ALLOWABLE LIMITS FOR CONDUCTIVITY TEST METHODS AND...

1

ALLOWABLE LIMITS FOR CONDUCTIVITY TEST METHODS AND DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT PREDICTION OF CONCRETE STRUCTURES EXPOSED TO MARINE

ENVIRONMENTS

By

ENRIQUE A. VIVAS

A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT

OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2007

2

© 2007 Enrique A. Vivas

3

To my loving family, my mother Carmen Yolanda, my father Pedro Alexander and my brother Pedro Luis, as they have offered their unyielding love and support, and last but not least, to

Johanna “Ponchis”

4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank the Florida Department of Transportation for providing the funding for this

research project. This project was a collaborative effort among the University of Florida, and the

FDOT State Materials Office Research Laboratory (Gainesville).

I would like to thank my committee chair and advisor, Dr. Trey Hamilton, for his guidance

and support. It was truly an honor to work under his guidance. Special thanks go to Mario

Paredes, FDOT State Materials Corrosion Office, for his supervision and technical support

during the course of the project. I cannot thank him enough for all of his help. Moreover, I would

like to thank the FDOT State Materials Office Research Laboratory personnel for their help on

constructing the specimens and conducting materials testing, especially Charlotte Kasper, Phillip

Armand and Sandra Bober whose help was critical to the completion of this project. The

assistance of Elizabeth (Beth) Tuller, Robert (Mitch) Langley and Richard DeLorenzo is

gratefully acknowledged. My sincere gratitude goes to Dennis Baldi and Luke Mcleod who

assisted in the field investigations of the project. Moreover, the assistance of staff from FDOT

Districts (D2, D3, D4, D5 and D7) for their assistance in the field investigations; especially

Bobby Ivery, Steve Hunt, Wilky Jordan, Ken Gordon, Donald Vanwhervin, Daniel Haldi and

Keith West. I would like to thank CEMEX, BORAL Materials Technologies Inc., W.R. Grace &

Co., Burgess Pigment Co., Lafarge, RINKER Materials Corp., S. Eastern Prestress Concrete Inc.,

Gate Concrete Products and COUCH Concrete for their contributions to this research.

5

TABLE OF CONTENTS page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...............................................................................................................4

LIST OF TABLES...........................................................................................................................7

LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................................10

ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................................15

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................17

2 LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................................19

Mechanism of Chloride Ion Transport ...................................................................................19 Diffusion of Chloride Ions......................................................................................................20 Test Methods to Predict Permeability of the Concrete...........................................................21

Resistance of Concrete to Chloride Ion Penetration (AASHTO T259) ..........................22 Bulk Diffusion Test (Nordtest NTBUILD 443) ..............................................................24 Rapid Chloride Permeability Test (AASHTO T277, ASTM C1202) .............................25 Surface Resistivity Test Using the Four-Point Wenner Probe (FM 5-578) ....................27

Time Dependent Diffusion in Concrete..................................................................................31 Effective Diffusion Coefficients of Concrete Structures Exposed to Marine

Environments ......................................................................................................................33

3 CONCRETE MIXTURE DESIGNS AND FIELD CORE SAMPLING...............................42

Concrete Mixtures ..................................................................................................................42 Laboratory Concrete Mixtures ........................................................................................42 Field Concrete Mixtures ..................................................................................................43

Field Core Sampling ...............................................................................................................44 Bridge Selection ..............................................................................................................45 Coring Procedures ...........................................................................................................45

4 TEST PROCEDURES............................................................................................................66

Laboratory and Field Concrete Sample Matrix ......................................................................66 Chloride Ion Content Analysis ...............................................................................................66 Diffusion Test .........................................................................................................................66

Bulk Diffusion Test .........................................................................................................66 Electrical Conductivity Tests..................................................................................................67

Rapid Chloride Permeability Test (RCP) ........................................................................67 Surface Resistivity Test ...................................................................................................69

Bridge Core Sample Chloride Ion Content Analysis..............................................................69

6

5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.............................................................................................77

Fresh Properties ......................................................................................................................77 Mechanical Properties ............................................................................................................77 Long-Term Chloride Penetration Procedures.........................................................................79 Comparison of Conductivity and Long-Term Diffusion Tests...............................................81

Rapid Chloride Permeability Test (RCP) ........................................................................81 Surface Resistivity...........................................................................................................82

Relating Electrical Tests and Bulk Diffusion .........................................................................83 Refinement of the Long-Term Diffusion Coefficient Prediction Using Monte Carlo

