A New Test Method For Porosity Measurements of Portland PDF

Journal of ASTM International, January 2005, Vol. 2, No.
1
Paper ID JAI12931
Available online at www.astm.org
Felipe Montes,1 Srinivas Valavala,1 and Liv M. Haselbach2
A New Test Method for Porosity Measurements of Portland

Cement Pervious Concrete
ABSTRACT: Pervious concrete is emerging as an alternative material for paving to help curtail nonpoint
source pollution problems. The porosity of pervious concrete is an important variable needed for
pavement system design and for material comparisons. This paper researches a method for measuring the
porosity of pervious concrete from field-obtained cores by applying the Archimedes principle and using
standard materials laboratory equipment. The error between different operators at different testing
facilities was found to be around 2.2 % porosity.
KEYWORDS: pervious concrete, porosity, void content, no-fines concrete, porous concrete, runoff,
nonpoint source pollution
Nomenclature
WD Dry mass of the specimen (g)
WS Submerged mass of the specimen (g)
ρw Density of water (g/cm3)
ρsol Density of the solids (g/cm3)
VT Total volume of the specimen (cm3)
Vsol Volume of the solids (cm3)
Vvoids Volume of the voids (cm3)
P Porosity of the specimen is the ratio of volume of voids to total volume of the specimen
(Vvoids/VT) given in percent
e Void ratio of the specimen is the ratio of volume of voids to volume of solids of the
specimen (Vvoids/Vsol)
Davg Average diameter of the specimen
Havg Average height of the specimen
Introduction
There are environmental problems associated with runoff from developments and roadways,
which are frequently referred to as nonpoint source pollution (NPS). NPS pollution has been
identified as one of the leading causes of receiving water quality degradation in the United States
[1]. Much of the runoff is associated with impervious surfaces such as roofs and pavements.
Pervious concrete is an alternative to impervious pavements that can help reduce the amount of
runoff from a site [7]. The porosity of pervious concrete is an important parameter used in many
design calculations, and the range of porosity values as specified in the designs for field
placements is typically in the range of 5 % porosity [3].
Manuscript received 17 June 2004; accepted for publication 13 October 2004; published January 2005.
1
Graduate Students and Assistant Professor, respectively, Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of South
Carolina, 300 Main Street, Columbia, SC 29208.
Copyright © 2005 by ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Fri Dec 6 06:36:15 EST 2013
Downloaded/printed by
Gaziantep University pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
2 JOURNAL OF ASTM INTERNATIONAL
There are ASTM standards for porosity testing of certain concretes and aggregates, such as
the ASTM Standard Test Method for Unit Weight, Yield, and Air Content (Gravimetric) of
Concrete (C138-92), but none are particular to pervious concrete, since it is a relatively new
material for large applications. Porosity is an important material aspect of pervious concrete,
which is needed for stormwater management design calculations. This paper presents a test for
measuring the porosity of pervious concrete and can be used as guidance for future testing
purposes. The testing procedure has the flexibility of being used on samples obtained after
placement or curing and uses standard materials laboratory equipment, such as a bulk density
tank-scale measuring system.
Literature Review
Pervious concrete porosity has been mentioned frequently in the literature, however, there is
still confusion as to the definition of porosity and the methods used. There are questions as to
how porosity is defined and which “type” of porosity should be measured for pervious concrete.
Porosity herein is defined as the percent volume of voids with respect to the total volume of the
specimen, however, the definition and importance of voids still must be defined.
Not all the porous spaces in a porous material are effective in holding liquids or are available
for liquids to flow. Some porous spaces are isolated from other void spaces and therefore are not
effective in conducting flows. In addition, there are smaller pores that retain fluids due to surface
tension and capillarity and therefore are not effective for flows, but they are effective in holding
fluids [2].
The portion of total pore space that is active in certain processes has been called “effective
porosity.” The effective porosity varies according to the process that is being considered. For
fluid flow and drainage, the effective porosity excludes the isolated pores, dead-ended pores, and
capillary pores. For fluid retention, dead-ended and capillary pores are included. Therefore for an
objective definition of “effective porosity,” a precise definition should be specified. Some
researchers classify the effective porosity as the fraction of total porosity of a pervious concrete
