.552
0.508
0.508
0.511
0.511
0.474
0.474
0.591
0.591
0.410
0.410
0.402
0.508
0.627
0.644
0.516
0.516
0.546
0.546
0.591
0.591
0.628
0.628
0.553
0.553
0.511
0.511
0.474
0.474
0.432
0.432
0.536
0.536
0.116
0.116
0.192
0.078
0.078
0.116
0.116
0.192
0.192
0.139
0.139
0.093
0.093
0.078
0.078
0.116
0.116
0.178
0.178
-
55.8 38.6
58.3 38.6
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
CF WF Zone WB
Ux
Coarseness Factor
Chart
Optimized
Variable
0.410
54.4 38.9 2
0.410
52.1 38.9 2
0.409
66.3 37.4 2
0.416
66.1 38.0 2
0.416
63.3 38.0 2
0.399
0.743 46.9 38.9 2
0.598 0.386
61.2 53.9 4
0.600 0.387
58.5 54.0 4
0.372
67.0 40.2 4***
0.372
67.0 40.2 4***
0.448
65.5 46.9 4
0.448
65.5 46.9 4
0.492
0.720 64.4 50.7 4
0.492
0.720 64.4 50.7 4
0.411
58.3 44.6 4
0.411
58.3 44.6 4
0.410
54.4 44.9 4
0.410
54.4 44.9 4
0.409
66.3 43.5 4
0.409
66.3 43.5 4
0.399
0.743 46.9 44.9 4
0.399
0.743 46.9 44.9 4
0.598 0.386
61.2 59.9 4
0.492
64.4 50.7 4
0.373
67.0 40.4 4***
0.356
64.4 38.9 2
0.346
54.4 39.7 2
0.346
54.4 39.7 2
0.361
58.3 40.4 2
0.361
58.3 40.4 2
0.409
63.4 40.1 2
0.409
63.4 40.1 2
0.372
64.1 36.9 2
0.372
64.1 36.9 2
0.447
62.7 43.4 4
0.447
62.7 43.4 4
0.411
55.8 41.2 2
0.411
55.8 41.2 2
0.410
52.1 41.6 2
0.410
52.1 41.6 2
0.390
0.744 46.7 40.6 2
0.390
0.744 46.7 40.6 2
0.464
0.725 62.3 44.9 4
0.464
0.725 62.3 44.9 4
0.511 0.078 0.411
0.511 0.078 0.411
Aggregate
Aggregate Volume
Air
Content (kg/m3)
Fraction
w/c Content
Eucon Eucon Eucon
(%)
Airextra
GGBFS Gub-8SF
CA IA FA
CA
IA
FA
WR
37
727
(kg/m )
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
8-22
Chart
172
52
53
Shilstone's Coarseness Factor Chart Zone 2, ternary, CF = 55.8, WF = 37.0*****
Talbot's Grading Curve (ternary)

[n=0.45]*****
3
3
3
3
3
3
W
C
W
C
W
C
CA
Type* Supply
Used
GU
97.5
97.5
292.5
292.5
0.33
0.33
6
6
995 171 660
995 171 660

550
550
1500
1500
160
160
10
10
Aggregate
Air
Content (kg/m3)
w/c Content
Eucon Eucon Eucon
(%)
Airextra
GGBFS Gub-8SF
CA IA FA
WR
37
727
97.5
292.5 0.33
6
1174 - 651 550 1500 160
10
97.5
292.5 0.33
6
1174 - 651 550 1500 160
10
97.5
292.5 0.33
6
940 253 633 550 1500 160
10
97.5
292.5 0.33
6
940 253 633 550 1500 160
10
(kg/m )
W = measuring workability properties; C = casting of prisms and cylinders for measuring hardened properties
**
Point close to Workability Box - Zone 2 dividing line
***
Point close to Zone 2 - Zone 4 dividing line
****
Point just right of Zone 1 - Zone 2 dividing line
*****
Mix Description
Stage Mix
#
#
IA
FA
0.546 0.093 0.361
0.546 0.093 0.361
0.644
0.356
0.644
0.356
0.516 0.139 0.346
0.516 0.139 0.346
CA
Aggregate Volume
Fraction
35.5
35.5
36.3
36.3
55.8 37.0
55.8 37.0
64.4
64.4
52.1
52.1
2
2
2**
2**
Y
Y
Y
Y
CF WF Zone WB
Ux
Coarseness Factor
Chart
Optimized
Variable
N
N
N
N
8-22
Chart
173
174
Appendix B: Modified Toufar Model Spreadsheet
CA
100
100
88
70
23
12
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
0
% Passing
IA
100
100
100
100
100
94
60
14
3
1
1
1
1
0
FA
100
100
100
100
100
100
99
89
67
44
18
5
2
0
IA
1448
CA
2.72
IA
2.73
CA
1540
FA
2.73
FA
1744
Loose Bulk Density (SSD)
37.5
26.5
19
16
9.5
6.7
4.75
2.36
1.18
0.6
0.3
0.15
0.075
0
Loose Bulk
Grain
Packing degree, i
Sieve Size [mm]
FA
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
11.0
33.0
56.0
82.0
95.0
98.0
100.0
1744
2730
0.64
IA
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.0
40.0
86.0
97.0
99.0
99.0
99.0
99.0
100.0
1448
2730
0.53
CA
0.0
0.0
12.0
30.0
77.0
88.0
97.0
98.0
98.0
98.0
98.0
99.0
99.0
100.0
1540
2720
0.57
Cumulative % Retained (by vol)

n
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
11.0
33.0
56.0
82.0
95.0
98.0
100.0
FA
n+1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
11.0
33.0
56.0
82.0
95.0
98.0
100.0
n
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.0
40.0
86.0
97.0
99.0
99.0
99.0
99.0
100.0
IA
n+1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.0
40.0
86.0
97.0
99.0
99.0
99.0
99.0
100.0
Step #1: Calculation of packing degree and characteristic diameter of individual aggregate materials
Sieve Size
[mm]
37.5
26.5
19
16
9.5
6.7
4.75
2.36
1.18
0.6
0.3
0.15
0.075
0
Particle Size Distribution
Inputs Required:
n
0.0
0.0
12.0
30.0
77.0
88.0
97.0
98.0
98.0
98.0
98.0
99.0
99.0
100.0
CA
n+1
0.0
12.0
30.0
77.0
88.0
97.0
98.0
98.0
98.0
98.0
99.0
99.0
100.0
Modified Toufar Particle Packing Model
n
37.5
26.5
19
16
9.5
6.7
4.75
2.36
1.18
0.6
0.3
0.15
0.075
0
n+1
26.5
19
16
9.5
6.7
4.75
2.36
1.18
0.6
0.3
0.15
0.075
0
Sieve Size
Char Dia
% Ret Below
% Ret Above
Sieve Below
Sieve Above
FA
33.0
56.0
1.18
0.6
d1
1.08
% Retained for Char Dia =
IA
6.0
40.0
6.7
4.75
d2
4.93
36.8
CA
30.0
77.0
16
9.5
d3
15.06
Linear Interpolation of Characteristic Diameter
175
0.4753
y2
0.000
0.184
y1
0.450
0.372
Binary
Ternary
0.550
0.445
y3
1.000
1.000
y sum
Individual Material Volume Proportions
0.732
1.673
Fine Bulk Vol/

Coarse Void Vol, x
Packing degree, i
37.5
26.5
19
16
9.5
6.7
4.75
2.36
1.18
0.6
0.3
0.15
0.075
0
Char Dia, d blend
% Ret Below
% Ret Above
Sieve Below
Sieve Above
Dia Ratio Factor, k d
Statistical Factor, k s
Sieve Size [mm]
0.621
1.017
Cumulative %
Retained
n
n+1
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.5
8.5
21.2
21.2
54.5
54.5
64.0
64.0
80.3
80.3
94.5
94.5
97.7
97.7
98.3
98.3
98.3
98.3
99.0
99.0
99.0
99.0
100.0
100.0
12.96
21.2
54.5
16
9.5
0.506
0.694
STEP #1
0.754
1.516
Cumulative %
Retained
n
n+1
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.3
5.3
13.3
13.3
34.2
34.2
40.2
40.2
50.9
50.9
63.5
63.5
73.7
73.7
82.6
82.6
92.2
92.2
97.5
97.5
98.6
98.6
100.0
100.0
8.30
34.2
40.2
9.5
6.7
0.846
0.824
STEP #2
Char Dia, d
Vol Prop Step #1, y
Vol Prop Step #2, y
Packing degree,
Cumulative %
Retained
Finer
Coarser
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.0
0.0
30.0
0.0
77.0
6.0
88.0
40.0
97.0
86.0
98.0
97.0
98.0
99.0
98.0
99.0
98.0
99.0
99.0
99.0
99.0
100.0
100.0
4.93
15.06
0.292
0.708
0.184
0.445
0.53
0.57
Variables for Step #1
0.372
0.64
Var for
Step #2
Cumul %
Retained
Remaining
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
11.0
33.0
56.0
82.0
95.0
98.0
100.0
1.08
STEP #2: Blend the binary aggregate blend from Step #1 with the remaining aggregate source
STEP #1: Blend the two aggregate sources with the highest characteristic diameter ratio
TERNARY BLENDING (STEPWISE PROCESS)
Blended Aggregate Properties

Loose
Grain
Bulk
1994
2725
0.732
2055
2726
0.754
0.328
d 2/d 3 =
0.3881
0.072
d 1/d 3 =
ko=
0.220
d 1/d 2 =
xo=
Cumulative %
Retained
n
n+1
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.6
6.6
16.5
16.5
42.3
42.3
48.4
48.4
53.8
53.8
58.8
58.8
68.7
68.7
79.1
79.1
90.8
90.8
97.2
97.2
98.5
98.5
100.0
100.0
10.89
16.5
42.3
16
9.5
0.866
0.849
Blend
Type
Output:
Fine Bulk Vol/

Coarse Void Vol, x
Packing degree, i
37.5
26.5
19
16
9.5
6.7
4.75
2.36
1.18
0.6
0.3
0.15
0.075
0
Char Dia, d 1-3
% Ret Below
% Ret Above
Sieve Below
Sieve Above
Dia Ratio Factor, k d
Statistical Factor, k s
Sieve Size [mm]
BINARY BLENDING (FA & CA)
Given Statistical Factors:
FOR TERNARY BLENDING ONLY:
Step #2: Maximization of packing degree of aggregate blend using the Solver function
176
177
Appendix C: Theory of Particle Mixtures Spreadsheet
CA
100
100
88
70
23
12
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
0
% Passing
IA
100
100
100
100
100
94
60
14
3
1
1
1
1
0
FA
100
100
100
100
100
100
99
89
67
44
18
5
2
0
IA
1448
CA
2.72
IA
2.73
CA
1540
FA
2.73
FA
1744
Loose Bulk Density (SSD)
37.5
26.5
19
16
9.5
6.7
4.75
2.36
1.18
0.6
0.3
0.15
0.075
0
Mean size, d m
Loose Bulk
Grain
Void Ratio, U i
Sieve Size [mm]
Individual % Retained (by vol)

FA
IA
CA
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.0
0.0
0.0
18.0
0.0
0.0
47.0
0.0
6.0
11.0
1.0
34.0
9.0
10.0
46.0
1.0
22.0
11.0
0.0
23.0
2.0
0.0
26.0
0.0
0.0
13.0
0.0
1.0
3.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
0.76
3.75
11.58
1744
1448
1540
2730
2730
2720
0.565
0.885
0.766
31.52
22.44
17.44
12.33
7.98
5.64
3.35
1.67
0.84
0.42
0.21
0.11
-
Mean
Size, d i
Step #1: Calculation of log mean diameter and voids ratio of individual aggregate materials
37.5
26.5
19
16
9.5
6.7
4.75
2.36
1.18
0.6
0.3
0.15
0.075
0
Sieve Size [mm]
Particle Size Distribution
Inputs Required:
178
37.5
26.5
19
16
9.5
6.7
4.75
2.36
1.18
0.6
0.3
0.15
0.075
0
Size ratio, r
Mean size, d 1-3
Sieve Size [mm]
0.0
0.0
5.1
7.7
20.0
4.7
4.4
6.2
12.6
13.2
14.9
7.9
1.7
1.6
0.065
2.42
A
B
C
D
E
F
0.00
0.30
0.75
3.00
7.50
Individual Void Ratio

Spacing
%
Diagram
Factor, m
Points
Retained
0.120
0.060
0.015
0.000
-
k int
Step #2: Minimization of voids ratio of aggregate blend
0.600
0.650
0.800
0.900
-
kp
0.137
0.085
0.037
0.018
-
Notional
Width
Factor, Z
0.872
1.038
2.019
4.833
-
U 0"
2.403
1.138
0.660
0.583
U min
n
nx
U next
n next
Ux
U 1"
0.77
0.49
0.37
0.36
0.44
0.57
0.362
0.55
0.57
0.44
0.75
0.371
0.49
0.37
0.36
0.44
0.204
0.327
0.549
0.753
-
Void Ratio, U Fine Vol

Fraction,
n
n
n+1
179
Binary
Ternary
Blend Type
Output:
37.5
26.5
19
16
9.5
6.7
4.75
2.36
1.18
0.6
0.3
0.15
0.075
0
Size ratio, r
Mean Dia, d 1-2
y1
y2
Sieve Size [mm]
A
B
C
D
E
F
0.00
0.30
0.75
3.00
7.50
0.120
0.060
0.015
0.000
-
y2
0.000
0.217
y1
0.574
0.224
0.426
0.559
y3
1.000
1.000
y sum
Individual Material Volume Proportions
0.508
0.492
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.0
17.2
27.7
16.6
12.7
13.2
6.6
1.5
1.5
0.201
1.66
k int
0.164
0.122
0.076
0.056
-
Notional
Width
Factor, Z
1.248
1.875
6.785
28.840
-
U 0"
Blended Aggregate Properties

Loose
Grain
U
Bulk
1987
2726
0.371
1945
2724
0.401
0.600
0.650
0.800
0.900
-
kp
STEP #1
2.033
0.962
0.554
0.499
U min
n
nx
U next
n next
Ux
U 1"
STEP #2
Notional
Void Ratio, U Fine Vol Individual
Width
"
Fraction,
%
U1
U 0"
Factor,
n
Retained
n
n+1
Z
0.89
0.57
0.0
1.913
0.57
0.49
0.300
0.0
0.148
1.004
1.006
0.49
0.50
0.483
6.7
0.102
1.400
0.624
0.50
0.55
0.807
10.1
0.056
4.168
0.575
0.55
0.948
26.3
0.036 14.799
0.57
7.4
U min 0.486
12.6
n 0.48
12.8
n x 0.51
7.3
U next 0.50
5.6
n next 0.81
5.8
U x 0.487
3.5
0.7
1.2
0.143 Size ratio, r
4.91
Mean Dia, d 1-2-3
0.441 y 1-2
0.559 y 3
STEP #1: Blend the two finest aggregate sources (based on individual log mean diameter)
STEP #2: Blend the binary aggregate blend from Step #1 with the remaining aggregate source
Individual Void Ratio

Spacing
Diagram
%
Factor, m
Points
Retained
TERNARY BLENDING
0.77
0.51
0.40
0.40
0.45
0.49
0.401
0.42
0.44
0.40
0.73
0.401
0.51
0.40
0.40
0.45
n+1
Void Ratio, U
0.249
0.416
0.728
0.908
-
Fine Vol
Fraction,
n
180
181
Appendix D: Talbots Grading Curve Spreadsheet
IA
100
100
100
100
94
60
14
3
1
1
1
1
0
2730
FA
100
100
100
100
100
99
89
67
44
18
5
2
0
2730
% Passing (by mass)
CA
26.5 100
19
88
16
70
9.5
23
6.7
12
4.75
3
2.36
2
1.18
2
0.6
2
0.3
2
0.15
1
0.075
1
0
0
Grain 2720
Sieve
Size
[mm]
100.0
100.0
94.3
87.5
85.9
81.7
63.7
66.3
57.8
57.7
49.1
50.3
39.1
38.0
28.8
28.8
19.1
22.0
8.5
16.7
2.6
12.6
1.4
9.6
0.0
0.0
Sum of Deviations
y CA(mass)
0.437
Int Only
y CA(vol)
0.438
y CA(mass)
0.472
All
y CA(vol)
0.473
5.0
y IA(mass)
0.172
y IA(vol)
0.172
y IA(mass)
0.118
y IA(vol)
0.118
2.7
0.1
1.1
1.1
Int Only
(Sieve
Size)n
All
0.40
0.0
3.71
6.8
3.25
4.1
3.03
2.7
2.46
0.1
2.14
1.1
1.86
1.1
1.41
0.0
1.07
2.9
0.82
8.2
0.62
10.0
0.47
8.2
0.35
0.0
0.00
45.1
y FA(mass)
0.390
y FA(vol)
0.389
y FA(mass)
0.411
y FA(vol) Sum
0.410
1.000
Deviation of Blend
from Target
n = 0.40
0.40 Blend 0.40 Target

% Passing % Passing
(by mass) (by mass)
TERNARY BLENDING (FA, IA & CA)
n = 0.40
Sieve % Passing (by 0.40 Blend 0.40 Target Deviation of Blend Size)n
Size
mass)
% Passing % Passing
from Target
[mm]
(by mass) (by mass) Int Only
CA
FA
All
0.40
26.5 100
100
100.0
100.0
0.0
3.71
19 88
100
93.9
87.5
6.4
3.25
16 70
100
84.8
81.7
3.1
3.03
9.5 23
100
60.9
66.3
5.4
5.4
2.46
6.7 12
100
55.3
57.7
2.4
2.4
2.14
4.75
3
99
50.3
50.3
0.0
0.0
1.86
2.36
2
89
44.8
38.0
6.8
6.8
1.41
1.18
2
67
34.0
28.8
5.2
1.07
0.6
2
44
22.7
22.0
0.7
0.82
0.3
2
18
9.9
16.7
6.8
0.62
0.15
1
5
3.0
12.6
9.7
0.47
0.075
1
2
1.5
9.6
8.1
0.35
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
Grain 2720 2730
Sum of Deviations
14.6
54.5
y CA(mass) y FA(mass)
0.508
0.492
Int Only
y CA(vol)
y FA(vol)
0.508
0.492
0.508
0.492
All
y CA(vol)
y FA(vol) Sum
0.508
0.492
1.000
Deviation of Blend from Target % Passing is minimized using the Solver function
4.8
y IA(mass)
0.181
y IA(vol)
0.180
y IA(mass)
0.139
y IA(vol)
0.139
2.7
0.0
2.0
0.1
Int Only
(Sieve
Size)n
All
0.45
0.0
4.37
7.7
3.76
4.9
3.48
2.7
2.75
0.0
2.35
2.0
2.02
0.1
1.47
0.0
1.08
1.8
0.79
5.9
0.58
7.4
0.43
5.8
0.31
0.0
0.00
38.2
y FA(mass)
0.339
y FA(vol)
0.339
y FA(mass)
0.346
y FA(vol) Sum
0.346
1.000
Deviation of Blend
from Target
n = 0.45
0.45 Target
% Passing
(by mass)
100.0
100.0
93.8
86.1
84.6
79.7
60.4
63.0
53.9
53.9
44.2
46.1
33.8
33.7
24.7
24.7
16.4
18.2
7.4
13.3
2.4
9.7
1.3
7.1
0.0
0.0
Sum of Deviations
y CA(mass)
0.480
Int Only
y CA(vol)
0.481
y CA(mass)
0.515
All
y CA(vol)
0.516
0.45 Blend
% Passing
(by mass)
n = 0.45
0.45 Blend 0.45 Target Deviation of Blend Size)n
from Target
% Passing
% Passing
(by mass)
(by mass) Int Only
All
0.45
100.0
100.0
0.0
4.37
93.4
86.1
7.3
3.76
83.5
79.7
3.8
3.48
57.6
63.0
5.4
5.4
2.75
51.5
53.9
2.3
2.3
2.35
46.1
46.1
0.0
0.0
2.02
41.1
33.7
7.4
7.4
1.47
31.2
24.7
6.6
1.08
20.9
18.2
2.7
0.79
9.2
13.3
4.1
0.58
2.8
9.7
6.9
0.43
1.4
7.1
5.7
0.31
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
Sum of Deviations
15.2
52.2
0.551
0.449
Int Only
y CA(vol)
y FA(vol)
0.552
0.448
0.551
0.449
All
y CA(vol)
y FA(vol) Sum
0.552
0.448
1.000
0.50 Target
% Passing
(by mass)
100.0
100.0
93.7
84.7
84.4
77.7
59.9
59.9
53.0
50.3
41.8
42.3
29.8
29.8
21.3
21.1
14.2
15.0
6.5
10.6
2.2
7.5
1.3
5.3
0.0
0.0
Sum of Deviations
y CA(mass)
0.521
Int Only
y CA(vol)
0.522
y CA(mass)
0.521
All
y CA(vol)
0.522
0.50 Blend
% Passing
(by mass)
3.3
y IA(mass)
0.184
y IA(vol)
0.184
y IA(mass)
0.184
y IA(vol)
0.184
0.0
2.8
0.6
0.0
Int Only
All
0.0
9.1
6.7
0.0
2.8
0.6
0.0
0.2
0.9
4.1
5.3
4.0
0.0
33.6
y FA(mass)
0.295
y FA(vol)
0.294
y FA(mass)
0.295
y FA(vol)
0.294
Deviation of Blend from

Target
n = 0.50
n = 0.50
0.50 Blend 0.50 Target Deviation of Blend from
% Passing
% Passing
Target
(by mass)
(by mass)
Int Only
All
100.0
100.0
0.0
92.9
84.7
8.2
82.3
77.7
4.6
54.6
59.9
5.3
5.3
48.1
50.3
2.2
2.2
42.3
42.3
0.0
0.0
37.6
29.8
7.8
7.8
28.6
21.1
7.5
19.2
15.0
4.2
8.6
10.6
2.1
2.6
7.5
4.9
1.4
5.3
3.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
Sum of Deviations
15.4
50.8
y CA(mass)
y FA(mass)
0.590
0.410
Int Only
y CA(vol)
y FA(vol)
0.591
0.409
y CA(mass)
y FA(mass)
0.590
0.410
All
y CA(vol)
y FA(vol)
0.591
0.409
Talbot's Grading Curve (For D = 26.5 mm)
Sum
1.000
0.50
5.15
4.36
4.00
3.08
2.59
2.18
1.54
1.09
0.77
0.55
0.39
0.27
0.00
(Sieve
Size)n
Sum
1.000
0.50
5.15
4.36
4.00
3.08
2.59
2.18
1.54
1.09
0.77
0.55
0.39
0.27
0.00
Size)n
0.55 Target
% Passing
(by mass)
100.0
100.0
93.3
83.3
83.2
75.8
56.9
56.9
49.6
46.9
38.0
38.9
26.4
26.4
18.8
18.1
12.5
12.5
5.9
8.5
2.0
5.8
1.3
4.0
0.0
0.0
Sum of Deviations
y CA(mass)
0.560
Int Only
y CA(vol)
0.561
y CA(mass)
0.560
All
y CA(vol)
0.561
0.55 Blend
% Passing
(by mass)
3.5
y IA(mass)
0.184
y IA(vol)
0.184
y IA(mass)
0.184
y IA(vol)
0.184
0.0
2.7
0.8
0.0
Int Only
All
0.0
10.0
7.4
0.0
2.7
0.8
0.0
0.7
0.1
2.6
3.8
2.7
0.0
30.8
y FA(mass)
0.256
y FA(vol)
0.255
y FA(mass)
0.256
y FA(vol)
0.255
Deviation of Blend from

Target
n = 0.55
n = 0.55
0.55 Blend 0.55 Target Deviation of Blend from
% Passing % Passing
Target
(by mass)
(by mass)
Int Only
All
100.0
100.0
0.0
92.5
83.3
9.2
81.2
75.8
5.4
51.8
56.9
5.1
5.1
44.9
46.9
2.1
2.1
38.9
38.9
0.0
0.0
34.5
26.4
8.0
8.0
26.3
18.1
8.2
17.7
12.5
5.2
8.0
8.5
0.5
2.5
5.8
3.3
1.4
4.0
2.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
Sum of Deviations
15.2
49.8
y CA(mass)
y FA(mass)
0.627
0.373
Int Only
y CA(vol)
y FA(vol)
0.627
0.373
y CA(mass)
y FA(mass)
0.627
0.373
All
y CA(vol)
y FA(vol)
0.627
0.373
Sum
1.000
0.55
6.06
5.05
4.59
3.45
2.85
2.36
1.60
1.10
0.76
0.52
0.35
0.24
0.00
(Sieve
Size)n
Sum
1.000
0.55
6.06
5.05
4.59
3.45
2.85
2.36
1.60
1.10
0.76
0.52
0.35
0.24
0.00
Size)n
182
183
Appendix E: Combined Gradations for All Mix Designs
Sieve Size
1
(mm)
26.5 100
19 88
16 70
9.5 23
6.7 12
4.75 3
2.36 2
1.18 2
0.6 2
0.3 2
0.15 1
0.075 1
0 0
Sieve Size
1
(mm)
26.5 100
19 88
16 70
9.5 23
6.7 12
4.75 3
2.36 2
1.18 2
0.6 2
0.3 2
0.15 1
0.075 1
0 0
100
96
85
33
12
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
0
100
89
69
30
12
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
0
CA
100
96
85
33
12
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
0
100
89
69
30
12
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
0
CA
FA
100
100
100
100
100
99
89
67
44
18
5
2
0
100
93
82
55
49
43
38
29
19
9
3
1
0
100
94
82
59
49
43
38
29
19
9
3
1
0
100
93
84
58
52
46
41
31
21
9
3
1
0
100
94
84
64
55
50
45
34
23
10
3
1
0
100
95
87
67
63
58
52
39
26
11
3
2
0
100
96
88
72
65
60
54
41
27
12
3
2
0
100
95
87
66
60
49
37
26
17
8
2
1
0
100
96
87
71
63
52
39
28
19
8
3
1
0
100
93
83
57
50
37
24
17
11
5
2
1
0
100
94
85
61
55
50
45
34
23
10
3
1
0
100
94
84
64
55
50
45
34
23
10
3
1
0
100
93
83
57
51
46
41
31
21
9
3
1
0
100
94
83
61
51
46
41
31
21
9
3
1
0
100
100
100
100
94
60
14
3
1
1
1
1
0
IA
100
100
100
100
100
99
89
67
44
18
5
2
0
FA
Coarse
Aggregate
Supply
100
94
84
64
55
50
45
34
23
10
3
1
0
100
98
92
64
53
47
42
32
21
9
3
1
0
100
94
83
61
51
46
41
31
21
9
3
1
0
100
98
92
63
51
45
41
31
21
9
3
1
0
100
94
84
64
55
47
39
29
19
8
3
1
0
100
98
92
66
55
46
39
29
19
8
3
1
0
100
95
85
67
58
49
39
29
19
8
3
1
0
100
98
93
68
58
48
39
29
19
8
3
1
0
100
93
82
59
48
42
38
29
19
9
3
1
0
100
94
82
59
49
43
38
29
19
9
3
1
0
Combined Gradation (% Passing)
100
98
91
61
49
42
38
29
19
9
3
1
0
100
96
87
71
63
52
39
28
19
8
3
1
0
100
96
88
72
65
60
54
41
27
12
3
2
0
100
98
94
73
65
60
54
41
27
12
3
2
0
100
93
82
59
48
42
38
29
19
9
3
1
0
100
92
81
52
45
39
34
26
18
8
2
1
0
100
93
81
56
45
39
34
26
18
8
2
1
0
100
94
86
64
58
49
39
29
19
8
3
1
0
100
95
85
67
58
49
39
29
19
8
3
1
0