Simulation ...........................................................................................................................87

6 FIELD CORE SAMPLING..................................................................................................114

Diffusion Coefficients of Cored Samples.............................................................................114 Correlation of Long-Term Field Data to Laboratory Test Procedures .................................115

7 RECOMMENDED APPROACH FOr DETERMINING LIMITS OF CONDUCTIVITY TESTS...................................................................................................................................125

RCP and Bulk Diffusion.......................................................................................................125 SR and Bulk Diffusion..........................................................................................................128

8 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS...................................................................................140

APPENDIX

A CONCRETE MIXTURE LABELING SYSTEM CONVERSION .....................................142

B CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTHS.....................................................................143

C LABORATORY LONG-TERM CHLORIDE PENETRATION TEST (BULK DIFFUSION) DATA AND ANALYSIS RESULTS ...........................................................148

D FIELD CORE SAMPLING DATA AND ANALYSIS RESULTS.....................................177

E SHORT-TERM ELECTRICAL TEST DATA RESULTS ..................................................184

F REGRESSION FIT OF CONDUCTIVITY AND LONG-TERM DIFFUSION TESTS ....193

G COMPARISON OF CONDUCTIVITY AND LONG-TERM LABORATORY DIFFUSION TESTS.............................................................................................................196

H ANALYSIS OF DATA OBTAINED FROM OTHER PROJECTS ....................................206

LIST OF REFERENCES.............................................................................................................210

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................................216

7

LIST OF TABLES

Table page 2-1 Comparison of RCP Results with Ponding Tests (AASHTO T277, ASTM C1202) ........36

2-2 Measured Electrical Resistivities of Typical Aggregates used for Concrete.....................36

2-3 Apparent Surface Resistivity using a Four-point Wenner Probe......................................36

2-4 Several Curve Fitting Constants m that Describes the Rate of Change of the Diffusion Coefficient with Time for Various Concrete Mix Designs ...............................37

3-1 Laboratory Mixtures Material Sources. .............................................................................47

3-2 Laboratory Mixture Designs. .............................................................................................47

3-3 Standard Method for Casting and Vibrating Concrete Cylinders (AASHTO T23)...........48

3-4 Specified Compressive Strength of FDOT Concrete Classes............................................49

3-5 Field Mixture Designs........................................................................................................49

3-6 Field Mixture Material Sources. ........................................................................................50

3-7 Locations of Field Mixtures...............................................................................................51

3-8 FDOT Cored Bridge Structures for the Investigation........................................................52

3-9 FDOT Cored Bridge Element Mixture Designs. ...............................................................53

3-10 FDOT Cored Bridge Element Mixture Material Sources. .................................................54

3-11 28-Day RCP Test Data from Concrete Mixture Designs of the Cored Samples. ..............56

3-12 Summary of Cores Extracted and Associated Properties. .................................................57

4-1 Concrete Permeability Research Sample Matrix for Laboratory Mixtures. ......................71

4-2 Bridge Core Samples Profiling Scheme. ...........................................................................71

5-1 Fresh Concrete Properties. .................................................................................................90

5-2 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficients...................................................................................91

5-3 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Surface Concentration. .................................................................92

5-4 3-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficients...................................................................................93

8

5-5 3-Year Bulk Diffusion Surface Concentration. .................................................................94

5-6 Bulk Diffusion Ratio of Change from 3-Years to 1-Year of Exposure. ............................95

5-7 Pozzolans and Corrosion Inhibitor Effects on Bulk Diffusion Coefficients......................95

5-8 Correlation Coefficients (R2) of RCP to Reference Tests. ................................................96

5-9 Correlation Coefficients (R2) of Surface Resistivity to Reference Tests...........................96

5-10 1 and 3 year Bulk Diffusion Relative to 91-Day RCP Charge Passed (Coulombs). .........96

5-11 Correlation Coefficients (R2) of RCP and Surface Resistivity to Reference Tests by Monte Carlo Simulation Analysis......................................................................................97

5-12 1 and 3 year Bulk Diffusion Relative to 91-Day RCP Charge Passed (Coulombs) by Monte Carlo Simulation Analysis......................................................................................97

6-1 Calculated Diffusion Parameters of Cored Samples........................................................120

6-2 Time Dependent Changes in Diffusion Coefficients from Submerged and Tidal Zones................................................................................................................................121

6-3 Laboratory Bulk Diffusion Coefficients for Comparable Mixtures with an Expected Low Chloride Permeability Design. ................................................................................121