sample that was allowed to drain in 30 min [13] and also defined “rapid flow” porosity but do
not recommend the use of this “effective porosity” due to the increased variability. Wimberly et
al. [13] used a void ratio in their computations, which was defined as the volume of voids
divided by the volume of solids, and the void ratio was determined using the ASTM Standard
Test Method for Bulk Density (“Unit Weight”) and Voids in Aggregate (C 29/C 29M – 97) and
an assumed specific gravity of the cement-paste coated aggregate mixture. Due to the variability
in the definition of an effective porosity according to the process that is being considered, the
research presented herein focuses on determining a total porosity.
Many researchers have also mentioned porosity of pervious concrete in their work but have
not given exact details on the methodology for its determination. Some have reported on the
properties of certain pervious concretes but did not specify the exact test method they used for
calculating the porosities [6]. Others studied certain water purification properties of pervious
concrete and measured porosity by the water displacement method but referred to it as void ratio
and did not reference a standard method [9].
ASTM International has provided testing procedures for porosity in materials relating to
concrete. ASTM C 29/C 29M-97 is the standard for testing bulk density and voids for loose
aggregates. This test is used for aggregates that cannot hold a defined form and are susceptible to
compaction. The other tests, the ASTM Standard Test Method for Specific Gravity and
Absorption of Coarse Aggregate (C 127) and the ASTM Standard Test Method for Specific
MONTES ET AL. ON POROSITY MEASUREMENTS 3
Gravity and Absorption of Fine Aggregate (C 128 – 97), are standards to measure the specific
gravity and absorption of coarse and fine aggregates. However, none of these methods are
specific for use with pervious concrete.
Studies by researchers in Belgium found a porosity-depth distribution in pervious pavements
with a combination of traditional cement concrete and pervious concrete. The method used to
determine differential porosity distribution with depth was based on a water displacement
method where the pervious concrete sample was slowly submerged in water, and the submerged
mass was recorded at intervals as the sample was submerged [10]. This method gave valuable
information about the porosity variation in concrete samples but is not intended as a field
materials testing procedure.
A test mentioned in the literature specific to pervious concrete porosity is the InstroTek
Corelok® System. The InstroTek Corelok® System method differs from the other porosity
methods because it uses a vacuum to improve the extraction of air and the penetration of water
into the porous matrix. The method uses an impermeable polymer bag and a vacuum pump to
take the air out of the porous matrix of the sample. The bag is sealed under vacuum conditions,
and the mass of the specimen in the bag is determined submerged under water. While
maintaining the sample underwater, the polymer bag is opened and water penetrates into the bag
and the porous sample. The mass of the sample is then again determined underwater, and the
porosity is calculated using the water displacement method. Because of the vacuum conditions in
the polymer bag, it is expected that less air is entrapped in the sample, and water penetrates the
porous matrix faster than compared to a simple submersion test. Based on the data presented, the
improvement of the InstroTek Corelok® System over a modification of the AASHTO Standard
Method of Test for Bulk Specific Gravity of Compacted Bituminous Mixtures Using Saturated
Surface-Dry Specimens (T 166) was 2–4 % [4]. The AASHTO T 166 Standard Method is a
method for determining the theoretical maximum specific gravity of a mixture and is not
recommended for specimens that can absorb more than 2 % of their mass in water when
submerged. The voids in typical pervious concrete specimens can be filled with substantially
more than 2 % of the specimen’s solid mass with water, making this method not applicable for
pervious concrete without modification. The water drains too rapidly from the large voids in a
pervious concrete sample to accurately determine the mass of the saturated surface-dry
specimens when removed from the water tank, without modifications to the procedure.
There are other ways to characterize the porous spaces. One is by the statistical determination
of pore size distribution using micrographs and statistical counts, and another is the measure of
the water adsorption rate in time, but these can be time consuming and might require specialized
equipment and are therefore not really feasible for quality control tests [2,5]. The ASTM C 127,
ASTM C 128-97 and the InstroTek Corelok® System tests are all based on the water
displacement method, which is the principle applied in this research [4].
Materials and Procedures