100
93
82
54
48
42
38
29
19
9
3
1
0
24b
25e
26
27
29
31
28
30
Mix #
CA % vol 0.508 0.536 0.552 0.553 0.511 0.511 0.474 0.474 0.591 0.584 0.584 0.410 0.402 0.400
0
0
0 0.078 0.078 0.116 0.116 0
0
0 0.192 0
0
IA % vol 0
FA % vol 0.492 0.464 0.448 0.447 0.411 0.411 0.410 0.410 0.409 0.416 0.416 0.399 0.598 0.600
Stage 2
100
100
100
100
94
60
14
3
1
1
1
1
0
IA
100
94
85
60
54
44
34
25
16
7
2
1
0
100
94
84
64
54
44
34
25
16
7
2
1
0
100
94
84
60
53
42
30
21
14
7
2
1
0
100
93
83
57
50
38
26
19
13
6
2
1
0
100
92
79
47
39
32
29
22
15
7
2
1
0
100
92
81
50
43
36
32
24
16
7
2
1
0
100
93
84
58
51
43
35
26
17
8
2
1
0
100
94
83
62
51
43
35
26
17
8
2
1
0
100
93
83
56
49
40
31
23
15
7
2
1
0
100
94
85
61
55
47
39
29
19
8
3
1
0
100
94
84
64
55
47
39
29
19
8
3
1
0
100
92
79
47
40
33
29
22
15
7
2
1
0
100
92
81
50
43
37
33
25
17
8
2
1
0
Mix #
1
2
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
CA % vol 0.584 0.584 0.550 0.508 0.424 0.402 0.445 0.410 0.559 0.508 0.508 0.552 0.552 0.591 0.591 0.627 0.627 0.473 0.474 0.516 0.516 0.522 0.561 0.694 0.647 0.546 0.546 0.576 0.511 0.511 0.684 0.649
0
0
0
0
0 0.184 0.192 0.217 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0.118 0.116 0.139 0.139 0.184 0.184 0 0.016 0.093 0.093 0.107 0.078 0.078 0.012 0
IA % vol 0
FA % vol 0.416 0.416 0.450 0.492 0.576 0.598 0.372 0.399 0.224 0.492 0.492 0.448 0.448 0.409 0.409 0.373 0.373 0.410 0.410 0.346 0.346 0.294 0.255 0.306 0.337 0.361 0.361 0.317 0.411 0.411 0.304 0.351
Coarse
Aggregate 1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
Supply
Stage 1
184
Sieve Size
1
(mm)
26.5 100
19 88
16 70
9.5 23
6.7 12
4.75 3
2.36 2
1.18 2
0.6 2
0.3 2
0.15 1
0.075 1
0 0
Sieve Size
1
(mm)
26.5 100
19 88
16 70
9.5 23
6.7 12
4.75 3
2.36 2
1.18 2
0.6 2
0.3 2
0.15 1
0.075 1
0 0
100
96
85
33
12
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
0
100
89
69
30
12
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
0
CA
100
96
85
33
12
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
0
100
89
69
30
12
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
0
CA
FA
100
100
100
100
100
99
89
67
44
18
5
2
0
100
93
81
56
45
39
34
26
18
8
2
1
0
100
94
83
61
51
46
41
31
21
9
3
1
0
100
94
84
64
55
50
45
34
23
10
3
1
0
100
94
84
64
55
47
39
29
19
8
3
1
0
100
95
85
67
58
49
39
29
19
8
3
1
0
100
93
82
59
48
42
38
29
19
9
3
1
0
100
96
87
71
63
52
39
28
19
8
3
1
0
100
96
88
72
65
60
54
41
27
12
3
2
0
100
94
84
64
55
50
45
34
23
10
3
1
0
100
93
81
56
45
39
34
26
18
8
2
1
0
100
100
100
100
94
60
14
3
1
1
1
1
0
IA
100
100
100
100
100
99
89
67
44
18
5
2
0
FA
Coarse
Aggregate
Supply
100
98
91
60
48
42
38
29
19
9
3
1
0
100
97
91
58
45
38
34
26
18
8
2
1
0
100
98
92
63
51
45
41
31
21
9
3
1
0
100
98
92
66
55
46
39
29
19
8
3
1
0
100
98
93
68
58
48
39
29
19
8
3
1
0
100
98
94
71
61
50
38
28
18
8
3
1
0
100
98
92
64
53
47
42
32
21
9
3
1
0
100
97
90
57
43
37
33
25
17
8
2
1
0
100
98
92
66
54
44
34
25
16
7
2
1
0
100
98
92
63
51
42
35
26
17
8
2
1
0
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Mix # 44c
CA % vol 0.591 0.628 0.553 0.511 0.474 0.432 0.536 0.644 0.516 0.546
0
0 0.078 0.116 0.178 0
0 0.139 0.093
IA % vol 0
FA % vol 0.409 0.372 0.447 0.411 0.410 0.390 0.464 0.356 0.346 0.361
Stage 4
100
100
100
100
94
60
14
3
1
1
1
1
0
IA
Coarse
Aggregate
Supply
100
97
90
57
43
37
33
25
17
8
2
1
0
100
94
84
64
54
44
34
25
16
7
2
1
0
100
92
79
47
39
32
24
17
11
5
2
1
0
100
98
94
73
65
60
54
41
27
12
3
2
0
Min Max
Combined
Gradation
of All
Stages
RANGE
100
94
83
62
51
43
35
26
17
8
2
1
0
41
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
42
43
Mix # 32d
CA % vol 0.628 0.552 0.508 0.511 0.474 0.591 0.410 0.402 0.508 0.627 0.644 0.516 0.546
0
0 0.078 0.116 0 0.192 0
0
0
0 0.139 0.093
IA % vol 0
FA % vol 0.372 0.448 0.492 0.411 0.410 0.409 0.399 0.598 0.492 0.373 0.356 0.346 0.361
Stage 3
185
186
Appendix F: Compressive Strength Results for All Stages
187
MIX #1
Cast Date:
04/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#1 [mm]
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#2 [mm]
Peak
Load
Cylinder
#1 [kN]
2
3
7
28
57
91
06/01/2011
07/01/2011
11/01/2011
01/02/2011
02/03/2011
05/04/2011
101.73
101.73
101.81
101.77
101.72
102.17
101.62
101.93
101.62
101.91
101.56
101.9125
163.20
188.20
268.90
343.50
403.29
436.33
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#1 [mm]
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#2 [mm]
Peak
Load
Cylinder
#1 [kN]
101.97
101.75
101.63
101.93
101.64
101.70
102.17
101.53
140.70
180.00
193.10
236.50
140.80
175.70
214.40
275.60
17.23
22.14
23.81
28.98
17.35
21.63
26.15
34.04
17.29
21.88
24.98
31.51
No caps used
101.08
101.96
101.75
101.84
366.19
384.31
362.30
379.57
45.63
47.07
44.56
46.60
45.10
46.83
Basement lab Forney machine

Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#1 [mm]
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#2 [mm]
Peak
Load
Cylinder
#1 [kN]
101.60
101.82
101.83
101.66
101.79
101.74
101.74
101.43
116.60
163.00
201.50
280.20
124.30
158.00
193.20
306.90
14.38
20.02
24.74
34.52
15.28
19.44
23.77
37.98
14.83
19.73
24.25
36.25
No caps used
101.68
101.86
101.71
101.68
323.26
341.53
423.13
357.73
39.81
41.91
52.08
44.06
45.95
42.98

Peak
Peak
Peak
Load
Stress
Stress
Cylinder Cylinder Cylinder
#2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
155.90
216.00
285.60
340.30
391.28
445.27
20.08
23.16
33.03
42.23
49.62
53.22043
19.22
26.47
35.22
41.72
48.31
54.58567
Avg. Peak Stress

[MPa]
19.65
24.81
34.13
41.98
48.96
53.90
Notes
No caps used

MIX #2
Cast Date:
04/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
2
3
7
28
57
91
06/01/2011
07/01/2011
11/01/2011
01/02/2011
02/03/2011
05/04/2011
Peak
Peak
Peak
Load
Stress
Stress
#2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
Avg. Peak Stress

[MPa]
Notes
MIX #5
Cast Date:
04/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
2
3
7
28
57
91
06/01/2011
07/01/2011
11/01/2011
01/02/2011
02/03/2011
05/04/2011
Peak
Peak
Peak
Load
Stress
Stress
#2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
Avg. Peak Stress

[MPa]
Notes
MIX #9
Cast Date:
04/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#1 [mm]
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#2 [mm]
Peak
Load
Cylinder
#1 [kN]
2
3
7
28
57
91
06/01/2011
07/01/2011
11/01/2011
01/02/2011
02/03/2011
05/04/2011
101.99
101.97
101.63
102.09
102.03
102.10
102.22
102.36
101.96
101.88
101.98
101.94
127.00
151.30
213.10
259.20
346.74
337.36
Peak
Peak
Peak
Load
Stress
Stress
#2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
114.30
163.30
214.20
237.00
322.90
346.82
15.55
18.53
26.27
31.66
42.41
41.20
13.93
19.84
26.23
29.07
39.54
42.49
Avg. Peak Stress

[MPa]
14.74
19.19
26.25
30.37
40.97
41.85
Notes
No caps used

188
MIX #4
Cast Date:
10/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#1 [mm]
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#2 [mm]
Peak
Load
Cylinder
#1 [kN]
1
3
8
28
56
91
11/01/2011
13/01/2011
18/01/2011
07/02/2011
07/03/2011
11/04/2011
97.64
101.87
102.02
101.18
101.81
101.90
97.90
101.12
101.82
101.83
101.80
101.81
26.80
129.30
186.00
209.40
227.30
274.28
Peak
Peak
Peak
Load
Stress
Stress
#2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
30.45
127.40
205.00
215.00
238.97
239.50
3.58
15.87
22.75
26.04
27.92
33.63
4.05
15.86
25.18
26.40
29.36
29.42
Avg. Peak Stress

[MPa]
3.81
15.86
23.97
26.22
28.64
31.53
Notes
No caps used

MIX #8
Cast Date:
10/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#1 [mm]
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#2 [mm]
Peak
Load
Cylinder
#1 [kN]
1
3
8
28
56
91
11/01/2011
13/01/2011
18/01/2011
07/02/2011
07/03/2011
11/04/2011
101.31
101.96
101.82
102.06
102.14
101.90
93.70
101.71
102.08
101.46
101.87
101.65
27.67
169.30
240.30
283.70
314.28
328.20
Peak
Peak
Peak
Load
Stress
Stress
#2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
26.65
164.90
239.00
272.10
320.11
336.85
3.43
20.74
29.51
34.68
38.36
40.25
3.87
20.30
29.20
33.65
39.28
41.51
Avg. Peak Stress

[MPa]
3.65
20.52
29.36
34.17
38.82
40.88
Notes
No caps used

MIX #10
Cast Date:
10/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#1 [mm]
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#2 [mm]
Peak
Load
Cylinder
#1 [kN]
1
3
8
28
56
91
11/01/2011
13/01/2011
18/01/2011
07/02/2011
07/03/2011
11/04/2011
97.67
101.01
102.26
101.79
101.72
102.22
92.70
101.88
102.17
101.94
101.71
102.08
35.44
223.10
330.10
352.90
453.22
421.95
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#1 [mm]
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#2 [mm]
Peak
Load
Cylinder
#1 [kN]
100.68
101.62
101.41
101.71
100.24
101.26
101.69
101.53
20.48
202.80
263.20
335.40
21.60
195.90
275.20
323.70
2.57
25.00
32.59
41.28
2.74
24.33
33.89
39.98
2.65
24.66
33.24
40.63
No caps used
101.82
101.78
101.85
101.99
366.23
381.72
352.27
405.39
44.98
46.91
43.24
49.62
44.11
48.27

Peak
Peak
Peak
Load
Stress
Stress
#2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
32.68
219.60
312.60
350.10
426.36
411.16
4.73
27.84
40.19
43.37
55.78
51.41
4.84
26.94
38.13
42.89
52.47
50.24
Avg. Peak Stress

[MPa]
4.79
27.39
39.16
43.13
54.12
50.83
Notes
No caps used

MIX #11
Cast Date:
10/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
1
3
8
28
56
91
11/01/2011
13/01/2011
18/01/2011
07/02/2011
07/03/2011
11/04/2011
Peak
Peak
Peak
Load
Stress
Stress
#2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
Avg. Peak Stress

[MPa]
Notes
189
MIX #12
Cast Date:
10/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#1 [mm]
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#2 [mm]
Peak
Load
Cylinder
#1 [kN]
1
3
8
28
56
91
11/01/2011
13/01/2011
18/01/2011
07/02/2011
07/03/2011
11/04/2011
99.21
101.65
101.82
101.69
101.78
102.03
96.26
101.81
101.52
100.16
101.71
102.05
24.17
199.60
281.40
322.40
354.09
373.08
Peak
Peak
Peak
Load
Stress
Stress
#2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
38.86
188.30
271.30
322.80
358.79
381.49
3.13
24.60
34.56
39.70
43.52
45.63
5.34
23.13
33.51
40.97
44.16
46.64
Avg. Peak Stress

[MPa]
4.23
23.86
34.04
40.33
43.84
46.14
Notes
No caps used

MIX #13
Cast Date:
10/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#1 [mm]
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#2 [mm]
Peak
Load
Cylinder
#1 [kN]
1
3
8
28
56
91
11/01/2011
13/01/2011
18/01/2011
07/02/2011
07/03/2011
11/04/2011
98.45
101.80
101.90
102.18
101.63
101.98
97.38
101.69
102.05
101.74
101.98
101.81
24.66
216.90
324.50
364.70
403.77
413.98
Peak
Peak
Peak
Load
Stress
Stress
#2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
36.58
220.30
316.10
383.70
422.96
410.20
3.24
26.65
39.79
44.48
49.78
50.68
4.91
27.12
38.65
47.20
51.79
50.39
Avg. Peak Stress

[MPa]
4.08
26.89
39.22
45.84
50.78
50.53
Notes
No caps used

MIX #18
Cast Date:
12/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#1 [mm]
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#2 [mm]
Peak
Load
Cylinder
#1 [kN]
2
3
7
28
56
91
14/01/2011
15/01/2011
19/01/2011
09/02/2011
09/03/2011
13/04/2011
102.16
101.42
101.48
101.47
101.68
101.66
102.03
101.55
101.56
102.11
101.83
101.87
153.10
223.10
319.40
405.10
468.99
489.53
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#1 [mm]
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#2 [mm]
Peak
Load
Cylinder
#1 [kN]
101.15
101.44
101.92
100.16
101.78
101.41
101.51
101.55
101.67
101.98
135.20
186.70
273.50
310.60
380.16
137.90
194.40
265.70
367.70
394.57
16.82
23.10
33.52
39.42
46.73
17.07
24.02
32.81
45.29
48.31
16.95
23.56
33.16
42.36
47.52
Ends ground
101.67
101.65
423.99
366.96
52.22
45.22
48.72
Peak
Peak
Peak
Load
Stress
Stress
#2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
158.50
217.20
323.20
422.50
443.36
472.81
18.68
27.62
39.49
50.10
57.75
60.31
19.38
26.82
39.90
51.59
54.44
58.01
Avg. Peak Stress

[MPa]
19.03
27.22
39.69
50.84
56.10
59.16
Notes
No caps used

MIX #20
Cast Date:
12/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
2
3
7
28
56
91
14/01/2011
15/01/2011
19/01/2011
09/02/2011
09/03/2011
13/04/2011
Peak
Peak
Peak
Load
Stress
Stress
#2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
Avg. Peak Stress

[MPa]
Notes
190
MIX #32d
Cast Date:
12/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#1 [mm]
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#2 [mm]
Peak
Load
Cylinder
#1 [kN]
1
3
7
28
56
91
13/01/2011
15/01/2011
19/01/2011
09/02/2011
09/03/2011
13/04/2011
101.27
100.70
101.39
101.78
101.94
101.65
100.00
101.67
101.88
101.61
101.97
101.91
57.47
314.20
477.60
590.30
607.88
593.56
Peak
Peak
Peak
Load
Stress
Stress
#2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
104.90
328.40
476.30
581.00
583.05
642.30
7.13
39.45
59.15
72.55
74.48
73.14
13.36
40.45
58.43
71.66
71.40
78.75
Avg. Peak Stress

[MPa]
10.25
39.95
58.79
72.11
72.94
75.94
Notes
No caps used
Basement lab Forney machine; #1 sudden splitting failure

MIX #33
Cast Date:
12/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#1 [mm]
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#2 [mm]
Peak
Load
Cylinder
#1 [kN]
1
3
7
28
56
91
13/01/2011
15/01/2011
19/01/2011
09/02/2011
09/03/2011
13/04/2011
99.76
100.82
101.67
101.84
101.82
102.11
100.65
100.93
102.03
101.69
101.95
101.70
69.44
313.90
466.80
569.90
569.65
637.46
Peak
Peak
Peak
Load
Stress
Stress
#2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
96.53
314.00
468.30
579.00
629.00
645.07
8.88
39.32
57.50
69.97
69.96
77.84
12.13
39.24
57.28
71.29
77.05
79.41
Avg. Peak Stress

[MPa]
10.51
39.28
57.39
70.63
73.50
78.63
Notes
No caps used

MIX #34
Cast Date:
12/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#1 [mm]
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#2 [mm]
Peak
Load
Cylinder
#1 [kN]
2
3
7
28
56
91
14/01/2011
15/01/2011
19/01/2011
09/02/2011
09/03/2011
13/04/2011
101.72
101.20
101.95
102.05
102.03
102.22
102.38
101.64
101.26
102.61
102.06
102.40
243.30
314.70
447.70
574.00
537.59
570.71
Peak
Peak
Peak
Load
Stress
Stress
#2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
243.00
303.30
453.30
518.80
624.76
587.73
29.94
39.13
54.85
70.18
65.75
69.54
29.52
37.38
56.29
62.74
76.38
71.37
Avg. Peak Stress

[MPa]
29.73
38.25
55.57
66.46
71.06
70.45
Notes
Ends ground

MIX #35
Cast Date:
12/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#1 [mm]
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#2 [mm]
Peak
Load
Cylinder
#1 [kN]
2
3
7
28
56
91
14/01/2011
15/01/2011
19/01/2011
09/02/2011
09/03/2011
13/04/2011
101.98
100.81
101.98
101.42
101.85
102.00
101.45
101.47
101.72
101.59
101.75
101.91
253.80
289.30
452.00
436.90
612.05
514.24
Peak
Peak
Peak
Load
Stress
Stress
#2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
244.80
213.00
433.50
533.80
550.92
533.97
31.07
36.25
55.33
54.08
75.13
62.93
30.29
26.34
53.34
65.85
67.76
65.46
Avg. Peak Stress

[MPa]
30.68
31.29
54.34
59.96
71.44
64.20
Notes
Ends ground

191
MIX #36
Cast Date:
17/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#1 [mm]
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#2 [mm]
Peak
Load
Cylinder
#1 [kN]
1
3
7
28
56
91
18/01/2011
20/01/2011
24/01/2011
14/02/2011
14/03/2011
18/04/2011
98.26
100.53
101.29
101.52
101.87
101.73
99.44
101.87
101.97
101.93
101.76
101.89
61.31
260.00
414.00
426.50
559.21
519.72
Peak
Peak
Peak
Load
Stress
Stress
#2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
111.80
285.40
398.60
474.90
538.28
499.38
8.09
32.76
51.38
52.69
68.61
63.94
14.40
35.01
48.81
58.20
66.19
61.24
Avg. Peak Stress

[MPa]
11.24
33.89
50.09
55.45
67.40
62.59
Notes
No caps used

MIX #37
Cast Date:
17/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#1 [mm]
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#2 [mm]
Peak
Load
Cylinder
#1 [kN]
1
3
7
28
56
91
18/01/2011
20/01/2011
24/01/2011
14/02/2011
14/03/2011
18/04/2011
93.70
101.65
100.75
101.61
102.51
102.19
95.68
101.31
102.04
102.15
102.24
102.26
83.64
296.90
398.50
537.70
593.16
586.56
Peak
Peak
Peak
Load
Stress
Stress
#2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
106.40
303.80
408.30
512.00
568.05
569.13
12.13
36.59
49.99
66.31
71.87
71.52
14.80
37.69
49.93
62.47
69.20
69.30
Avg. Peak Stress

[MPa]
13.46
37.14
49.96
64.39
70.53
70.41
Notes
No caps used

MIX #38
Cast Date:
17/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#1 [mm]
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#2 [mm]
Peak
Load
Cylinder
#1 [kN]
1
3
7
28
56
91
18/01/2011
20/01/2011
24/01/2011
14/02/2011
14/03/2011
18/04/2011
98.36
99.70
101.58
101.84
101.81
102.05
94.80
100.65
100.52
101.71
101.85
101.65
33.33
250.70
364.80
477.20
528.58
616.96
Peak
Peak
Peak
Load
Stress
Stress
#2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
55.93
258.60
355.10
514.90
543.96
532.23
4.39
32.11
45.01
58.59
64.94
75.43
7.92
32.50
44.75
63.38
66.77
65.58
Avg. Peak Stress

[MPa]
6.16
32.31
44.88
60.98
65.85
70.51
Notes
No caps used

MIX #41
Cast Date:
17/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#1 [mm]
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#2 [mm]
Peak
Load
Cylinder
#1 [kN]
1
3
7
28
56
91
18/01/2011
20/01/2011
24/01/2011
14/02/2011
14/03/2011
18/04/2011
101.88
100.90
101.20
102.03
101.90
101.89
102.19
101.72
101.61
101.77
101.85
102.03
104.50
325.90
439.20
545.40
607.88
590.51
Peak
Peak
Peak
Load
Stress
Stress
#2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
117.50
295.00
418.90
559.40
610.39
578.25
12.82
40.76
54.60
66.71
74.53
72.42
14.33
36.30
51.66
68.77
74.92
70.72
Avg. Peak Stress

[MPa]
13.57
38.53
53.13
67.74
74.73
71.57
Notes
No caps used

192
MIX #42
Cast Date:
17/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#1 [mm]
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#2 [mm]
Peak
Load
Cylinder
#1 [kN]
1
3
7
28
56
91
18/01/2011
20/01/2011
24/01/2011
14/02/2011
14/03/2011
18/04/2011
98.26
101.62
101.53
101.60
101.86
101.85
98.82
101.44
101.64
101.74
101.85
101.77
55.58
262.90
346.80
274.00
566.00
569.37
Peak
Peak
Peak
Load
Stress
Stress
#2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
50.88
254.90
396.30
504.20
577.56
553.00
7.33
32.41
42.83
33.80
69.46
69.89
6.63
31.54
48.84
62.02
70.90
67.98
Avg. Peak Stress

[MPa]
6.98
31.98
45.84
62.02
70.18
68.94
Notes
No caps used
#1 improper alignment; disregard

MIX #43
Cast Date:
17/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#1 [mm]
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#2 [mm]
Peak
Load
Cylinder
#1 [kN]
1
3
7
28
56
91
18/01/2011
20/01/2011
24/01/2011
14/02/2011
14/03/2011
18/04/2011
98.02
101.93
101.02
101.58
101.96
101.88
98.77
100.82
100.38
101.83
102.09
101.77
17.69
281.80
395.60
461.70
558.19
546.21
Peak
Peak
Peak
Load
Stress
Stress
#2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
19.84
263.40
381.80
512.00
564.05
496.50
2.34
34.53
49.36
56.97
68.36
67.01
2.59
33.00
48.24
62.87
68.90
61.04
Avg. Peak Stress

[MPa]
2.47
33.76
48.80
59.92
68.63
64.02
Notes
No caps used

MIX #24b
Cast Date:
18/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#1 [mm]
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#2 [mm]
Peak
Load
Cylinder
#1 [kN]
1
3
7
28
56
91
19/01/2011
21/01/2011
25/01/2011
15/02/2011
15/03/2011
19/04/2011
100.00
101.73
103.14
102.24
102.16
102.29
100.00
101.48
101.65
101.67
102.02
101.94
16.83
183.70
241.00
306.90
358.68
361.87
Peak
Peak
Peak
Load
Stress
Stress
#2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
17.01
186.20
234.50
298.50
373.72
373.49
2.14
22.60
28.85
37.38
43.76
44.04
2.17
23.02
28.90
36.77
45.72
45.76
Avg. Peak Stress

[MPa]
2.15
22.81
28.87
37.08
44.74
44.90
Notes
Caps used

MIX #25e
Cast Date:
18/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#1 [mm]
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#2 [mm]
Peak
Load
Cylinder
#1 [kN]
1
3
7
28
56
91
19/01/2011
21/01/2011
25/01/2011
15/02/2011
15/03/2011
19/04/2011
100.00
101.37
101.28
101.81
101.80
101.80
100.00
101.08
101.97
101.75
102.14
101.86
26.18
167.10
232.60
316.00
379.41
369.44
Peak
Peak
Peak
Load
Stress
Stress
#2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
26.67
167.60
194.80
307.50
365.81
375.29
3.33
20.70
28.87
38.81
46.62
45.39
3.40
20.89
23.85
37.82
44.65
46.06
Avg. Peak Stress

[MPa]
3.36
20.80
26.36
38.31
45.63
45.73
Notes
Caps used

193
MIX #26
Cast Date:
18/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#1 [mm]
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#2 [mm]
Peak
Load
Cylinder
#1 [kN]
1
3
7
28
56
91
19/01/2011
21/01/2011
25/01/2011
15/02/2011
15/03/2011
19/04/2011
100.00
100.69
101.73
101.97
101.86
102.07
100.00
101.61
99.28
101.68
101.90
101.97
22.80
184.00
261.40
340.20
381.72
376.97
Peak
Peak
Peak
Load
Stress
Stress
#2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
21.70
184.20
252.10
315.80
409.32
422.21
2.90
23.11
32.16
41.66
46.84
46.07
2.76
22.72
32.56
38.89
50.20
51.71
Avg. Peak Stress

[MPa]
2.83
22.91
32.36
40.27
48.52
48.89
Notes
Caps used

MIX #27
Cast Date:
25/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#1 [mm]
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#2 [mm]
Peak
Load
Cylinder
#1 [kN]
1
3
8
28
56
91
26/01/2011
28/01/2011
02/02/2011
22/02/2011
22/03/2011
26/04/2011
100.00
101.23
101.02
102.00
101.96
101.83
100.00
101.70
101.79
101.99
101.87
101.81
8.85
176.80
260.40
355.90
363.01
328.73
Peak
Peak
Peak
Load
Stress
Stress
#2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
7.05
172.10
252.50
337.80
369.01
403.76
1.13
21.97
32.49
43.56
44.46
40.37
0.90
21.19
31.03
41.35
45.27
49.60
Avg. Peak Stress

[MPa]
1.01
21.58
31.76
42.45
44.87
44.98
Notes
Caps used

MIX #29
Cast Date:
25/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#1 [mm]
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#2 [mm]
Peak
Load
Cylinder
#1 [kN]
1
3
8
28
56
91
26/01/2011
28/01/2011
02/02/2011
22/02/2011
22/03/2011
26/04/2011
100.00
102.26
101.39
101.86
102.11
102.17
100.00
100.60
102.07
102.28
101.16
102.03
11.34
154.30
263.50
312.00
344.56
358.76
Peak
Peak
Peak
Load
Stress
Stress
#2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
11.70
146.20
251.20
331.50
366.82
408.70
1.44
18.79
32.64
38.29
42.08
43.76
1.49
18.40
30.70
40.35
45.64
49.99
Avg. Peak Stress

[MPa]
1.47
18.59
31.67
39.32
43.86
46.88
Notes
Caps used

MIX #31
Cast Date:
25/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#1 [mm]
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#2 [mm]
Peak
Load
Cylinder
#1 [kN]
1
3
8
28
56
91
26/01/2011
28/01/2011
02/02/2011
22/02/2011
22/03/2011
26/04/2011
100.00
101.60
101.85
101.45
102.02
101.78
100.00
101.28
101.74
101.72
102.06
101.90
17.47
191.00
279.00
378.00
399.05
424.76
Peak
Peak
Peak
Load
Stress
Stress
#2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
17.97
186.10
285.00
360.90
403.25
426.58
2.22
23.56
34.24
46.76
48.82
52.21
2.29
23.10
35.06
44.41
49.30
52.31
Avg. Peak Stress

[MPa]
2.26
23.33
34.65
45.59
49.06
52.26
Notes
Caps used

194
MIX #44c
Cast Date:
26/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#1 [mm]
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#2 [mm]
Peak
Load
Cylinder
#1 [kN]
1
3
7
28
56
91
27/01/2011
29/01/2011
02/02/2011
23/02/2011
23/03/2011
27/04/2011
100.00
101.84
101.88
101.59
102.05
102.31
100.00
101.44
101.56
101.54
101.83
101.94
6.49
259.30
432.40
545.80
546.34
618.89
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#1 [mm]
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#2 [mm]
Peak
Load
Cylinder
#1 [kN]
100.00
101.53
101.73
101.77
101.83
101.59
100.00
100.55
101.89
101.98
101.93
101.40
33.34
266.60
453.00
582.60
614.56
561.51
Peak
Peak
Peak
Load
Stress
Stress
#2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
8.94
288.70
378.90
567.80
564.19
582.91
0.83
31.83
53.04
67.33
66.80
75.29
1.14
35.73
46.77
70.12
69.27
71.42
Avg. Peak Stress

[MPa]
0.98
33.78
49.91
68.73
68.04
73.35
Notes
Caps used

MIX #45
Cast Date:
26/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
27/01/2011
3
7
28
56
91
29/01/2011
02/02/2011
23/02/2011
23/03/2011
27/04/2011
Peak
Peak
Peak
Load
Stress
Stress
#2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
50.71
287.30
462.70
549.50
630.32
618.04
4.24
32.93
55.73
71.62
75.46
69.27
6.46
36.18
56.75
67.27
77.24
76.53
Avg. Peak Stress

[MPa]
5.35
34.55
56.24
69.44
76.35
72.90
Notes
Caps used

MIX #46
Cast Date:
26/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#1 [mm]
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#2 [mm]
Peak
Load
Cylinder
#1 [kN]
1
3
7
28
56
91
27/01/2011
29/01/2011
02/02/2011
23/02/2011
23/03/2011
27/04/2011
100.00
101.49
101.32
101.83
101.71
101.73
100.00
101.50
101.78
101.03
101.71
101.86
5.43
260.50
383.40
483.50
636.30
515.83
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#2 [mm]
Peak
Load
Cylinder
#1 [kN]
100.00
100.65
101.26
101.66
102.17
101.94
2.32
240.50
403.70
540.10
527.51
521.67
Peak
Peak
Peak
Load
Stress
Stress
#2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
7.52
256.70
374.30
496.20
520.43
557.91
0.69
32.20
47.56
59.37
78.31
63.46
0.96
31.72
46.01
61.90
64.05
68.46
Avg. Peak Stress

[MPa]
0.82
31.96
46.78
60.63
71.18
65.96
Notes
Caps used

MIX #47
Cast Date:
26/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#1 [mm]
1
3
7
28
56
91
27/01/2011
29/01/2011
02/02/2011
23/02/2011
23/03/2011
27/04/2011
100.00
99.08
101.25
101.72
102.48
101.70
Peak
Peak
Peak
Load
Stress
Stress
#2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
2.10
262.50
409.70
508.60
489.74
529.13
0.30
31.19
50.14
66.46
63.95
64.22
0.27
32.99
50.87
62.66
59.74
64.83
Avg. Peak Stress

[MPa]
0.28
32.09
50.51
64.56
61.84
64.53
Notes
Caps used

195
MIX #48
Cast Date:
31/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
02/02/2011
101.67
101.77
211.10
216.20
26.00
26.58
26.29
Caps used
3
9
28
56
91
03/02/2011
09/02/2011
28/02/2011
28/03/2011
02/05/2011
101.77
101.69
101.91
101.67
102.05
101.71
101.87
101.91
101.61
101.81
263.70
389.60
489.50
523.24
523.85
256.80
399.00
472.60
547.53
561.55
32.42
47.98
60.01
64.46
64.04
31.61
48.96
57.94
67.53
68.98
32.01
48.47
58.97
65.99
66.51

Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#1 [mm]
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#2 [mm]
Peak
Load
Cylinder
#1 [kN]
Peak
Peak
Peak
Load
Stress
Stress
#2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
Avg. Peak Stress

[MPa]
Notes
MIX #49 - 1
Cast Date:
31/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#1 [mm]
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#2 [mm]
Peak
Load
Cylinder
#1 [kN]
2
3
9
28
56
91
02/02/2011
03/02/2011
09/02/2011
28/02/2011
28/03/2011
02/05/2011
101.60
101.48
101.36
101.71
101.91
101.92
101.18
101.72
102.05
101.68
101.87
101.91
227.30
269.50
410.80
543.10
530.43
512.03
Peak
Peak
Peak
Load
Stress
Stress
#2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
229.40
272.70
421.90
495.20
534.87
532.6
28.04
33.32
50.91
66.84
65.04
62.76
28.53
33.56
51.58
60.98
65.63
65.29
Avg. Peak Stress

