Material and Construction

Optimization for Prevention of

Premature Pavement Distress in
PCC Pavements

Ohio Field Testing Report

January 2006

Sponsored through
the Federal Highway Administration
Transportation Pooled Fund Program
Study TPF-5(066)

Iowa State University’s Center for Transportation Research and Education is the umbrella organization for the following centers and programs: Bridge Engineering Center • Center for Weather Impacts on Mobility
and Safety • Construction Management & Technology • Iowa Local Technical Assistance Program • Iowa Traffic Safety Data Service • Midwest Transportation Consortium • National Concrete Pavement
Technology Center • Partnership for Geotechnical Advancement • Roadway Infrastructure Management and Operations Systems • Statewide Urban Design and Specifications • Traffic Safety and Operations
 About the National Concrete Pavement Technology Center

The mission of the National Concrete Pavement Technology Center is to unite key transportation
stakeholders around the central goal of advancing concrete pavement technology through
research, tech transfer, and technology implementation.

Disclaimer Notice
The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts
and the accuracy of the information presented herein. The opinions, findings and conclusions
expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the sponsors.

The sponsors assume no liability for the contents or use of the information contained in this
document. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.

The sponsors do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers’ names

appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the objective of the document.

Non-discrimination Statement
Iowa State University does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, age, religion, national
origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, sex, marital status, disability, or status as a U.S.
veteran. Inquiries can be directed to the Director of Equal Opportunity and Diversity,
(515) 294-7612.
 Technical Report Documentation Page
1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No.
Study TPF-5(066)
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date
Material and Construction Optimization for the Prevention of Premature Pavement January 2006
Distress in PCC Pavements: Ohio Field Testing Report 6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.

Gary Fick
9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)
Center for Transportation Research and Education
Iowa State University 11. Contract or Grant No.
2901 South Loop Drive, Suite 3100
Ames, IA 50010-8634
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered
Federal Highway Administration Report
U.S. Department of Transportation 14. Sponsoring Agency Code
400 7th Street SW, HIPT-20
Washington, DC 20590
15. Supplementary Notes
Visit www.ctre.iastate.edu for color PDF files of this and other research reports.
16. Abstract
The chemistry of today’s concrete mixture designs is complicated by many variables, including multiple sources of aggregate and
cements and a plethora of sometimes incompatible mineral and chemical admixtures. Adding to the complexity are construction
variables such as weather, mix delivery times, finishing practices, and pavement opening schedules. Mixture materials, mix design, and
pavement construction are not isolated steps in the concrete paving process. Each affects and is affected by the other in ways that
determine overall pavement quality and long-term performance. Equipment and procedures commonly used to test concrete materials
and concrete pavements have not changed in decades, leaving serious gaps in our ability to understand and control the factors that
determine concrete durability. The concrete paving community needs tests that will adequately characterize the materials, predict
interactions, and monitor the properties of the concrete. The overall objectives of this study are to evaluate conventional and new
technologies and procedures for testing concrete and concrete materials to prevent material and construction problems that could lead to
premature concrete pavement distress; and examine and refine a suite of tests used to more accurately evaluate concrete pavement
properties.

As part of Phase I, the MCO project research team contacted each participating state to gather information related to concrete and
concrete material tests. A preliminary suite of tests to ensure long-term pavement performance was developed. The goal was to include
tests that provide useful information and results that are easy to interpret, and that can be reasonably performed routinely in terms of
time, expertise, training, and cost. The tests examine concrete pavement properties in five focal areas determined to be most critical to
the long life and durability of concrete pavements: (1) workability, (2) strength development, (3) air system, (4) permeability, and (5)
shrinkage. The tests were considered for relevance at three stages in the concrete paving process: mix design, preconstruction
verification, and construction quality control.

As part of Phase II, the research team is currently conducting field testing in each participating state to evaluate the preliminary suite of
tests and demonstrate the testing technologies and procedures using local materials. A Mobile Concrete Research Lab has been
designed and equipped to facilitate the demonstrations. This preliminary field testing report documents the results of the shadow
construction project in Ohio. The results of the overall project to date are also being compiled in a user-friendly field manual of
practical tests and troubleshooting guidance. Phase III will refine and finalize lab and field tests based on shadow project test data.

17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement

concrete materials—construction practices—field testing—quality control No restrictions.

19. Security Classification (of report) 20. Security Classification (of page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price
Unclassified. Unclassified. 47 NA

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

MATERIAL AND CONSTRUCTION OPTIMIZATION FOR
PREVENTION OF PREMATURE PAVEMENT DISTRESS IN
PCC PAVEMENTS:
OHIO FIELD TESTING REPORT
January 2006

Principal Investigator
Jim Grove
PCC Paving Engineer
National Concrete Pavement Technology Center, Iowa State University

Project Administrator
E. Thomas Cackler
Director
National Concrete Pavement Technology Center, Iowa State University

Co-Principal Investigator / Author

Gary Fick
Trinity Construction Management Services

Research Team
Bob Steffes
Research Engineer

Heath Gieselman, Jeremy McIntyre, Bryan Zimmerman

Research Technicians

Zhi Ge
Research Assistant

Pooled Fund Study TPF-5(066)