Procedural Development
The basic idea of the water displacement method is to measure the mass of porous specimens
both dry and submerged in water. This method is founded on buoyancy and the Archimedes
principle that the buoyant force exerted by a fluid on a body partially or totally submerged is
equal to the weight of the volume of liquid displaced by the body. The porosity, P, is the ratio
between the voids volume and the total volume of a specimen. By determining the dry mass, the
submerged mass, and the total volume (VT) of the pervious specimens, the porosity can be
estimated by the following method.
The measured masses can be related to the densities and the volume of the solids in the
pervious concrete as:
WD = Vsol × ρsol (1)
and
WS = (Vsol × ρsol) – (Vsol × ρw) (2)
Then, the volume of solids (Vsol) can be estimated by subtracting the submerged mass from the
dry mass of the specimen,
WD – WS = (Vsol x ρsol) – [(Vsol x ρsol) – (Vsol x ρw)] = Vsol × ρw (3)
This can be rearranged to obtain the volume of solids as

Vsol= (WD – WS)/ ρw (4)
The total volume of a specimen is the volume of the void spaces plus the volume taken up by the
solids. The volume of the voids space (Vvoids) and the porosity (P) can be estimated as follows:
given:
VT = Vsol + Vvoids (5)
therefore:
Vvoids= VT – Vsol (6)
and
Porosity, P (%) = [(Vvoids) / VT] × 100 = [(VT – Vsol)/ VT] × 100 (7)
= [(1 – (Vsol/ VT)] × 100
By substitution with Equation 4:
Porosity, P (%) = [1–((WD – WS)/ ρw)/ VT] × 100 (8)
This research focused on a simple method to adequately measure the total porosity based on
the water displacement principle. However, the voids in pervious concrete come in different
shapes and sizes, and some are more accessible to water intrusion than others. Two main
variables were explored to facilitate the process of filling these voids with water so that the
submerged mass measured would represent closely that of a sample with completely water filled
voids. These two variables were agitation and time.
One of the first methods used to measure porosity during this test development involved
holding a cylinder underwater and shaking it vigorously for exactly three minutes to remove air
bubbles. A submerged mass was then recorded. After 24 h, the air dried mass was recorded, the
total volume of the specimen was estimated by measuring the height and diameter of the
cylinders, and the relationship between those was used to determine porosity. While this method
seemed successful in estimating porosity, the shaking portion proved to be difficult to reproduce
exactly. With this in mind, other methods were explored to give more reproducible results.
Time Tests
Submergence time was explored as the first possibility to achieve reproducible results. The
hypothesis was that allowing enough time for water to penetrate into the pores would give more
precise total porosity results. Preliminary tests were conducted by submerging samples and
recording measured submerged masses in time for up to 24 h.
A variety of samples was used, including two 15 cm (6 in.) diameter by 15 cm (6 in.) height
pervious concrete samples poured in PVC containers with open tops (PC), 7.6 cm (3 in.)
diameter by 15 cm (6 in.) height cored cylinder samples (DC), and 10 cm (4 in.) diameter by 10
cm (4 in.) cored cylinders, coated with epoxy steel weld around the perimeter (DCC). The
samples came from two different pervious concrete applications. The first was a test slab poured
at Edisto Beach, South Carolina on April 3, 2003. This slab was poured at an approximately 10
cm depth over a sand subbase and subsequently sawcut into numerous blocks, approximately 30
cm by 30 cm (1 foot by 1 foot). Several of these blocks were transported to the laboratories at
the University of South Carolina and drilled into cores with approximately a 10 cm diameter
each. These were further coated around the cylindrical section with an epoxy steel weld to make
the DCC (drilled and coated core) samples. The purpose of the side coatings was to mimic a
restriction of water infiltration from the side if samples used in laboratory column experiments
were to be tested for porosity.
The second concrete application from which samples were obtained was a slab placed in
Spartanburg, South Carolina on January 6, 2004. The slab was poured to an approximate depth
of about 15 cm (6 in.) over a sand subbase. At the same time as the slab was poured, several 15
cm wide by 15 cm high PVC cylinders were also hand filled with the pervious concrete mixture
from the same batch. These samples in the plastic cylinders are referred to as the PC samples.
They were tested in the PVC cylinders to restrict lateral water intrusion into the pervious
concrete, which would mimic applications with vertical infiltration. This slab was also sawcut
into 30 cm × 30 cm sections, which were transported to the University of South Carolina and
from which the 7.6 cm diameter by 15 cm high cores were drilled (DC samples). Typical
pervious concrete slabs are from 10–20 cm in depth, so these three different types of samples
represented applicable sizes and permeability pathways for the time tests.
All samples were submerged in a bulk density measuring tank, and the submerged masses
were recorded at 5-min intervals for the first 30 min and then periodically until 24 h of