7-1 Allowable RCP Values for a 28-Day Test for Concrete Elements Under Extremely Aggressive Environments (Very Low Chloride Permeability) and Associated Confidence Levels. ..........................................................................................................131

7-2 28-Day RCP Pass Rates of Several Concrete Samples by FDOT Standard Specifications (FDOT 346 2004).....................................................................................131

7-3 Allowable RCP Values for a 28-Day Test with a 90% Confidence Levels for Concrete Elements with Different Chloride Permeability. ..............................................132



7-6 Allowable Surface Resistivity Values for a 28-Day Test for Concrete Elements Under Extremely Aggressive Environments. ..................................................................133

7-7 28-Day Surface Resistivity Pass Rates of Several Concrete Samples by FDOT Standard Specifications (FDOT 346 2004)......................................................................133

9

7-8 Allowable Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) Values for a 28-Day Test with a 90% Confidence Levels for Concrete Elements with Different Chloride Permeability. .........134



A-1 Appendix Concrete Mixture Labeling System Conversion. ............................................142

B-1 Concrete Compressive Strength Data Results .................................................................143

C-1 Initial Chloride Background Level of Concrete Mixtures. ..............................................148

C-2 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Chloride Profile Testing Results.................................................149

C-3 3-Year Bulk Diffusion Chloride Profile Testing Results.................................................163

D-1 Initial Chloride Background Level of Cored Samples.....................................................177

D-2 Chloride Profile Testing Results of Cored Samples. .......................................................178

E-1 RCP Coulombs Testing Results.......................................................................................184

E-2 SR (Lime Cured) Testing Results. ...................................................................................185

E-3 SR (Moist Cured) Testing Results. ..................................................................................189

H-1 HRP Project Concrete Mixture Designs. .........................................................................206

H-2 Initial Chloride Background Levels from HRP Project...................................................206

H-3 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Chloride Profile Testing from HRP Project................................206

H-4 St. George Island Bridge Pile Testing Project Chloride Profile Testing of Cored Samples ............................................................................................................................208

10

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure page 2-1 Fick’s Second Law of Diffusion Regression Analysis Example. ......................................38

2-2 Ninety-day Salt Ponding Test Setup (AASHTO T259).....................................................38

2-3 Bulk Diffusion Test Setup (NordTest NTBuild 443). .......................................................39

2-4 Rapid Chloride Permeability Test Setup (AASHTO T277, ASTM C1202). ....................39

2-5 Four-point Wenner Probe Test Setup. ...............................................................................40

2-6 Time-Dependent Diffusion Coefficients for Concrete having Various Water/Cementitious and Contents of High Reactivity Metakaolin ...................................40

2-7 Different Times t for Calculating the Curve Fitting Constant that Describes the Rate of Change of the Diffusion ................................................................................................41

2-8 Diffusion Regression Analysis Example of a Bridge Cored Sample. ...............................41

3-1 Air Curing of Cast Concrete Specimens............................................................................58

3-2 Casting of Field Mixture Specimens..................................................................................58

3-3 Field Samples Curing during transport to Laboratory. ......................................................58

3-4 FDOT District Map with Field Mixture Locations............................................................59

3-5 Hurricane Pass Bridge (HPB) General Span View............................................................59

3-6 Hurricane Pass Bridge (HPB) Substructure Elements. ......................................................60

3-7 Broadway Replacement East Bound Bridge (BRB) General Span View..........................60

3-8 Broadway Replacement East Bound Bridge (BRB) Substructure Elements. ....................60

3-9 Seabreeze West Bound Bridge (SWB) General Span View..............................................61

3-10 Seabreeze West Bound Bridge (SWB) Substructure Elements. ........................................61

3-11 Granada Bridge (GRB) General Span View......................................................................61

3-12 Granada Bridge (GRB) Substructure Elements .................................................................62

3-13 Turkey Creek Bridge (TCB) General Span View..............................................................62

3-14 Turkey Creek Bridge (TCB) Substructure Elements. ........................................................62

11

3-15 New Roosevelt (NRB) General Span View.......................................................................63

3-16 New Roosevelt (NRB) Substructure Elements. .................................................................63

3-17 Cored Element Location Defined by the Water Tide Region between High Tine Line (HTL) and the Organic Tide Line (OTL) ..........................................................................63

3-18 Bridge Coring Process .......................................................................................................64

3-19 Obtaining Cored Sample....................................................................................................64