A report from
Center for Transportation Research and Education
Iowa State University
2901 South Loop Drive, Suite 3100
Ames, IA 50010-8634
Phone: 515-294-8103
Fax: 515-294-0467
www.ctre.iastate.edu
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..............................................................................................................V

INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1
Problem Statement ...............................................................................................................1
Overall Project Objectives ...................................................................................................1
Overview of Overall Project ................................................................................................1
Ohio Shadow Construction Project Information .................................................................2
Ohio Shadow Construction Project Location ......................................................................2
SAMPLING AND TESTING ACTIVITIES...................................................................................3

KEY FINDINGS..............................................................................................................................4

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER.........................................................................................................5

CONCLUSIONS..............................................................................................................................5

APPENDIX......................................................................................................................................6
Mix Design and Miscellaneous Information .......................................................................6
Sample Data Collection .......................................................................................................8
Project Data Plots.................................................................................................................9
HIPERPAV Analysis Sample ............................................................................................31
Daily Field Testing Summary............................................................................................32

iii
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Map of Ohio shadow project site .....................................................................................3

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Weather data for the project ..............................................................................................5

iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank the Federal Highway Administration, the Ohio Department of
Transportation (OHDOT), and all other participating states for sponsoring this pooled fund
study.

The research team received great cooperation from both the OHDOT and the contractor during
the shadow construction project. Special thanks are extended to Kelly Wessels of OHDOT for
his assistance and to Chuck Daley of Kokosing Construction Co., Inc., for his cooperation during
our stay.

v
INTRODUCTION

Problem Statement

The chemistry of today’s concrete mixture designs is complicated by many variables, including
multiple sources of aggregate and cements and a plethora of sometimes incompatible mineral
and chemical admixtures. Adding to the complexity are construction variables such as weather,
mix delivery times, finishing practices, and pavement opening schedules. Mixture materials, mix
design, and pavement construction are not isolated steps in the concrete paving process. Each
affects and is affected by the other in ways that determine overall pavement quality and long-
term performance. Equipment and procedures commonly used to test concrete materials and
concrete pavements have not changed in decades, leaving serious gaps in our ability to
understand and control the factors that determine concrete durability. The concrete paving
community needs tests that will adequately characterize the materials, predict interactions, and
monitor the properties of the concrete.

Overall Project Objectives

• Evaluate conventional and new technologies and procedures for testing concrete and
concrete materials to prevent material and construction problems that could lead to
premature concrete pavement distress.
• Examine and refine a suite of tests used to more accurately evaluate concrete pavement
properties.

Overview of Overall Project

Phase I (Preliminary Suite of Tests)

As part of Phase I, the MCO project research team contacted each participating state to gather
information related to concrete and concrete material tests. Three types of information were
gathered: (1) state research, (2) state practices, and (3) problem projects. The project monitor
visited each of the participating states between fall 2003 and summer 2004. The meeting and site
visits provided the research team with critical information and insights into the concerns and
priorities of each state.

A preliminary suite of tests to ensure long-term pavement performance was developed. The goal
was to include tests that provide useful information and results that are easy to interpret, and that
can be reasonably performed routinely in terms of time, expertise, training, and cost. The tests
examine concrete pavement properties in five focal areas determined to be most critical to the
long life and durability of concrete pavements: (1) workability, (2) strength development, (3) air
system, (4) permeability, and (5) shrinkage. For each of these areas, tests were identified as
existent and adequate, existent but needing further development, or nonexistent and needing to
be developed. The tests were considered for relevance at three stages in the concrete paving
process: mix design, preconstruction verification, and construction quality control.

1
Phase II (Field Demonstrations)

As part of Phase II, the research team is currently conducting shadow construction projects in
each participating state to evaluate the preliminary suite of tests and demonstrate the testing
technologies and procedures using local materials. A state-of-the-art Mobile Concrete Research
Lab has been designed and equipped to facilitate the demonstrations. The mobile lab’s air void
analyzer (AVA) provides an important new method of measuring the volume, size, and
distribution of air voids in concrete in the field.

This document is a preliminary report of the activities and observations of the research team that
performed on-site testing at the shadow project in Ohio. The data collected will be further
analyzed and synthesized with the data from other state shadow projects, ultimately being
compiled into a final report with all project results and conclusions that can be drawn from the
data and field observations.

Phase III (Final Suite of Tests)

The results of the project to date are also being compiled in a user-friendly field manual of
practical tests and troubleshooting guidance. Phase III will refine and finalize lab and field tests
based on shadow project test data.

Ohio Shadow Construction Project Information

• Project No. 7(20053), PID No. 25523

• Contractor: Kokosing Construction Co., Inc.
• OHDOT District 8

Ohio Shadow Construction Project Location

The research site was a I-275 widening project, SR-125 to five-mile road, in Clermont County,
Ohio (see Figure 1). An area approximately 300 feet from the plant was prepared by the
contractor for the Mobile Concrete Research Lab. This location was adjacent to the project.
Project and plant access for sampling and testing purposes was excellent. There was no delay in
transporting AVA and microwave water-cement ratio (w/c) samples to the Mobile Concrete
Research Lab.