submergence were completed. The total volumes (VT) of the specimens were again calculated by
measuring heights and diameters. Based on the different submerged masses in time, the
estimated total volumes (VT), the measured dry masses (WD), and estimated porosities were
calculated over time and are presented in Fig. 1.
The results presented in Fig. 1 are truncated at 130 min in order to emphasize the rapid
increase in estimated porosity during the first 10 min of the test. These results indicate a rapid
penetration of water into the pore space in the beginning of the tests, followed by a very slow
process of penetration after the first 20 min. Water penetrates faster into larger pores, and once
those pores are filled, smaller pores offering higher flow resistance are filled. It has been
mentioned already that not all pores are effective in the infiltration process. The larger pores
have the higher storage capacity and are filled and emptied in time scales that are in agreement
with most infiltration process dynamics. The time scales at which capillary pores are filled and
emptied are too large for most infiltration dynamics processes. Therefore it is estimated that after
the first 30 min of submergence all the relevant pores influencing infiltration dynamics have
been filled. Thus the calculation of total porosity after 30 min of submergence was determined to
be applicable for the testing of standard pervious concrete samples.
20
19
Porosity (Vvoids/VT, %) 18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Submerged Time (minutes)
PC (Davg =155 mm, Havg =155 mm) DC (Davg =71.5 mm, Havg =149 mm) DCC (Davg =105 mm, Havg =932 mm)
PC (Davg =155 mm, Havg =158 mm) DC (Davg =71.7 mm, Havg =149 mm) DCC (Davg =105 mm, Havg =932 mm)
FIG. 1—Porosity estimation based on different submergence times for the first 130 min of
submergence. (PC = poured cylinder in PVC container with the container top open, DC =
drilled core, and DCC = drilled and coated core).
Tapping Tests
In the process of completing the time experiments it was observed that on many occasions air
bubbles came out from the submergence samples when agitated, even after long submergence
time periods. A sequence of methods to diminish the amount of air trapped in the submerged
samples was tested in the laboratory.
The specimens used in the tapping tests, and all further testing reported herein, were from the
blocks sawcut out of the January 6, 2004 slab obtained from Spartanburg, South Carolina. Using
only one pervious concrete source provided less variability in the experiments. Fifteen cores
were drilled from these blocks all with an approximately 7.6 cm (3 in.) diameter. These were
labeled as Specimens 1–15. The slab thickness was approximately 15 cm (6 in.), but it was
variable due to the unevenness of a sand subbase and the variations caused by the top rolling
compaction process used to finish the slab. Therefore, both the bottom and the top of each of the
drilled cores were uneven. Seven of the cores were further planed with a saw on both the top and
the bottom to give smoother surfaces for better size measurement and volume calculation
accuracy and had heights of approximately 12 cm.
The tapping tests consisted of measuring the change in estimated porosity when, after 30 min
of submergence, these fifteen samples were in succession tapped five times against the tank
twice. After 30 min of submergence the submerged masses of the samples were recorded. Then
the underwater samples were tapped against the container five times, and the new submerged
masses were recorded. Finally the samples were tapped five times more underwater, and their
respective submerged masses recorded. The porosity of each sample was estimated based on the
submerged mass without tapping, with one tapping sequence and with two tapping sequences.
Table 1 presents these results.
TABLE 1—Estimated porosity based on 30-min submergence under water with two different
tapping sequences.
Estimated Porosity Estimated Porosity after Increase Estimated Porosity after 30- Increase
Sample after 30-min 30-min Submergence and in % min Submergence and in %
Submergence % First Tapping Sequence % Porosity Second Tapping Sequence % Porosity
1P 14.09 15.33 1.24 15.63 0.30
2P 20.67 21.77 1.10 22.18 0.41
3P 18.80 19.84 1.04 20.19 0.35
4P 19.09 20.15 1.06 20.51 0.36
5 20.94 21.76 0.82 22.16 0.40
6 20.30 21.14 0.84 21.36 0.23
7P 18.69 19.50 0.81 19.91 0.41
8 18.32 19.39 1.07 19.76 0.36
9P 20.90 21.78 0.87 22.15 0.37
10 20.76 21.77 1.01 22.08 0.31
11P 21.77 22.56 0.79 23.02 0.46
12 16.27 17.20 0.93 17.52 0.32
13 18.49 19.22 0.74 19.56 0.34
14 17.77 18.49 0.72 18.94 0.45
15 20.32 21.03 0.71 21.36 0.32
Avg. 19.15 20.06 0.92 20.42 0.36
P
Specimen with plane top and bottom.
Tapping samples underwater before measuring submerged mass released some bubbles and
increased the measured submerged mass and therefore the calculated porosity. On average, the
estimated percent porosity after tapping the samples was 0.9 higher. Further tapping only
increased the estimated percent porosity by 0.3.
During testing, it was noted that many air bubbles were released if the specimen was inverted
after tapping. Therefore, this step was added to the procedure before measuring the submerged
mass (WS). Tapping the samples against the water tank and then inverting the sample 180°