[MPa]
28.29
33.44
51.24
63.91
65.33
64.02
Notes
Ends ground

MIX #49 - 2
Cast Date:
31/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#1 [mm]
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#2 [mm]
Peak
Load
Cylinder
#1 [kN]
2
3
9
28
56
91
02/02/2011
03/02/2011
09/02/2011
28/02/2011
28/03/2011
02/05/2011
101.86
101.68
101.61
101.77
101.82
101.64
101.84
101.24
101.81
101.77
101.89
101.90
238.10
286.60
477.00
556.60
588.12
555.02
Peak
Peak
Peak
Load
Stress
Stress
#2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
240.20
292.40
466.40
584.30
583.35
593.38
29.22
35.30
58.82
68.42
72.24
68.41
29.49
36.32
57.29
71.83
71.54
72.76
Avg. Peak Stress

[MPa]
29.36
35.81
58.06
70.13
71.89
70.59
Notes
Ends ground

MIX #51
Cast Date:
31/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#1 [mm]
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#2 [mm]
Peak
Load
Cylinder
#1 [kN]
2
3
9
28
56
91
02/02/2011
03/02/2011
09/02/2011
28/02/2011
28/03/2011
02/05/2011
102.00
102.19
102.43
101.87
102.12
101.97
102.15
102.20
101.86
102.13
102.59
102.00
220.90
300.90
438.50
571.00
550.16
547.89
Peak
Peak
Peak
Load
Stress
Stress
#2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
231.20
201.90
437.10
503.70
555.96
593.86
27.03
36.69
53.22
70.06
67.18
67.09
28.21
24.61
53.64
61.49
67.26
72.68
Avg. Peak Stress

[MPa]
27.62
30.65
53.43
65.77
67.22
69.89
Notes
Ends ground

196
MIX #52
Cast Date:
31/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#1 [mm]
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#2 [mm]
Peak
Load
Cylinder
#1 [kN]
2
3
9
28
56
91
02/02/2011
03/02/2011
09/02/2011
28/02/2011
28/03/2011
02/05/2011
101.71
101.63
101.77
101.78
102.26
101.84
101.98
101.28
101.82
101.74
101.70
101.91
231.70
305.30
414.70
591.20
559.35
636.14
Peak
Peak
Peak
Load
Stress
Stress
#2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
234.10
286.20
470.70
550.80
618.55
555.86
28.52
37.63
50.98
72.67
68.11
78.09
28.66
35.52
57.81
67.76
76.15
68.15
Avg. Peak Stress

[MPa]
28.59
36.58
54.39
70.21
72.13
73.12
Notes
Ends ground

MIX #53
Cast Date:
31/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#1 [mm]
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#2 [mm]
Peak
Load
Cylinder
#1 [kN]
2
3
9
28
56
91
02/02/2011
03/02/2011
09/02/2011
28/02/2011
28/03/2011
02/05/2011
101.87
101.60
101.55
101.78
101.80
102.32
101.74
101.32
101.77
101.73
101.75
102.02
244.10
295.70
441.40
529.50
609.10
610.87
Peak
Peak
Peak
Load
Stress
Stress
#2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
255.60
299.10
464.00
515.40
542.82
540.29
29.95
36.48
54.50
65.09
74.83
74.29
31.44
37.10
57.05
63.41
66.76
66.10
Avg. Peak Stress

[MPa]
30.70
36.79
55.78
64.25
70.79
70.20
Notes
Ends ground

MIX #50
Cast Date:
12/05/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#1 [mm]
Avg.
Diameter
Cylinder
#2 [mm]
Peak
Load
Cylinder
#1 [kN]
1
3
7
28
56
91
13/05/2011
15/05/2011
19/05/2011
09/06/2011
07/07/2011
11/08/2011
100.00
101.96
101.73
102.10
102.02
101.72
100.00
101.87
101.67
101.81
102.26
101.92
154.60
277.10
343.50
469.22
516.62
490.67
Peak
Peak
Peak
Load
Stress
Stress
#2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
153.10
276.90
365.10
448.42
494.91
485.53
19.68
33.94
42.27
57.31
63.20
60.39
19.49
33.98
44.98
55.09
60.27
59.52
Avg. Peak Stress

[MPa]
19.59
33.96
43.62
56.20
61.73
59.95
Notes
Caps used

197
Appendix G: Linear Drying Shrinkage Results for All Stages
198
MIX #1
Cast Date:
04/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
1
7
14
28
42
56
91
05/01/2011
11/01/2011
18/01/2011
01/02/2011
15/02/2011
01/03/2011
05/04/2011
MIX #2
Cast Date:
04/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
1
7
14
28
42
56
91
05/01/2011
11/01/2011
18/01/2011
01/02/2011
15/02/2011
01/03/2011
05/04/2011
MIX #5
Cast Date:
04/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
1
7
14
28
42
56
91
05/01/2011
11/01/2011
18/01/2011
01/02/2011
15/02/2011
01/03/2011
05/04/2011
MIX #9
Cast Date:
04/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
1
7
14
28
42
56
91
05/01/2011
11/01/2011
18/01/2011
01/02/2011
15/02/2011
01/03/2011
05/04/2011
MIX #4
Cast Date:
10/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
1
8
14
28
35
56
91
11/01/2011
18/01/2011
24/01/2011
07/02/2011
14/02/2011
07/03/2011
11/04/2011
Gauge Length #1 [mm] =

Mass
Mass
Prism #1 Prism #2
[g]
[g]
4073
4095
4029
4016
4013
4009
4003
4090
4113
4044
4031
4027
4024
4018
Mass
Prism #3
[g]
4107
4129
4061
4048
4045
4041
4036

Mass
Mass
Prism #1 Prism #2
[g]
[g]
Mass
Prism #3
[g]
268.148
268.300
267.691
OPSS LS-435 R23
ASTM C 157 (Modified)
Corrected Corrected Corrected

Average
Average
CRD
CRD
CRD
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Average
Length
Length
Prism #1 Prism #2 Prism #3 Change
Change
Change
Change
Change
Change
Mass [g]
Change
Change
[mm]
[mm]
[mm]
Prism #1 Prism #2
Prism #3
Prism #1 Prism #2 Prism #3
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
4090
4112
4045
4032
4028
4025
4019
3.969
3.984
3.929
3.918
3.882
3.864
3.858
4.307
4.320
4.267
4.254
4.217
4.202
4.199
3.658
3.675
3.624
3.612
3.579
3.563
3.562
-0.0205
-0.0246
-0.0395
-0.0462
-0.0485
271.221
270.256
270.535
-0.0198
-0.0246
-0.0399
-0.0455
-0.0466
-0.0191
-0.0235
-0.0374
-0.0433
-0.0437
-0.0198
-0.0242
-0.0389
-0.0450
-0.0463
-0.0149
-0.0190
-0.0339
-0.0406
-0.0429
OPSS LS-435 R23
-0.0149
-0.0198
-0.0350
-0.0406
-0.0417
-0.0127
-0.0172
-0.0310
-0.0370
-0.0374
-0.0142
-0.0187
-0.0333
-0.0394
-0.0407

Average
Average
CRD
CRD
CRD
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Average
Length
Length
Change
Change
Change
Change
Change
Mass [g]
Change
Change
[mm]
[mm]
[mm]
Prism #1 Prism #2
Prism #3
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
4238
4258
4193
4182
4236
4256
4191
4180
4185
4204
4142
4131
4220
4239
4175
4164
7.101
7.117
7.082
7.067
6.252
6.268
6.241
6.198
6.586
6.602
6.576
6.543
-0.0129
-0.0184
-0.0100
-0.0259
-0.0096
-0.0218
-0.0108
-0.0220
-0.0070
-0.0125
-0.0041
-0.0200
-0.0037
-0.0159
-0.0049
-0.0161
4179
4176
4170
4176
4173
4168
4128
4125
4119
4161
4158
4152
7.035
7.021
7.004
6.174
6.161
6.155
6.507
6.493
6.468
-0.0317
-0.0369
-0.0431
-0.0363
-0.0411
-0.0433
-0.0366
-0.0418
-0.0510
-0.0349
-0.0399
-0.0458
-0.0258
-0.0310
-0.0372
-0.0303
-0.0352
-0.0374
-0.0307
-0.0359
-0.0451
-0.0289
-0.0340
-0.0399
271.526

273.304
273.431
Mass
Mass
Prism #1 Prism #2
[g]
[g]
Mass
Prism #3
[g]
OPSS LS-435 R23

Average
Average
CRD
CRD
CRD
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Average
Length
Length
Change
Change
Change
Change
Change
Mass [g]
Change
Change
[mm]
[mm]
[mm]
Prism #1 Prism #2
Prism #3
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
4015
4046
3975
3963
4037
4068
3995
3982
4079
4109
4043
4031
4044
4074
4004
3992
8.358
8.382
8.307
8.283
9.431
9.449
9.408
9.386
9.282
9.303
9.249
9.232
-0.0276
-0.0365
-0.0150
-0.0231
-0.0197
-0.0260
-0.0208
-0.0285
-0.0188
-0.0276
-0.0084
-0.0165
-0.0121
-0.0183
-0.0131
-0.0208
3959
3956
3950
3979
3976
3971
4028
4025
4019
3989
3986
3980
8.248
8.229
8.216
9.350
9.333
9.324
9.200
9.184
9.172
-0.0508
-0.0578
-0.0626
-0.0377
-0.0439
-0.0472
-0.0391
-0.0450
-0.0494
-0.0425
-0.0489
-0.0531
-0.0420
-0.0490
-0.0538
-0.0311
-0.0373
-0.0406
-0.0315
-0.0373
-0.0417
-0.0348
-0.0412
-0.0454

Mass
Mass
Prism #1 Prism #2
[g]
[g]
4083
4110
4035
4022
4019
4015
4009
4116
4144
4068
4054
4051
4047
4042
Mass
Prism #3
[g]
4038
4064
3992
3979
3975
3972
3967

Mass
Mass
Prism #1 Prism #2
[g]
[g]
3873
3901
3819
3802
3799
3792
3789
3863
3890
3806
3788
3785
3778
3774
Mass
Prism #3
[g]
3764
3789
3711
3695
3692
3685
3682
274.447
275.666
275.107
OPSS LS-435 R23

Average
Average
CRD
CRD
CRD
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Average
Length
Length
Change
Change
Change
Change
Change
Mass [g]
Change
Change
[mm]
[mm]
[mm]
Prism #1 Prism #2
Prism #3
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
4079
4106
4032
4018
4015
4011
4006
10.435
10.449
10.393
10.368
10.336
10.317
10.305
11.591
11.606
11.560
11.537
11.502
11.487
11.467
11.125
11.139
11.095
11.070
11.040
11.024
11.002
-0.0204
-0.0295
-0.0426
-0.0496
-0.0539
271.145
270.383
268.732
-0.0167
-0.0250
-0.0392
-0.0446
-0.0519
-0.0160
-0.0251
-0.0374
-0.0433
-0.0513
-0.0177
-0.0265
-0.0397
-0.0458
-0.0524
-0.0153
-0.0244
-0.0375
-0.0445
-0.0488
OPSS LS-435 R23
-0.0112
-0.0196
-0.0337
-0.0392
-0.0464
-0.0109
-0.0200
-0.0324
-0.0382
-0.0462
-0.0125
-0.0213
-0.0345
-0.0406
-0.0471

Average
Average
CRD
CRD
CRD
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Average
Length
Length
Change
Change
Change
Change
Change
Mass [g]
Change
Change
[mm]
[mm]
[mm]
Prism #1 Prism #2
Prism #3
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
3833
3860
3779
3762
3759
3752
3748
10.593
10.622
10.559
10.492
10.478
10.469
10.457
9.643
9.673
9.615
9.543
9.529
9.520
9.505
9.504
9.533
9.462
9.391
9.374
9.362
9.350
-0.0232
-0.0479
-0.0531
-0.0579
-0.0623
-0.0215
-0.0481
-0.0533
-0.0581
-0.0636
-0.0264
-0.0528
-0.0592
-0.0651
-0.0696
-0.0237
-0.0496
-0.0552
-0.0604
-0.0652
-0.0125
-0.0372
-0.0424
-0.0472
-0.0516
-0.0104
-0.0370
-0.0422
-0.0470
-0.0525
-0.0156
-0.0420
-0.0484
-0.0543
-0.0588
-0.0128
-0.0388
-0.0443
-0.0495
-0.0543
199
MIX #8
Cast Date:
10/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
1
8
14
28
35
56
91
11/01/2011
18/01/2011
24/01/2011
07/02/2011
14/02/2011
07/03/2011
11/04/2011
MIX #10
Cast Date:
10/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
1
8
14
28
35
56
91
11/01/2011
18/01/2011
24/01/2011
07/02/2011
14/02/2011
07/03/2011
11/04/2011
MIX #11
Cast Date:
10/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
1
8
14
28
35
56
91
11/01/2011
18/01/2011
24/01/2011
07/02/2011
14/02/2011
07/03/2011
11/04/2011
MIX #12
Cast Date:
10/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
1
8
14
28
35
56
91
11/01/2011
18/01/2011
24/01/2011
07/02/2011
14/02/2011
07/03/2011
11/04/2011
MIX #13
Cast Date:
10/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
1
8
14
28
35
56
91
11/01/2011
18/01/2011
24/01/2011
07/02/2011
14/02/2011
07/03/2011
11/04/2011

Mass
Mass
Prism #1 Prism #2
[g]
[g]
3986
4013
3947
3928
3924
3918
3915
4014
4045
3986
3968
3964
3958
3955
Mass
Prism #3
[g]
3902
3929
3867
3849
3845
3838
3835

Mass
Mass
Prism #1 Prism #2
[g]
[g]
4072
4098
4041
4028
4027
4021
4017
4147
4173
4112
4099
4097
4092
4089
Mass
Prism #3
[g]
4071
4094
4037
4024
4022
4016
4013

Mass
Mass
Prism #1 Prism #2
[g]
[g]
Mass
Prism #3
[g]
Note: Prism #2 epoxy used to place top stud
271.399
269.748
269.113
OPSS LS-435 R23

Average
Average
CRD
CRD
CRD
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Average
Length
Length
Change
Change
Change
Change
Change
Mass [g]
Change
Change
[mm]
[mm]
[mm]
Prism #1 Prism #2
Prism #3
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
3967
3996
3933
3915
3911
3905
3902
8.431
8.489
8.416
8.359
8.341
8.334
8.324
8.494
8.582
8.510
8.449
8.423
8.413
8.401
6.003
6.056
5.990
5.933
5.915
5.910
5.896
-0.0269
-0.0479
-0.0545
-0.0586
-0.0623
274.320
274.117
273.634
-0.0267
-0.0493
-0.0589
-0.0641
-0.0686
-0.0245
-0.0457
-0.0524
-0.0557
-0.0609
-0.0260
-0.0476
-0.0553
-0.0595
-0.0639
-0.0055
-0.0265
-0.0332
-0.0372
-0.0409
OPSS LS-435 R23
0.0059
-0.0167
-0.0263
-0.0315
-0.0360
-0.0048
-0.0260
-0.0327
-0.0360
-0.0412
-0.0015
-0.0231
-0.0307
-0.0349
-0.0394

Average
Average
CRD
CRD
CRD
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Average
Length
Length
Change
Change
Change
Change
Change
Mass [g]
Change
Change
[mm]
[mm]
[mm]
Prism #1 Prism #2
Prism #3
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
4097
4122
4063
4050
4049
4043
4040
11.946
12.003
11.947
11.887
11.876
11.871
11.850
10.780
10.831
10.779
10.724
10.709
10.706
10.686
9.635
9.695
9.632
9.579
9.564
9.562
9.545
-0.0204
-0.0423
-0.0463
-0.0496
-0.0572
271.145
273.558
273.939
-0.0190
-0.0390
-0.0445
-0.0471
-0.0544
-0.0230
-0.0424
-0.0479
-0.0501
-0.0563
-0.0208
-0.0412
-0.0462
-0.0489
-0.0560
0.0004
-0.0215
-0.0255
-0.0288
-0.0365
OPSS LS-435 R23
-0.0004
-0.0204
-0.0259
-0.0285
-0.0358
-0.0011
-0.0205
-0.0259
-0.0281
-0.0344
-0.0004
-0.0208
-0.0258
-0.0285
-0.0355

Average
Average
CRD
CRD
CRD
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Average
Length
Length
Change
Change
Change
Change
Change
Mass [g]
Change
Change
[mm]
[mm]
[mm]
Prism #1 Prism #2
Prism #3
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
4105
4132
4071
4053
4058
4085
4022
4005
4094
4122
4061
4044
4086
4113
4051
4034
9.199
9.251
9.201
9.144
11.064
11.119
11.065
11.013
12.287
12.349
12.291
12.243
-0.0184
-0.0395
-0.0197
-0.0387
-0.0212
-0.0387
-0.0198
-0.0390
0.0007
-0.0203
0.0004
-0.0186
0.0015
-0.0161
0.0009
-0.0183
4049
4044
4041
4001
3995
3993
4040
4034
4031
4030
4024
4022
9.126
9.117
9.114
10.986
10.984
10.972
12.221
12.207
12.206
-0.0461
-0.0509
-0.0520
-0.0486
-0.0508
-0.0552
-0.0467
-0.0533
-0.0537
-0.0471
-0.0517
-0.0536
-0.0269
-0.0317
-0.0328
-0.0285
-0.0307
-0.0351
-0.0241
-0.0307
-0.0310
-0.0265
-0.0310
-0.0330

Mass
Mass
Prism #1 Prism #2
[g]
[g]
3983
4012
3950
3936
3932
3926
3923
4096
4125
4059
4043
4040
4033
4030
Mass
Prism #3
[g]
4069
4095
4031
4016
4012
4006
4003

Mass
Mass
Prism #1 Prism #2
[g]
[g]
4196
4225
4162
4147
4144
4137
4134
4151
4178
4117
4102
4099
4093
4090
Mass
Prism #3
[g]
4124
4151
4090
4076
4073
4066
4063
276.479
274.218
271.780
OPSS LS-435 R23

Average
Average
CRD
CRD
CRD
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Average
Length
Length
Change
Change
Change
Change
Change
Mass [g]
Change
Change
[mm]
[mm]
[mm]
Prism #1 Prism #2
Prism #3
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
4049
4077
4013
3998
3995
3988
3985
13.395
13.445
13.382
13.328
13.310
13.301
13.286
10.744
10.787
10.739
10.680
10.668
10.660
10.644
8.289
8.338
8.271
8.224
8.213
8.206
8.188
-0.0228
-0.0423
-0.0488
-0.0535
-0.0590
280.975
280.162
277.419
-0.0175
-0.0390
-0.0434
-0.0478
-0.0536
-0.0247
-0.0419
-0.0460
-0.0500
-0.0567
-0.0216
-0.0411
-0.0461
-0.0504
-0.0564
-0.0047
-0.0242
-0.0307
-0.0354
-0.0409
OPSS LS-435 R23
-0.0018
-0.0233
-0.0277
-0.0321
-0.0379
-0.0066
-0.0239
-0.0280
-0.0320
-0.0386
-0.0044
-0.0238
-0.0288
-0.0332
-0.0391

Average
Average
CRD
CRD
CRD
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Average
Length
Length
Change
Change
Change
Change
Change
Mass [g]
Change
Change
[mm]
[mm]
[mm]
Prism #1 Prism #2
Prism #3
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
4157
4185
4123
4108
4105
4099
4096
20.283
20.320
20.275
20.220
20.199
20.188
20.179
17.920
17.968
17.905
17.868
17.847
17.840
17.832
14.168
14.217
14.151
14.113
14.090
14.083
14.060
-0.0160
-0.0356
-0.0431
-0.0484
-0.0516
-0.0225
-0.0357
-0.0432
-0.0471
-0.0500
-0.0238
-0.0375
-0.0458
-0.0497
-0.0580
-0.0208
-0.0363
-0.0440
-0.0484
-0.0532
-0.0028
-0.0224
-0.0299
-0.0352
-0.0384
-0.0054
-0.0186
-0.0261
-0.0300
-0.0328
-0.0061
-0.0198
-0.0281
-0.0321
-0.0404
-0.0048
-0.0203
-0.0280
-0.0324
-0.0372
200
MIX #18
Cast Date:
12/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
2
7
14
28
35
56
91
14/01/2011
19/01/2011
26/01/2011
09/02/2011
16/02/2011
09/03/2011
13/04/2011
MIX #20
Cast Date:
12/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
2
7
14
28
35
56
14/01/2011
19/01/2011
26/01/2011
09/02/2011
16/02/2011
09/03/2011
91
13/04/2011
MIX #32d
Cast Date:
12/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
2
7
14
28
35
56
91
14/01/2011
19/01/2011
26/01/2011
09/02/2011
16/02/2011
09/03/2011
13/04/2011
MIX #33
Cast Date:
12/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
2
7
14
28
35
56
91
14/01/2011
19/01/2011
26/01/2011
09/02/2011
16/02/2011
09/03/2011
13/04/2011
MIX #34
Cast Date:
12/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
2
7
14
28
35
56
91
14/01/2011
19/01/2011
26/01/2011
09/02/2011
16/02/2011
09/03/2011
13/04/2011

Mass
Mass
Prism #1 Prism #2
[g]
[g]
4058
4078
4018
4003
4002
3996
3991
4180
4200
4138
4123
4122
4115
4110
Mass
Prism #3
[g]
4218
4237
4177
4162
4160
4154
4150

Mass
Mass
Prism #1 Prism #2
[g]
[g]
Mass
Prism #3
[g]
273.914
273.888
274.523
OPSS LS-435 R23

Average
Average
CRD
CRD
CRD
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Average
Length
Length
Change
Change
Change
Change
Change
Mass [g]
Change
Change
[mm]
[mm]
[mm]
Prism #1 Prism #2
Prism #3
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
4152
4172
4111
4096
4095
4088
4084
10.798
10.814
10.755
10.741
10.707
10.697
10.687
10.930
10.947
10.887
10.875
10.838
10.828
10.813
11.880
11.896
11.828
11.821
11.787
11.776
11.763
-0.0215
-0.0267
-0.0405
-0.0442
-0.0478
269.773
271.272
270.281
-0.0219
-0.0263
-0.0413
-0.0449
-0.0504
-0.0248
-0.0273
-0.0412
-0.0452
-0.0499
-0.0227
-0.0268
-0.0410
-0.0448
-0.0494
-0.0157
-0.0208
-0.0347
-0.0383
-0.0420
OPSS LS-435 R23
-0.0157
-0.0201
-0.0351
-0.0387
-0.0442
-0.0189
-0.0215
-0.0353
-0.0393
-0.0441
-0.0168
-0.0208
-0.0350
-0.0388
-0.0434

Average
Average
CRD
CRD
CRD
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Average
Length
Length
Change
Change
Change
Change
Change
Mass [g]
Change
Change
[mm]
[mm]
[mm]
Prism #1 Prism #2
Prism #3
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
3854
3874
3808
3790
3789
3896
3915
3849
3831
3830
3940
3959
3894
3878
3876
3897
3916
3850
3833
3832
6.229
6.239
6.190
6.163
6.126
10.941
10.970
10.913
10.886
10.851
12.232
12.263
12.201
12.172
12.137
-0.0182
-0.0282
-0.0434
-0.0210
-0.0310
-0.0453
-0.0229
-0.0337
-0.0481
-0.0207
-0.0309
-0.0456
-0.0145
-0.0245
-0.0397
-0.0103
-0.0203
-0.0347
-0.0115
-0.0222
-0.0366
-0.0121
-0.0223
-0.0370
3783
3780
3824
3820
3871
3867
3826
3822
6.113
6.104
10.839
10.828
12.124
12.114
-0.0482
-0.0515
-0.0498
-0.0538
-0.0529
-0.0566
-0.0503
-0.0540
-0.0445
-0.0478
-0.0391
-0.0431
-0.0414
-0.0451
-0.0417
-0.0454

Mass
Mass
Prism #1 Prism #2
[g]
[g]
4308
4324
4277
4265
4264
4259
4256
4365
4381
4332
4318
4317
4313
4310
Mass
Prism #3
[g]
4276
4291
4243
4231
4230
4226
4222

Mass
Mass
Prism #1 Prism #2
[g]
[g]
4186
4202
4151
4137
4136
4131
4128
4229
4246
4192
4178
4178
4173
4170
Mass
Prism #3
[g]
4286
4302
4250
4237
4236
4232
4229

Mass
Mass
Prism #1 Prism #2
[g]
[g]
4179
4195
4156
4144
4143
4138
4134
4254
4271
4229
4217
4216
4211
4208
Mass
Prism #3
[g]
4220
4239
4195
4183
4182
4177
4174
274.015
274.015
273.634
OPSS LS-435 R23

Average
Average
CRD
CRD
CRD
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Average
Length
Length
Change
Change
Change
Change
Change
Mass [g]
Change
Change
[mm]
[mm]
[mm]
Prism #1 Prism #2
Prism #3
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
4316
4332
4284
4271
4270
4266
4263
10.320
10.332
10.302
10.279
10.244
10.237
10.224
10.428
10.441
10.384
10.387
10.351
10.345
10.333
10.093
10.105
10.068
10.048
10.014
10.007
9.992
-0.0109
-0.0193
-0.0336
-0.0361
-0.0409
275.107
272.390
271.983
-0.0208
-0.0197
-0.0343
-0.0365
-0.0409
-0.0135
-0.0208
-0.0347
-0.0373
-0.0428
-0.0151
-0.0200
-0.0342
-0.0366
-0.0415
-0.0066
-0.0150
-0.0292
-0.0318
-0.0365
OPSS LS-435 R23
-0.0161
-0.0150
-0.0296
-0.0318
-0.0361
-0.0091
-0.0164
-0.0303
-0.0329
-0.0384
-0.0106
-0.0155
-0.0297
-0.0321
-0.0370

Average
Average
CRD
CRD
CRD
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Average
Length
Length
Change
Change
Change
Change
Change
Mass [g]
Change
Change
[mm]
[mm]
[mm]
Prism #1 Prism #2
Prism #3
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
4234
4250
4198
4184
4183
4179
4176
12.256
12.285
12.238
12.214
12.179
12.172
12.156
11.133
11.160
11.099
11.089
11.055
11.046
11.035
12.192
12.218
12.171
12.150
12.116
12.109
12.099
-0.0171
-0.0258
-0.0400
-0.0425
-0.0483
273.304
272.186
271.247
-0.0224
-0.0261
-0.0400
-0.0433
-0.0474
-0.0173
-0.0250
-0.0390
-0.0415
-0.0452
-0.0189
-0.0256
-0.0397
-0.0425
-0.0470
-0.0065
-0.0153
-0.0294
-0.0320
-0.0378
OPSS LS-435 R23
-0.0125
-0.0162
-0.0301
-0.0334
-0.0374
-0.0077
-0.0154
-0.0294
-0.0320
-0.0357
-0.0089
-0.0156
-0.0297
-0.0325
-0.0370

Average
Average
CRD
CRD
CRD
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Average
Length
Length
Change
Change
Change
Change
Change
Mass [g]
Change
Change
[mm]
[mm]
[mm]
Prism #1 Prism #2
Prism #3
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
4218
4235
4193
4181
4180
4175
4172
8.408
8.419
8.346
8.350
8.313
8.306
8.297
8.483
8.497
8.422
8.423
8.388
8.381
8.371
8.439
8.450
8.375
8.377
8.341
8.334
8.322
-0.0267
-0.0252
-0.0402
-0.0428
-0.0461
-0.0276
-0.0272
-0.0415
-0.0441
-0.0478
-0.0277
-0.0269
-0.0417
-0.0442
-0.0487
-0.0273
-0.0264
-0.0411
-0.0437
-0.0475
-0.0227
-0.0212
-0.0362
-0.0388
-0.0421
-0.0224
-0.0220
-0.0364
-0.0389
-0.0426
-0.0236
-0.0229
-0.0376
-0.0402
-0.0446
-0.0229
-0.0220
-0.0367
-0.0393
-0.0431
201
MIX #35
Cast Date:
12/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
2
7
14
28
35
56
91
14/01/2011
19/01/2011
26/01/2011
09/02/2011
16/02/2011
09/03/2011
13/04/2011
MIX #36
Cast Date:
17/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
1
7
15
28
35
57
91
18/01/2011
24/01/2011
01/02/2011
14/02/2011
21/02/2011
15/03/2011
18/04/2011
MIX #37
Cast Date:
17/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
1
7
15
28
35
57
91
18/01/2011
24/01/2011
01/02/2011
14/02/2011
21/02/2011
15/03/2011
18/04/2011
MIX #38
Cast Date:
17/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
1
7
15
28
35
57
91
18/01/2011
24/01/2011
01/02/2011
14/02/2011
21/02/2011
15/03/2011
18/04/2011
MIX #41
Cast Date:
17/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
1
7
15
28
35
57
91
18/01/2011
24/01/2011
01/02/2011
14/02/2011
21/02/2011
15/03/2011
18/04/2011

Mass
Mass
Prism #1 Prism #2
[g]
[g]
4060
4075
4036
4023
4022
4017
4014
4155
4170
4131
4117
4117
4112
4108
Mass
Prism #3
[g]
4200
4214
4177
4164
4163
4158
4154

Mass
Mass
Prism #1 Prism #2
[g]
[g]
4172
4211
4158
4150
4146
4144
4140
4175
4213
4159
4152
4148
4146
4143
Mass
Prism #3
[g]
4093
4133
4079
4072
4068
4066
4063

Mass
Mass
Prism #1 Prism #2
[g]
[g]
3953
3992
3939
3931
3927
3923
3919
4097
4135
4082
4074
4070
4067
4063
Mass
Prism #3
[g]
3992
4031
3981
3972
3969
3965
3960

Mass
Mass
Prism #1 Prism #2
[g]
[g]
4156
4198
4141
4133
4129
4125
4121
4203
4246
4188
4179
4175
4172
4168
Mass
Prism #3
[g]
4136
4180
4124
4116
4112
4108
4103

Mass
Mass
Prism #1 Prism #2
[g]
[g]
4170
4204
4150
4144
4141
4137
4133
4189
4223
4169
4164
4160
4157
4153
Mass
Prism #3
[g]
4153
4188
4134
4129
4125
4121
4117
275.107
272.390
271.983
OPSS LS-435 R23

Average
Average
CRD
CRD
CRD
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Average
Length
Length
Change
Change
Change
Change
Change
Mass [g]
Change
Change
[mm]
[mm]
[mm]
Prism #1 Prism #2
Prism #3
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
4138
4153
4115
4101
4101
4096
4092
12.586
12.602
12.519
12.517
12.484
12.473
12.465
9.756
9.766
9.694
9.694
9.661
9.653
9.643
9.188
9.198
9.120
9.123
9.088
9.077
9.068
-0.0302
-0.0309
-0.0443
-0.0483
-0.0513
270.002
274.066
273.914
-0.0264
-0.0264
-0.0400
-0.0430
-0.0466
-0.0287
-0.0276
-0.0419
-0.0460
-0.0493
-0.0284
-0.0283
-0.0421
-0.0458
-0.0490
-0.0244
-0.0251
-0.0385
-0.0425
-0.0454
OPSS LS-435 R23
-0.0228
-0.0228
-0.0363
-0.0393
-0.0430
-0.0250
-0.0239
-0.0382
-0.0423
-0.0456
-0.0240
-0.0239
-0.0377
-0.0414
-0.0447