2
 Figure 1. Map of Ohio shadow project site

SAMPLING AND TESTING ACTIVITIES

The research team arrived onsite October 17, 2005, and began testing project concrete on
October 17. Fresh concrete testing was concluded on October 19. Adverse weather prevented
paving and testing from October 20 through October 25. The research team left the project on
October 26 due to a previously scheduled demonstration project in Indiana. Cores of the
pavement were obtained on October 25 prior to the research team’s departure from the project.
The following is a summary of the samples taken and tests conducted during the demonstration:

• Slump, flow, unit weight, temperature, and air content of fresh concrete: 7 tests
• Air void analysis: 5 sampling locations, 12 tests
• Microwave w/c ratio: 7 tests
• Cast and test 4 x 8 inch cylinders for compressive strength maturity curve: 12 specimens
• Cast and test 4 x 8 inch cylinders for 7 day strength: 3 specimens
• Heat signature: 1 PCC test and 1 mortar test
• Heat generation (coffee cup test): 2 tests
• Initial set and final set: 1 test
• Portland cement and fly ash samples obtained for material testing in Ames (XRD, XRF,
DS, and Blaine): 5 samples
• Obtained 4 inch pavement cores for testing in Ames (coefficient of thermal expansion,
permeability, and hardened air): 5 cores
• Obtained bulk project materials to conduct lab mix design studies in Ames

3
KEY FINDINGS

• The results of the 12 AVA tests show slightly variable data for the specific surface.
Spacing factor results are variable as well. The average spacing factor for all tests is
0.0088 in.; this is within the suggested minimum and maximum limits of 0.0040 in. and
0.015 in. The average specific surface of 791 in.-1 is within the suggested minimum and
maximum limits of 400 in.-1 and 1,100 in.-1. No significant pattern is evident when
comparing the on-vibrator samples to the between-vibrator samples.
• One objective of this research project is to evaluate the suggested criteria for AVA
results. Our experience so far is that the AVA produces results that are more
conservative than hardened air properties obtained using the rapid air testing apparatus.
• Air content tested ahead of the paver during the demonstration ranged from 4.8% to
7.5%; the average air content of the 7 tests conducted was 5.9%.
• Vibrator frequencies were monitored by the contractor. The research team made one
observation of vibrator frequency and paver speed on October 19. The approximate
average vibrator frequency was 9,400 vpm and the paver speed was approximately 5.8
fpm.
• Visual observations of the paving process revealed very good edges and surface. The
finishers were not observed overworking the surface.
• The combined gradation of the mix was evaluated based on the materials gathered for a
lab mix design. The coarseness factor was 78 and the workability factor was 34. The
combined gradation of the mix is gap-graded from the 3/8-inch sieve to the #50 sieve.
• Timing of the application of curing compound was observed throughout the
demonstration. The curing compound was applied approximately 30 to 45 minutes
after the concrete placement. Whenever possible, curing compound should be placed
within 30 minutes after concrete placement.
• Compressive strength specimens were tested to develop a strength-maturity
relationship curve. Additionally, one set of three 4 x 8 inch cylinders was cast during
field sampling and tested at seven days. The average seven-day compressive strength
of these field cast cylinders was 4,360 psi. This research project is concerned less with
strength properties than with other durability related properties. In the opinion of the
research team, a minimum strength is necessary to meet the design intent. However,
our experience is that almost all rigid pavement failures are a result of properties other
than concrete strength.
• One maturity sensor was placed on October 17; in-place maturity values indicate that
the slab had a compressive strength maturity equivalent of 3,750 psi in eight days.
• A brief summary of the weather conditions recorded by a portable weather station at
the Mobile Concrete Research Lab location is shown in Table 1.

4
Table 1. Weather data for the project
Min. Max. Min. Max. Max.
Min. Max. Total
Relative Relative Dew Dew Wind
Date Temp. Temp. Rainfall
Humidity Humidity Point Point Speed
(˚F) (˚F) (in.)
(%) (%) (˚F) (˚F) (mph)
10/17 55.1 72.3 34 69 40.8 47.2 3
10/18 48.6 77.4 28 79 40.4 51.8 1
10/19 46.2 84.0 47 87 41.5 62.4 2
10/20 50.5 62.9 58 82 43.6 50.3 5 0.45
10/21 49.4 53.5 81 85 44.9 48.1 4 0.74
10/22 44.9 58.3 54 86 40.1 45.1 2 0.05
10/23 41.9 49.1 79 86 36.2 44.0 1 0.25
10/24 37.3 45.5 78 85 32.9 40.0 2 0.21
10/25 43.9 49.2 62 82 36.3 39.9 1 0.11
10/26 36.5 45.8 71 85 32.1 37.8 1
Weather data is from 11:00 a.m. 10/17/2005 through 10:45 a.m. 10/26/2005

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER

During field testing at the shadow project, 30 visitors from the Ohio DOT and the contractor
visited the Mobile Concrete Research Lab. Project data have been made available to stakeholders
through reports, presentations, and the project website, http://www.cptechcenter.org/mco/.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the inclement weather, the project team believes that the data gathered and the
opportunity to observe and share experiences with the contractor and the Ohio DOT resulted in a
successful demonstration project. The project team will analyze the data and compile all of the
pooled fund state experiences into the final overall project report.