proved to be an effective way to release trapped air bubbles in the sample.
Proposed Method
The following procedure was then proposed for determining porosity of pervious concrete
drilled cores:
1. Determine the mass of each sample core to the tenth of a gram, and record it as “Initial
Mass.”
2. Dry the cores at 37.8°C (100° F) for 24 h, and record this mass to the tenth of a gram as
“Dry Mass”, WD.
3. Measure the height and diameter of each specimen at three representative locations to the
tenth of a millimeter (mm), and record it.
4. Calculate the average height (Havg) and average diameter (Davg) of each specimen as the
average of the three measurements in Step 3.
5. Calculate the total volume of the specimen (VT) using the average height (Havg) and
diameter (Davg) as:
VT = (Davg) 2 × π × Havg / 4. (9)
6. In a bulk density tank-scale measuring system filled with tap water, submerge the
specimens completely, and let them sit upright for 30 min underwater.
7. After 30 min, keeping the specimen underwater, tap each specimen against the bottom of
the tank five times (the purpose of tapping the specimens is only to promote the escape of
trapped bubbles inside the pervious concrete; it should be enough to let bubbles out
without causing any damage to the specimen or the container). Invert the specimen 180°.
8. Measure the mass to the tenth of a gram of the specimen by keeping the specimen
underwater itself, and record it as the submerged mass (WS). (The submerged mass has to
be measured underwater. For this purpose, a wire mesh basket can be used to support the
specimen underwater. It is important to be sure the tare of the scale includes the mass of
the container under water. If that is not the case, the mass of the container underwater
should be subtracted from the submerged mass of the specimen (WS)).
9. Record the temperature of the water used for the submerged measurements.
10. Calculate the porosity using Eq 8 and the appropriate water density for the water
temperature.
11. Record the specifications of the instruments used.
Experimental Results
This proposed method was performed independently on 15 samples by two persons using
equipment at the laboratory facilities in the Civil and Environmental Engineering Department at
the University of South Carolina (USC). In addition, the above written procedure and the same
15 samples were given to a representative at a separate testing facility not affiliated with USC
(F&ME in Columbia, South Carolina).
At both the F&ME and the USC laboratories, standard equipment for measuring the specific
gravity of coarse aggregate were used (ASTM C 127), and a wire mesh basket was used to hold
the sample underwater at both locations.
An initial analysis of the porosity results indicated that there were differences between the
operator within one laboratory and between laboratories. Further analysis indicated that those
differences were more pronounced in cored samples that did not have a planed top and bottom. A
review of each record in the procedure was carried out, and it was found that samples with
irregular top or bottom surfaces had the most variability in cylinder height, in total volume of the
cylinder, and in total porosity. Figure 2 shows the difference in the overall mean for the porosity
measurements and for the overall average cylinder height taken by the two operators in the USC
laboratory and the one in the F&ME laboratory. The planed top-bottom samples only varied ±0.2
mm out of approximately 120 mm in average height and ±1 in percent porosity, whereas the
irregular cores could vary more than 6 mm in average height with a percent porosity variation of
approximately ±3. Planed top-bottom samples have less variability in both the measured porosity
and cylinder height within operator, between operators, and between laboratories. Thus, it is
recommended that planed cores be used.
Based on this observation, further comparisons between the results obtained by the two
operators in the USC lab and the operator in the F&ME lab were performed using only the group
of planed top-bottom samples. Table 2 presents the results obtained by each operator and
laboratory. Table 3 represents the differences between the average values as measured by pairing
each of the operators in the following manner, Operator A and B at USC, Operator A at USC,
and Operator C at F&ME, and Operator B at USC and Operator C at F&ME. A “paired
differences student t test” was conducted for each variable in Table 3, and the results are noted
with double asterisks when the average pair difference was statistically different from zero at the
95 % confidence level [11]. Table 3 shows that the differences in porosity measurements made
by the two operators at USC were not statistically different from zero. Paired differences
between both operators at USC and the operator at F&ME were less than 1.2 % porosity and
statistically significant. Those differences resulted from the cumulative differences in
measurements of average diameter (Davg), average height (Havg), dry mass (WD), and submerged
mass (WS).
3
Porosity differences with respect to the overall mean (%)
a)
2
-1
-2
-3
-4
0.4
Havg differences with respect to the overall mean (mm)
b)
0.2
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
PLANE TOP & BOTTOM SAMPLES IRREGULAR TOP & BOTTOM SAMPLES
-1
USC LAB A USC LAB B F&ME LAB