Average
Average
CRD
CRD
CRD
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Average
Length
Length
Change
Change
Change
Change
Change
Mass [g]
Change
Change
[mm]
[mm]
[mm]
Prism #1 Prism #2
Prism #3
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
4147
4186
4132
4125
4121
4119
4115
6.187
6.217
6.143
6.129
6.097
6.099
6.085
10.909
10.933
10.865
10.844
10.821
10.828
10.815
10.456
10.481
10.407
10.397
10.366
10.37
10.356
-0.0274
-0.0326
-0.0459
-0.0452
-0.0504
268.554
269.392
268.605
-0.0248
-0.0325
-0.0423
-0.0398
-0.0445
-0.0270
-0.0307
-0.0434
-0.0420
-0.0471
-0.0264
-0.0319
-0.0439
-0.0423
-0.0473
-0.0163
-0.0215
-0.0348
-0.0341
-0.0393
OPSS LS-435 R23
-0.0161
-0.0237
-0.0336
-0.0310
-0.0358
-0.0179
-0.0215
-0.0343
-0.0329
-0.0380
-0.0167
-0.0222
-0.0342
-0.0326
-0.0377

Average
Average
CRD
CRD
CRD
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Average
Length
Length
Change
Change
Change
Change
Change
Mass [g]
Change
Change
[mm]
[mm]
[mm]
Prism #1 Prism #2
Prism #3
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
4014
4053
4001
3992
3989
3985
3981
5.328
5.361
5.272
5.257
5.219
5.219
5.195
5.792
5.812
5.734
5.721
5.683
5.686
5.675
4.613
4.631
4.541
4.524
4.484
4.486
4.463
-0.0331
-0.0387
-0.0544
-0.0544
-0.0633
275.285
274.345
274.396
-0.0290
-0.0338
-0.0494
-0.0483
-0.0523
-0.0335
-0.0398
-0.0562
-0.0555
-0.0640
-0.0319
-0.0374
-0.0533
-0.0527
-0.0599
-0.0209
-0.0264
-0.0421
-0.0421
-0.0510
OPSS LS-435 R23
-0.0215
-0.0264
-0.0419
-0.0408
-0.0449
-0.0268
-0.0331
-0.0495
-0.0488
-0.0573
-0.0231
-0.0286
-0.0445
-0.0439
-0.0511

Average
Average
CRD
CRD
CRD
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Average
Length
Length
Change
Change
Change
Change
Change
Mass [g]
Change
Change
[mm]
[mm]
[mm]
Prism #1 Prism #2
Prism #3
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
4165
4208
4151
4143
4139
4135
4131
11.466
11.517
11.450
11.392
11.372
11.374
11.357
10.580
10.627
10.570
10.511
10.491
10.493
10.477
10.476
10.520
10.460
10.408
10.387
10.387
10.369
-0.0243
-0.0454
-0.0541
-0.0534
-0.0596
270.764
270.459
270.129
-0.0208
-0.0423
-0.0510
-0.0503
-0.0561
-0.0219
-0.0408
-0.0499
-0.0499
-0.0565
-0.0223
-0.0428
-0.0517
-0.0512
-0.0574
-0.0058
-0.0269
-0.0356
-0.0349
-0.0410
OPSS LS-435 R23
-0.0036
-0.0252
-0.0339
-0.0332
-0.0390
-0.0058
-0.0248
-0.0339
-0.0339
-0.0405
-0.0051
-0.0256
-0.0345
-0.0340
-0.0402

Average
Average
CRD
CRD
CRD
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Average
Length
Length
Change
Change
Change
Change
Change
Mass [g]
Change
Change
[mm]
[mm]
[mm]
Prism #1 Prism #2
Prism #3
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
4171
4205
4151
4146
4142
4138
4134
6.455
6.463
6.396
6.381
6.346
6.349
6.339
6.615
6.617
6.550
6.509
6.491
6.493
6.479
6.710
6.736
6.662
6.642
6.610
6.612
6.600
-0.0247
-0.0303
-0.0447
-0.0436
-0.0473
-0.0248
-0.0399
-0.0481
-0.0473
-0.0525
-0.0274
-0.0348
-0.0481
-0.0474
-0.0518
-0.0256
-0.0350
-0.0470
-0.0461
-0.0505
-0.0218
-0.0273
-0.0417
-0.0406
-0.0443
-0.0240
-0.0392
-0.0473
-0.0466
-0.0518
-0.0178
-0.0252
-0.0385
-0.0378
-0.0422
-0.0212
-0.0306
-0.0425
-0.0417
-0.0461
202
MIX #42
Cast Date:
17/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
1
7
15
28
35
57
91
18/01/2011
24/01/2011
01/02/2011
14/02/2011
21/02/2011
15/03/2011
18/04/2011
MIX #43
Cast Date:
17/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
1
7
15
28
35
57
91
18/01/2011
24/01/2011
01/02/2011
14/02/2011
21/02/2011
15/03/2011
18/04/2011
MIX #24b
Cast Date:
18/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
1
7
14
28
35
56
91
19/01/2011
25/01/2011
01/02/2011
15/02/2011
22/02/2011
15/03/2011
19/04/2011
MIX #25e
Cast Date:
18/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
1
7
14
28
35
56
91
19/01/2011
25/01/2011
01/02/2011
15/02/2011
22/02/2011
15/03/2011
19/04/2011
MIX #26
Cast Date:
18/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
1
7
14
28
35
56
91
19/01/2011
25/01/2011
01/02/2011
15/02/2011
22/02/2011
15/03/2011
19/04/2011

Mass
Mass
Prism #1 Prism #2
[g]
[g]
4336
4374
4320
4316
4312
4307
4303
4310
4347
4292
4289
4284
4280
4275
Mass
Prism #3
[g]
4187
4225
4170
4168
4163
4159
4154

Mass
Mass
Prism #1 Prism #2
[g]
[g]
3942
3981
3926
3919
3915
3912
3908
4157
4198
4141
4135
4130
4127
4123
Mass
Prism #3
[g]
4148
4187
4130
4124
4120
4116
4112

Mass
Mass
Prism #1 Prism #2
[g]
[g]
4164
4195
4119
4115
4109
4104
4150
4180
4102
4098
4092
4086
Mass
Prism #3
[g]
4095
4128
4049
4046
4040
4034

Mass
Mass
Prism #1 Prism #2
[g]
[g]
4243
4276
4189
4185
4178
4173
4328
4361
4274
4270
4264
4258
Mass
Prism #3
[g]
4122
4151
4074
4069
4063
4058

Mass
Mass
Prism #1 Prism #2
[g]
[g]
4255
4287
4211
4208
4202
4196
4208
4240
4162
4159
4153
4148
Mass
Prism #3
[g]
4364
4397
4322
4318
4312
4307
273.050
273.431
274.701
OPSS LS-435 R23

Average
Average
CRD
CRD
CRD
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Average
Length
Length
Change
Change
Change
Change
Change
Mass [g]
Change
Change
[mm]
[mm]
[mm]
Prism #1 Prism #2
Prism #3
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
4278
4315
4261
4258
4253
4249
4244
9.691
9.708
9.651
9.590
9.579
9.578
9.558
9.870
9.881
9.830
9.775
9.764
9.762
9.746
11.094
11.101
11.038
10.985
10.969
10.967
10.949
-0.0209
-0.0432
-0.0487
-0.0491
-0.0564
271.780
272.313
273.812
-0.0187
-0.0388
-0.0443
-0.0450
-0.0508
-0.0229
-0.0422
-0.0495
-0.0502
-0.0568
-0.0208
-0.0414
-0.0475
-0.0481
-0.0547
-0.0146
-0.0370
-0.0425
-0.0428
-0.0502
OPSS LS-435 R23
-0.0146
-0.0347
-0.0402
-0.0410
-0.0468
-0.0204
-0.0397
-0.0470
-0.0477
-0.0542
-0.0166
-0.0371
-0.0432
-0.0438
-0.0504

Average
Average
CRD
CRD
CRD
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Average
Length
Length
Change
Change
Change
Change
Change
Mass [g]
Change
Change
[mm]
[mm]
[mm]
Prism #1 Prism #2
Prism #3
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
4082
4122
4066
4059
4055
4052
4048
9.575
9.603
9.545
9.472
9.458
9.458
9.438
8.830
8.849
8.794
8.731
8.716
8.716
8.697
10.899
10.911
10.858
10.807
10.793
10.794
10.778
-0.0213
-0.0482
-0.0548
-0.0548
-0.0622
264.490
268.859
267.716
-0.0202
-0.0433
-0.0503
-0.0503
-0.0573
-0.0194
-0.0380
-0.0446
-0.0442
-0.0500
-0.0203
-0.0432
-0.0499
-0.0498
-0.0565
-0.0110
-0.0379
-0.0445
-0.0445
-0.0519
OPSS LS-435 R23
-0.0132
-0.0364
-0.0433
-0.0433
-0.0503
-0.0150
-0.0336
-0.0402
-0.0398
-0.0457
-0.0131
-0.0360
-0.0427
-0.0426
-0.0493

Average
Average
CRD
CRD
CRD
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Average
Length
Length
Change
Change
Change
Change
Change
Mass [g]
Change
Change
[mm]
[mm]
[mm]
Prism #1 Prism #2
Prism #3
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
4136
4168
4090
4086
4080
4075
0.508
0.548
0.457
0.437
0.425
0.406
4.971
5.001
4.908
4.891
4.878
4.858
4.207
4.241
4.148
4.128
4.117
4.097
-0.0359
-0.0435
-0.0480
-0.0552
274.218
274.066
275.971
-0.0361
-0.0424
-0.0472
-0.0547
-0.0362
-0.0437
-0.0478
-0.0553
-0.0361
-0.0432
-0.0477
-0.0551
-0.0208
-0.0284
-0.0329
-0.0401
OPSS LS-435 R23
-0.0249
-0.0312
-0.0361
-0.0435
-0.0235
-0.0310
-0.0351
-0.0426
-0.0231
-0.0302
-0.0347
-0.0421

Average
Average
CRD
CRD
CRD
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Average
Length
Length
Change
Change
Change
Change
Change
Mass [g]
Change
Change
[mm]
[mm]
[mm]
Prism #1 Prism #2
Prism #3
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
4231
4263
4179
4175
4168
4163
10.434
10.471
10.374
10.357
10.345
10.327
10.076
10.104
9.994
9.988
9.976
9.958
11.863
11.906
11.794
11.776
11.762
11.740
-0.0368
-0.0430
-0.0474
-0.0540
274.930
275.158
273.685
-0.0416
-0.0438
-0.0482
-0.0547
-0.0420
-0.0486
-0.0536
-0.0616
-0.0402
-0.0451
-0.0497
-0.0568
-0.0233
-0.0295
-0.0339
-0.0405
OPSS LS-435 R23
-0.0314
-0.0336
-0.0379
-0.0445
-0.0265
-0.0330
-0.0380
-0.0460
-0.0271
-0.0320
-0.0366
-0.0437

Average
Average
CRD
CRD
CRD
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Average
Length
Length
Change
Change
Change
Change
Change
Mass [g]
Change
Change
[mm]
[mm]
[mm]
Prism #1 Prism #2
Prism #3
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
4276
4308
4232
4228
4222
4217
11.088
11.133
11.036
11.019
11.005
10.985
11.474
11.516
11.419
11.398
11.385
11.366
9.967
10.004
9.905
9.889
9.877
9.857
-0.0367
-0.0429
-0.0480
-0.0553
-0.0367
-0.0443
-0.0491
-0.0560
-0.0376
-0.0435
-0.0479
-0.0552
-0.0370
-0.0436
-0.0483
-0.0555
-0.0204
-0.0266
-0.0316
-0.0389
-0.0214
-0.0291
-0.0338
-0.0407
-0.0241
-0.0300
-0.0343
-0.0417
-0.0220
-0.0285
-0.0333
-0.0404
203
MIX #27
Cast Date:
25/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
1
7
14
28
35
56
91
26/01/2011
01/02/2011
08/02/2011
22/02/2011
01/03/2011
22/03/2011
26/04/2011
MIX #29
Cast Date:
25/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
1
7
14
28
35
56
91
26/01/2011
01/02/2011
08/02/2011
22/02/2011
01/03/2011
22/03/2011
26/04/2011
MIX #31
Cast Date:
25/01/2011

Mass
Mass
Prism #1 Prism #2
[g]
[g]
4141
4177
4107
4093
4090
4084
4078
4233
4268
4201
4187
4183
4177
4171
Mass
Prism #3
[g]
4156
4192
4125
4110
4107
4101
4095

Mass
Mass
Prism #1 Prism #2
[g]
[g]
4132
4168
4093
4077
4075
4069
4064
4205
4237
4165
4150
4148
4142
4137
Mass
Prism #3
[g]
4211
4248
4172
4156
4154
4148
4142

Mass
Mass
Prism #1 Prism #2
[g]
[g]
Mass
Prism #3
[g]
271.272
271.678
268.859
OPSS LS-435 R23

Average
Average
CRD
CRD
CRD
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Average
Length
Length
Change
Change
Change
Change
Change
Mass [g]
Change
Change
[mm]
[mm]
[mm]
Prism #1 Prism #2
Prism #3
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
4177
4212
4144
4130
4127
4121
4115
7.169
7.257
7.178
7.135
7.129
7.110
7.091
6.619
6.716
6.639
6.590
6.586
6.568
6.549
4.437
4.532
4.441
4.411
4.408
4.388
4.371
-0.0291
-0.0464
-0.0487
-0.0557
-0.0634
271.882
273.863
274.650
-0.0283
-0.0479
-0.0493
-0.0559
-0.0637
-0.0338
-0.0465
-0.0476
-0.0550
-0.0621
-0.0304
-0.0469
-0.0485
-0.0556
-0.0631
0.0033
-0.0140
-0.0162
-0.0232
-0.0310
OPSS LS-435 R23
0.0074
-0.0121
-0.0136
-0.0202
-0.0280
0.0015
-0.0112
-0.0123
-0.0197
-0.0268
0.0041
-0.0124
-0.0140
-0.0211
-0.0286

Average
Average
CRD
CRD
CRD
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Average
Length
Length
Change
Change
Change
Change
Change
Mass [g]
Change
Change
[mm]
[mm]
[mm]
Prism #1 Prism #2
Prism #3
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
4183
4218
4143
4128
4126
4120
4114
7.556
7.631
7.573
7.522
7.521
7.500
7.489
9.312
9.373
9.312
9.263
9.261
9.241
9.228
10.225
10.294
10.223
10.177
10.172
10.144
10.134
-0.0213
-0.0416
-0.0419
-0.0497
-0.0544
271.145
270.129
268.376
-0.0223
-0.0416
-0.0424
-0.0497
-0.0551
-0.0259
-0.0441
-0.0459
-0.0561
-0.0604
-0.0232
-0.0424
-0.0434
-0.0518
-0.0567
0.0063
-0.0140
-0.0143
-0.0221
-0.0268
OPSS LS-435 R23
0.0000
-0.0194
-0.0201
-0.0274
-0.0329
-0.0007
-0.0189
-0.0208
-0.0309
-0.0353
0.0018
-0.0174
-0.0184
-0.0268
-0.0317

Average
Average
CRD
CRD
CRD
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Average
Length
Length
Change
Change
Change
Change
Change
Mass [g]
Change
Change
[mm]
[mm]
[mm]
Prism #1 Prism #2
Prism #3
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
Days
(after cast)
Date
1
7
14
28
35
56
26/01/2011
01/02/2011
08/02/2011
22/02/2011
01/03/2011
22/03/2011
4215
4247
4185
4169
4166
4160
4327
4361
4294
4275
4272
4265
4202
4235
4169
4153
4150
4144
4248
4281
4216
4199
4196
4190
7.931
8.082
7.978
7.933
7.924
7.907
7.758
7.869
7.792
7.729
7.727
7.704
3.699
3.811
3.691
3.638
3.635
3.612
-0.0384
-0.0564
-0.0597
-0.0660
-0.0285
-0.0533
-0.0540
-0.0626
-0.0447
-0.0660
-0.0671
-0.0756
-0.0372
-0.0586
-0.0603
-0.0681
0.0173
-0.0007
-0.0041
-0.0103
0.0126
-0.0122
-0.0130
-0.0215
-0.0030
-0.0242
-0.0253
-0.0339
0.0090
-0.0124
-0.0141
-0.0219
91
26/04/2011
4153
4258
4137
4183
7.885
7.688
3.596
-0.0749
-0.0692
-0.0823
-0.0755
-0.0192
-0.0281
-0.0406
-0.0293
MIX #44c
Cast Date:
26/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
2
7
14
28
35
56
91
28/01/2011
02/02/2011
09/02/2011
23/02/2011
02/03/2011
23/03/2011
27/04/2011
MIX #45
Cast Date:
26/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
2
7
14
28
35
56
91
28/01/2011
02/02/2011
09/02/2011
23/02/2011
02/03/2011
23/03/2011
27/04/2011

Mass
Mass
Prism #1 Prism #2
[g]
[g]
4374
4392
4339
4329
4325
4321
4317
4426
4439
4391
4381
4378
4374
4369
Mass
Prism #3
[g]
4432
4446
4398
4388
4385
4380
4376

Mass
Mass
Prism #1 Prism #2
[g]
[g]
4381
4395
4351
4342
4338
4333
4329
4404
4418
4373
4363
4359
4355
4350
Mass
Prism #3
[g]
4419
4433
4386
4376
4373
4369
4365
274.269
275.285
272.009
OPSS LS-435 R23

Average
Average
CRD
CRD
CRD
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Average
Length
Length
Change
Change
Change
Change
Change
Mass [g]
Change
Change
[mm]
[mm]
[mm]
Prism #1 Prism #2
Prism #3
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
4411
4426
4376
4366
4363
4358
4354
9.947
9.993
9.950
9.895
9.889
9.874
9.863
12.709
12.739
12.705
12.647
12.642
12.611
12.613
7.765
7.803
7.765
7.704
7.698
7.679
7.671
-0.0157
-0.0372
-0.0394
-0.0448
-0.0496
273.685
273.761
274.828
-0.0124
-0.0349
-0.0367
-0.0480
-0.0480
-0.0140
-0.0379
-0.0401
-0.0471
-0.0507
-0.0140
-0.0366
-0.0387
-0.0466
-0.0494
0.0011
-0.0204
-0.0226
-0.0281
-0.0328
OPSS LS-435 R23
-0.0015
-0.0240
-0.0258
-0.0371
-0.0371
0.0000
-0.0239
-0.0261
-0.0331
-0.0368
-0.0001
-0.0228
-0.0248
-0.0327
-0.0355

Average
Average
CRD
CRD
CRD
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Average
Length
Length
Change
Change
Change
Change
Change
Mass [g]
Change
Change
[mm]
[mm]
[mm]
Prism #1 Prism #2
Prism #3
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
4401
4415
4370
4360
4357
4352
4348
9.774
9.813
9.772
9.713
9.704
9.690
9.675
9.867
9.905
9.866
9.810
9.799
9.788
9.776
11.023
11.052
11.014
10.958
10.949
10.936
10.925
-0.0150
-0.0380
-0.0413
-0.0464
-0.0526
-0.0142
-0.0362
-0.0402
-0.0442
-0.0493
-0.0138
-0.0357
-0.0389
-0.0437
-0.0484
-0.0144
-0.0366
-0.0401
-0.0448
-0.0501
-0.0007
-0.0237
-0.0270
-0.0322
-0.0384
-0.0004
-0.0223
-0.0263
-0.0303
-0.0354
-0.0033
-0.0251
-0.0284
-0.0331
-0.0378
-0.0015
-0.0237
-0.0272
-0.0319
-0.0372
204
MIX #46
Cast Date:
26/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
2
7
14
28
35
56
91
28/01/2011
02/02/2011
09/02/2011
23/02/2011
02/03/2011
23/03/2011
27/04/2011
MIX #47
Cast Date:
12/05/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
1
7
8
14
28
35
56
91
13/05/2011
19/05/2011
20/05/2011
26/05/2011
09/06/2011
16/06/2011
07/07/2011
11/08/2011
MIX #48
Cast Date:
31/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
2
7
14
28
36
56
91
02/02/2011
07/02/2011
14/02/2011
28/02/2011
08/03/2011
28/03/2011
05/04/2011
MIX #49 - 1
Cast Date:
31/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
2
7
14
28
36
56
91
02/02/2011
07/02/2011
14/02/2011
28/02/2011
08/03/2011
28/03/2011
05/04/2011
MIX #49 - 2
Cast Date:
31/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
2
7
14
28
36
56
91
02/02/2011
07/02/2011
14/02/2011
28/02/2011
08/03/2011
28/03/2011
05/04/2011

Mass
Mass
Prism #1 Prism #2
[g]
[g]
4345
4362
4308
4297
4293
4288
4283
4370
4385
4332
4322
4317
4312
4307
Mass
Prism #3
[g]
4330
4345
4290
4279
4275
4270
4266

Mass
Mass
Prism #1 Prism #2
[g]
[g]
4232
4255
4222
4206
4198
4193
4190
4187
4247
4270
4237
4219
4211
4207
4203
4201
Mass
Prism #3
[g]
4317
4341
4307
4289
4281
4276
4273
4271

Mass
Mass
Prism #1 Prism #2
[g]
[g]
Mass
Prism #3
[g]
Note: Prisms #1 and #3 epoxy used to place top stud
274.193
275.412
276.733
OPSS LS-435 R23
4348
4364
4310
4299
4295
4290
4285
9.790
9.803
9.787
9.723
9.716
9.709
9.684
10.614
10.623
10.609
10.549
10.542
10.542
10.511
12.683
12.697
12.680
12.615
12.609
12.603
12.573
4265
4289
4255
4238
4230
4225
4222
4220
9.960
9.979
9.965
9.907
9.875
9.861
9.853
9.844
11.449
11.468
11.453
11.399
11.363
11.350
11.341
11.329
11.891
11.910
11.896
11.838
11.801
11.790
11.781
11.772
4291
9.921
6.473
6.061
4307
4268
4253
4251
4246
4241
9.962
9.884
9.840
9.846
9.811
9.819
6.508
6.437
6.397
6.400
6.369
6.376
6.096
6.022
5.980
5.984
5.936
5.963

Mass
Mass
Prism #1 Prism #2
[g]
[g]
4123
4137
4106
4093
4091
4088
4084
4234
4247
4215
4202
4200
4196
4192
Mass
Prism #3
[g]
4183
4197
4164
4150
4148
4144
4140
-0.0011
-0.0259
-0.0284
-0.0310
-0.0408
-0.0018
-0.0251
-0.0276
-0.0276
-0.0396
-0.0011
-0.0260
-0.0282
-0.0304
-0.0419
-0.0013
-0.0257
-0.0281
-0.0296
-0.0408
-0.0055
-0.0251
-0.0382
-0.0429
-0.0476
-0.0520
-0.0051
-0.0261
-0.0396
-0.0436
-0.0483
-0.0515
-0.0052
-0.0258
-0.0386
-0.0432
-0.0478
-0.0514
0.0018
-0.0194
-0.0311
-0.0362
-0.0406
-0.0438
OPSS LS-435 R23
4320
4247
4264
4230
4217
4213
4207
4201
-0.0057
-0.0300
-0.0324
-0.0340
-0.0451
0.0015
-0.0182
-0.0313
-0.0360
-0.0407
-0.0451
0.0018
-0.0192
-0.0327
-0.0367
-0.0414
-0.0447
0.0017
-0.0189
-0.0317
-0.0363
-0.0409
-0.0445

Average
Average
CRD
CRD
CRD
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Average
Length
Length
Change
Change
Change
Change
Change
Mass [g]
Change
Change
[mm]
[mm]
[mm]
Prism #1 Prism #2
Prism #3
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
4336
4296
4281
4279
4274
4268
4248
4265
4228
4214
4210
4206
4201
-0.0051
-0.0263
-0.0380
-0.0431
-0.0475
-0.0508
274.117
270.510
270.256
4333
4203
4220
4186
4172
4170
4166
4160
-0.0061
-0.0311
-0.0332
-0.0354
-0.0470
OPSS LS-435 R23
4347
4309
4294
4291
4286
4281
Mass
Prism #3
[g]
-0.0051
-0.0283
-0.0309
-0.0309
-0.0428

Average
Average
CRD
CRD
CRD
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Average
Length
Length
Change
Change
Change
Change
Change
Mass [g]
Change
Change
[mm]
[mm]
[mm]
Prism #1 Prism #2
Prism #3
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
4221
Mass
Mass
Prism #1 Prism #2
[g]
[g]
-0.0058
-0.0306
-0.0332
-0.0357
-0.0456
273.685
275.057
275.463
4238
4199
4185
4183
4178
4173


Average
Average
CRD
CRD
CRD
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Average
Length
Length
Change
Change
Change
Change
Change
Mass [g]
Change
Change
[mm]
[mm]
[mm]
Prism #1 Prism #2
Prism #3
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
-0.0285
-0.0460
-0.0438
-0.0565
-0.0536
273.380
273.710
274.371
-0.0262
-0.0425
-0.0414
-0.0529
-0.0503
-0.0274
-0.0444
-0.0429
-0.0607
-0.0507
-0.0274
-0.0443
-0.0427
-0.0567
-0.0515
-0.0135
-0.0310
-0.0288
-0.0416
-0.0387
OPSS LS-435 R23
-0.0133
-0.0296
-0.0285
-0.0399
-0.0373
-0.0144
-0.0315
-0.0300
-0.0477
-0.0377
-0.0137
-0.0307
-0.0291
-0.0431
-0.0379

Average
Average
CRD
CRD
CRD
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Average
Length
Length
Change
Change
Change
Change
Change
Mass [g]
Change
Change
[mm]
[mm]
[mm]
Prism #1 Prism #2
Prism #3
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
4233
4250
4215
4201
4198
4193
4187
9.411
9.445
9.371
9.328
9.331
9.288
9.307
9.600
9.649
9.579
9.537
9.544
9.519
9.512
10.141
10.202
10.131
10.084
10.089
10.051
10.059
-0.0271
-0.0443
-0.0432
-0.0589
-0.0519
271.907
270.637
269.596
-0.0256
-0.0424
-0.0398
-0.0490
-0.0515
-0.0259
-0.0445
-0.0426
-0.0565
-0.0536
-0.0262
-0.0437
-0.0419
-0.0548
-0.0523
-0.0146
-0.0318
-0.0307
-0.0465
-0.0395
OPSS LS-435 R23
-0.0077
-0.0245
-0.0219
-0.0311
-0.0336
-0.0036
-0.0222
-0.0204
-0.0343
-0.0313
-0.0086
-0.0262
-0.0244
-0.0373
-0.0348

Average
Average
CRD
CRD
CRD
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Average
Length
Length
Change
Change
Change
Change
Change
Mass [g]
Change
Change
[mm]
[mm]
[mm]
Prism #1 Prism #2
Prism #3
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
4180
4194
4162
4148
4146
4143
4139
7.689
7.737
7.659
7.613
7.625
7.596
7.595
6.187
6.236
6.170
6.128
6.141
6.114
6.111
5.500
5.549
5.477
5.430
5.445
5.415
5.412
-0.0287
-0.0471
-0.0427
-0.0533
-0.0537
-0.0244
-0.0414
-0.0366
-0.0466
-0.0477
-0.0267
-0.0456
-0.0401
-0.0512
-0.0523
-0.0266
-0.0447
-0.0398
-0.0504
-0.0512
-0.0110
-0.0294
-0.0250
-0.0357
-0.0360
-0.0063
-0.0233
-0.0185
-0.0285
-0.0296
-0.0085
-0.0274
-0.0219
-0.0330
-0.0341
-0.0086
-0.0267
-0.0218
-0.0324
-0.0332
205
MIX #51
Cast Date:
31/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
2
7
14
28
36
56
91
02/02/2011
07/02/2011
14/02/2011
28/02/2011
08/03/2011
28/03/2011
05/04/2011
MIX #52
Cast Date:
31/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
2
7
14
28
36
56
91
02/02/2011
07/02/2011
14/02/2011
28/02/2011
08/03/2011
28/03/2011
05/04/2011
MIX #53
Cast Date:
31/01/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
2
7
14
28
36
56
91
02/02/2011
07/02/2011
14/02/2011
28/02/2011
08/03/2011
28/03/2011
05/04/2011
MIX #50
Cast Date:
12/05/2011
Days
(after cast)
Date
1
7
8
14
28
35
56
91
13/05/2011
19/05/2011
20/05/2011
26/05/2011
09/06/2011
16/06/2011
07/07/2011
11/08/2011

Mass
Mass
Prism #1 Prism #2
[g]
[g]
4407
4423
4391
4380
4379
4376
4370
4531
4546
4514
4503
4502
4499
4493
Mass
Prism #3
[g]
4494
4509
4479
4469
4468
4465
4459

Mass
Mass
Prism #1 Prism #2
[g]
[g]
4232
4247
4214
4203
4202
4200
4195
4402
4416
4383
4372
4371
4369
4364
Mass
Prism #3
[g]
4259
4274
4241
4231
4230
4227
4222

Mass
Mass
Prism #1 Prism #2
[g]
[g]
4175
4189
4156
4146
4145
4143
4137
4315
4330
4296
4285
4285
4282
4277
Mass
Prism #3
[g]
4132
4146
4112
4102
4102
4100
4094

Mass
Mass
Prism #1 Prism #2
[g]
[g]
4153
4176
4144
4128
4120
4115
4112
4109
4203
4225
4193
4177
4169
4164
4160
4158
Mass
Prism #3
[g]
4129
4151
4121
4105
4096
4092
4088
4085
273.837
274.193
273.685
OPSS LS-435 R23