3-20 Repairing Structural Cored Member..................................................................................65

4-1 Cutting Bulk Diffusion Samples into Two Halves. ...........................................................72

4-2 Bulk Diffusion Saline Solution Exposure..........................................................................72

4-3 RCP test top surface removal of the sample preparation procedure. .................................73

4-4 RCP Sample Preparation....................................................................................................73

4-5 RCP Sample Sealed with Epoxy........................................................................................74

4-6 RCP Sample Preconditioning Procedure ...........................................................................74

4-7 RCP Test Set-Up................................................................................................................75

4-8 Surface Resistivity Measurements. ....................................................................................75

4-9 Profile Grinding Using a Milling Machine........................................................................76

5-1 Comparative Compressive Strength Development of Laboratory Control Mixture and Laboratory Mixtures ..........................................................................................................98

5-2 Comparative Compressive Strength Development of Laboratory Control Mixture and Field Mixtures....................................................................................................................99

5-3 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficient Comparisons. ...........................................................100

5-4 3-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficient Comparisons. ...........................................................100

5-5 Pozzolans and Corrosion Inhibitors Effects on Bulk Diffusion Coefficients. .................101

5-6 1-Year Bulk Diffusion vs. RCP (AASHTO T277)..........................................................101

5-7 3-Year Bulk Diffusion vs. RCP (AASHTO T277)..........................................................102

5-8 1-Year Bulk Diffusion vs. SR (Lime Cured) Conductivity .............................................102

12

5-9 3-Year Bulk Diffusion vs. SR (Lime Cured) Conductivity .............................................103

5-10 1-Year Bulk Diffusion vs. SR (Moist Cured) Conductivity ............................................103

5-11 3-Year Bulk Diffusion vs. SR (Moist Cured) Conductivity ............................................104

5-12 Curing Method Comparison of Correlation Coefficients with 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Test...................................................................................................................................104

5-13 Curing Method Comparison of Correlation Coefficients with 3-Year Bulk Diffusion Test...................................................................................................................................105

5-14 AASHTO T259 Total Integral Chloride Content Analysis. ............................................105

5-15 RCP Test Coulomb Results Change With the Addition of Fly Ash and Silica Fume. ....106

5-16 RCP Test Coulomb Results Change With Age................................................................107

5-17 General Correlation Coefficients (R2) of Electrical Tests by Testing Ages with 1-Year Bulk Diffusion.........................................................................................................108

5-18 General Correlation Coefficients (R2) of Electrical Tests by Testing Ages with 3-Year Bulk Diffusion.........................................................................................................108

5-19 Relating Electrical Tests and 1-Year Bulk Diffusion ......................................................109

5-20 Relating Electrical Tests and 3-Year Bulk Diffusion ......................................................109

5-21 Schematic Process of Bulk Diffusion Correlation to RCP Using Monte Carlo Simulation ........................................................................................................................110

5-22 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficient of Variation Change by the Number of Samples Used in Monte Carlo Simulation for the Different 28-Day RCP Standard Limits ..........111

5-23 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficient of Variation Change by the Number of Samples Used in Monte Carlo Simulation for the Different 91-Day RCP Standard Limits ..........112

5-24 General Correlation Coefficients (R2) of Electrical Tests by Testing Ages with 1-Year Bulk Diffusion by Monte Carlo Simulation Analysis.............................................112

5-25 General Correlation Coefficients (R2) of Electrical Tests by Testing Ages with 3-Year Bulk Diffusion by Monte Carlo Simulation Analysis.............................................113

6-1 Diffusion Regression Analysis for Cored Samples for NRB and HPB Bridge ...............122

6-2 Diffusion Regression Analysis for Cored Sample GRB Bridge......................................122

6-3 Chloride Exposure Zones of a Typical Bridge Structure.................................................123

13

6-4 Time Dependent Changes in Diffusion Coefficients from Submerged and Tidal Zones................................................................................................................................123

6-5 Time Dependent Laboratory and Field Diffusion Coefficient Trend of Change.............124

7-1 90% Confidence Limit for Mean Response of 28-Day RCP Test vs. 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Test Correlation. ..............................................................................................135

7-2 28-Day RCP Coulombs Limit with a 90% Confidence Level for Concrete Elements with a Very Low Chloride Permeability..........................................................................135

7-3 28-Day RCP Coulombs Limit with a 90% Confidence Level for Concrete Elements with a Moderate Chloride Permeability...........................................................................136