-1.2
FIG. 2—a) Differences in porosity results for Operators A and B at the laboratory of the
University of South Carolina and Operator C at the F&ME laboratory; b) Differences in
average core height (Havg) for Operators A and B at the laboratory of the University of South
Carolina and Operator C at the F&ME laboratory.
TABLE 2—Results of porosity tests conducted by two different operators at the USC
laboratory and at the laboratory of F&ME.
Laboratory Operator Sample Davg Havg WD WS P

(mm) (mm) (g) (g) %
1 71.1 122.5 968.9 580.8 20.00
2 70.8 122.5 943.1 566.4 21.64
3 71.0 115.1 897.1 535.3 20.41
A 4 70.9 119.6 937.5 562.1 20.39
7 70.8 115.5 912.3 546.4 19.33
9 70.9 121.6 937.8 566.4 22.56
11 70.7 125.4 958.1 576.4 22.42
USC
1 71.1 122.7 974.1 584.7 19.81
2 70.8 122.9 949.3 572 21.98
3 70.8 114.9 902.2 538.6 19.50
B 4 71.1 120.0 942.7 565.6 20.57
7 71.2 115.8 917.3 548.4 19.95
9 70.9 122.1 942.6 567.2 22.06
11 71.0 126.2 963.4 580.3 23.14
1 70.7 121.3 973.8 583 17.66
2 70.8 122.2 949.6 574 21.74
3 70.6 114.2 902.1 540.1 18.79
F&ME C 4 70.7 118.1 943 567.2 18.61
7 70.7 113.9 917.3 557.9 19.46
9 70.4 121.8 943.1 570 21.18
11 70.5 124.6 964.1 582.2 21.36
TABLE 3—Comparison of the average measurements taken by the three operators for the
planed samples: values given represent the difference between average values from each paired
set of operators.
Davg Havg WD WS P
Average Differences in Planed Samples
(mm) (mm) (g) (g) %
Between Operators A and B in the USC
LAB –0.11 –0.33** –5.26** –3.29** –0.04
Between Operator B in USC and Operator
C in the FM&E LAB 0.38** 1.20** –0.20 –2.51 1.17**
Between Operator A in USC and Operator
C in the FM&E LAB 0.27** 0.87** –5.46** –5.80** 1.14**
**Significant at the 95 % confidence level.
The error contribution of each measured variable to the total error in calculating porosity can
be estimated [8,12]. Based on Eqs 8 and 9, the total error in estimating porosity is:
2 2 2
 ∂P   ∂P   ∂P 
 × ∆WD  +  × ∆WS  +  × ∆ρ w 
 ∂WD   ∂WS   ∂ρ w 
∆P = ± (10)
2 2
 ∂P   ∂P 
+ × ∆D avg  +  × ∆H avg 
 ∂D   ∂H 
 avg   avg 
where ∆P is the overall error in estimating porosity, and ∆WD, ∆WS, ∆ρw, ∆Davg, and ∆Havg are
the errors in estimating the dry mass (WD), submerged mass (WS), water density (ρw), average
diameter (Davg), and average height (Havg) of the sample, respectively. Calculating the partial
derivatives ( ∂ ), the equation above results in:
2 2
 −4   +4 
 × 100 × ∆WD  +  × 100 × ∆WS 
 ρ π (D ) H2   ρ π(D ) H2 
 w avg avg   w avg avg 
2 2
 4(WD − WS )   8(WD − WS )  (11)
∆P = ± +  × 100 × ∆ρ w  +  × 100 × ∆Davg 
 π(D ) H (ρ )
2 2   ρ πH (D ) 3 
 avg avg w   w avg avg 
2
 4(WD − WS ) 
+ × 100 × ∆H 
 ρ π(D )2 (H )2 avg