Average
Average
CRD
CRD
CRD
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Average
Length
Length
Change
Change
Change
Change
Change
Mass [g]
Change
Change
[mm]
[mm]
[mm]
Prism #1 Prism #2
Prism #3
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
4477
4493
4461
4451
4450
4447
4441
10.332
10.385
10.305
10.268
10.272
10.246
10.249
11.228
11.281
11.205
11.168
11.173
11.148
11.152
11.407
11.470
11.397
11.358
11.361
11.336
11.339
-0.0292
-0.0442
-0.0427
-0.0522
-0.0511
268.478
270.510
269.850
-0.0277
-0.0427
-0.0408
-0.0500
-0.0485
-0.0267
-0.0424
-0.0413
-0.0504
-0.0493
-0.0279
-0.0431
-0.0416
-0.0509
-0.0497
-0.0099
-0.0248
-0.0234
-0.0329
-0.0318
OPSS LS-435 R23
-0.0084
-0.0233
-0.0215
-0.0306
-0.0292
-0.0037
-0.0194
-0.0183
-0.0274
-0.0263
-0.0073
-0.0225
-0.0211
-0.0303
-0.0291

Average
Average
CRD
CRD
CRD
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Average
Length
Length
Change
Change
Change
Change
Change
Mass [g]
Change
Change
[mm]
[mm]
[mm]
Prism #1 Prism #2
Prism #3
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
4298
4312
4279
4269
4268
4265
4260
5.159
5.227
5.161
5.124
5.133
5.114
5.105
7.132
7.192
7.132
7.101
7.108
7.082
7.082
6.989
7.055
6.990
6.956
6.961
6.935
6.938
-0.0246
-0.0399
-0.0365
-0.0436
-0.0469
272.491
275.463
274.066
-0.0222
-0.0351
-0.0325
-0.0421
-0.0421
-0.0241
-0.0382
-0.0363
-0.0460
-0.0448
-0.0236
-0.0377
-0.0351
-0.0439
-0.0446
0.0007
-0.0145
-0.0112
-0.0183
-0.0216
OPSS LS-435 R23
0.0000
-0.0129
-0.0104
-0.0200
-0.0200
0.0004
-0.0137
-0.0119
-0.0215
-0.0204
0.0004
-0.0137
-0.0111
-0.0199
-0.0206

Average
Average
CRD
CRD
CRD
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Average
Length
Length
Change
Change
Change
Change
Change
Mass [g]
Change
Change
[mm]
[mm]
[mm]
Prism #1 Prism #2
Prism #3
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
4207
4222
4188
4178
4177
4175
4169
8.337
8.367
8.296
8.258
8.270
8.243
8.244
10.570
10.613
10.544
10.506
10.520
10.493
10.493
9.822
9.857
9.788
9.751
9.758
9.733
9.738
-0.0261
-0.0415
-0.0371
-0.0470
-0.0466
274.701
274.574
274.930
-0.0250
-0.0403
-0.0352
-0.0450
-0.0450
-0.0252
-0.0401
-0.0376
-0.0467
-0.0449
-0.0254
-0.0406
-0.0366
-0.0462
-0.0455
-0.0150
-0.0305
-0.0261
-0.0360
-0.0356
OPSS LS-435 R23
-0.0094
-0.0247
-0.0196
-0.0294
-0.0294
-0.0124
-0.0274
-0.0248
-0.0339
-0.0321
-0.0123
-0.0275
-0.0235
-0.0331
-0.0324