7-4 28-Day RCP Coulombs Limit with a 90% Confidence Level for Concrete Elements with a Low Chloride Permeability...................................................................................136

7-5 28-Day RCP Coulombs Limit with a 90% Confidence Level for Concrete Elements with a Negligible Chloride Permeability. ........................................................................137

7-6 90% Confidence Limit for Mean Response of 28-Day Surface Resistivity Test (Moist Cured) vs. 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Test Correlation.............................................137

7-7 28-Day Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) Limit with a 90% Confidence Level for Concrete Elements with a Very Low Chloride Permeability...........................................138

7-8 28-Day Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) Limit with a 90% Confidence Level for Concrete Elements with a Moderate Chloride Permeability............................................138

7-9 28-Day Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) Limit with a 90% Confidence Level for Concrete Elements with a Low Chloride Permeability....................................................139

7-10 28-Day Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) Limit with a 90% Confidence Level for Concrete Elements with a Negligible Chloride Permeability. .........................................139

B-1 Concrete Compression Strength Graphs. .........................................................................145

C-1 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficient Regression Analysis.................................................153

C-2 3-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficient Regression Analysis.................................................167

D-1 Cored Samples Chloride Diffusion Coefficient Regression Analysis. ............................181

F-1 Electrical Test Modified Linear Regression Analysis to 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Data ...194

F-2 Electrical Test Modified Linear Regression Analysis to 3-Year Bulk Diffusion Data ...195

G-1 RCP Coulombs vs. 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficients .................................................196

14

G-2 RCP Coulombs vs. 3-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficients .................................................197

G-3 SR (Lime Cured) vs. 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficients ..............................................198

G-4 SR (Lime Cured) vs. 3-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficients ..............................................200

G-5 SR (Moist Cured) vs. 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficients..............................................202

G-6 SR (Moist Cured) vs. 3-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficients..............................................204

H-1 Diffusion Coefficient Results from HRP Project.............................................................207

H-2 St. George Island Bridge Pile Testing Project Diffusion Coefficients ............................209

15

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

ALLOWABLE LIMITS FOR CONDUCTIVITY TEST METHODS AND DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT PREDICTION OF CONCRETE STRUCTURES EXPOSED TO MARINE

ENVIRONMENTS

By

Enrique A. Vivas

December 2007

Chair: H. R. Hamilton Major: Civil Engineering

This work details research conducted on methods used to rapidly determine the resistance

of concrete to the penetration of chloride ions. These methods, based on the electrical

conductivity of concrete, were Rapid Chloride Permeability (RCP) (AASHTO T277, ASTM

C1202) and Surface Resistivity (SR) (FM 5-578). The results of these conductivity tests were

compared to the Bulk Diffusion (NordTest NTBuild 443) test, which allow a more natural

penetration of the concrete by the chlorides.

Nineteen different mixtures were prepared using materials typically used in construction in

the State of Florida. Twelve mixtures were laboratory prepared and the remaining seven mixtures

were obtained at various field sites around the State. The concrete mixtures were designed to

have a range of permeabilities. Some of the designs included such pozzolans as fly ash and silica

fume. One mixture was prepared with calcium nitrate corrosion inhibitor.

Diffusion coefficients were determined from the Bulk Diffusion test using a 1 and 3-year

chloride exposure period. The electrical results from the short-term tests RCP and SR at 14, 28,

56, 91, 182 and 364 days of age were then compared to the long-term diffusion reference test.

16

A new calibrated scale to categorize the equivalent RCP measured charge in coulombs to

the chloride ion permeability of the concrete was developed. The proposed scale was based on

the correlation of the 91-day RCP results related to the chloride permeability measured by a 1-

year Bulk Diffusion test.

Finally, to provide additional data to which the laboratory long-term Bulk Diffusion results

can be compared, several concrete specimens were collected from six selected FDOT bridges

located in marine environments. A total of 14 core samples were obtained from the substructures

tidal zone of exposure. The average chloride exposure was ten-years. The diffusion results

obtained showed considerable lower chloride penetration than the 1 and 3 year laboratory results.

It appears that the laboratory methods overestimate the chloride ingress from concrete exposed in

the field.

17

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

Deterioration of reinforced and prestressed concrete structures exposed to a marine

environment is a growing problem in the state of Florida and in many other countries throughout

the world. The main reason is corrosion of the reinforcing steel due to the penetration of chloride

ions through the concrete either through cracks or diffusion, or both. Chloride diffusion is the

principal mechanism that drives chloride ions through the pore structure of uncracked concrete

(Tuutti 1982; Stanish and Thomas 2003). Therefore, the ability to measure and predict chloride

diffusion, both for existing and planned structures is very important.