 w avg avg 
Using the values in Table 2 to obtain an average value for variables WD, WS, ρw, Davg, and Havg,
the error in estimating porosity using the procedure outlined in this research can be calculated as
a function of the individual measurement errors as:
(0.2 × ∆WD )2 + (0.2 × ∆WS )2 + (79.3 × ∆ρ w )2
∆P = ± (12)
+ (22.5 × ∆Davg ) + (6.62 × ∆H avg )
2 2
Using the values in Table 3 to estimate the measurement errors, it is reasonable to assume ∆WD =
±6 g, ∆WS = ±6 g, ∆ρwc= ±0.0002 g/cm3 (estimated based on water temperature measurement
error of 1°C), ∆Davg = ±0.04 cm (0.4 mm), and ∆Havg = ±0.12 cm (1.2 mm). Assuming those
values, the total error in estimating percent porosity is 2.2 in percent porosity.
This error analysis methodology suggests that the uncertainty in measuring the porosity with
the conditions described for this research is 2.2 porosity (in percent) and that the most important
error contributions are in dry and submerged mass measurements (1.27 % each), average
diameter (0.89 %), and average height (0.79 %). Error in determining the water density based on
temperature measurements is negligible within normal indoor temperatures (10–30°C). The
differences between operators and laboratories presented in Table 3 are within the uncertainty
suggested by the error analysis. The error contributions from the mass measurements may be
caused by several factors. Two contributions of note are the following. There are consistently
lower masses measured by Operator A, which may point to a tare mass adjustment difference.
Another source of error in determining the mass of the samples may come from the damage
caused to the specimens during handling. Loss of material was noticed both during the tapping
sequences and during the transporting step from one laboratory to another.
Conclusions
A laboratory method to test the total porosity of pervious concrete has been proposed. This
methodology, based on the water displacement method, can be performed on cored field
samples, which is significant since this allows for the flexibility of obtaining samples after
placement. More importantly, the porosity of pervious concrete is very dependent on the field
placement technique, and these cored samples are more representative of the porosity actually
obtained in the placement process than would be obtained from samples made separately for
testing purposes, even from the same batch of concrete. This method is also fairly simple and can
be performed with materials laboratory equipment that is standard for many other testing
methods commonly used.
It was concluded that submerging a cored sample for 30 min, tapping the core against the
container 5 times, and inverting it 180° is sufficient for filling most of the pores in the sample
and therefore is sufficient for estimating the porosity of typical sized pervious concrete samples.
Increasing the submergence time more than 30 min had negligible impact on the porosity
estimation. It was also shown that it is necessary to plane the top and bottom of samples cored
from field placed slabs in order to increase the precision of the height measurements used in the
porosity calculations. The porosity error between operators and two different laboratories
performing the test is less than 1.2 (% porosity) for planed top-bottom samples of approximately
20 % porosity. Further error analysis showed that the expected uncertainty in porosity for these
samples and under the conditions in which the test is to be carried out is 2.2 % porosity. This is
below the range of porosity values as specified in the designs for field placements, which is
typically in the range of 5 % porosity. It is expected that using the ASTM Test Method for
Measuring Thickness of Concrete Elements Using Drilled Concrete Cores (C174/C) to measure