5
APPENDIX

Mix Design and Miscellaneous Information

General Information
Project: OHDOT Demo. Project - I-275
Contractor: Kokosing
Mix Description: Mainline
Mix ID: M/L
Date(s) of Placement: 10-17-2005

%
Replacement
Cementitious Materials Source Type Spec. Gravity lb/yd3 by Mass
Portland Cement: Holcim/CEMEX I 3.150 510
GGBFS:
Fly Ash: Fly Ash Direct - Zimmer F 2.300 90 15.00%
Silica Fume:
Other Pozzolan:
600 lb/yd3
6.4 sacks/yd3

Spec. Gravity Absorption % Passing

Aggregate Information Source Type SSD (%) #4

Coarse Aggregate: Hilltop Basic Resources Gravel 2.653 1.7% 3%

Intermediate Aggregate:
Fine Aggregate #1: Hilltop Basic Resources Natural Sand 2.621 1.5% 100%
Fine Aggregate #2:
Coarse Aggregate %: 60.0%
Intermediate Aggregate %:
Fine Aggregate #1 % of Total Fine Agg.: 100.0%
Fine Aggregate #2 % of Total Fine Agg.:
Fine Aggregate #1 %: 40.0%
Fine Aggregate #2 %:

Mix Proportion Calculations

Water/Cementitious Materials Ratio: 0.361
Air Content: 6.00%
Absolute
Batch Weights SSD Volume
Volume (ft3) (lb/yd3) Spec. Gravity (%)
Portland Cement: 2.595 510 3.150 9.610%
GGBFS:
Fly Ash: 0.627 90 2.300 2.323%
Silica Fume:
Other Pozzolan:
Coarse Aggregate: 11.211 1,856 2.653 41.523%
Intermediate Aggregate:
Fine Aggregate #1: 7.474 1,222 2.621 27.682%
Fine Aggregate #2:
Water: 3.473 217 1.000 12.863%
Air: 1.620 6.000%
27.000 3895 100.000%
3
Unit Weight (lb/ft ) 144.3 Paste 30.796%
Mortar 59.723%

Admixture Information Source/Description oz/yd3 oz/cwt

Air Entraining Admix.: Master Builders - Paveair 46.00 7.67
Admix. #1: Masterpave RI 11.00 1.83
Admix. #2:
Admix. #3:

Absolute Volume
AVA Information (%)
Air Free Paste: 24.796%
Air Free Mortar: 53.723%

6
 Mix Design & Misc. Info.
General Information
Project: OHDOT Demo. Project - I-275
Contractor: Kokosing
Mix Description: Mainline
Mix ID: M/L
Date(s) of Placement: 10-18-2005 p.m. through 10-19-2005

%
Replacement
3
Cementitious Materials Source Type Spec. Gravity lb/yd by Mass
Portland Cement: Holcim/CEMEX I 3.150 510
GGBFS:
Fly Ash: Fly Ash Direct - Zimmer F 2.300 90 15.00%
Silica Fume:
Other Pozzolan:
600 lb/yd3
6.4 sacks/yd3

Spec. Gravity Absorption % Passing

Aggregate Information Source Type SSD (%) #4
Coarse Aggregate: Hilltop Basic Resources Gravel 2.653 1.7% 3%
Intermediate Aggregate:
Fine Aggregate #1: Hilltop Basic Resources Natural Sand 2.621 1.5% 100%
Fine Aggregate #2:
Coarse Aggregate %: 60.0%
Intermediate Aggregate %:
Fine Aggregate #1 % of Total Fine Agg.: 100.0%
Fine Aggregate #2 % of Total Fine Agg.:
Fine Aggregate #1 %: 40.0%
Fine Aggregate #2 %:

Mix Proportion Calculations

Water/Cementitious Materials Ratio: 0.361
Air Content: 6.00%
Absolute
Batch Weights SSD Volume
Volume (ft3) (lb/yd3) Spec. Gravity (%)
Portland Cement: 2.595 510 3.150 9.610%
GGBFS:
Fly Ash: 0.627 90 2.300 2.323%
Silica Fume:
Other Pozzolan:
Coarse Aggregate: 11.211 1,856 2.653 41.523%
Intermediate Aggregate:
Fine Aggregate #1: 7.474 1,222 2.621 27.682%
Fine Aggregate #2:
Water: 3.473 217 1.000 12.863%
Air: 1.620 6.000%
27.000 3895 100.000%
Unit Weight (lb/ft3) 144.3 Paste 30.796%
Mortar 59.723%

Admixture Information Source/Description oz/yd3 oz/cwt

Air Entraining Admix.: Master Builders - MBVR 28.00 4.67
Admix. #1: Masterpave RI 11.00 1.83
Admix. #2:
Admix. #3:

Absolute Volume
AVA Information (%)
Air Free Paste: 24.796%
Air Free Mortar: 53.723%

7
Sample Data Collection

Sample Information:

Project: OHDOT Demo. Project I-275

Date: 19-Oct-05 Time: 2:00 PM

Type of Paving: mainline Direction of Paving: southbound

Sta: 1833+85 Latitude: n/a Longitude: n/a

Mix ID: M/L #2 Truck ID: n/a

Comments:

Environmental Conditions:

Dew Point: 67.0 Relative Humidity: 55%

Wind Speed: 3.0 Ambient Temp.: 84.5

Concrete Properties:

Concrete Temp. (probe): 82.0 Base Temp. (surface): 105.2

Base Temp. (internal): 76.3 Slump (in.): 0.25

3
Flow: 46.0% Air Content: 5.3% Unit Weight (lb/ft ): 147.0

Workability Documentation:

Paver Speed (fpm): 5.8 Vibrator Speed (vpm): 9,400

Edge Shape: excellent Surface Voids: good

Edge Voids: excellent Finisher Effort: normal

Digital Image of Slab Edge Digital Image of Slab Surface

Curing Conditions:

Elapsed Time Between Paver & Cure Application (min.): 40

evaporation rates between 0.05 and 0.20 may

Evaporation Rate (ACI equation): 0.055 lb/ft2/hr require special measures depending upon the
bleeding characteristics of the mix

8
 83 Concrete Temperature

81
conc. temp. (probe)
79 conc. temp. (ir)
min. temp. (probe)
77 max. temp. (probe)
Project Data Plots

Temp. (˚F)
avg. temp. (probe)
75

73
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Test #

70 Mortar Flow

65

mortar flow
60
min. flow

9
max. flow
55

Flow (%)
avg. flow
50

45
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Test #

1.00 Slump

0.75
conc. slump
min. slump
0.50
max. slump

Slump (in.)
avg. slump
0.25

0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Test #
 148.0 Unit Weight
147.5
147.0
unit wt. ahead of paver
146.5
min. unit wt.
146.0
max. unit wt.
145.5 avg. unit wt.
145.0

Unit Weight (lb/ft3)

unit wt. behind paver
144.5
144.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Test #

8.00 Air Content

7.50 air content ahead of
paver
7.00 min. air content
6.50
max. air content
6.00

10
avg. air content
5.50

Air Content (%)

air content behind paver
5.00
4.50 chase air indicator

4.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Test #

180.00 Cementitious Material Temperatures

170.00
p.c. sample temp.
160.00
150.00 fly ash sample temp.
140.00
slag sample temp.
130.00
120.00 min. p.c. temp.

Temp. (˚F)
110.00
max. p.c. temp.
100.00
90.00 avg. p.c. temp.
80.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Test #
 0.0160 Spacing Factor
0.0140
0.0120
on vibrator
0.0100 between vibrators
0.0080 suggested min. criteria
0.0060 suggested max. criteria

0.0040 avg. spacing factor

Spacing Factor (in.)

0.0020
0.0000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Test Location #

1,400 Specific Surface

1,200
on vibrator
1,000
between vibrators
800 suggested min. criteria

11
suggested max. criteria
600
avg. specific surface

Specific Surface (in.-1)

400

200
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Test Location #

0.44 Microwave W/C Ratio

0.43
0.42
0.41 w/c ratio
min. w/c ratio
0.40
max. w/c ratio

W/C Ratio
0.39
avg. w/c ratio
0.38
0.37
0.36
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Test #
 60.00 Plant Mix Time

55.00

50.00 mix time

min. mix time
45.00
max. mix time
40.00 avg. mix time

Mixing Time (sec.)

35.00

30.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Test #

2 Heat Generation (coffee cup test)

p.c. exceeds criteria

1
p.c. & scm exceeds

12
criteria

No. of Samples
0
yes no
Criteria - Δ Temp. ≥ 3˚F in 5 min. or less

1 Modified False Set

p.c.
p.c. & scm
p.c., scm & admix.

No. of Samples
0
yes no
False Set Criteria Met
 OHDOT Demo Project
Spacing Factor On Vibrator & Between Vibrators
0.0160

0.0150

0.0140

0.0130

0.0120

0.0110

0.0100

13
0.0090

Spacing Factor (in.)

0.0080

0.0070

0.0060

0.0050

0.0040

0.0030
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Test Location #

on vibrator between vibrators suggested min. criteria suggested max. criteria avg. spacing factor
 OHDOT Demo Project
Specific Surface On Vibrator & Between Vibrators
1,300

1,200

1,100

1,000

-1
900

14
800

Specific Surface (in. )

700

600

500

400
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Test #

on vibrator between vibrators suggested min. criteria suggested max. criteria avg. specific surface
 OHDOT Demo Project
D<300 µm & Spacing Factor
All AVA Samples

Test #
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
0.50 0.0140

0.70 0.0130

0.90 0.0120

1.10 0.0110

15
1.30 0.0100

1.50 0.0090

D<300 µm (% )
1.70 0.0080
Spacing Factor (in.)