The chloride diffusion of porous materials such as concrete is determined conventionally

by tests based on the immersion of specimens in a known chloride concentration solution for a

period of time. These methods, however, are time-consuming and often required several years to

obtain representative results. Therefore, several accelerated test methods have been proposed

over the years to address the lack of practicability of the long-term diffusion procedures. These

accelerated test methods are intended to predict diffusion rates for a specific mixture design in a

relatively short time period. In some methods, the transport of chloride ions through the concrete

is accelerated by applying an external electrical potential, forcing the chloride ions through the

sample at an accelerated rate. The electrical resistivity of saturated concrete samples has also

been used as an indirect measure of the ease in which chlorides ions can penetrate concrete

(Hooton, Thomas and Stanish 2001). However, there is very little experimental information on

the ability of these accelerated procedures to reliably predict the penetration of chloride ions into

concrete under natural conditions.

The accelerated methods have been criticized because they do not necessarily replicate the

natural conditions of chloride penetration of concrete (Pfeifer, McDonald and Krauss 1994).

18

Nevertheless, the results of these accelerated methods are commonly used for mixture design

development and quality control. Though imperfect, a rational method to relate the short-term

results to the results of tests under more natural conditions might improve the usefulness of the

short-term results. Or at least, this would help to make the short-term results more meaningful.

Long-term diffusion coefficients obtained from uncracked concrete samples tested in the

laboratory were selected as a benchmark to evaluate the electrical tests. These diffusion

coefficients represented a more natural rate of chloride ingress into the concrete.

The objective of this research was to develop a rational method by which selected

accelerated electrical tests can be calibrated so that, with reasonable confidence, chloride

diffusion coefficients under natural conditions can be predicted for the typical concrete mixtures

used in this research. This approach was expanded to include the development of limits for use in

evaluating the results of the accelerated test methods. Moreover, laboratory diffusion test

methods were compared to chloride ingress into concrete exposed to aggressive marine

environments.

19

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

Mechanism of Chloride Ion Transport

There are four fundamental modes that chloride ions are transported through concrete.

They are diffusion, capillary absorption, evaporative transport and hydrostatic pressure.

Diffusion is the movement of chloride ions under a concentration gradient. It will occur when the

concentration of chlorides on the outside of the concrete member is greater than on the inside.

The chlorides ions in concrete will naturally migrate from the regions of high concentration (high

energy) to the low concentration (low energy) as long as sufficient moisture is present along the

path of migration. Moreover, it is the principal mechanism that drives chloride ions into the pore

structure of concrete (Tuutti 1982; Stanish and Thomas 2003).

Capillary absorption occurs when the dry surface of the concrete is exposed to moisture

(perhaps containing chlorides). The solution is drawn into the porous matrix of the concrete by

capillary suction, much like a sponge. Generally, the shallow depth of chloride ion penetration

by capillary action will not reach the reinforcing steel. It will, however, reduce the distance that

chloride ions must travel by diffusion (Thomas, Pantazopoulou and Martin-Perez 1995).

The evaporative transport mechanism, also known as wicking effect, is produced by vapor

conduction from a wet side surface to a drier atmosphere. This is a vapor diffusivity process

where a retained body of liquid in the pore structure of the concrete evaporates and leaves

deposits of chlorides inside. For this mechanism to occur, it is necessary that one of the surfaces

be air-exposed.

Another mechanism for chloride ingress is permeation, driven by hydrostatic pressure

gradients. A hydrostatic pressure gradient can provide the required force to move liquid

containing chlorides ions through the internal concrete matrix. An external hydrostatic pressure

20

can be supplied by a constant wave action or by a retained body of water like bridges, piers,

dams, etc. that are exposed to a marine environment (Chini, Muszynski and Hicks 2003).

Diffusion of Chloride Ions

Chloride diffusion into concrete, like any other diffusion process, is controlled by Fick’s

First Law. It describes the flow of an impurity in a substance, showing that the rate of diffusion

of the material across a given plane is proportional to the concentration gradient across that

plane. It states for chloride diffusion into concrete or for any diffusion process considered in one-

dimensional situation that:

dxdCDJ −= (2-1)

where J - the rate of diffusion of the chloride ions D - chloride diffusion coefficient (m2/s) C - concentration of chloride ions (% mass) x - depth below the exposed surface (to the middle of a layer) (m). The minus sign means that mass is flowing in the direction of decreasing concentration.