Average
Average
CRD
CRD
CRD
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Length
Average
Length
Length
Change
Change
Change
Change
Change
Mass [g]
Change
Change
[mm]
[mm]
[mm]
Prism #1 Prism #2
Prism #3
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
4162
4184
4153
4137
4128
4124
4120
4117
10.325
10.347
10.333
10.269
10.235
10.221
10.214
10.201
10.323
10.345
10.331
10.271
10.240
10.226
10.216
10.209
11.116
11.135
11.121
11.056
11.023
11.008
10.996
10.984
-0.0051
-0.0284
-0.0408
-0.0459
-0.0499
-0.0546
-0.0051
-0.0270
-0.0382
-0.0433
-0.0484
-0.0510
-0.0051
-0.0287
-0.0407
-0.0462
-0.0520
-0.0564
-0.0051
-0.0280
-0.0399
-0.0451
-0.0501
-0.0540
0.0029
-0.0204
-0.0328
-0.0379
-0.0419
-0.0466
0.0029
-0.0189
-0.0302
-0.0353
-0.0404
-0.0430
0.0018
-0.0218
-0.0338
-0.0393
-0.0451
-0.0495
0.0025
-0.0204
-0.0323
-0.0375
-0.0425
-0.0463
206
Appendix H: Bulk Resistivity Results for All Stages
207
MIX #1
Cast Date:
04/01/2011
Days
(after
cast)
Date
28
01/02/2011
57
02/03/2011
RCPT
Avg. Merlin
Avg.
Current
Merlin Bulk
Bulk
Thickness[ Resistivity
Measured
Resistivity
mm]
[m]
at 5 min
[m]
[mA]
Cylinder
Section
Avg.
Diameter
[mm]
Top
Middle
Bottom
Top
Middle
Bottom
102
102
101
102
102
102
Cylinder
Section
Avg.
Diameter
[mm]
Top
Middle
Bottom
Top
102
102
101
102
55
54
54
51
137.62
145.12
159.54
151.80
Middle*
Bottom
102
102
50
50
152.39
169.93
55
55
55
50
50
51
142.80
160.45
154.30
153.12
148.20
165.42
152.52
155.58
70.7
63.6
62.8
52.2
51.9
45.4
RCPT
Temp.
Measured
at 5 min
[C]
23
22
23
23
22
22
RCPT
RCPT
RCPT 5- Avg. RCPT RCPT 6-hr Avg. 6-hr
RCPT
Avg. RCPT
Current
Temp.
min Bulk 5-min Bulk
Bulk
Actual
Actual
RCPT Bulk
Measured
Measured Resistivity Resistivity Resistivity Resistivity
Charge
Charge
at 6 hrs
at 6 hrs [C]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
Passed [C] Passed [C]
[mA]
75.2
57.6
52.2
37.9
42.2
32.3
33
30
30
28
27
26
126.08
140.16
139.18
187.85
188.93
211.75
135.14
196.17
126.51
154.16
167.37
245.99
224.60
280.60
149.34
250.40
1522
1249
1128
861
943
740
1300
848
RCPT
Adjusted
Charge
Passed [C]
RCPT
Chloride Ion
Penetrability
Category
1320
1083
998
747
818
642
Low
Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
RCPT
Adjusted
Charge
Passed [C]
RCPT
Chloride Ion
Penetrability
Category
1289
1143
979
790
Low
Low
Very Low
Very Low
638
709
Very Low
Very Low
RCPT
Adjusted
Charge
Passed [C]
RCPT
Chloride Ion
Penetrability
Category
1151
1066
1048
776
Low
Low
Low
Very Low
608
730
Very Low
Very Low
RCPT
Adjusted
Charge
Passed [C]
RCPT
Chloride Ion
Penetrability
Category
1236
960
941
721
695
697
Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
RCPT
Adjusted
Charge
Passed [C]
RCPT
Chloride Ion
Penetrability
Category
1093
1082
1072
742
784
786
Low
Low
Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
RCPT
Adjusted
Charge
Passed [C]
RCPT
Chloride Ion
Penetrability
Category
1083
1092
947
649
729
702
Low
Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
MIX #2
Cast Date:
04/01/2011
Days
(after
cast)
Date
28
01/02/2011
56
01/03/2011
RCPT
Avg. Merlin
Avg.
Current
Merlin Bulk
Bulk
Measured
Resistivity
at 5 min
mm]
[m]
[m]
[mA]
147.43
160.87
72.2
68.1
63.2
54.6
RCPT
Temp.
Measured
at 5 min
[C]
23
23
23
22
RCPT
RCPT
RCPT
Avg. RCPT
Current
Temp.
min Bulk 5-min Bulk
Bulk
Actual
Actual
RCPT Bulk
Measured
Charge
Charge
at 6 hrs
at 6 hrs [C]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[mA]
69.1
60.4
49.1
40.1
31
30
29
27
123.46
133.32
140.86
176.07
39.9
23
31.8
26
52.6
23
34.5
27
186.42
132.55
181.24
129.57
148.79
173.70
227.93
259.24
150.69
243.59
1486
1318
1107
911
735
817
1304
864
Actual and adjusted charges passed, and 5-minute current measured all lower than expected; therefore, they have been excluded
MIX #5
Cast Date:
04/01/2011
Days
(after
cast)
Date
28
01/02/2011
57
02/03/2011
RCPT
Avg. Merlin
Avg.
Current
Merlin Bulk
Bulk
Measured
Resistivity
mm]
[m]
at 5 min
[m]
[mA]
Cylinder
Section
Avg.
Diameter
[mm]
Top
Middle
Bottom
Top
102
101
101
102
52
53
52
50
149.45
181.87
178.32
166.09
Middle*
Bottom
102
102
50
50
162.66
174.30
169.88
170.20
69.8
69.0
65.1
52.0
RCPT
Temp.
Measured
at 5 min
[C]
22
24
24
23
RCPT
RCPT
RCPT
Avg. RCPT
Current
Temp.
min Bulk 5-min Bulk
Bulk
Actual
Actual
RCPT Bulk
Measured
Charge
Charge
at 6 hrs
at 6 hrs [C]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[mA]
61.0
54.2
55.0
39.2
30
31
32
27
135.08
131.45
142.00
188.57
38.4
23
30.8
26
47.8
23
37.0
28
205.14
136.18
196.85
153.47
162.58
168.65
236.91
251.54
161.57
244.23
1327
1205
1184
894
701
842
1239
868
MIX #9
Cast Date:
04/01/2011
Days
(after
cast)
Date
28
01/02/2011
56
01/03/2011
Cylinder
Section
Avg.
Diameter
[mm]
Top
Middle
Bottom
Top
Middle
Bottom
102
102
102
102
102
102
Cylinder
Section
Avg.
Diameter
[mm]
Top
Middle
Bottom
Top
Middle
Bottom
102
102
102
102
102
102
Cylinder
Section
Avg.
Diameter
[mm]
Top
Middle
Bottom
Top
Middle
Bottom
102
102
101
102
102
101
RCPT
Avg. Merlin
Avg.
Current
Merlin Bulk
Bulk
Measured
Resistivity
[m]
at 5 min
mm]
[m]
[mA]
52
55
53
50
50
50
136.40
156.01
141.36
170.27
172.13
169.81
144.59
170.74
70.5
62.4
62.5
52.1
51.8
49.2
RCPT
Temp.
Measured
at 5 min
[C]
23
0
22
23
22
22
RCPT
RCPT
RCPT
Avg. RCPT
Current
Temp.
min Bulk 5-min Bulk
Bulk
Actual
Actual
RCPT Bulk
Measured
Charge
Charge
at 6 hrs
at 6 hrs [C]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[mA]
66.4
50.1
47.7
36.0
33.6
34.7
31
0
26
28
26
26
133.74
142.85
148.01
188.21
189.30
199.30
141.53
192.27
142.91
173.93
184.16
254.87
264.42
263.76
167.00
261.02
1425
1107
1085
831
801
803
1206
812
MIX #4
Cast Date:
10/01/2011
Days
(after
cast)
Date
29
08/02/2011
58
09/03/2011
RCPT
Avg. Merlin
Avg.
Current
Merlin Bulk
Bulk
Measured
Resistivity
mm]
[m]
at 5 min
[m]
[mA]
49
50
50
51
50
51
140.64
133.98
139.12
148.76
150.80
158.70
137.91
152.75
71.5
62.1
60.6
52.5
52.7
50.0
RCPT
Temp.
Measured
at 5 min
[C]
23
23
24
23
23
23
RCPT
RCPT
RCPT
Avg. RCPT
Current
Temp.
min Bulk 5-min Bulk
Bulk
Actual
Actual
RCPT Bulk
Measured
Charge
Charge
at 6 hrs
at 6 hrs [C]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[mA]
56.9
57.7
58.3
37.8
41.2
41.5
30
31
31
27
28
28
139.94
157.90
161.81
183.11
186.06
192.27
153.22
187.15
171.53
169.85
171.36
242.86
234.29
229.19
170.91
235.45
1260
1247
1236
855
904
906
1248
888
MIX #8
Cast Date:
10/01/2011
Days
(after
cast)
Date
29
08/02/2011
57
08/03/2011
RCPT
Avg. Merlin
Avg.
Current
Merlin Bulk
Bulk
Measured
Resistivity
mm]
[m]
at 5 min
[m]
[mA]
49
50
50
50
50
51
132.29
171.18
188.42
159.07
155.86
168.50
163.96
161.14
70.0
68.4
61.3
39.3
43.2
45.8
RCPT
Temp.
Measured
at 5 min
[C]
24
33
24
22
21
21
RCPT
RCPT
RCPT
Avg. RCPT
Current
Temp.
min Bulk 5-min Bulk
Bulk
Actual
Actual
RCPT Bulk
Measured
Charge
Charge
at 6 hrs
at 6 hrs [C]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[mA]
57.5
58.3
48.3
33.8
37.3
35.6
31
32
30
27
27
26
142.94
143.36
156.84
249.50
226.98
205.80
147.71
227.43
173.17
168.23
194.08
283.15
252.14
256.74
178.49
264.01
1248
1259
1070
748
840
793
1192
794
208
MIX #10
Cast Date:
10/01/2011
Days
(after
cast)
Date
30
09/02/2011
57
08/03/2011
RCPT
Avg. Merlin
Avg.
Current
Merlin Bulk
Bulk
Measured
Resistivity
[m]
mm]
at 5 min
[m]
[mA]
Cylinder
Section
Avg.
Diameter
[mm]
Top
Middle
Bottom
Top
Middle
Bottom
102
102
102
102
102
102
Cylinder
Section
Avg.
Diameter
[mm]
Top
Middle
Bottom
Top
102
102
101
102
50
50
50
50
120.78
116.50
133.56
161.54
Middle*
Bottom
102
102
50
50
154.29
173.88
50
50
50
50
50
51
122.20
126.14
133.95
148.15
174.11
165.28
127.43
162.51
RCPT
Temp.
Measured
at 5 min
[C]
68.5
67.8
61.7
50.9
48.7
46.2
24
23
24
23
22
21
RCPT
RCPT
RCPT
Avg. RCPT
Current
Temp.
min Bulk 5-min Bulk
Bulk
Actual
Actual
RCPT Bulk
Measured
Charge
Charge
at 6 hrs
at 6 hrs [C]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[mA]
50.6
51.7
44.5
33.9
34.4
35.1
31
31
31
27
27
27
143.15
144.62
158.92
192.64
201.35
208.08
148.90
200.69
185.46
186.77
214.59
271.19
270.50
263.51
195.61
268.40
1142
1134
987
781
783
788
1088
784
RCPT
Adjusted
Charge
Passed [C]
RCPT
Chloride Ion
Penetrability
Category
991
984
856
677
679
684
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
RCPT
Adjusted
Charge
Passed [C]
RCPT
Chloride Ion
Penetrability
Category
1044
991
938
737
Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
697
695
Very Low
Very Low
RCPT
Adjusted
Charge
Passed [C]
RCPT
Chloride Ion
Penetrability
Category
1061
1103
987
711
737
661
Low
Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
RCPT
Adjusted
Charge
Passed [C]
RCPT
Chloride Ion
Penetrability
Category
997
991
1048
592
750
473
Very Low
Very Low
Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
RCPT
Adjusted
Charge
Passed [C]
RCPT
Chloride Ion
Penetrability
Category
1041
1098
943
684
726
731
Low
Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
RCPT
Adjusted
Charge
Passed [C]
RCPT
Chloride Ion
Penetrability
Category
1074
1149
1053
664
801
Low
Low
Low
Very Low
Very Low
547
Very Low
MIX #11
Cast Date:
10/01/2011
Days
(after
cast)
Date
30
09/02/2011
56
07/03/2011
RCPT
Avg. Merlin
Current
Avg.
Merlin Bulk
Bulk
Measured
Resistivity
at 5 min
mm]
[m]
[m]
[mA]
123.61
163.24
RCPT
Temp.
Measured
at 5 min
[C]
65.4
63.5
56.7
50.2
23
23
23
23
RCPT
RCPT
RCPT
Avg. RCPT
Current
Temp.
Bulk
Actual
Actual
min Bulk 5-min Bulk
RCPT Bulk
Measured
Charge
Charge
at 6 hrs
at 6 hrs [C]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[mA]
55.1
53.3
48.9
37.5
31
30
30
28
149.93
154.42
169.56
195.33
44.6
23
34.8
27
219.86
45.6
23
35.1
27
215.03
157.97
210.07
176.06
185.46
195.91
249.18
263.76
264.42
185.81
259.12
1203
1142
1060
850
803
801
1135
818
Current measured at 10 minutes used instead of current measured at 5 minutes, as current did not stabilize by 5 minutes (23.8 mA)
MIX #12
Cast Date:
10/01/2011
Days
(after
cast)
Date
29
08/02/2011
56
07/03/2011
RCPT
Avg. Merlin
Avg.
Current
Merlin Bulk
Bulk
Measured
Resistivity
[m]
at 5 min
mm]
[m]
[mA]
Cylinder
Section
Avg.
Diameter
[mm]
Top
Middle
Bottom
Top
Middle
Bottom
102
102
102
102
102
102
Cylinder
Section
Avg.
Diameter
[mm]
Top
Middle
Bottom
Top
Middle
Bottom
102
102
101
102
102
102
Cylinder
Section
Avg.
Diameter
[mm]
Top
Middle
Bottom
Top
Middle
Bottom
102
102
102
102
102
102
Cylinder
Section
Avg.
Diameter
[mm]
Top
Middle
Bottom
Top
Middle
102
102
102
102
102
51
51
51
50
50
132.20
129.07
133.50
165.40
157.42
Bottom*
101
51
169.06
50
50
50
50
50
50
107.70
110.11
120.41
142.95
156.10
172.27
112.74
157.11
77.7
77.0
67.4
43.8
50.9
46.3
RCPT
Temp.
Measured
at 5 min
[C]
26
25
26
23
23
22
RCPT
RCPT
RCPT
Avg. RCPT
Current
Temp.
min Bulk 5-min Bulk
Bulk
Actual
Actual
RCPT Bulk
Measured
Charge
Charge
at 6 hrs
at 6 hrs [C]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[mA]
54.6
57.9
51.4
35.3
37.2
32.3
32
33
32
28
27
26
126.20
127.34
145.48
223.87
192.64
211.78
133.01
209.43
173.18
166.51
186.12
258.29
249.18
277.95
175.27
261.81
1223
1272
1138
820
850
762
1211
811
MIX #13
Cast Date:
10/01/2011
Days
(after
cast)
Date
29
08/02/2011
58
09/03/2011
RCPT
Avg. Merlin
Avg.
Current
Merlin Bulk
Bulk
Measured
Resistivity
[m]
at 5 min
mm]
[m]
[mA]
50
50
50
50
50
51
170.46
181.44
185.14
162.14
163.04
165.12
179.01
163.43
54.6
68.2
64.2
40.1
48.7
40.4
RCPT
Temp.
Measured
at 5 min
[C]
25
25
25
23
22
22
RCPT
RCPT
RCPT
Avg. RCPT
Current
Temp.
min Bulk 5-min Bulk
Bulk
Actual
Actual
RCPT Bulk
Measured
Charge
Charge
at 6 hrs
at 6 hrs [C]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[mA]
50.0
51.0
54.2
29.8
38.8
21.9
30
31
32
27
27
25
179.59
143.78
149.75
244.53
201.35
237.95
157.71
227.94
184.33
185.46
175.25
310.10
244.86
381.00
181.68
311.99
1149
1142
1185
683
865
545
1159
698
MIX #18
Cast Date:
12/01/2011
Days
(after
cast)
Date
29
10/02/2011
56
09/03/2011
RCPT
Avg. Merlin
Avg.
Current
Merlin Bulk
Bulk
Measured
Resistivity
at 5 min
mm]
[m]
[m]
[mA]
51
51
51
50
50
51
127.52
121.28
123.22
170.16
162.83
168.68
124.01
167.22
67.2
69.0
65.5
49.5
51.4
49.8
RCPT
Temp.
Measured
at 5 min
[C]
24
24
25
24
24
23
RCPT
RCPT
RCPT
Avg. RCPT
Current
Temp.
min Bulk 5-min Bulk
Bulk
Actual
Actual
RCPT Bulk
Measured
Charge
Charge
at 6 hrs
at 6 hrs [C]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[mA]
54.1
58.4
48.3
34.4
36.9
37.4
32
31
31
28
27
28
143.05
139.32
146.77
198.09
190.77
193.04
143.05
193.97
173.04
164.02
191.03
268.78
253.05
246.32
176.03
256.05
1200
1266
1087
788
837
843
1184
823
MIX #20
Cast Date:
12/01/2011
Days
(after
cast)
Date
28
09/02/2011
56
09/03/2011
RCPT
Avg. Merlin
Avg.
Current
Merlin Bulk
Bulk
Measured
Resistivity
mm]
[m]
at 5 min
[m]
[mA]
131.59
161.41
RCPT
Temp.
Measured
at 5 min
[C]
RCPT
RCPT
RCPT
Avg. RCPT
Current
Temp.
Actual
min Bulk 5-min Bulk
Bulk
Actual
RCPT Bulk
Measured
Charge
Charge
at 6 hrs
at 6 hrs [C]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[mA]
71.6
70.1
66.6
41.2
53.4
24
24
24
23
22
56.4
61.2
55.0
33.9
40.5
31
31
31
28
27
134.26
137.14
144.34
238.00
183.62
25.6
22
31.3
26
138.58
210.81
167.73
156.71
171.04
276.86
229.47
-
165.16
253.17
1238
1325
1214
765
923
618
1259
844
209
MIX #32d
Cast Date:
12/01/2011
Days
(after
cast)
Date
29
10/02/2011
57
10/03/2011
Cylinder
Section
Avg.
Diameter
[mm]
Top
Middle
Bottom
Top
Middle
Bottom
102
102
101
102
102
102
Cylinder
Section
Avg.
Diameter
[mm]
Top
Middle
Bottom
Top
Middle
Bottom
102
101
101
102
102
102
Cylinder
Section
Avg.
Diameter
[mm]
Top
Middle
Bottom
Top
Middle
Bottom
102
102
102
102
102
102
Cylinder
Section
Avg.
Diameter
[mm]
Top
Middle
Bottom
Top
Middle
Bottom
102
102
101
102
102
102
Cylinder
Section
Avg.
Diameter
[mm]
Top
Middle
Bottom
Top
Middle
Bottom
102
102
102
102
102
102
Cylinder
Section
Avg.
Diameter
[mm]
Top
Middle
Bottom
Top
Middle
Bottom
102
102
102
103
102
102
RCPT
Avg. Merlin
Avg.
Current
Merlin Bulk
Bulk
Measured
Resistivity
[m]
at 5 min
mm]
[m]
[mA]
51
51
51
50
50
50
354.12
318.11
326.75
359.63
343.67
344.33
332.99
349.21
27.3
31.8
29.7
23.2
21.1
13.1
RCPT
Temp.
Measured
at 5 min
[C]
25
24
25
23
24
23
RCPT
RCPT
RCPT
Avg. RCPT
Current
Temp.
min Bulk 5-min Bulk
Bulk
Actual
Actual
RCPT Bulk
Measured
Charge
Charge
at 6 hrs
at 6 hrs [C]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[mA]
20.2
23.8
21.3
17.9
15.5
15.8
27
27
28
25
25
25
352.13
302.30
317.36
422.65
464.72
748.51
323.93
545.29
438.07
377.54
404.76
510.36
586.70
578.69
406.79
558.58
474
550
503
415
361
366
509
381
RCPT
Adjusted
Charge
Passed [C]
RCPT
Chloride Ion
Penetrability
Category
411
477
445
360
313
317
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
RCPT
Adjusted
Charge
Passed [C]
RCPT
Chloride Ion
Penetrability
Category
500
513
497
323
361
325
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
RCPT
Adjusted
Charge
Passed [C]
RCPT
Chloride Ion
Penetrability
Category
428
454
438
319
330
266
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
RCPT
Adjusted
Charge
Passed [C]
RCPT
Chloride Ion
Penetrability
Category
385
391
361
306
305
230
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
RCPT
Adjusted
Charge
Passed [C]
RCPT
Chloride Ion
Penetrability
Category
451
440
442
388
324
346
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
RCPT
Adjusted
Charge
Passed [C]
RCPT
Chloride Ion
Penetrability
Category
462
468
454
373
365
360
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
MIX #33
Cast Date:
12/01/2011
Days
(after
cast)
Date
28
09/02/2011
57
10/03/2011
RCPT
Avg. Merlin
Avg.
Current
Merlin Bulk
Bulk
Measured
Resistivity
at 5 min
mm]
[m]
[m]
[mA]
52
52
52
50
50
50
292.55
287.80
296.80
367.90
367.87
372.60
292.38
369.46
32.1
33.6
31.6
23.1
24.4
21.7
RCPT
Temp.
Measured
at 5 min
[C]
25
25
25
23
23
23
RCPT
RCPT
RCPT
Avg. RCPT
Current
Temp.
min Bulk 5-min Bulk
Bulk
Actual
Actual
RCPT Bulk
Measured
Charge
Charge
at 6 hrs
at 6 hrs [C]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[mA]
25.4
25.6
25.1
15.4
18.2
16.2
29
28
29
25
25
25
293.72
275.13
292.55
424.48
401.87
451.87
287.13
426.07
353.57
344.28
355.30
569.35
509.13
564.80
351.05
547.76
576
580
562
372
416
375
573
388
MIX #34
Cast Date:
12/01/2011
Days
(after
cast)
Date
29
10/02/2011
57
10/03/2011
RCPT
Avg. Merlin
Current
Avg.
Merlin Bulk
Bulk
Measured
Resistivity
at 5 min
[m]
mm]
[m]
[mA]
49
51
52
50
51
51
324.64
282.60
298.97
421.38
394.15
379.22
302.07
398.25
26.9
28.8
28.3
20.3
21.6
18.9
RCPT
Temp.
Measured
at 5 min
[C]
22
23
23
22
21
0
RCPT
RCPT
RCPT
Avg. RCPT
Current
Temp.
min Bulk 5-min Bulk
Bulk
Actual
Actual
RCPT Bulk
Measured
Charge
Charge
at 6 hrs
at 6 hrs [C]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[mA]
21.6
22.6
22.2
15.9
16.4
8.1
25
26
27
24
24
0
371.96
333.79
333.16
483.03
445.06
508.64
346.30
478.91
438.38
397.03
403.27
575.54
546.44
676.37
412.90
599.45
493
523
505
368
380
307
507
352
MIX #35
Cast Date:
12/01/2011
Days
(after
cast)
Date
29
10/02/2011
57
10/03/2011
RCPT
Avg. Merlin
Avg.
Current
Merlin Bulk
Bulk
Measured
Resistivity
[m]
at 5 min
mm]
[m]
[mA]
51
52
52
50
50
50
324.30
316.95
327.34
461.22
451.45
436.06
322.86
449.58
23.8
24.8
15.5
19.9
20.8
15.8
RCPT
Temp.
Measured
at 5 min
[C]
22
22
23
22
22
0
RCPT
RCPT
RCPT
Avg. RCPT
Current
Temp.
min Bulk 5-min Bulk
Bulk
Actual
Actual
RCPT Bulk
Measured
Charge
Charge
at 6 hrs
at 6 hrs [C]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[mA]
19.4
19.6
18.0
15.2
14.7
11.2
26
26
26
24
24
0
403.92
380.18
596.42
492.74
471.42
620.60
460.17
528.25
467.67
451.56
489.41
600.00
601.70
799.24
469.55
666.98
444
451
408
353
352
265
434
323
MIX #36
Cast Date:
17/01/2011
Days
(after
cast)
Date
29
15/02/2011
57
15/03/2011
RCPT
Avg. Merlin
Avg.
Current
Merlin Bulk
Bulk
Measured
Resistivity
at 5 min
mm]
[m]
[m]
[mA]
50
52
52
50
50
50
294.74
303.02
264.65
365.75
355.46
343.63
287.47
354.95
25.7
27.5
29.9
22.7
15.7
22.6
RCPT
Temp.
Measured
at 5 min
[C]
23
23
23
24
27
22
RCPT
RCPT
RCPT
Avg. RCPT
Current
Temp.
min Bulk 5-min Bulk
Bulk
Actual
Actual
RCPT Bulk
Measured
Charge
Charge
at 6 hrs
at 6 hrs [C]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[mA]
23.2
22.7
22.5
20.1
16.9
17.4
26
25
26
26
24
25
381.54
342.85
315.33
431.96
624.56
433.87
346.57
496.80
407.31
401.68
399.32
473.82
567.83
530.83
402.77
524.16
520
507
510
447
373
399
512
406
MIX #37
Cast Date:
17/01/2011
Days
(after
cast)
Date
30
16/02/2011
57
15/03/2011
RCPT
Avg. Merlin
Avg.
Current
Merlin Bulk
Bulk
Measured
Resistivity
mm]
[m]
at 5 min
[m]
[mA]
52
52
52
50
50
51
275.54
250.28
265.33
302.13
304.31
306.08
263.72
304.17
28.1
29.7
29.0
26.0
25.1
25.2
RCPT
Temp.
Measured
at 5 min
[C]
23
23
23
23
23
23
RCPT
RCPT
RCPT
Avg. RCPT
Current
Temp.
min Bulk 5-min Bulk
Bulk
Actual
Actual
RCPT Bulk
Measured
Charge
Charge
at 6 hrs
at 6 hrs [C]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[mA]
23.9
23.8
23.4
18.6
18.0
17.9
26
26
26
25
25
25
335.53
317.45
325.12
384.57
390.66
381.48
326.03
385.57
382.09
377.84
389.39
493.09
503.09
500.35
383.11
498.84
533
539
523
438
421
415
532
425
210
MIX #38
Cast Date:
17/01/2011
Days
(after
cast)
Date
29
15/02/2011
56
14/03/2011
Cylinder
Section
Avg.
Diameter
[mm]
Top
Middle
Bottom
Top
Middle
Bottom
102
102
101
102
102
102
Cylinder
Section
Avg.
Diameter
[mm]
Top
Middle
Bottom
Top
Middle
Bottom
102
102
102
102
102
102
Cylinder
Section
Avg.
Diameter
[mm]
Top
Middle
Bottom
Top
Middle
Bottom
102
102
102
103
102
102
Cylinder
Section
Avg.
Diameter
[mm]
Top
Middle
Bottom
Top
Middle
Bottom
102
102
102
102
102
102
Cylinder
Section
Avg.
Diameter
[mm]
Top
Middle
Bottom
Top
Middle
Bottom
102
102
102
102
102
102
Cylinder
Section
Avg.
Diameter
[mm]
Top
Middle
Bottom
Top
Middle
Bottom
102
102
102
102
102
102
RCPT
Avg. Merlin
Avg.
Current
Merlin Bulk
Bulk
Measured
Resistivity
[m]
at 5 min
mm]
[m]
[mA]
51
52
52
50
50
50
204.90
205.26
203.60
274.72
271.49
290.19
204.59
278.80
38.2
35.5
37.3
29.7
29.1
29.2
RCPT
Temp.
Measured
at 5 min
[C]
22
23
23
23
23
22
RCPT
RCPT
RCPT
Avg. RCPT
Current
Temp.
min Bulk 5-min Bulk
Bulk
Actual
Actual
RCPT Bulk
Measured
Charge
Charge
at 6 hrs
at 6 hrs [C]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[mA]
35.9
31.5
29.1
22.4
20.7
20.4
27
26
27
25
25
25
251.66
265.59
247.84
330.15
336.96
335.81
255.03
334.31
269.67
295.15
306.73
417.75
444.96
446.83
290.52
436.51
770
690
651
507
476
474
704
486
RCPT
Adjusted
Charge
Passed [C]
RCPT
Chloride Ion
Penetrability
Category
668
599
576
440
413
411
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
RCPT
Adjusted
Charge
Passed [C]
RCPT
Chloride Ion
Penetrability
Category
451
493
498
361
341
355
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
RCPT
Adjusted
Charge
Passed [C]
RCPT
Chloride Ion
Penetrability
Category
513
541
503
411
426
414
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
RCPT
Adjusted
Charge
Passed [C]
RCPT
Chloride Ion
Penetrability
Category
489
450
438
417
375
396
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
RCPT
Adjusted
Charge
Passed [C]
RCPT
Chloride Ion
Penetrability
Category
1194
1151
1265
954
966
803
Low
Low
Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
RCPT
Adjusted
Charge
Passed [C]
RCPT
Chloride Ion
Penetrability
Category
1199
1096
1178
971
995
935
Low
Low
Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
MIX #41
Cast Date:
17/01/2011
Days
(after
cast)
Date
29
15/02/2011
58
16/03/2011
RCPT
Avg. Merlin
Avg.
Current
Merlin Bulk
Bulk
Measured
Resistivity
at 5 min
mm]
[m]
[m]
[mA]
52
52
52
50
50
51
304.64
284.45
264.43
367.65
354.52
347.37
284.51
356.51
25.0
33.8
34.8
23.4
21.8
23.2
RCPT
Temp.
Measured
at 5 min
[C]
23
23
23
23
23
23
RCPT
RCPT
RCPT
Avg. RCPT
Current
Temp.
min Bulk 5-min Bulk
Bulk
Actual
Actual
RCPT Bulk
Measured
Charge
Charge
at 6 hrs
at 6 hrs [C]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[mA]
22.6
24.5
25.5
18.4
17.4
17.8
26
26
27
25
25
25
377.14
278.95
270.93
419.04
449.80
414.37
309.00
427.73
391.64
358.54
354.80
509.13
538.93
507.69
368.33
518.59
520
568
574
416
393
409
554
406
MIX #42
Cast Date:
17/01/2011
Days
(after
cast)
Date
30
16/02/2011
58
16/03/2011
RCPT
Avg. Merlin
Current
Avg.
Merlin Bulk
Bulk
Measured
Resistivity
at 5 min
[m]
mm]
[m]
[mA]
52
52
52
50
50
50
222.37
232.29
222.93
302.93
296.30
309.66
225.86
302.96
36.0
35.3
34.7
26.2
26.9
26.9
RCPT
Temp.
Measured
at 5 min
[C]
23
23
23
22
24
22
RCPT
RCPT
RCPT
Avg. RCPT
Current
Temp.
min Bulk 5-min Bulk
Bulk
Actual
Actual
RCPT Bulk
Measured
Charge
Charge
at 6 hrs
at 6 hrs [C]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[mA]
25.2
27.9
25.4
21.5
21.5
20.8
26
26
26
0
26
25
261.90
267.09
271.71
381.63
364.52
364.52
266.90
370.22
344.59
326.37
351.13
447.15
431.36
444.02
340.70
440.85
591
624
580
483
491
477
598
484
MIX #43
Cast Date:
17/01/2011
Days
(after
cast)
Date
29
15/02/2011
56
14/03/2011
RCPT
Avg. Merlin
Avg.
Current
Merlin Bulk
Bulk
Measured
Resistivity
[m]
at 5 min
mm]
[m]
[mA]
51
51
51
50
51
51
298.62
272.35
274.45
302.30
314.80
298.28
281.81
305.13
32.9
32.8
31.2
28.7
25.4
28.0
RCPT
Temp.
Measured
at 5 min
[C]
23
23
23
23
22
22
RCPT
RCPT
RCPT
Avg. RCPT
Current
Temp.
min Bulk 5-min Bulk
Bulk
Actual
Actual
RCPT Bulk
Measured
Charge
Charge
at 6 hrs
at 6 hrs [C]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[mA]
25.0
21.8
21.4
21.0
19.2
19.7
26
26
26
26
25
25
292.20
293.09
308.12
341.66
378.48
343.33
297.80
354.49
368.17
400.09
411.18
440.33
480.66
454.37
393.15
458.45
564
519
505
481
432
457
529
457
MIX #24b
Cast Date:
18/01/2011
Days
(after
cast)
Date
29
16/02/2011
57
16/03/2011
RCPT
Avg. Merlin
Avg.
Current
Merlin Bulk
Bulk
Measured
Resistivity
at 5 min
mm]
[m]
[m]
[mA]
51
49
51
50
50
50
103.93
97.67
99.38
145.07
132.86
148.21
100.33
142.05
79.4
83.0
73.1
56.9
62.9
56.7
RCPT
Temp.
Measured
at 5 min
[C]
22
22
23
21
0
22
RCPT
RCPT
RCPT
Avg. RCPT
Current
Temp.
min Bulk 5-min Bulk
Bulk
Actual
Actual
RCPT Bulk
Measured
Charge
Charge
at 6 hrs
at 6 hrs [C]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[mA]
61.1
58.9
67.4
51.7
50.9
41.9
30
30
31
28
0
28
121.07
120.55
131.51
172.33
155.89
172.94
124.38
167.05
150.91
162.87
142.42
192.55
190.13
228.73
152.06
203.80
1376
1327
1458
1100
1114
926
1387
1047
MIX #25e
Cast Date:
18/01/2011
Days
(after
cast)
Date
30
17/02/2011
57
16/03/2011
RCPT
Avg. Merlin
Avg.
Current
Merlin Bulk
Bulk
Measured
Resistivity
mm]
[m]
at 5 min
[m]
[mA]
51
51
52
50
50
51
107.24
99.11
96.87
134.25
138.09
132.13
101.07
134.82
76.5
84.1
75.3
64.0
62.0
65.0
RCPT
Temp.
Measured
at 5 min
[C]
23
23
23
22
21
23
RCPT
RCPT
RCPT
Avg. RCPT
Current
Temp.
min Bulk 5-min Bulk
Bulk
Actual
Actual
RCPT Bulk
Measured
Charge
Charge
at 6 hrs
at 6 hrs [C]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[mA]
63.0
54.3
61.4
50.1
51.8
48.0
30
29
30
28
28
29
125.66
114.31
125.21
153.21
158.15
147.90
121.73
153.09
150.25
164.41
149.97
189.28
184.66
192.62
154.87
188.85
1382
1263
1358
1119
1147
1078
1334
1115
211
MIX #26
Cast Date:
18/01/2011
Days
(after
cast)
Date
29
16/02/2011
59
18/03/2011
Cylinder
Section
Avg.
Diameter
[mm]
Top
Middle
Bottom
Top
Middle
Bottom
102
101
101
102
102
102
Cylinder
Section
Avg.
Diameter
[mm]
Top
Middle
Bottom
Top
Middle
Bottom
102
102
101
102
102
102
Cylinder
Section
Avg.
Diameter
[mm]
Top
Middle
Bottom
Top
Middle
Bottom
102
102
102
102
102
102
Cylinder
Section
Avg.
Diameter
[mm]
Top
Middle
Bottom
Top
Middle
Bottom
102
102
102
102
102
102
Cylinder
Section
Avg.
Diameter
[mm]
Top
Middle
Bottom
Top
Middle
Bottom
102
102
102
102
102
101
Cylinder
Section
Avg.
Diameter
[mm]
RCPT
Avg. Merlin
Avg.
Current
Merlin Bulk
Bulk
Measured
Resistivity
[m]
at 5 min
mm]
[m]
[mA]
52
51
52
50
51
50
100.95
95.06
111.83
147.65
154.18
161.35
102.61
154.39
79.2
81.7
71.5
57.1
52.0
53.0
RCPT
Temp.
Measured
at 5 min
[C]
23
23
23
23
24
23
RCPT
RCPT
RCPT
Avg. RCPT
Current
Temp.
min Bulk 5-min Bulk
Bulk
Actual
Actual
RCPT Bulk
Measured
Charge
Charge
at 6 hrs
at 6 hrs [C]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[mA]
58.4
57.3
57.3
39.3
42.7
44.4
30
30
30
27
28
28
119.05
115.37
129.29
171.73
184.87
185.01
121.24
180.54
154.99
158.44
156.61
229.22
220.67
215.90
156.68
221.93
1314
1285
1275
924
941
981
1291
949
RCPT
Adjusted
Charge
Passed [C]
RCPT
Chloride Ion
Penetrability
Category
1140
1137
1128
802
816
851
Low
Low
Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
RCPT
Adjusted
Charge
Passed [C]
RCPT
Chloride Ion
Penetrability
Category
1296
1137
1286
969
912
944
Low
Low
Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
RCPT
Adjusted
Charge
Passed [C]
RCPT
Chloride Ion
Penetrability
Category
1421
1328
1425
1007
947
927
Low
Low
Low
Low
Very Low
Very Low
RCPT
Adjusted
Charge
Passed [C]
RCPT
Chloride Ion
Penetrability
Category
1358
1340
1495
939
949
1005
Low
Low
Low
Very Low
Very Low
Low
RCPT
Adjusted
Charge
Passed [C]
RCPT
Chloride Ion
Penetrability
Category
585
560
583
406
396
413
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
RCPT
Adjusted
Charge
Passed [C]
RCPT
Chloride Ion
Penetrability
Category
320
538
529
372
398
365
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
MIX #27
Cast Date:
25/01/2011
Days
(after
cast)
Date
29
23/02/2011
56
22/03/2011
RCPT
Avg. Merlin
Avg.
Current
Merlin Bulk
Bulk
Measured
Resistivity
at 5 min
mm]
[m]
[m]
[mA]
49
49
50
50
50
50
86.56
86.65
94.36
115.50
120.70
122.72
89.19
119.64
93.7
92.1
83.8
65.3
61.1
61.4
RCPT
Temp.
Measured
at 5 min
[C]
24
24
24
23
24
23
RCPT
RCPT
RCPT
Avg. RCPT
Current
Temp.
min Bulk 5-min Bulk
Bulk
Actual
Actual
RCPT Bulk
Measured
Charge
Charge
at 6 hrs
at 6 hrs [C]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[mA]
66.4
56.3
67.2
51.1
48.0
49.6
32
31
32
29
30
29
106.78
108.64
114.73
150.16
160.48
159.70
110.05
156.78
144.66
164.85
142.82
189.61
201.52
194.67
150.78
195.27
1494
1311
1454
1117
1051
1088
1420
1085
MIX #29
Cast Date:
25/01/2011
Days
(after
cast)
Date
29
23/02/2011
56
22/03/2011
RCPT
Avg. Merlin
Current
Avg.
Merlin Bulk
Bulk
Measured
Resistivity
at 5 min
[m]
mm]
[m]
[mA]
49
50
50
50
50
49
90.62
96.10
97.43
114.90
118.80
132.35
94.72
122.02
88.4
89.1
85.0
67.0
65.1
61.1
RCPT
Temp.
Measured
at 5 min
[C]
23
23
23
23
23
22
RCPT
RCPT
RCPT
Avg. RCPT
Current
Temp.
min Bulk 5-min Bulk
Bulk
Actual
Actual
RCPT Bulk
Measured
Charge
Charge
at 6 hrs
at 6 hrs [C]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[mA]
71.3
69.7
77.9
53.4
48.6
48.9
33
32
33
30
29
28
113.19
110.05
115.36
146.35
150.62
163.76
112.87
153.58
131.94
138.34
128.91
182.43
193.96
202.17
133.06
192.85
1638
1531
1643
1161
1092
1069
1604
1107
MIX #31
Cast Date:
25/01/2011
Days
(after
cast)
Date
29
23/02/2011
56
22/03/2011
RCPT
Avg. Merlin
Avg.
Current
Merlin Bulk
Bulk
Measured
Resistivity
[m]
at 5 min
mm]
[m]
[mA]
49
49
50
50
50
50
91.20
90.56
89.09
134.63
134.21
136.20
90.28
135.01
86.8
85.7
89.7
66.0
63.1
63.4
RCPT
Temp.
Measured
at 5 min
[C]
23
23
22
23
24
23
RCPT
RCPT
RCPT
Avg. RCPT
Current
Temp.
min Bulk 5-min Bulk
Bulk
Actual
Actual
RCPT Bulk
Measured
Charge
Charge
at 6 hrs
at 6 hrs [C]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[mA]
71.4
70.8
81.0
49.1
49.3
51.4
32
32
32
29
29
29
115.27
116.75
109.31
148.57
155.40
154.66
113.78
152.88
138.10
139.88
122.85
195.75
193.60
182.90
133.61
190.75
1565
1545
1724
1082
1094
1158
1611
1111
MIX #44c
Cast Date:
26/01/2011
Days
(after
cast)
Date
29
24/02/2011
56
23/03/2011
RCPT
Avg. Merlin
Avg.
Current
Merlin Bulk
Bulk
Measured
Resistivity
at 5 min
mm]
[m]
[m]
[mA]
49
49
50
50
50
51
225.63
212.26
217.90
310.20
301.54
301.14
218.60
304.29
38.2
38.6
36.6
28.3
27.6
27.7
RCPT
Temp.
Measured
at 5 min
[C]
24
23
23
23
23
22
RCPT
RCPT
RCPT
Avg. RCPT
Current
Temp.
min Bulk 5-min Bulk
Bulk
Actual
Actual
RCPT Bulk
Measured
Charge
Charge
at 6 hrs
at 6 hrs [C]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[mA]
29.9
28.3
29.9
20.9
19.9
20.6
27
26
27
26
26
25
261.93
259.21
267.91
346.49
355.27
340.28
263.02
347.35
320.66
334.55
315.18
452.56
464.47
435.96
323.46
451.00
674
646
672
468
456
467
664
464
MIX #45
Cast Date:
26/01/2011
Days
(after
cast)
Date
28
23/02/2011
56
23/03/2011
Top
Middle
Bottom
Top
Middle
Bottom
102
102
102
102
102
101
RCPT
Avg. Merlin
Avg.
Current
Merlin Bulk
Bulk
Measured
Resistivity
mm]
[m]
at 5 min
[m]
[mA]
50
49
50
50
50
51
215.63
216.07
198.76
328.91
306.05
296.07
207.42
310.34
RCPT
Temp.
Measured
at 5 min
[C]
RCPT
RCPT
RCPT
Avg. RCPT
Current
Temp.
min Bulk 5-min Bulk
Bulk
Actual
Actual
RCPT Bulk
Measured
Charge
Charge
at 6 hrs
at 6 hrs [C]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[mA]
25.2
24
11.6
26
38.4
38.0
25.5
26.8
25.8
23
22
22
21
21
26.6
26.3
18.6
20.2
17.6
27
26
25
25
24
260.56
258.04
384.53
365.88
365.34
259.30
371.92
348.58
347.21
493.71
461.44
492.97
347.90
482.70
369
620
610
429
459
413
615
434
212
MIX #46
Cast Date:
26/01/2011
Days
(after
cast)
Date
29
24/02/2011
56
23/03/2011
RCPT
Avg. Merlin
Avg.
Current
Merlin Bulk
Bulk
Measured
Resistivity
[m]
at 5 min
mm]
[m]
[mA]
Cylinder
Section
Avg.
Diameter
[mm]
Top
Middle
Bottom
Top
Middle
Bottom
102
102
101
102
102
102
Cylinder
Section
Avg.
Diameter
[mm]
Top
Middle
Bottom
Top
Middle
Bottom
102
102
101
102
101
101
Cylinder
Section
Avg.
Diameter
[mm]
Top
102
50
222.85
Middle*
Bottom
Top
Middle
Bottom
102
101
102
101
101
50
50
48
49
49
196.77
229.45
265.48
250.70
279.25
50
50
50
50
50
50
218.18
211.76
208.60
326.22
332.96
329.80
212.85
329.66
29.4
36.4
34.6
27.1
26.8
25.6
RCPT
Temp.
Measured
at 5 min
[C]
24
23
23
23
23
23
RCPT
RCPT
RCPT
Avg. RCPT
Current
Temp.
min Bulk 5-min Bulk
Bulk
Actual
Actual
RCPT Bulk
Measured
Charge
Charge
at 6 hrs
at 6 hrs [C]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[mA]
24.0
26.7
24.0
19.3
19.3
19.2
26
26
25
25
26
25
333.52
269.38
277.87
361.83
365.88
383.03
293.59
370.25
388.62
344.39
368.20
479.18
471.71
484.67
367.07
478.52
545
615
564
442
449
437
575
443
RCPT
Adjusted
Charge
Passed [C]
RCPT
Chloride Ion
Penetrability
Category
473
533
499
383
389
379
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
RCPT
Adjusted
Charge
Passed [C]
RCPT
Chloride Ion
Penetrability
Category
546
527
560
419
432
418
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
RCPT
Adjusted
Charge
Passed [C]
RCPT
Chloride Ion
Penetrability
Category
638
Very Low
595
473
500
436
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
RCPT
Adjusted
Charge
Passed [C]
RCPT
Chloride Ion
Penetrability
Category
344
435
451
368
352
323
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
RCPT
Adjusted
Charge
Passed [C]
RCPT
Chloride Ion
Penetrability
Category
453
445
430
354
365
334
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
RCPT
Adjusted
Charge
Passed [C]
RCPT
Chloride Ion
Penetrability
Category
463
313
419
341
357
334
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
MIX #47
Cast Date:
26/01/2011
Days
(after
cast)
Date
29
24/02/2011
56
23/03/2011
RCPT
Avg. Merlin
Current
Avg.
Merlin Bulk
Bulk
Measured
Resistivity
[m]
at 5 min
mm]
[m]
[mA]
49
49
50
50
50
50
219.23
219.61
210.73
305.33
303.67
298.31
216.52
302.44
38.6
37.3
35.6
27.9
26.9
28.0
RCPT
Temp.
Measured
at 5 min
[C]
24
24
23
23
22
22
RCPT
RCPT
RCPT
Avg. RCPT
Current
Temp.
min Bulk 5-min Bulk
Bulk
Actual
Actual
RCPT Bulk
Measured
Charge
Charge
at 6 hrs
at 6 hrs [C]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[mA]
27.5
25.7
28.1
21.3
22.1
20.5
27
26
27
27
25
24
259.21
268.25
270.06
351.45
357.41
343.36
265.84
350.74
343.60
356.05
328.07
438.51
425.55
439.04
342.57
434.37
629
607
633
483
488
473
623
481
MIX #48
Cast Date:
31/01/2011
Days
(after
cast)
Date
28
28/02/2011
56
*
28/03/2011
RCPT
Avg. Merlin
Avg.
Current
Merlin Bulk
Bulk
Measured
Resistivity
[m]
at 5 min
mm]
[m]
[mA]
226.15
265.14
RCPT
Temp.
Measured
at 5 min
[C]
RCPT
RCPT
RCPT
Avg. RCPT
Current
Temp.
min Bulk 5-min Bulk
Bulk
Actual
Actual
RCPT Bulk
Measured
Charge
Charge
at 6 hrs
at 6 hrs [C]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[mA]
39.1
23
33.3
27
250.78
37.1
31.9
31.2
29.3
29.8
23.5
24.6
21.4
23
24
24
23
27
25
26
25
259.14
320.19
314.44
334.83
288.16
254.96
323.15
308.57
404.82
375.05
429.83
735
298.37
403.23
673
545
565
493
704
534
Sample dropped and split after Merlin test, but before RCPT
MIX #49 - 1
Cast Date:
31/01/2011
Days
(after
cast)
Date
28
28/02/2011
56
28/03/2011
Cylinder
Section
Avg.
Diameter
[mm]
Top
Middle
Bottom
Top
Middle
Bottom
102
102
102
102
102
102
Cylinder
Section
Avg.
Diameter
[mm]
Top
Middle
Bottom
Top
Middle
Bottom
102
102
101
102
102
101
Cylinder
Section
Avg.
Diameter
[mm]
Top
Middle
Bottom
Top
Middle
Bottom
103
102
102
102
102
102
RCPT
Avg. Merlin
Avg.
Current
Merlin Bulk
Bulk
Measured
Resistivity
at 5 min
mm]
[m]
[m]
[mA]
49
50
50
49
49
48
296.66
298.75
286.87
374.81
383.36
400.22
294.09
386.13
16.9
28.3
29.1
23.2
22.9
22.0
RCPT
Temp.
Measured
at 5 min
[C]
23
22
22
23
23
23
RCPT
RCPT
RCPT
Avg. RCPT
Current
Temp.
min Bulk 5-min Bulk
Bulk
Actual
Actual
RCPT Bulk
Measured
Charge
Charge
at 6 hrs
at 6 hrs [C]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[mA]
17.2
21.7
22.5
18.5
17.5
16.0
25
26
25
25
25
25
592.05
346.49
336.96
431.28
436.93
464.28
425.17
444.16
544.39
422.75
407.31
509.72
532.32
593.08
458.15
545.04
397
501
520
424
406
372
473
401
MIX #49 - 2
Cast Date:
31/01/2011
Days
(after
cast)
Date
28
28/02/2011
56
28/03/2011
RCPT
Avg. Merlin
Avg.
Current
Merlin Bulk
Bulk
Measured
Resistivity
[m]
at 5 min
mm]
[m]
[mA]
50
50
50
49
49
49
302.14
303.68
306.32
385.09
355.15
388.25
304.05
376.16
29.0
29.1
26.7
22.4
23.7
22.2
RCPT
Temp.
Measured
at 5 min
[C]
23
23
22
24
23
22
RCPT
RCPT
RCPT
Avg. RCPT
Current
Temp.
min Bulk 5-min Bulk
Bulk
Actual
Actual
RCPT Bulk
Measured
Charge
Charge
at 6 hrs
at 6 hrs [C]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[mA]
22.9
22.0
21.5
18.1
18.9
16.2
26
25
25
25
25
24
338.12
336.96
360.08
446.68
422.18
441.91
345.06
436.92
405.75
412.86
427.30
529.71
513.35
560.60
415.30
534.55
522
513
486
408
421
378
507
402
MIX #51
Cast Date:
31/01/2011
Days
(after
cast)
Date
29
01/03/2011
57
29/03/2011
RCPT
Avg. Merlin
Avg.
Current
Merlin Bulk
Bulk
Measured
Resistivity
mm]
[m]
at 5 min
[m]
[mA]
49
50
50
48
49
49
309.71
306.71
332.29
401.67
356.13
375.22
316.24
377.67
29.5
16.9
22.6
22.6
23.3
22.6
RCPT
Temp.
Measured
at 5 min
[C]
23
23
22
23
23
23
RCPT
RCPT
RCPT
Avg. RCPT
Current
Temp.
min Bulk 5-min Bulk
Bulk
Actual
Actual
RCPT Bulk
Measured
Charge
Charge
at 6 hrs
at 6 hrs [C]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[mA]
24.0
16.8
21.9
16.7
17.9
16.3
26
25
25
25
25
24
345.86
580.21
433.87
451.95
429.43
442.73
453.31
441.37
405.11
586.70
438.51
561.39
524.57
561.36
476.77
549.10
544
361
483
393
412
385
463
397
213
MIX #52
Cast Date:
31/01/2011
Days
(after
cast)
Date
29
01/03/2011
56
28/03/2011
Cylinder
Section
Avg.
Diameter
[mm]
Top
Middle
Bottom
Top
Middle
Bottom
102
102
102
102
102
101
Cylinder
Section
Avg.
Diameter
[mm]
Top
Middle
Bottom
Top
Middle
Bottom
102
102
101
102
102
101
Cylinder
Section
Avg.
Diameter
[mm]
Top
Middle
Bottom
Top
Middle
Bottom
102
102
101
102
102
102
RCPT
Avg. Merlin
Avg.
Current
Merlin Bulk
Bulk
Measured
Resistivity
[m]
mm]
at 5 min
[m]
[mA]
50
50
50
48
49
49
305.56
302.25
334.50
340.93
351.01
373.52
314.10
355.15
27.1
28.5
25.3
25.2
23.9
22.5
RCPT
Temp.
Measured
at 5 min
[C]
23
21
21
24
23
22
RCPT
RCPT
RCPT
Avg. RCPT
Current
Temp.
min Bulk 5-min Bulk
Bulk
Actual
Actual
RCPT Bulk
Measured
Charge
Charge
at 6 hrs
at 6 hrs [C]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[mA]
20.3
20.9
19.7
18.9
18.5
16.1
26
25
24
26
25
24
361.83
344.05
387.57
405.32
418.65
436.02
364.48
420.00
451.60
432.24
469.62
504.86
509.72
560.60
451.15
525.06
469
490
451
437
424
378
470
413
RCPT
Adjusted
Charge
Passed [C]
RCPT
Chloride Ion
Penetrability
Category
407
425
391
379
368
334
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
RCPT
Adjusted
Charge
Passed [C]
RCPT
Chloride Ion
Penetrability
Category
425
334
417
355
339
324
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
RCPT
Adjusted
Charge
Passed [C]
RCPT
Chloride Ion
Penetrability
Category
762
761
726
438
447
432
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
MIX #53
Cast Date:
31/01/2011
Days
(after
cast)
Date
28
28/02/2011
57
29/03/2011
RCPT
Avg. Merlin
Avg.
Current
Merlin Bulk
Bulk
Measured
Resistivity
[m]
mm]
at 5 min
[m]
[mA]
50
50
51
49
49
49
320.55
304.46
283.46
386.52
401.32
398.21
302.82
395.35
17.5
15.5
26.6
22.6
22.0
21.6
RCPT
Temp.
Measured
at 5 min
[C]
22
23
22
23
22
21
RCPT
RCPT
RCPT
Avg. RCPT
Current
Temp.
min Bulk 5-min Bulk
Bulk
Actual
Actual
RCPT Bulk
Measured
Charge
Charge
at 6 hrs
at 6 hrs [C]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[mA]
22.4
17.1
20.4
18.0
17.0
15.6
26
25
25
25
24
23
560.32
632.62
354.35
442.73
454.80
454.19
515.76
450.57
432.24
550.13
432.26
528.42
552.74
578.98
471.54
553.38
490
385
471
409
391
366
449
389
MIX #50
Cast Date:
12/05/2011
Days
(after
cast)
Date
28
09/06/2011
56
07/07/2011
RCPT
Avg. Merlin
Avg.
Current
Merlin Bulk
Bulk
Measured
Resistivity
[m]
at 5 min
mm]
[m]
[mA]
54
55
54
50
50
50
178.70
159.74
171.13
268.62
271.95
261.19
169.86
267.25
43.8
43.7
44.2
27.7
28.6
29.5
RCPT
Temp.
Measured
at 5 min
[C]
23
30
21
23
23
23
RCPT
RCPT
RCPT
Avg. RCPT
Current
Temp.
min Bulk 5-min Bulk
Bulk
Actual
Actual
RCPT Bulk
Measured
Charge
Charge
at 6 hrs
at 6 hrs [C]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[mA]
39.8
39.3
36.3
22.8
23.4
21.4
28
28
25
26
26
26
207.29
203.98
201.40
353.99
342.85
332.39
204.23
343.08
223.36
219.55
234.21
419.41
411.26
425.30
225.71
418.66
878
877
821
505
515
498
859
506
214
Appendix I: Statistical Analysis of Compressive Strength Results at 28 Days with a 90%