1.90 0.0070

2.10 0.0060

2.30 0.0050

2.50 0.0040

d spacing factor
 OHDOT Demo Project
D<300 µm & Specific Surface
All AVA Samples

Test #
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
0.50 400

0.70 500

0.90 600

1.10 700
)
-1

16
1.30 800

1.50 900

D<300 µm (% )
1.70 1,000
Specific Surface (in.

1.90 1,100

2.10 1,200

2.30 1,300

2.50 1,400

d specific surface
 OHDOT Demo Project
Unit Weight & W/C Ratio

149.0 0.35

148.5 0.36

148.0 0.37

147.5 0.38

147.0 0.39

17
146.5 0.40
W/C Ratio (%)

146.0 0.41

Unit Weight (lb/ft 3)

145.5 0.42

145.0 0.43

144.5 0.44

144.0 0.45
1 2 3 4 5 6
Test Number

unit weight ahead of paver unit weight behind paver microwave w/c ratio
 OHDOT Demo Project
Unit Weight & Air Content

8.0 144.0

7.5 144.5

7.0 145.0

6.5 145.5

18
6.0 146.0

Air Content (%)

Unit Weight (lb/ft 3)

5.5 146.5

5.0 147.0

4.5 147.5

4.0 148.0
1 2 3 4 5 6
Test Number

air ahead air behind paver unit weight unit weight behind paver
 OHDOT Demo Project
Flow & Air Content Ahead of the Paver

70 7.5

65 7.0

60 6.5

19
55 6.0

Flow (%)
50 5.5
Air Content Ahead of the Paver (%)

45 5.0

40 4.5
1 2 3 4 5 6
Test #

flow air content ahead of the paver

 OHDOT Demo Project
Flow & Microwave Water Cement Ratio

70 0.42

65 0.41

60 0.40

20
55 0.39

Flow (%)
50 0.38
Microwave Water Cement Ratio (%)

45 0.37

40 0.36
1 2 3 4 5 6
Test #

flow w/c ratio

 OHDOT Demo Project
Flow & Slump

70 0.75

60 0.50

21
Flow (%)
Slump (in.)

50 0.25

40 0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6
Test Number

flow slump
 Heat Generation
Coffee Cup

90.0
89.0
88.0
87.0
86.0
85.0
84.0
83.0
82.0

22
81.0 p.c. #1
80.0
79.0 p.c. & scm #1
78.0
77.0

Temperature (˚F)
76.0
75.0
74.0
73.0
72.0
71.0
70.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
minutes
 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH MATURITY CURVE
CELSIUS

STATE: OHDOT Demo Project SENSOR TYPE: I-BUTTON DATE CAST: 18-Oct-05
AIR TEMP.
(˚C): 13.9 CONC. TEMP. (˚C): 23.8 TIME CAST: 7:30 AM

SPECIMEN
AGE AT TTF @ TIME TEMP. @ COMPRESSIVE
SPECIMEN DATE TIME
BREAK OF BREAK TIME OF STRENGTH MIX INFORMATION
# BROKEN BROKEN
(hr) (˚C-hr) BREAK (psi)
(˚C)
1 19-Oct-05 8:00 AM 24.50 917 27.0 2,220 AIR: 7.5 %
2 19-Oct-05 8:10 AM 24.67 917 27.0 2,230 SLUMP: 0.25 in.
3
3 19-Oct-05 8:17 AM 24.78 926 26.5 2,220 UNIT WEIGHT: 145.5 lb/ft
4 20-Oct-05 9:55 AM 50.42 1,837 24.5 3,120 FLY ASH SOURCE: Fly Ash Direct/Zimmer
5 20-Oct-05 10:05 AM 50.58 1,846 24.5 2,980 GGBFS SOURCE: n/a
6 20-Oct-05 10:10 AM 50.67 1,846 24.5 3,150 CEMENT SOURCE: Holcim/Cemex
7 21-Oct-05 9:00 AM 73.50 2,599 21.5 3,310 COARSE AGGREGATE SOURCE: Hilltop Basic Resources
8 21-Oct-05 9:10 AM 73.67 2,599 21.5 3,280 INTERM. AGGREGATE SOURCE: n/a
9 21-Oct-05 9:15 AM 73.75 2,607 23.5 3,310 FINE AGGREGATE SOURCE: Hilltop Basic Resources
10 25-Oct-05 11:50 AM 172.33 5,395 24.5 3,560 WATER REDUCER BRAND: Master Builders
3
11 25-Oct-05 12:05 PM 172.58 5,395 24.5 3,810 Add. Rate: 11.00 oz/yd
12 25-Oct-05 12:10 PM 172.67 5,395 24.5 3,810 AIR ADMIXTURE BRAND: Master Builders
3
Add. Rate: 46.00 oz/yd
Estimated OPENING STRENGTH: 3750 psi
REQUIRED TTF: 4888

Maturity Curve
of All Compressive Strengths

7000

6000

5000
Compressive Strength (psi)

4000

Regression
Strengths

3000

2000

1000

0
100 1,000 10,000 100,000
Log of TTF (˚C-hr)