The diffusion coefficient considered the effect of the chloride ions movement through a

heterogeneous material like the concrete. Hence, the rate of diffusion calculated includes the

effect of the concrete porous matrix that contains both solid and liquid components. The equation

can be used only when no changes in concentration in time are present. Therefore, this equation

can be only be used after a steady-state condition have been reached.

Fick’s Second Law is a derivation of the first law to represent the changes of concentration

gradient with time. It states that for the diffusion coefficient (D) the rate of change in

concentration with time (t) is proportional to the rate at which the concentration gradient changes

with distance in a given direction:

2

2

xCD

tC

∂∂

=∂∂ (2-2)

21

If the following boundary conditions are assumed: surface concentration is constant

(C(x=0, t>0) = C0), initial concentration in the concrete is zero (C(x>0, t=0) = 0) and

concentration at an infinite point far enough from the surface is zero (C(x=∞, t>0) = 0). The

equation can then be reduced to:

)4

(1),(

0 Dtxerf

CtxC

−= (2-3)

where C(x,t) - chloride concentration, measured at depth x and exposure time t (% mass) t - the exposure time (sec) erf - error function (tables with values of the error function are given in standard

mathematical reference books). The Crank’s solution to Fick’s Second Law of Diffusion can also be presented in the

following form:

⎟⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛−−=

DtxerfCCCtx iss 4

)(),(C (2-4)

where Ci - initial chloride-ion concentration of the cementitious mixture prior to the submersion in the exposure solution (% mass)

A common method of determining the concrete chloride diffusion is to expose saturated

samples constantly to a chloride solution for a known period of time. The chloride concentrations

at varying depths are then obtained and diffusion coefficients and surface chloride concentrations

are determined by fitting the profiled data to the non-linear Fick’s Second Law of Diffusion

solution (Figure 2-1).

Test Methods to Predict Permeability of the Concrete

Permeability is defined as the resistance of the concrete to chloride ion penetration. Several

researchers (Dhir and Byars 1993; Li, Peng and Ma 1999; Page, Short and El Tarras 1981) have

attempted to capture the natural diffusion of chlorides through the concrete pore structure by

immersing or ponding samples with salt solution. These test methods, however, require

considerable time to obtain a realistic flow of chlorides. Consequently, numerous accelerated test

22

procedures have been designed to predict the penetration of chloride ions. The accelerated

methods permit diffusion rates to be established for a specific mixture design in a relatively short

time period. The migration of chlorides through the sample is generally accelerated by the

application of an electrical potential, forcing the chloride ions through the sample at an

accelerated rate.

The following sections describe the testing procedures that have been selected for the

research as the methods that represent the more natural ingress of chloride ions and some

accelerated test methods.

Resistance of Concrete to Chloride Ion Penetration (“90-Day Salt Ponding Test”) (AASHTO T259)

AASHTO T259 has been traditionally the most widely used method of determining the

actual resistance of concrete to chloride ion penetration. For this test, three concrete slabs

measuring 3-inch (76-mm) thick and 12-inch (305-mm) square are used. These slabs are moist

cured for 14 days and then kept for an additional 28 days in a drying room with a 50 percent

relative humidity environment. A dam is affixed to the non-finished face of the slab and a 3

percent NaCl solution is ponded on the surface, leaving the bottom face of the slabs exposed to

the drying environment (Figure 2-2). The specimens are maintained with a constant amount of

the chloride solution for a period of 90 days. They are removed from the drying room and

chloride ion content of half-inch thick slices is determined according to the standard method of

test for sampling and testing for chloride ion in concrete and concrete raw materials (ASTM

C1152/C1152M 1990 or AASHTO T 260 1997).

The ponding test has several limitations. The complete test takes at least 118 days to

complete (moist cured for 14 days, dried for 14 days and ponded for 90 days). This means that

the chloride permeability samples must be cast at least four months before a particular concrete

23

mixture will be used in the field. In addition, the 90-day ponding period is often too short to

allow sufficient chloride penetration in higher strength concrete. Pozzolans such as fly ash or

silica fume have been shown to greatly reduce the permeability of concrete, thus reducing the

penetration of chlorides over the 90-day test period (Scanlon and Sherman 1996). Consequently,

an extended ponding time is generally necessary to ensure sufficient penetration of chloride ions

(Hooton, Thomas and Stanish 2001; Scanlon and Sherman 1996).