the sample height will also improve the precision of the methodology.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank James R. Nehez, III, P.E., Vice President of F&ME Consultants in
Columbia, S.C.; Chapman Concrete of Spartanburg, S.C.; Scott Langford of the South Carolina
Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism; members of the Carolina Ready Mixed Concrete
Association (CRMCA); and both Kevin Pulis, an undergraduate student, and Charles E. Pierce,
an Associate Professor, in the Civil and Environmental Engineering Department at the
University of South Carolina, for their contributions to this project. We are also grateful for the
support and funding for this research made available through the Center for Manufacturing and
Technology at the University of South Carolina.
References
[1] Barrett, M. E., Jr., L. B. I., Malina, J. F., and Charbeneau, R. J., "Characterization of
Highway Runoff in Austin, Texas, Area," Journal of Environmental Engineering, Vol. 124,
No. 2, 1998, pp. 131–139.
[2] Bear, J., Dynamics of Fluids in Porous Media, American Elsevier Publishing Company,
NY, 1972.
[3] CRMCA, "Recommended Specifications for Portland Cement Pervious Pavement," The
Carolinas Ready Mixed Concrete Association, Inc., 2003.
[4] Crouch, L. K., Cates, M. A., V. James Dotson, J., Honeycutt, K. R., and Badoe, D. A.,
"Measuring the Effective Air Void Content of Portland Cement Pervious Pavements,"
Cement, Concrete and Aggregates, Vol. 25, No. 1, 2003, pp. 16–20.
[5] Danielson, R. E. and Sutherland, P. L., "Porosity," Methods of Soil Analysis Part 1-
Physical and Mineralogical Methods, American Society of Agronomy and the Soil Science
Society of America, Madison, WI, 1986.
[6] Fujiwara, H., Tomita, R., Okamoto, T., Dozono, A., and Obatake, A., "Properties of High
Strength Porous Concrete," Fourth CANMET/ACI/JCI International Symposium,
Tokushima, Japan, 1998, pp. 173–187.
[7] Ghafoori, N. and Dutta, S., "Pavement Thickness Design for No-Fines Concrete Parking
Lots," Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 121, No. 6, 1995.
[8] Holman, J. P., Experimental Methods for Engineers, McGraw Hill, NY, 1994.
[9] Park, S.-B. and Tia, M., "An Experimental Study on the Water-Purification Properties of
Porous Concrete," Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 34, 2004, pp. 177–184.
[10] Somer, M. D. and Winne, E. D. "Method to Establish the "Porosity- Depth" Distribution of
Porous Concrete Pavement using Cylindrical 100 cm2 Cores Samples," 8th International
Symposium on Concrete Roads, Brussels, Belgium, 1998, pp. 171–176.
[11] Steel, R. G. D., Torrie, J. H., and Dickey, D. A., Principles and Procedures of Statistics: A
Biometrical Approach, McGraw Hill, NY, 1997.
[12] Taylor, J. R., An Introduction to Error Analysis: The Study of Uncertainties in Physical
Measurements, University Science Books, Sausalito, CA, 1997.
[13] Wimberly, J. D., Leming, M. L., and Nunez, R. A. "Evaluation of Mechanical and
Hydrological Properties of High-Voids Pervious Concrete," North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, NC, 2001.

A New Test Method For Porosity Measurements of Portland PDF

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

A New Test Method For Porosity Measurements of Portland PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Journal of ASTM International, January 2005, Vol. 2, No.

Felipe Montes,1 Srinivas Valavala,1 and Liv M. Haselbach2

A New Test Method for Porosity Measurements of Portland

Materials and Procedures

This can be rearranged to obtain the volume of solids as

Porosity, P (%) = [1–((WD – WS)/ ρw)/ VT] × 100 (8)

USC LAB A USC LAB B F&ME LAB

Laboratory Operator Sample Davg Havg WD WS P

Potrebbero piacerti anche