23
 OHDOT Demo Project
In-Place Slab Maturity
5,500

5,000

4,500

4,000

3,500

3,000

24
2,500

TTF (°C-hr)
2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00

Elapsed Time (days)

10/17/2005 11:45 3,750 psi compressive strength equivalent

 OHDOT Demo Project - Field Mix Concrete Sample
IQ Drum
110

105

100

95

90

85

25
Temperature (˚F)
80

75

70

65
0.00 12.00 24.00 36.00 48.00 60.00 72.00 84.00 96.00
Time (hours)

concrete temperature over time

maximum concrete temp. of 103.82 ˚F occurs at 17.25 elapsed hours
average slope from time 0 to maximum concrete temp.= 1.98 ˚F/hr
maximum slope of 5.04 ˚F/hr occurs at 6.50 elapsed hours
 OHDOT Demo Project - Field Mix Mortar Sample
IQ Drum
100

95

90

85

80

26
75

Temperature (˚F)
70

65

60
0.00 12.00 24.00 36.00 48.00 60.00 72.00 84.00 96.00
Time (hours)

mortar temperature over time

maximum mortar temp. of 93.20 ˚F occurs at 13.75 elapsed hours
average slope from time 0 to maximum mortar temp.= 2.28 ˚F/hr
maximum slope of 5.04 ˚F/hr occurs at 9.75 elapsed hours
 OHDOT Demo Project
Workability Factors & Coarseness Factors
45
Sandy

40
Well
Graded
Minus 3/4" Well Graded
1 1/2" to 3/4

35

Control

27
Line

(percent)
Workability
30

Rocky

25

20
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Coarseness Factor
(percent)
Mix Design Materials - tested in Ames
 OHDOT Demo Project
Combined Percent Retained "8-18" & "6-22"

36%
34%
32%
30%
28%
26%
24%
22%
20%

28
18%
16%
14%
12%

Percent Retained
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%

2"
1"
#4
#8

¾"
½"
⅜"
#16
#30
#50

2 ½"
1 ½"
#100
#200

Sieve Size
Mix Design Materials - tested in Ames
 OHDOT Demo Project
0.45 Power Curve

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%

29
50%
40%
30%
20%

Combined Percent Passing (%)

10%
2"

0%
1"

#8
#4
⅜"
½"
¾"

#50
#30
#16
2 ½"

#200
#100
1 ½"

Sieve Size
Mix Design Materials - tested in Ames
 Penetration Resistance
ASTM C 403
State OHDOT Demo
Project I-275
Type of Work M/L

Date 18-Oct-05 Operator GJF

Time 7:20 AM

Test Results
Needle # Penetration
Time Reading
(1,2,4,10,20 or Resistance Log (PR) Log (t)
(min) (lb)
40) (psi)
280 1 113 113 2.05 2.45
350 4 174 696 2.84 2.54
400 10 168 1680 3.23 2.60
460 40 140 5600 3.75 2.66
estimated times
Initial Set (at 500 psi) 330 min 5.50 hr
based on test
Final Set (at 4000 psi) data 428 min 7.13 hr

10000
FS
Penetration Resistance (psi)

1000
IS

100

10
10 100 1000
Elapsed Time (min)

30
HIPERPAV Analysis Sample

1 0 / 1 9 / 2 0 0 5 9 :0 0

Project Information
Input Value Unit
Project Name I-275
Project ID OHDOT Demo. Project
Section Name
Begin Station
End Station
Comments

Project Environment Data

Input Value Unit
Latitude 39.1 °
Longitude -84.5 °
Elevation 940.61 ft
Thornwaite Index 47

Strategy Information
Input Value Unit
Title 10/19/2005 0:00
User Name Gary Fick
Analysis Date 12/6/2005 12:09
Reliability Level 90 %
Comments

Design - Geometry
Input Value Unit
Slab Width 14 ft
New Slab Thickness 12.5 inches
Transverse Joint Spacing 15 ft

Design - Dowels
Input Value Unit
Dowel Size 1.500 in.
Dowel Poisson's Ratio 0.3
Dowel Elastic Modulus 29000 ksi
28-Day Effective Modulus of Dowel Support 1500000 psi/inch

Design - Slab Support

Input Value Unit
Material Type Unbound Aggregate Subbase
k-Value 275 psi/inch
Subbase Thickness 7 inches
Subbase Modulus 500000 psi

31
Daily Field Testing Summary

Default Axial Restraint 1 0 / 1 9 / 2 0 0 5 9 :0 0

Input Value Unit
Critical Restraint Stress 2 psi
Movement at Sliding 0.02 inches

Materials and Mix Design - Cement

Input Value Unit
Estimate Blaine Fineness Index TRUE
Cement Type Type I

Materials and Mix Design - PCC Mix

Input Value Unit
Aggregate Type Siliceous Gravel
Admixtures (ASTM C 494 Type) Type D - Water-reducing and retarding
Fly Ash Class Class F (CaO <= 7%)
Water/Cement Ratio 0.425
Water/Cementitous Ratio 0.362