Confidence Level
215
t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances
Comparable Compressive Strengths to 35 MPa Control (Mix #1 = Variable 1) at 28 Days Above 35 MPa
Mix #18
Mix #13
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
41.9776859 50.84468872
Variance
0.129186883 1.11575897
Observations
2
2
Pooled Variance
0.622472926
Hypothesized Mean Difference
0
df
2
t Stat
-11.23871382
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.003912157
t Critical one-tail
6.964556734
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.007824314
t Critical two-tail
9.9248432
Conclusion:
|t(stat)| > t(crit two-tail) Therefore, the difference between the
means is statistically significant at 90% level of confidence
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
41.9776859 45.83946087
Variance
0.129186883 3.700830087
Observations
2
2
Pooled Variance
1.915008485
0
df
2
t Stat
-2.790625845
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.054001216
t Critical one-tail
6.964556734
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.108002433
t Critical two-tail
9.9248432
Conclusion:
|t(stat)| < t(crit two-tail) Therefore, the difference between the
means is not statistically significant at 90% level of confidence
Mix #10
Mix #27
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
41.9776859 43.1298681
Variance
0.129186883 0.111722513
Observations
2
2
Pooled Variance
0.120454698
0
df
2
t Stat
-3.319779881
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.039999663
t Critical one-tail
6.964556734
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.079999326
t Critical two-tail
9.9248432
Conclusion:
means is not statistically significant at 90% level of
confidence
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
41.9776859 42.45357181
Variance
0.129186883 2.435591128
Observations
2
2
Pooled Variance
1.282389005
0
df
2
t Stat
-0.420235703
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.357579065
t Critical one-tail
6.964556734
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.715158129
t Critical two-tail
9.9248432
Conclusion:
Mix #20
Mix #11
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
41.9776859 42.3551257
Variance
0.129186883 17.24629945
Observations
2
2
Pooled Variance
8.687743167
0
df
2
t Stat
-0.128054312
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.45491043
t Critical one-tail
6.964556734
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.90982086
t Critical two-tail
9.9248432
Conclusion:
confidence
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
41.9776859 40.63028765
Variance
0.129186883 0.845779499
Observations
2
2
Pooled Variance
0.487483191
0
df
2
t Stat
1.929817137
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.096699292
t Critical one-tail
6.964556734
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.193398585
t Critical two-tail
9.9248432
Conclusion:
216
Mix #12
Mix #26
Variable 1
Variable 2
41.9776859 40.33252416
0.129186883 0.804920805
2
2
0.467053844
0
2
2.40727179
0.068889842
6.964556734
0.137779684
9.9248432
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pooled Variance
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Conclusion:
confidence
Mix #29
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
41.9776859 40.27362718
Variance
0.129186883 3.822296217
Observations
2
2
Pooled Variance
1.97574155
0
df
2
t Stat
1.212326195
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.174582164
t Critical one-tail
6.964556734
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.349164329
t Critical two-tail
9.9248432
Conclusion:
Mix #25e
Variable 1
Variable 2
41.9776859 39.3192366
0.129186883 2.121080907
2
2
1.125133895
0
2
2.5062609
0.064542396
6.964556734
0.129084792
9.9248432
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pooled Variance
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Conclusion:
confidence
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
41.9776859 38.31483645
Variance
0.129186883 0.499506317
Observations
2
2
Pooled Variance
0.3143466
0
df
2
t Stat
6.533030504
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.01131868
t Critical one-tail
6.964556734
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.022637359
t Critical two-tail
9.9248432
Conclusion:
Mix #5
Mix #24b
Variable 1
Variable 2
41.9776859 37.07687771
0.129186883 0.186492684
2
2
0.157839783
0
2
12.33557698
0.003253835
6.964556734
0.00650767
9.9248432
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pooled Variance
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
41.9776859 36.25104041
Variance
0.129186883 5.977264381
Observations
2
2
Pooled Variance
3.053225632
0
df
2
t Stat
3.277335099
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.040917891
t Critical one-tail
6.964556734
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.081835782
t Critical two-tail
9.9248432
Conclusion:
217
Mix #31
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
41.9776859 45.58643529
Variance
0.129186883 2.766304265
Observations
2
2
Pooled Variance
1.447745574
0
df
2
t Stat
-2.999235726
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.047753939
t Critical one-tail
6.964556734
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.095507877
t Critical two-tail
9.9248432
Conclusion:
confidence
Comparison of Compressive Strengths at 28 Days Between Two Mixes
Variable 1 = Mix #2, Variable 2 = Mix #8
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
31.51159986 34.16834489
Variance
12.77738841 0.52714945
Observations
2
2
Pooled Variance
6.652268929
0
df
2
t Stat
-1.030065823
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.20562509
t Critical one-tail
6.964556734
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.41125018
t Critical two-tail
9.9248432
Conclusion:
confidence
218
Comparable Compressive Strengths to 50 MPa Control (Mix #32d = Variable 1) at 28 Days Above 50 MPa
Mix #33
Mix #49-2
Variable 1
Variable 2
72.10501118 70.62704584
0.402176856 0.871293763
2
2
0.63673531
0
2
1.852186802
0.102597089
6.964556734
0.205194178
9.9248432
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pooled Variance
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Conclusion:
confidence
Mix #44c
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
72.10501118 70.12578645
Variance
0.402176856 5.809352307
Observations
2
2
Pooled Variance
3.105764581
0
df
2
t Stat
1.12308039
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.189054099
t Critical one-tail
6.964556734
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.378108198
t Critical two-tail
9.9248432
Conclusion:
Mix #34
Variable 1
Variable 2
72.10501118 68.72677121
0.402176856 3.891776922
2
2
2.146976889
0
2
2.305562032
0.073792236
6.964556734
0.147584471
9.9248432
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pooled Variance
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Conclusion:
confidence
Mix #51
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
72.10501118 66.4593187
Variance
0.402176856 27.69633772
Observations
2
2
Pooled Variance
14.04925729
0
df
2
t Stat
1.506227373
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.135488143
t Critical one-tail
6.964556734
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.270976286
t Critical two-tail
9.9248432
Conclusion:
Mix #47
Variable 1
Variable 2
72.10501118 65.77332789
0.402176856 36.76438839
2
2
18.58328262
0
2
1.468784118
0.139818925
6.964556734
0.279637849
9.9248432
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pooled Variance
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Conclusion:
confidence
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
72.10501118 64.56056355
Variance
0.402176856 7.228810832
Observations
2
2
Pooled Variance
3.815493844
0
df
2
t Stat
3.862353943
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.030483982
t Critical one-tail
6.964556734
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.060967964
t Critical two-tail
9.9248432
Conclusion:
219
Mix #37
Mix #49-1
Variable 1
Variable 2
72.10501118 64.39378545
0.402176856 7.366707392
2
2
3.884442124
0
2
3.912542689
0.029774938
6.964556734
0.059549877
9.9248432
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pooled Variance
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Conclusion:
confidence
Mix #42
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
72.10501118 63.91263597
Variance
0.402176856 17.14761173
Observations
2
2
Pooled Variance
8.774894295
0
df
2
t Stat
2.765596953
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.054827432
t Critical one-tail
6.964556734
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.109654863
t Critical two-tail
9.9248432
Conclusion:
Mix #38
Variable 1
Variable 2
72.10501118 62.01967604
0.402176856
0
2
2
0.201088428
0
2
22.4903801
0.000985578
6.964556734
0.001971155
9.9248432
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pooled Variance
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
72.10501118 60.98424277
Variance
0.402176856 11.47394592
Observations
2
2
Pooled Variance
5.938061388
0
df
2
t Stat
4.563651319
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.022405998
t Critical one-tail
6.964556734
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.044811995
t Critical two-tail
9.9248432
Conclusion:
Mix #46
Mix #35
Variable 1
Variable 2
72.10501118 60.63404568
0.402176856 3.218655355
2
2
1.810416105
0
2
8.525321614
0.006740569
6.964556734
0.013481138
9.9248432
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pooled Variance
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Conclusion:
confidence
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
72.10501118 59.96491057
Variance
0.402176856 69.30287344
Observations
2
2
Pooled Variance
34.85252515
0
df
2
t Stat
2.056388476
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.088020801
t Critical one-tail
6.964556734
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.176041602
t Critical two-tail
9.9248432
Conclusion:
220
Mix #43
Mix #48
Variable 1
Variable 2
72.10501118 59.92080853
0.402176856 17.37007924
2
2
8.886128047
0
2
4.087340612
0.027484272
6.964556734
0.054968544
9.9248432
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pooled Variance
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Conclusion:
confidence
Mix #50
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
72.10501118 58.97194162
Variance
0.402176856 2.146119148
Observations
2
2
Pooled Variance
1.274148002
0
df
2
t Stat
11.63472991
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.003653232
t Critical one-tail
6.964556734
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.007306464
t Critical two-tail
9.9248432
Conclusion:
Mix #36
Variable 1
Variable 2
72.10501118 56.19930465
0.402176856 2.470068735
2
2
1.436122796
0
2
13.27263579
0.002814342
6.964556734
0.005628683
9.9248432
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pooled Variance
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
72.10501118 55.44543232
Variance
0.402176856 15.21645735
Observations
2
2
Pooled Variance
7.809317103
0
df
2
t Stat
5.961526649
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.013501487
t Critical one-tail
6.964556734
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.027002975
t Critical two-tail
9.9248432
Conclusion:
Mix #52
Mix #45
Variable 1
Variable 2
72.10501118 70.21480925
0.402176856
12.067695
2
2
6.234935929
0
2
0.756993595
0.264039668
6.964556734
0.528079335
9.9248432
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pooled Variance
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Conclusion:
confidence
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
72.10501118 69.44418928
Variance
0.402176856 9.447356594
Observations
2
2
Pooled Variance
4.924766725
0
df
2
t Stat
1.199010471
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.176656853
t Critical one-tail
6.964556734
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.353313707
t Critical two-tail
9.9248432
Conclusion:
221
Mix #41
Mix #53
Variable 1
Variable 2
72.10501118 67.74283586
0.402176856 2.120127545
2
2
1.2611522
0
2
3.88435904
0.030170116
6.964556734
0.060340231
9.9248432
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pooled Variance
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Conclusion:
confidence
Comparison of Compressive Strengths at 28 Days Between Two Mixes

Variable 1 = Mix #49-1, Variable 2 = Mix #49-2
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
63.91263597 70.12578645
Variance
17.14761173 5.809352307
Observations
2
2
Pooled Variance
11.47848202
0
df
2
t Stat
-1.833874631
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.104057742
t Critical one-tail
6.964556734
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.208115485
t Critical two-tail
9.9248432
Conclusion:
confidence
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
72.10501118 64.24993327
Variance
0.402176856 1.401163973
Observations
2
2
Pooled Variance
0.901670415
0
df
2
t Stat
8.272305923
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.007150268
t Critical one-tail
6.964556734
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.014300537
t Critical two-tail
9.9248432
Conclusion:
222
Appendix J: Ground Surface Smoothness at Age of 56 Days ASTM C 39 Check
223
MIX #44c
Cast Date:
26/01/2011
Days (after
cast)
Date
56
23/03/2011
Avg.
Avg.
Avg.
Avg.
Avg.
Avg.
Thickness Thickness Thickness Thickness Thickness Thickness
Cylinder Cylinder Cylinder Cylinder Cylinder Cylinder
#1
#2
#1 - TOP #1 - BOT #2 - TOP #2 - BOT
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.08
0.06
Notes
Fail
MIX #45
Cast Date:
26/01/2011
Days (after
cast)
Date
56
23/03/2011
Avg.
Avg.
Avg.
Avg.
Avg.
Avg.
#1 - TOP #1 - BOT #2 - TOP #2 - BOT
#1
#2
0.06
0.08
0.08
0.06
0.07
0.07
Notes
Fail
MIX #46
Cast Date:
26/01/2011
Days (after
cast)
Date
56
23/03/2011
Avg.
Avg.
Avg.
Avg.
Avg.
Avg.
#1 - TOP #1 - BOT #2 - TOP #2 - BOT
#1
#2
0.10
0.06
0.09
0.06
0.08
0.07
Notes
Fail
MIX #47
Cast Date:
26/01/2011
Days (after
cast)
Date
56
23/03/2011
Avg.
Avg.
Avg.
Avg.
Avg.
Avg.
#1 - TOP #1 - BOT #2 - TOP #2 - BOT
#1
#2
0.08
0.05
0.08
0.06
0.06
0.07
Notes
Fail
MIX #48
Cast Date:
31/01/2011
Days (after
cast)
Date
56
28/03/2011
Avg.
Avg.
Avg.
Avg.
Avg.
Avg.
#1 - TOP #1 - BOT #2 - TOP #2 - BOT
#1
#2
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.06
0.06
Notes
Fail
MIX #49 - 1
Cast Date:
31/01/2011
Days (after
cast)
Date
56
28/03/2011
Avg.
Avg.
Avg.
Avg.
Avg.
Avg.
#1 - TOP #1 - BOT #2 - TOP #2 - BOT
#1
#2
0.08
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.06
0.05
Notes
Fail #1, Pass #2
224
MIX #49 - 2
Cast Date:
31/01/2011
Days (after
cast)
Date
56
28/03/2011
Avg.
Avg.
Avg.
Avg.
Avg.
Avg.
#1
#2
#1 - TOP #1 - BOT #2 - TOP #2 - BOT
0.08
0.08
0.07
0.07
0.08
0.07
Notes
Fail
MIX #51
Cast Date:
31/01/2011
Days (after
cast)
Date
56
28/03/2011
Avg.
Avg.
Avg.
Avg.
Avg.
Avg.
#1
#2
#1 - TOP #1 - BOT #2 - TOP #2 - BOT
0.08
0.07
0.05
0.05
0.08
0.05
Notes
Fail #1, Pass #2
MIX #52
Cast Date:
31/01/2011
Days (after
cast)
Date
56
28/03/2011
Avg.
Avg.
Avg.
Avg.
Avg.
Avg.
#1 - TOP #1 - BOT #2 - TOP #2 - BOT
#1
#2
0.08
0.08
0.07
0.07
0.08
0.07
Notes
Fail
MIX #53
Cast Date:
31/01/2011
Days (after
cast)
Date
56
28/03/2011
Avg.
Avg.
Avg.
Avg.
Avg.
Avg.
#1 - TOP #1 - BOT #2 - TOP #2 - BOT
#2
#1
0.08
0.05
0.08
0.08
0.06
0.08
Notes
Fail
225
Appendix K: Statistical Analysis of Linear Drying Shrinkage Results at 35 Days with a

90% Confidence Level
226
Linear Interpolation for 35 Day Data of Mix #s 1, 2, 5, 9, 52, 53, 49-1 and 49-2
Mix #1
Days (after
cast)
Mix #2
Corrected
Corrected
Corrected
Length
Length
Length
Change
Change
Change
Prism #1 [%] Prism #2 [%] Prism #3 [%]
28
-0.0246
42
-0.0395
Linear Interpolation for 35 days:
35
-0.0321
-0.0246
-0.0399
-0.0235
-0.0374
-0.0322
-0.0304
Mix #5
Days (after
cast)
-0.0231
-0.0377
-0.0260
-0.0391
-0.0304
-0.0325
Mix #52
28
-0.0184
42
-0.0317
35
-0.0251
-0.0259
-0.0363
-0.0218
-0.0366
-0.0311
-0.0292
Days (after
cast)
Corrected
Corrected
Corrected
Length
Length
Length
Change
Change
Change
28
-0.0295
42
-0.0426
35
-0.0361
-0.0250
-0.0392
-0.0251
-0.0374
-0.0321
-0.0313
Mix #53
Corrected
Corrected
Corrected
Length
Length
Length
Change
Change
Change
28
-0.0399
36
-0.0365
35
-0.0369
-0.0351
-0.0325
-0.0382
-0.0363
-0.0329
-0.0365
Mix #49-1
Days (after
cast)
Corrected
Corrected
Corrected
Length
Length
Length
Change
Change
Change
Mix #9
Corrected
Corrected
Corrected
Length
Length
Length
Change
Change
Change
28
-0.0365
42
-0.0508
35
-0.0436
Days (after
cast)
Days (after
cast)
Days (after
cast)
Corrected
Corrected
Corrected
Length
Length
Length
Change
Change
Change
28
-0.0415
36
-0.0371
35
-0.0376
-0.0403
-0.0352
-0.0401
-0.0376
-0.0358
-0.0379
Mix #49-2
Corrected
Corrected
Corrected
Length
Length
Length
Change
Change
Change
28
-0.0443
36
-0.0432
35
-0.0433
-0.0424
-0.0398
-0.0445
-0.0426
-0.0401
-0.0429
Days (after
cast)
Corrected
Corrected
Corrected
Length
Length
Length
Change
Change
Change
28
-0.0471
36
-0.0427
35
-0.0432
-0.0414
-0.0366
-0.0456
-0.0401
-0.0372
-0.0408
227
Comparable Linear Drying Shrinkage (OPSS Method) to 35 MPa Control (Mix #1 = Variable 1) at 35 Days
Mix #2
Mix #5
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
-0.031585807 -0.028451614
Variance
9.8221E-07 9.45116E-06
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
5.21669E-06
0
df
4
-1.680637163
t Stat
0.084064576
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.168129152
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
confidence
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
-0.031585807 -0.035520229
Variance
9.8221E-07 5.06635E-05
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
2.58229E-05
0
df
4
t Stat
0.948253256
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.198347845
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.39669569
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
confidence
Mix #9
Mix #18
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
-0.031585807 -0.033145724
Variance
9.8221E-07 6.60256E-06
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
3.79238E-06
0
df
4
t Stat
0.981049059
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.191057182
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.382114364
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
confidence
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
-0.031585807 -0.040981238
Variance
9.8221E-07 1.59305E-07
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
5.70757E-07
0
df
4
t Stat
15.23128461
P(T<=t) one-tail
5.41748E-05
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.00010835
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
Mix #31
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
-0.031585807 -0.060288321
Variance
9.8221E-07 4.26121E-05
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
2.17971E-05
0
df
4
t Stat
7.52949293
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.00083299
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.001665979
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
228
Comparison of Linear Drying Shrinkage (OPSS Method) at 35 Days Between Two Mixes
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
-0.028451614 -0.055290169
Variance
9.45116E-06
1.1155E-05
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
1.03031E-05
0
df
4
t Stat
10.24050206
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.000256283
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.000512566
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
Comparable Linear Drying Shrinkage (OPSS Method) to 50 MPa Control (Mix #32d = Variable 1) at 35 Days
Mix #44c
Mix #46
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
-0.034199135 -0.038712951
Variance
3.35028E-07 3.19221E-06
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
1.76362E-06
0
df
4
t Stat
4.162812784
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.007056501
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.014113003
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
confidence
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
-0.034199135 -0.032432065
Variance
3.35028E-07 1.84763E-06
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
1.09133E-06
0
df
4
t Stat
-2.071675714
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.053513403
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.107026807
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
confidence
Mix #33
Mix #41
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
-0.034199135 -0.039657873
Variance
3.35028E-07 3.52015E-07
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
3.43522E-07
0
df
4
t Stat
11.40672227
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.000168479
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.000336959
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
-0.034199135 -0.046959985
Variance
3.35028E-07 3.87106E-06
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
2.10304E-06
0
df
4
t Stat
10.77707956
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.00021018
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.00042036
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
229
Mix #45
Mix #52
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
-0.034199135 -0.040134273
Variance
3.35028E-07 1.38803E-06
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
8.61529E-07
0
df
4
t Stat
7.831440174
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.000717732
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.001435465
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
-0.034199135 -0.03544126
Variance
3.35028E-07 5.05286E-06
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
2.69394E-06
0
df
4
t Stat
0.926865545
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.203228935
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.40645787
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
confidence
Mix #53
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
-0.034199135 -0.037122037
Variance
3.35028E-07 1.23636E-06
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
7.85692E-07
0
df
4
t Stat
4.03862701
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.007810858
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
0.015621717
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
confidence
Comparison of Linear Drying Shrinkage (OPSS Method) at 35 Days Between Two Mixes
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
-0.042104723 -0.040383177
Variance
2.93288E-06 9.20171E-06
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
6.06729E-06
0
df
4
t Stat
-0.855986633
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.220126469
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.440252938
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
confidence
230
Appendix L: Average Mass of Prism Specimens vs. Age
231
Average Mass of Prism Specimens vs. Age (35 MPa Mixes)
Control, 35 MPa (Mix #1, 360 kg/m3)
4400
Optimized, 35 MPa (Mix #2, 360 kg/m3)

4300
Average Mass of Prism Specimens (g)

4200

4100

4000

3900
Optimized, 35 MPa (Mix #24b, 330 kg/m3)

Optimized, 35 MPa (Mix #25e, 330 kg/m3)
3800

Control (reduced cement), 35 MPa (Mix #29, 330 kg/m3)
3700
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Age (Days)
Average Mass of Prism Specimens vs. Age (50 MPa Mixes)

Control, 50 MPa (Mix #32d, 465 kg/m3)
4600

4500
Average Mass of Prism Specimens (g)

4400

4300

Optimized, 50 MPa (Mix #44c, 390 kg/m3)
Control (reduced cement), 50 MPa (Mix #45, 390 kg/m3)
4200

4100

Optimized, 50 MPa (Mix #49-1, 390 kg/m3)
Optimized, 50 MPa (Mix #49-2, 390 kg/m3)
4000

3900

0
10
20
30
40
50
Age (Days)
60
70
80
90
100
232
Appendix M: Statistical Analysis of Linear Drying Shrinkage Test Methods at 35 Days

with a 90% Confidence Level
233
Comparison of Linear Drying Shrinkage Testing Methods at 35 Days: OPSS vs. ASTM (modified)
Linear Interpolation for 35 Day Data of Mix # 1
Mix #1
Days (after cast)
OPSS LS-435 R23

Corrected
Length
Change
Prism #1
[%]
28
-0.0246
42
-0.0395
35
-0.0321
Corrected
Length
Change
Prism #2
[%]
Corrected
Length
Change
Prism #3
[%]
Corrected
Length
Change
Prism #1
[%]
Corrected
Length
Change
Prism #2
[%]
Corrected
Length
Change
Prism #3
[%]
-0.0246
-0.0399
-0.0235
-0.0374
-0.0190
-0.0339
-0.0198
-0.0350
-0.0172
-0.0310
-0.0322
-0.0304
-0.0265
-0.0274
-0.0241
35 MPa Control, Mix #1:

Variable 1 = OPSS Method, Variable 2 = ASTM (modified)
Variable 1 Variable 2
Mean
-0.0315858 -0.0259892
Variance
9.8221E-07 2.9012E-06
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
1.9417E-06
0
df
4
t Stat
-4.9190022
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.00396753
t Critical one-tail
3.74694739
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.00793507
t Critical two-tail
4.60409487
Conclusion:
50 MPa Control, Mix #32d:
Variable 1 = OPSS Method, Variable 2 = ASTM (modified)
Variable 1 Variable 2
Mean
-0.0341991 -0.0296961
Variance
3.3503E-07 3.3701E-07
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
3.3602E-07
0
df
4
t Stat
-9.5140756
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.00034066
t Critical one-tail
3.74694739
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.00068133
t Critical two-tail
4.60409487
Conclusion:
234
Appendix N: Statistical Analysis of Merlin Bulk Resistivity Results with a 90% Confidence
Level
235
Comparable Merlin Bulk Resistivity to 35 MPa Control (Mix #1 = Variable 1) at 28 Days
Mix #13
Mix #5
Variable 1
Variable 2
152.5166667 179.0133333
80.26583333 58.29213333
3
3
69.27898333
0
4
-3.898846337
0.008779299
3.746947388
0.017558597
4.604094871
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pooled Variance
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
152.5166667
169.88
Variance
80.26583333
316.1893
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
198.2275667
0
df
4
t Stat
-1.510416451
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.102727998
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.205455996
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
Mix #8
Mix #2
Variable 1
Variable 2
152.5166667 163.9633333
80.26583333 826.7044333
3
3
453.4851333
0
4
-0.65832923
0.273144909
3.746947388
0.546289817
4.604094871
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pooled Variance
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
152.5166667 147.4266667
Variance
80.26583333 124.1121333
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
102.1889833
0
df
4
t Stat
0.616682143
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.285406311
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.570812622
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
Mix #9
Mix #4
Variable 1
152.5166667
80.26583333
3
92.11426667
0
4
1.011516044
0.184492632
3.746947388
0.368985264
4.604094871
Variable 2
144.59
103.9627
3
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pooled Variance
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
152.5166667 137.9133333
Variance
80.26583333 12.18093333
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
46.22338333
0
df
4
t Stat
2.630672366
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.029072621
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.058145241
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
236
Mix #20
Mix #10
Variable 1
152.5166667
80.26583333
3
42.72556667
0
4
3.921044494
0.008616253
3.746947388
0.017232506
4.604094871
Variable 2
131.59
5.1853
3
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pooled Variance
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
152.5166667
127.43
Variance
80.26583333
35.7637
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
58.01476667
0
df
4
t Stat
4.033845997
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.007841792
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.015683584
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
Mix #18
Mix #11
Variable 1
Variable 2
152.5166667 124.0066667
80.26583333 10.19853333
3
3
45.23218333
0
4
5.191813354
0.003276437
3.746947388
0.006552874
4.604094871
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pooled Variance
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
152.5166667 123.6133333
Variance
80.26583333 78.78173333
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
79.52378333
0
df
4
t Stat
3.969584438
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.008272218
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.016544436
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
Mix #12
Mix #26
Variable 1
152.5166667
80.26583333
3
62.91976667
0
4
6.141584955
0.001781925
3.746947388
0.00356385
4.604094871
Variable 2
112.74
45.5737
3
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pooled Variance
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
152.5166667 102.6133333
Variance
80.26583333 72.38323333
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
76.32453333
0
df
4
t Stat
6.995892161
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.001098479
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.002196957
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
237
Mix #25e
Mix #24b
Variable 1
Variable 2
152.5166667 101.0733333
80.26583333 29.77523333
3
3
55.02053333
0
4
8.494001495
0.000526709
3.746947388
0.001053418
4.604094871
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pooled Variance
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
152.5166667 100.3266667
Variance
80.26583333 10.46903333
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
45.36743333
0
df
4
t Stat
9.489882201
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.000344028
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.000688056
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
Mix #29
Mix #31
Variable 1
Variable 2
152.5166667 94.71666667
80.26583333 13.02923333
3
3
46.64753333
0
4
10.36475704
0.00024457
3.746947388
0.00048914
4.604094871
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pooled Variance
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Conclusion:
Mix #27
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
152.5166667
89.19
Variance
80.26583333
20.0487
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
50.15726667
0
df
4
t Stat
10.9512912
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.000197468
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.000394935
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
152.5166667 90.28333333
Variance
80.26583333 1.170433333
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
40.71813333
0
df
4
t Stat
11.94468669
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.000140733
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.000281467
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
238
Comparison of Merlin Bulk Resistivity at 28 Days Between Two Mixes
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
147.4266667 163.9633333
Variance
124.1121333 826.7044333
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
475.4082833
0
df
4
t Stat
-0.928881321
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.202764611
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.405529223
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
Comparable Merlin Bulk Resistivity to 35 MPa Control (Mix #1 = Variable 1) at 56 Days

Mix #9
Mix #5
Variable 1
Variable 2
155.58 170.7366667
78.6708 1.508933333
3
3
40.08986667
0
4
-2.931784356
0.021368836
3.746947388
0.042737672
4.604094871
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pooled Variance
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
155.58
170.195
Variance
78.6708
33.70205
Observations
3
2
Pooled Variance
63.68121667
0
df
3
t Stat
-2.006244072
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.069242949
t Critical one-tail
4.540702858
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.138485898
t Critical two-tail
5.840909309
Conclusion:
Mix #18
Mix #13
Variable 1
Variable 2
155.58 167.2233333
78.6708 15.02363333
3
3
46.84721667
0
4
-2.083440316
0.052805549
3.746947388
0.105611098
4.604094871
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pooled Variance
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
155.58 163.4333333
Variance
78.6708 2.336133333
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
40.50346667
0
df
4
t Stat
-1.511310024
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.102619619
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.205239238
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
239
Mix #11
Mix #10
Variable 1
Variable 2
155.58 163.2366667
78.6708 98.10103333
3
3
88.38591667
0
4
-0.997456201
0.187497236
3.746947388
0.374994472
4.604094871
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pooled Variance
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
155.58 162.5133333
Variance
78.6708 174.2212333
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
126.4460167
0
df
4
t Stat
-0.755153315
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.246091876
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.492183751
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
Mix #20
Mix #8
Variable 1
155.58
78.6708
3
63.0606
0
3
-0.804229739
0.240045417
4.540702858
0.480090835
5.840909309
Variable 2
161.41
31.8402
2
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pooled Variance
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
155.58 161.1433333
Variance
78.6708 43.16643333
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
60.91861667
0
df
4
t Stat
-0.872982816
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.215973021
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.431946042
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
Mix #2
Variable 1
155.58
78.6708
3
107.2300167
0
3
-0.559084469
0.307562962
4.540702858
0.615125924
5.840909309
Variable 2
160.865
164.34845
2
Mix #12
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pooled Variance
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
155.58 157.1066667
Variance
78.6708 215.6756333
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
147.1732167
0
df
4
t Stat
-0.154125842
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.44248707
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.88497414
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
240
Mix #26
Mix #4
Variable 1
Variable 2
155.58 154.3933333
78.6708 46.95663333
3
3
62.81371667
0
4
0.183377956
0.431710813
3.746947388
0.863421625
4.604094871
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pooled Variance
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
155.58 152.7533333
Variance
78.6708 27.56253333
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
53.11666667
0
df
4
t Stat
0.475012262
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.329776166
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.659552331
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
Mix #24b
Mix #31
Variable 1
Variable 2
155.58 142.0466667
78.6708 65.76103333
3
3
72.21591667
0
4
1.95044606
0.061447123
3.746947388
0.122894246
4.604094871
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pooled Variance
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
155.58 135.0133333
Variance
78.6708 1.100233333
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
39.88551667
0
df
4
t Stat
3.988429573
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.008143113
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.016286226
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
Mix #25e
Mix #29
Variable 1
Variable 2
155.58 134.8233333
78.6708 9.126933333
3
3
43.89886667
0
4
3.836865597
0.009254533
3.746947388
0.018509065
4.604094871
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pooled Variance
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
155.58 122.0166667
Variance
78.6708 83.88583333
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
81.27831667
0
df
4
t Stat
4.559564519
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.005171127
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.010342255
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
241
Mix #27
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
155.58
119.64
Variance
78.6708
13.8748
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
46.2728
0
df
4
t Stat
6.470842249
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.001469304
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.002938608
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:

Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
160.865 161.1433333
Variance
164.34845 43.16643333
Observations
2
3
Pooled Variance
83.56043889
0
df
3
t Stat
-0.033354581
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.487743467
t Critical one-tail
4.540702858
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.975486934
t Critical two-tail
5.840909309
Conclusion:
Comparable Merlin Bulk Resistivity to 50 MPa Control (Mix #32d = Variable 1) at 28 Days
Mix #35
Mix #51
Variable 1
Variable 2
332.9933333 322.8633333
353.4144333 28.53603333
3
3
190.9752333
0
4
0.897773021
0.210029974
3.746947388
0.420059947
4.604094871
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pooled Variance
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
332.9933333 316.2366667
Variance
353.4144333 195.5321333
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
274.4732833
0
df
4
t Stat
1.238748727
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.141581704
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.283163408
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
242
Mix #52
Mix #49-2
Variable 1
Variable 2
332.9933333 314.1033333
353.4144333 314.7570333
3
3
334.0857333
0
4
1.265752
0.137152399
3.746947388
0.274304799
4.604094871
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pooled Variance
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
332.9933333 304.0466667
Variance
353.4144333 4.468933333
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
178.9416833
0
df
4
t Stat
2.650259686
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.028483171
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.056966342
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
Mix #53
Mix #34
Variable 1
Variable 2
332.9933333 302.8233333
353.4144333 345.9260333
3
3
349.6702333
0
4
1.976021238
0.059671906
3.746947388
0.119343812
4.604094871
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pooled Variance
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
332.9933333
302.07
Variance
353.4144333
449.0479
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
401.2311667
0
df
4
t Stat
1.890752142
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.065818093
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.131636186
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
Mix #49-1
Mix #33
Variable 1
Variable 2
332.9933333 294.0933333
353.4144333 40.22443333
3
3
196.8194333
0
4
3.395949648
0.013689667
3.746947388
0.027379335
4.604094871
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pooled Variance
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
332.9933333 292.3833333
Variance
353.4144333 20.27083333
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
186.8426333
0
df
4
t Stat
3.638652901
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.010995417
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.021990835
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
243
Mix #36
Mix #41
Variable 1
332.9933333
353.4144333
3
380.5591667
0
4
2.858041894
0.023010182
3.746947388
0.046020364
4.604094871
Variable 2
287.47
407.7039
3
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pooled Variance
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
332.9933333 284.5066667
Variance
353.4144333 404.2134333
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
378.8139333
0
df
4
t Stat
3.05108977
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.018993867
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.037987734
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
Mix #43
Mix #37
Variable 1
Variable 2
332.9933333 281.8066667
353.4144333 213.1186333
3
3
283.2665333
0
4
3.724816174
0.010194368
3.746947388
0.020388736
4.604094871
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pooled Variance
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
332.9933333 263.7166667
Variance
353.4144333 161.4690333
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
257.4417333
0
df
4
t Stat
5.288020584
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.003068352
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.006136704
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
Mix #48
Mix #42
Variable 1
332.9933333
353.4144333
3
242.8696222
0
3
7.510199146
0.002445902
4.540702858
0.004891803
5.840909309
Variable 2
226.15
21.78
2
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pooled Variance
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
332.9933333 225.8633333
Variance
353.4144333 31.05493333
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
192.2346833
0
df
4
t Stat
9.463261935
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.000347776
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.000695552
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
244
Mix #44c
Mix #47
Variable 1
Variable 2
332.9933333 218.5966667
353.4144333 45.05323333
3
3
199.2338333
0
4
9.926072753
0.000289189
3.746947388
0.000578379
4.604094871
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pooled Variance
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
332.9933333 216.5233333
Variance
353.4144333 25.20813333
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
189.3112833
0
df
4
t Stat
10.3674382
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.000244325
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.000488649
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
Mix #46
Mix #45
Variable 1
Variable 2
332.9933333 212.8466667
353.4144333 23.82973333
3
3
188.6220833
0
4
10.71423301
0.000215014
3.746947388
0.000430028
4.604094871
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pooled Variance
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
332.9933333
207.415
Variance
353.4144333
149.81805
Observations
3
2
Pooled Variance
285.5489722
0
df
3
t Stat
8.140761609
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.001937953
t Critical one-tail
4.540702858
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.003875906
t Critical two-tail
5.840909309
Conclusion:
Mix #38
Mix #50
Variable 1
Variable 2
332.9933333 204.5866667
353.4144333 0.762533333
3
3
177.0884833
0
4
11.81783828
0.00014673
3.746947388
0.000293459
4.604094871
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pooled Variance
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
332.9933333 169.8566667
Variance
353.4144333 91.08643333
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
222.2504333
0
df
4
t Stat
13.40219417
P(T<=t) one-tail
8.9633E-05
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.000179266
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
245
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
294.0933333 304.0466667
Variance
40.22443333 4.468933333
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
22.34668333
0
df
4
t Stat
-2.578740498
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.030704517
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.061409034
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
Comparable Merlin Bulk Resistivity to 50 MPa Control (Mix #32d = Variable 1) at 56 Days
Mix #35
Mix #34
Variable 1
Variable 2
349.21 449.5766667
81.5412 160.8884333
3
3
121.2148167
0
4
-11.16496268
0.000183154
3.746947388
0.000366307
4.604094871
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pooled Variance
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
349.21
398.25
Variance
81.5412
456.9739
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
269.25755
0
df
4
t Stat
-3.660261773
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.010787665
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.02157533
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
Mix #53
Mix #49-1
Variable 1
349.21
81.5412
3
71.21795
0
4
-6.696201063
0.001293736
3.746947388
0.002587471
4.604094871
Variable 2
395.35
60.8947
3
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pooled Variance
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
349.21
386.13
Variance
81.5412
167.1717
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
124.35645
0
df
4
t Stat
-4.05483479
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.007707079
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.015414158
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
246
Mix #51
Mix #49-2
Variable 1
Variable 2
349.21 377.6733333
81.5412 522.9870333
3
3
302.2641167
0
4
-2.005109487
0.057720627
3.746947388
0.115441253
4.604094871
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pooled Variance
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
349.21 376.1633333
Variance
81.5412 333.6665333
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
207.6038667
0
df
4
t Stat
-2.291080731
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.041878658
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.083757316
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
Mix #33
Mix #41
Variable 1
Variable 2
349.21 369.4566667
81.5412 7.410633333
3
3
44.47591667
0
4
-3.71823392
0.010253046
3.746947388
0.020506092
4.604094871
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pooled Variance
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
349.21 356.5133333
Variance
81.5412 105.7996333
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
93.67041667
0
df
4
t Stat
-0.924199068
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.203844517
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.407689034
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
Mix #52
Mix #36
Variable 1
Variable 2
349.21 355.1533333
81.5412 278.4024333
3
3
179.9718167
0
4
-0.542592102
0.308113882
3.746947388
0.616227764
4.604094871
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pooled Variance
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
349.21 354.9466667
Variance
81.5412 122.5212333
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
102.0312167
0
df
4
t Stat
-0.695566588
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.262497618
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.524995236
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
247
Mix #46
Mix #45
Variable 1
349.21
81.5412
3
46.4564
0
4
3.512930963
0.012303318
3.746947388
0.024606636
4.604094871
Variable 2
329.66
11.3716
3
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pooled Variance
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
349.21 310.3433333
Variance
81.5412 283.4409333
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
182.4910667
0
df
4
t Stat
3.523725915
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.012183999
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.024367997
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
Mix #43
Mix #37
Variable 1
Variable 2
349.21 305.1266667
81.5412 74.22013333
3
3
77.88066667
0
4
6.117940167
0.001807386
3.746947388
0.003614772
4.604094871
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pooled Variance
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
349.21 304.1733333
Variance
81.5412 3.914633333
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
42.72791667
0
df
4
t Stat
8.43832037
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.000540122
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.001080244
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
Mix #42
Mix #47
Variable 1
Variable 2
349.21 302.9633333
81.5412 44.62323333
3
3
63.08221667
0
4
7.131363799
0.001022213
3.746947388
0.002044425
4.604094871
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pooled Variance
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
349.21 302.4366667
Variance
81.5412 13.46093333
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
47.50106667
0
df
4
t Stat
8.311746128
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.000572221
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.001144441
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
248
Mix #38
Mix #50
Variable 1
349.21
81.5412
3
90.72425
0
4
9.053536994
0.000412407
3.746947388
0.000824813
4.604094871
Variable 2
278.8
99.9073
3
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pooled Variance
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Conclusion:
Mix #48
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
349.21 265.1433333
Variance
81.5412 203.8606333
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
142.7009167
0
df
4
t Stat
8.618984022
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.000498074
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.000996148
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:

Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
386.13 376.1633333
Variance
167.1717 333.6665333
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
250.4191167
0
df
4
t Stat
0.771368364
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.241763481
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.483526962
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
349.21 267.2533333
Variance
81.5412 30.34523333
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
55.94321667
0
df
4
t Stat
13.42011381
P(T<=t) one-tail
8.91639E-05
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.000178328
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
249
Appendix O: Statistical Analysis of Bulk Resistivity Test Methods at 28 Days and 56 Days
with a 90% Confidence Level
250
Comparison of Bulk Resistivity Testing Methods: Merlin vs. RCPT
35 MPa Control, Mix #1:
Merlin vs. 5-minute RCPT at 28 days
Variable 1 = Merlin, Variable 2 = 5-minute RCPT

Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
152.5166667 135.139382
Variance
80.26583333 61.7444646
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
71.00514895
0
df
4
t Stat
2.525705062
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.032480442
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.064960884
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:

Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
155.58 196.1743581
Variance
78.6708 182.1544042
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
130.4126021
0
df
4
t Stat
-4.353630111
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.006061256
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.012122512
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
Merlin vs. 6-hour RCPT at 28 days
Variable 1 = Merlin, Variable 2 = 6-hour RCPT

Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
152.5166667 149.344287
Variance
80.26583333 434.722887
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
257.4943604
0
df
4
t Stat
0.242129028
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.410293809
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.820587618
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:

Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
155.58 250.3994096
Variance
78.6708 798.6126414
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
438.6417207
0
df
4
t Stat
-5.54482582
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.002587101
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.005174202
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
5-minute RCPT vs. 6-hour RCPT at 28 days
Variable 1 = 5-minute RCPT, Variable 2 = 6-hour RCPT

Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
135.1393816 149.344287
Variance
61.74446457 434.722887
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
248.233676
0
df
4
t Stat
-1.104215
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.165727274
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.331454549
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:

Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
196.1743581 250.3994096
Variance
182.1544042 798.6126414
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
490.3835228
0
df
4
t Stat
-2.999008301
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.019990525
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.03998105
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
251
50 MPa Control, Mix #32d:

Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
332.9933333 323.934154
Variance
353.4144333 653.144382
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
503.2794078
0
df
4
t Stat
0.494572429
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.323416867
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.646833734
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:

Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
349.21
545.294819
Variance
81.5412 31416.02162
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
15748.78141
0
df
4
t Stat
-1.913665925
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.064101635
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.128203269
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:

Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
332.9933333 406.791482
Variance
353.4144333 919.173707
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
636.2940704
0
df
4
t Stat
-3.58312666
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.01155154
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.023103081
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:

Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
349.21 558.5835802
Variance
81.5412 1760.153358
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
920.8472789
0
df
4
t Stat
-8.450330682
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.000537193
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.001074387
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:

Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
323.9341541 406.791482
Variance
653.1443823 919.173707
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
786.1590448
0
df
4
t Stat
-3.61927303
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.011185812
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.022371624
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:

Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
545.294819 558.5835802
Variance
31416.02162 1760.153358
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
16588.08749
0
df
4
t Stat
-0.126366503
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.452769551
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.905539101
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
252
Appendix P: Statistical Analysis of 35 MPa Mixes Meeting All Criteria with a 90%
Confidence Level
253
Comparison of 35 MPa Control (Mix #1), Mix #2 - Particle packing model (binary, Stage 1) [Toufar] and Mix #5 - Particle packing model
(ternary, Stage 1) [Toufar]
Compressive Strength at 28 days:
Linear Drying Shrinkage at 35 days (OPSS method):
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
41.9776859 36.25104041
Variance
0.129186883 5.977264381
Observations
2
2
Pooled Variance
3.053225632
0
df
2
t Stat
3.277335099
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.040917891
t Critical one-tail
6.964556734
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.081835782
t Critical two-tail
9.9248432
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
-0.031585807
-0.035520229
Variance
9.8221E-07
5.06635E-05
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
2.58229E-05
0
df
4
t Stat
0.948253256
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.198347845
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.39669569
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
|t(stat)| < t(crit two-tail) Therefore, the difference between the means
is not statistically significant at 90% level of confidence
Bulk Resistivity (Merlin test) at 28 days:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
152.5166667
169.88
Variance
80.26583333
316.1893
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
198.2275667
0
df
4
t Stat
-1.510416451
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.102727998
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.205455996
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
155.58
170.195
Variance
78.6708
33.70205
Observations
3
2
Pooled Variance
63.68121667
0
df
3
t Stat
-2.006244072
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.069242949
t Critical one-tail
4.540702858
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.138485898
t Critical two-tail
5.840909309
Conclusion:
Workability - Slump:
Workability - Static Yield Stress:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
230
227.5
Variance
0
12.5
Observations
2
2
Pooled Variance
6.25
0
df
2
t Stat
1
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.211324865
t Critical one-tail
6.964556734
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.422649731
t Critical two-tail
9.9248432
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
553.95
586.35
Variance
17168.045
27777.245
Observations
2
2
Pooled Variance
22472.645
0
df
2
t Stat
-0.216131424
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.424463046
t Critical one-tail
6.964556734
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.848926092
t Critical two-tail
9.9248432
Conclusion:
254
Workability - Dynamic Yield Stress:
Workability - Plastic Viscosity:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
144.15
80.35
Variance
12183.605
285.605
Observations
2
2
Pooled Variance
6234.605
0
df
2
t Stat
0.808009016
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.251956686
t Critical one-tail
6.964556734
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.503913372
t Critical two-tail
9.9248432
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
60.9
58.95
Variance
1290.32
17.405
Observations
2
2
Pooled Variance
653.8625
0
df
2
t Stat
0.076259051
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.473077467
t Critical one-tail
6.964556734
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.946154934
t Critical two-tail
9.9248432
Conclusion:

Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
41.9776859 31.51159986
Variance
0.129186883 12.77738841
Observations
2
2
Pooled Variance
6.453287646
0
df
2
t Stat
4.119967491
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.027085279
t Critical one-tail
6.964556734
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.054170557
t Critical two-tail
9.9248432
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
-0.031585807
-0.028451614
Variance
9.8221E-07
9.45116E-06
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
5.21669E-06
0
df
4
t Stat
-1.680637163
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.084064576
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.168129152
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
152.5166667 147.4266667
Variance
80.26583333 124.1121333
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
102.1889833
0
df
4
t Stat
0.616682143
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.285406311
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.570812622
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
155.58
160.865
Variance
78.6708
164.34845
Observations
3
2
Pooled Variance
107.2300167
0
df
3
t Stat
-0.559084469
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.307562962
t Critical one-tail
4.540702858
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.615125924
t Critical two-tail
5.840909309
Conclusion:
255
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
230
230
Variance
0
0
Observations
2
2
Pooled Variance
0
0
df
2
t Stat
65535
P(T<=t) one-tail
#NUM!
t Critical one-tail
6.964556734
P(T<=t) two-tail
#NUM!
t Critical two-tail
9.9248432
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
553.95
585.75
Variance
17168.045
55544.445
Observations
2
2
Pooled Variance
36356.245
0
df
2
t Stat
-0.166777558
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.441441024
t Critical one-tail
6.964556734
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.882882048
t Critical two-tail
9.9248432
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
144.15
78.9
Variance
12183.605
544.5
Observations
2
2
Pooled Variance
6364.0525
0
df
2
t Stat
0.817925295
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.249672126
t Critical one-tail
6.964556734
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.499344252
t Critical two-tail
9.9248432
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
60.9
62.15
Variance
1290.32
0.845
Observations
2
2
Pooled Variance
645.5825
0
df
2
t Stat
-0.049196492
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.482616928
t Critical one-tail
6.964556734
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.965233856
t Critical two-tail
9.9248432
Conclusion:

Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
31.51159986 36.25104041
Variance
12.77738841 5.977264381
Observations
2
2
Pooled Variance
9.377326395
0
df
2
t Stat
-1.547702786
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.130887152
t Critical one-tail
6.964556734
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.261774304
t Critical two-tail
9.9248432
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
-0.028451614
-0.035520229
Variance
9.45116E-06
5.06635E-05
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
3.00573E-05
0
df
4
t Stat
1.579081897
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.094731265
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.18946253
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
256
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
147.4266667
169.88
Variance
124.1121333
316.1893
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
220.1507167
0
df
4
t Stat
-1.853388233
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.068724431
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.137448861
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
160.865
170.195
Variance
164.34845
33.70205
Observations
2
2
Pooled Variance
99.02525
0
df
2
t Stat
-0.937580724
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.223717424
t Critical one-tail
6.964556734
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.447434848
t Critical two-tail
9.9248432
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
230
227.5
Variance
0
12.5
Observations
2
2
Pooled Variance
6.25
0
df
2
t Stat
1
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.211324865
t Critical one-tail
6.964556734
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.422649731
t Critical two-tail
9.9248432
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
585.75
586.35
Variance
55544.445
27777.245
Observations
2
2
Pooled Variance
41660.845
0
df
2
t Stat
-0.002939593
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.498960699
t Critical one-tail
6.964556734
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.997921398
t Critical two-tail
9.9248432
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
78.9
80.35
Variance
544.5
285.605
Observations
2
2
Pooled Variance
415.0525
0
df
2
t Stat
-0.071173199
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.474868281
t Critical one-tail
6.964556734
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.949736562
t Critical two-tail
9.9248432
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
62.15
58.95
Variance
0.845
17.405
Observations
2
2
Pooled Variance
9.125
0
df
2
t Stat
1.059335537
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.200239946
t Critical one-tail
6.964556734
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.400479892
t Critical two-tail
9.9248432
Conclusion:
257
Appendix Q: Statistical Analysis of 50 MPa Mixes Meeting All Criteria with a 90%
Confidence Level
258
Comparison of 50 MPa Control (Mix #32d) with Mix #33 - Talbot's Grading Curve (binary, Stage 3) [n=0.45], Mix #37 - Talbot's
Grading Curve (binary, Stage 3) [n=0.50], Mix #44c - Talbot's Grading Curve (binary, Stage 4) [n=0.50], and Mix #46 - Talbot's
Grading Curve (binary, Stage 4) [n=0.45]
Variable 1 = Mix #32d, Variable 2 = Mix #33
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
72.10501118 70.62704584
Variance
0.402176856 0.871293763
Observations
2
2
Pooled Variance
0.63673531
0
df
2
t Stat
1.852186802
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.102597089
t Critical one-tail
6.964556734
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.205194178
t Critical two-tail
9.9248432
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
-0.034199135 -0.039657873
Variance
3.35028E-07 3.52015E-07
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
3.43522E-07
0
df
4
t Stat
11.40672227
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.000168479
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.000336959
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
332.9933333 292.3833333
Variance
353.4144333 20.27083333
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
186.8426333
0
df
4
t Stat
3.638652901
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.010995417
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.021990835
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
349.21 369.4566667
Variance
81.5412 7.410633333
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
44.47591667
0
df
4
t Stat
-3.71823392
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.010253046
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.020506092
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
259
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
197.5
205
Variance
1012.5
800
Observations
2
2
Pooled Variance
906.25
0
df
2
t Stat
-0.24913644
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.41325276
t Critical one-tail
6.964556734
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.82650552
t Critical two-tail
9.9248432
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
992.55
625.05
Variance
46056.125
2556.125
Observations
2
2
Pooled Variance
24306.125
0
df
2
t Stat
2.357216541
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.0712442
t Critical one-tail
6.964556734
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.142488399
t Critical two-tail
9.9248432
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
278.8
262.75
Variance
12576.98
5523.005
Observations
2
2
Pooled Variance
9049.9925
0
df
2
t Stat
0.168713924
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.440770613
t Critical one-tail
6.964556734
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.881541226
t Critical two-tail
9.9248432
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
54.55
40.15
Variance
57.245
0.125
Observations
2
2
Pooled Variance
28.685
0
df
2
t Stat
2.688654917
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.057482025
t Critical one-tail
6.964556734
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.114964049
t Critical two-tail
9.9248432
Conclusion:
Variable 1 = Mix #32d, Variable 2 = Mix #44c

Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
72.10501118 68.72677121
Variance
0.402176856 3.891776922
Observations
2
2
Pooled Variance
2.146976889
0
df
2
t Stat
2.305562032
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.073792236
t Critical one-tail
6.964556734
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.147584471
t Critical two-tail
9.9248432
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
-0.034199135 -0.038712951
Variance
3.35028E-07 3.19221E-06
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
1.76362E-06
0
df
4
t Stat
4.162812784
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.007056501
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.014113003
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
260
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
332.9933333 218.5966667
Variance
353.4144333 45.05323333
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
199.2338333
0
df
4
t Stat
9.926072753
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.000289189
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.000578379
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
349.21 304.2933333
Variance
81.5412 26.20653333
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
53.87386667
0
df
4
t Stat
7.494869496
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.000847624
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.001695248
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
197.5
202.5
Variance
1012.5
612.5
Observations
2
2
Pooled Variance
812.5
0
df
2
t Stat
-0.175411604
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.438454255
t Critical one-tail
6.964556734
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.876908509
t Critical two-tail
9.9248432
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
992.55
1046.45
Variance
46056.125
244370.405
Observations
2
2
Pooled Variance
145213.265
0
df
2
t Stat
-0.141444355
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.45024013
t Critical one-tail
6.964556734
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.900480259
t Critical two-tail
9.9248432
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
278.8
120.25
Variance
12576.98
4598.405
Observations
2
2
Pooled Variance
8587.6925
0
df
2
t Stat
1.710913305
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.114613196
t Critical one-tail
6.964556734
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.229226392
t Critical two-tail
9.9248432
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
54.55
110.75
Variance
57.245
132.845
Observations
2
2
Pooled Variance
95.045
0
df
2
t Stat
-5.764633193
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.014399391
t Critical one-tail
6.964556734
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.028798782
t Critical two-tail
9.9248432
Conclusion:
261
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
72.10501118 60.63404568
Variance
0.402176856 3.218655355
Observations
2
2
Pooled Variance
1.810416105
0
df
2
t Stat
8.525321614
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.006740569
t Critical one-tail
6.964556734
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.013481138
t Critical two-tail
9.9248432
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
-0.034199135 -0.032432065
Variance
3.35028E-07 1.84763E-06
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
1.09133E-06
0
df
4
t Stat
-2.071675714
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.053513403
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.107026807
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
332.9933333 212.8466667
Variance
353.4144333 23.82973333
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
188.6220833
0
df
4
t Stat
10.71423301
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.000215014
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.000430028
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
349.21
329.66
Variance
81.5412
11.3716
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
46.4564
0
df
4
t Stat
3.512930963
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.012303318
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.024606636
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
197.5
220
Variance
1012.5
50
Observations
2
2
Pooled Variance
531.25
0
df
2
t Stat
-0.97618706
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.215962519
t Critical one-tail
6.964556734
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.431925037
t Critical two-tail
9.9248432
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
992.55
673.65
Variance
46056.125
27401.405
Observations
2
2
Pooled Variance
36728.765
0
df
2
t Stat
1.663992469
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.11901
t Critical one-tail
6.964556734
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.23802
t Critical two-tail
9.9248432
Conclusion:
262
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
278.8
100.25
Variance
12576.98
435.125
Observations
2
2
Pooled Variance
6506.0525
0
df
2
t Stat
2.21360982
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.078648661
t Critical one-tail
6.964556734
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.157297323
t Critical two-tail
9.9248432
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
54.55
91.3
Variance
57.245
176.72
Observations
2
2
Pooled Variance
116.9825
0
df
2
t Stat
-3.39779282
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.03838761
t Critical one-tail
6.964556734
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.07677522
t Critical two-tail
9.9248432
Conclusion:

Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
70.62704584 60.63404568
Variance
0.871293763 3.218655355
Observations
2
2
Pooled Variance
2.044974559
0
df
2
t Stat
6.987984603
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.009935042
t Critical one-tail
6.964556734
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.019870085
t Critical two-tail
9.9248432
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
-0.039657873 -0.032432065
Variance
3.52015E-07 1.84763E-06
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
1.09982E-06
0
df
4
t Stat
-8.43861459
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.00054005
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.0010801
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
292.3833333 212.8466667
Variance
20.27083333 23.82973333
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
22.05028333
0
df
4
t Stat
20.74464124
P(T<=t) one-tail
1.59514E-05
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
3.19028E-05
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
369.4566667
329.66
Variance
7.410633333
11.3716
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
9.391116667
0
df
4
t Stat
15.9050013
P(T<=t) one-tail
4.56696E-05
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
9.13392E-05
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
263
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
205
220
Variance
800
50
Observations
2
2
Pooled Variance
425
0
df
2
t Stat
-0.727606875
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.271252145
t Critical one-tail
6.964556734
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.542504289
t Critical two-tail
9.9248432
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Mean
625.05
Variance
2556.125
Observations
2
Pooled Variance
14978.765
0
df
2
t Stat
-0.397098517
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.364831958
t Critical one-tail
6.964556734
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.729663915
t Critical two-tail
9.9248432
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
262.75
100.25
Variance
5523.005
435.125
Observations
2
2
Pooled Variance
2979.065
0
df
2
t Stat
2.977236782
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.048362782
t Critical one-tail
6.964556734
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.096725564
t Critical two-tail
9.9248432
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
40.15
91.3
Variance
0.125
176.72
Observations
2
2
Pooled Variance
88.4225
0
df
2
t Stat
-5.439565908
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.016087153
t Critical one-tail
6.964556734
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.032174305
t Critical two-tail
9.9248432
Conclusion:
Variable 2
673.65
27401.405
2

Variable 1 = Mix #37, Variable 2 = Mix #44c

Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
64.39378545 68.72677121
Variance
7.366707392 3.891776922
Observations
2
2
Pooled Variance
5.629242157
0
df
2
t Stat
-1.826258693
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.104673342
t Critical one-tail
6.964556734
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.209346684
t Critical two-tail
9.9248432
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
-0.053317347 -0.038712951
Variance
1.25403E-05 3.19221E-06
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
7.86625E-06
0
df
4
t Stat
-6.377426768
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.001550621
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.003101242
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
264
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
263.7166667 218.5966667
Variance
161.4690333 45.05323333
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
103.2611333
0
df
4
t Stat
5.438088573
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.002775025
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.005550051
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
304.1733333 304.2933333
Variance
3.914633333 26.20653333
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
15.06058333
0
df
4
t Stat
-0.037870931
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.485802643
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.971605285
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
215
202.5
Variance
50
612.5
Observations
2
2
Pooled Variance
331.25
0
df
2
t Stat
0.68680282
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.281573986
t Critical one-tail
6.964556734
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.563147972
t Critical two-tail
9.9248432
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
511.5
1046.45
Variance
1601.78
244370.405
Observations
2
2
Pooled Variance
122986.0925
0
df
2
t Stat
-1.525405086
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.133335606
t Critical one-tail
6.964556734
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.266671212
t Critical two-tail
9.9248432
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
164.6
120.25
Variance
1788.02
4598.405
Observations
2
2
Pooled Variance
3193.2125
0
df
2
t Stat
0.784837442
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.257376226
t Critical one-tail
6.964556734
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.514752452
t Critical two-tail
9.9248432
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
44.2
110.75
Variance
13.52
132.845
Observations
2
2
Pooled Variance
73.1825
0
df
2
t Stat
-7.779370203
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.008062626
t Critical one-tail
6.964556734
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.016125251
t Critical two-tail
9.9248432
Conclusion:
265
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
72.10501118 64.39378545
Variance
0.402176856 7.366707392
Observations
2
2
Pooled Variance
3.884442124
0
df
2
t Stat
3.912542689
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.029774938
t Critical one-tail
6.964556734
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.059549877
t Critical two-tail
9.9248432
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
-0.034199135 -0.053317347
Variance
3.35028E-07 1.25403E-05
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
6.43765E-06
0
df
4
t Stat
9.22845785
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.000383134
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.000766268
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
332.9933333 263.7166667
Variance
353.4144333 161.4690333
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
257.4417333
0
df
4
t Stat
5.288020584
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.003068352
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.006136704
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
349.21 304.1733333
Variance
81.5412 3.914633333
Observations
3
3
Pooled Variance
42.72791667
0
df
4
t Stat
8.43832037
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.000540122
t Critical one-tail
3.746947388
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.001080244
t Critical two-tail
4.604094871
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
197.5
215
Variance
1012.5
50
Observations
2
2
Pooled Variance
531.25
0
df
2
t Stat
-0.759256602
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.263491918
t Critical one-tail
6.964556734
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.526983835
t Critical two-tail
9.9248432
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
992.55
511.5
Variance
46056.125
1601.78
Observations
2
2
Pooled Variance
23828.9525
0
df
2
t Stat
3.116289118
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.044691272
t Critical one-tail
6.964556734
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.089382544
t Critical two-tail
9.9248432
Conclusion:
266
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
278.8
164.6
Variance
12576.98
1788.02
Observations
2
2
Pooled Variance
7182.5
0
df
2
t Stat
1.347498488
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.155088074
t Critical one-tail
6.964556734
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.310176148
t Critical two-tail
9.9248432
Conclusion:
Variable 1
Variable 2
Mean
54.55
44.2
Variance
57.245
13.52
Observations
2
2
Pooled Variance
35.3825
0
df
2
t Stat
1.739987355
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.111994717
t Critical one-tail
6.964556734
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.223989435
t Critical two-tail
9.9248432
Conclusion:

Dosificacion

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Dosificacion

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Optimization of Aggregate Gradation Combinations to

Improve Concrete Sustainability

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements

Copyright by Majella Anson-Cartwright 2011

Optimization of Aggregate Gradation Combinations to Improve

Modified Toufar Model ........................................................................................... 6

Theory of Particle Mixtures Particle Packing Model .............................................. 8

2.2 Empirical Charts ................................................................................................................ 10

Talbots Grading Curve ......................................................................................... 10

Shilstones Coarseness Factor Chart ..................................................................... 12

8-18 Distribution Chart .......................................................................................... 14

2.3 Summary of Recent Studies on Optimization Techniques for Combined Aggregate

2.5 Influence of Aggregate Shape and Texture ....................................................................... 26

Chapter 3 Experimental ................................................................................................................. 29

Cementitious Material ........................................................................................... 29

Intermediate Aggregate ......................................................................................... 36

Chemical Admixtures ............................................................................................ 39

3.2 Mix Designs ....................................................................................................................... 39

Modified Toufar Particle Packing Model .............................................................. 40

Theory of Particle Mixtures Particle Packing Model ............................................ 41

Talbots Grading Curve ......................................................................................... 41

Shilstones Coarseness Factor Chart ..................................................................... 44

8-18 Distribution Chart .......................................................................................... 49

3.4 Range of Designed Combined Aggregate Gradations ....................................................... 52

3.6 Mixing Procedure .............................................................................................................. 61

Air Content by Pressure Method ........................................................................... 63

Slump Test ............................................................................................................. 63

ICAR Rheometer ................................................................................................... 64

3.8 Evaluation of Fresh Concrete Properties ........................................................................... 73

3.9 Casting Test Procedures .................................................................................................... 74

Analysis of Theoretical Particle Packing Models .................................................. 90

Analysis of Empirical Charts ................................................................................. 91

5.2 Analysis of Workability Results ........................................................................................ 92

Workability Boxes for Shilstones Coarseness Factor Charts ............................... 98

Slump and Static Yield Stress Correlation .......................................................... 101

Analysis of Rheology Test Results ...................................................................... 103

35 MPa Concrete Mixtures with Successful Workability ................................... 117

50 MPa Concrete Mixtures with Successful Workability ................................... 118

5.3 Analysis of Compressive Strength Results ...................................................................... 119

5.6 Recommendations for the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario ................................... 143

The potential for

OPSS Sieve Size

OPSS Sieve Size (ASTM

Maximum allowable can be increased under certain conditions as described

1.2 Research Objectives

1.3 Scope of Research

Modified Toufar Model

= packing degree of an individual material

= bulk density of an individual material

= relative density of an individual material

= density of water = 1000 kg/m3 @ 4C

= packing degree of combined gradation

y1, y2 = volume fraction of the fine and coarse aggregates, respectively

1, 2 = packing degree of the fine and coarse aggregates, respectively

= diameter ratio factor

Theory of Particle Mixtures Particle Packing Model

= log mean particle size between two sieve sizes

= individual volume fraction retained per sieve size

= log mean diameter of an individual material

= voids ratio of an individual material

Z = k int + [(1 + U 0 )1 / 3 1 k int ] r

= voids ratio of combined gradation

= fine material volume fraction