Batch Proportions
Constituent Mass (lb/yd³)
Coarse Aggregate 1856
Fine Aggregate 1222
Water 217
Cement (Type I) 510
Fly Ash 90
GGBF Slag
Silica Fume
Total 3895

32
Materials and Mix Design - PCC Properties 1 0 / 1 9 / 2 0 0 5 9 :0 0
Input Value Unit
PCC Strength Type 3rd Point Flexural
28-Day Strength 700 psi
Estimate PCC 28-Day Modulus TRUE
CTE (Estimate from Aggregate Type) 6.5 microstrains/°F
Estimate PCC Ultimate Shrinkage TRUE
Tensile Strength Coefficient A 0.718
Tensile Strength Coefficient B 1
Splitting Tensile Strength 503 psi
Compressive Strength Coefficient A 0.287
Compressive Strength Coefficient B 1.5
Compressive Strength 5315 psi

Materials and Mix Design - Maturity Data

Input Value Unit
Strength Type Compressive
Datum Temperature -10 °C

Point Maturity (°C-hr) Strength (psi)

1 917 2220
2 917 2230
3 926 2230
4 1837 3120
5 1846 2980
6 1846 3150
7 2599 3310
8 2599 3280
9 2607 3310
10 5395 3560
11 5395 3810
12 5395 3810

33
Early-Age Environment 1 0 / 1 9 / 2 0 0 5 9 :0 0
Input Value Unit
Construction Date 10/19/2005
Time of Day of Construction 9:00 AM

Early-Age Construction
Input Value Unit
Strength for Opening to Traffic 600 psi
PCC Strength Type 3rd Point Flexural
Initial PCC Mix Temperature 75 °F
Initial Support Layer Temperature 70 °F
Curing Method Single Coat Liquid Curing Compound
Age Curing Applied hour
Age Curing Removed 72 hour
User-Defined Sawing Age 10 hour

34
 1 0 / 1 9 / 2 0 0 5 9 :0 0

35
 1 0 / 1 9 / 2 0 0 5 9 :0 0

36
 1 0 / 1 9 / 2 0 0 5 9 :0 0

37
Date: 10/17/2005
State: OH
Project: I-275
Project Staff On-Site:
Jim Grove Bob Steffes
Bryan Zimmerman Jeremy McIntyre
Heath Gieselman Gary Fick

Number of Visitors Today: 0

General Weather Conditions & Diary:

Sunny and warm 71F

Daily Plan:
Activities Completed Comments

setup trailer

setup weather sta

contact list

vibrator spacing

test group a(m)

test group a

cement sample pulled at terminal

fly ash sample pulled at plant

data entry

HIPERPAV setup

back up data

prep. molds for maturity

iq drum setup

38
Date: 10/18/2005
State: OH
Project: I-275
Project Staff On-Site:
Jim Grove Bob Steffes
Bryan Zimmerman Jeremy McIntyre
Heath Gieselman Gary Fick

Number of Visitors Today: 2

General Weather Conditions & Diary:

clear & warm 75F

Daily Plan:
Activities Completed Comments

test group b

test group a

test group a(m)

cement sample

fly ash sample

HIPERPAV

data entry

daily sheet

daily charts

backup data

call paving association

call dot

pictures

39
Date: 10/19/2005
State: OH
Project: I-275
Project Staff On-Site:
Jim Grove Bob Steffes
Bryan Zimmerman Jeremy McIntyre
Heath Gieselman Gary Fick

Number of Visitors Today: 0

General Weather Conditions & Diary:

sunny & warm 84F

Daily Plan:
Activities Completed Comments

maturity breaks

test group a

test group a(w)

cement sample

ash sample

pictures

test group a

HIPERPAV

daily charts

data entry

daily sheet

backup data

clean lab

pick up jim grove

40
Date: 10/20/2005
State: OH
Project: I-275
Project Staff On-Site:
Jim Grove Bob Steffes
Bryan Zimmerman Jeremy McIntyre
Heath Gieselman Gary Fick

Number of Visitors Today: 24

General Weather Conditions & Diary:

rainy & cool 55 F

Daily Plan:
Activities Completed Comments

maturity breaks

clean lab

test group a rain cancelled paving

open house 10:00 am to 2:00 pm

cement sample no paving

ash sample no paving

test group a no paving

HIPERPAV no paving

data entry

daily sheet

daily charts

backup data

41
Date: 10/25/2005
State: OH
Project: I-275
Project Staff On-Site:
Jim Grove Bob Steffes
Bryan Zimmerman Jeremy McIntyre
Heath Gieselman Gary Fick

Number of Visitors Today: 4

General Weather Conditions & Diary:

Rainy and cool - 10/21/2005 no paving, 10/24/2005 no paving, 10/25/2005 no paving,
10/26/2005 left for INDOT demo project (paving to commence 10/27/2005)

Daily Plan:
Activities Completed Comments
friday, Monday and Tuesday weather cancelled
paving, no testing
obtain mix design materials

clean and maintain lab

10/26/2005 - leave for IN demo project

42