Another drawback of this test method is that sampling every 0.5 inch (13 mm) does not

provide a fine enough measurement to allow for determination of a profile of the chloride

penetration. Only the average of the chloride penetration in those slices is obtained, not the

actual variation of the chloride concentration over that 0.5 inch (13 mm) (Hooton, Thomas and

Stanish 2001). The actual penetration depth is a more useful measurement rather than an average

chloride content as measured in the slices (Hooton 1997). This is particularly important in low

permeability concrete where the chloride content can change drastically over a short length.

The ponding test forces chloride intrusion through immediate absorption; long-term

diffusion of chloride into the concrete under a static concentration gradient; and wicking due to

drying from the exposed surface of the specimen (Scanlon and Sherman 1996). Since the sample

initially has to be dried for 28 days, an absorption effect occurs when it is first exposed to the

NaCl solution by capillary suction, pulling chlorides into the concrete (Glass and Buenfeld

1995). During the ponding process one of the exposed faces is submerged in the solution while

the other is exposed to air at 50 percent relative humidity (presumably to model the underside of

a bridge deck). This creates vapor conduction (wicking) from the wet side face of the sample to

the drier face, which enhances the natural diffusion of the chloride ions. There is still some

controversy concerning the relative importance of these mechanisms in actual field conditions.

24

McGrath and Hooton (1999) have suggested that the relative importance of the absorption effect

is overestimated. Hooton, Thomas and Stanish (2001) have indicated that the relative amounts of

chloride ions drawn into the concrete by the absorption effect compared to the amount entering

by diffusion will be greater when the test is run only for a short period of time compared to the

relative amounts during the lifetime of a structure. Moreover, they exposed that the wicking

effect is also overestimated by the test procedure. The actual structure humidity gradient will

likely be less, at least for part of the time, than the exposed during the test.

Bulk Diffusion Test (Nordtest NTBUILD 443)

The bulk diffusion procedure was developed in order to address some of the problems with

the 90-day salt ponding test. The test was standardized as a Nordtest procedure (an organization

for test methods in the Nordic countries). The main focus of the modifications was to attain a

better controlled “diffusion only” test with no contribution from absorption or wicking effects

(Hooton, Thomas and Stanish 2001). This will improve the precision of the profile obtained for

the simulation of a long-term chloride penetration. The method can be applied to new samples or

samples taken from existing structures.

The sample configuration used for this procedure is a 4-inch (102-mm) diameter by 4-inch

(102-mm) long concrete cylinder. In contrast to AASHTO T259, the specimens are immediately

placed in a saturated limewater solution after a 28 days moist cured period. This wet condition

prevents the initial sorption when the solution first contacts the specimen. Furthermore, the

sample is sealed on all faces except the one that is exposed to the 2.8 M NaCl solution (16.5%

NaCl) (Figure 2-3). The test procedure calls for an exposure period of at least 35 days for lower-

quality concretes (NTBuild 443 1995). For higher-quality concrete mixtures, the exposure time

must be extended to at least 90-days.

25

The chloride profiles are performed immediately after the exposure period. The profile

layers are obtained by grinding the sample with a diamond-tipped bit. The benefit of pulverizing

the profile by this method is the accuracy of depths that can be attained. Chloride profiles with

depth increments on the order of 0.02 inch (0.5 mm) can be attained. The actual chloride

penetration depth calculated by this method gives more resolution than the 0.5-inch (13-mm)

layers obtained from 90-day salt ponding test procedure.

Electrical Indication of Concrete’s Ability to Resist Chloride Ion Penetration (“Rapid Chloride Permeability”)(AASHTO T277, ASTM C1202)

The rapid chloride permeability test (RCP) is one of the short-term procedures most widely

used to assess concrete durability. The test is, however, a measurement of the electrical

conductivity of concrete, rather than a direct measure of concrete permeability. Nonetheless, its

results correlate reasonably well with those from the long term 90-day salt ponding test (Whiting

1981). More recent research has found inconsistent test results when the samples contained

pozzolans or corrosion inhibitors (Pfeifer, McDonald and Krauss 1994; Scanlon and Sherman

1996 and Wee, Suryavanshi and Tin 2000).

The test method measures the electrical conductance by subjecting a 4-inch (102-mm)

diameter by 2-inch (51-mm) thick saturated sample to a 60-volt DC potential for a period of six

hours. One side of the specimen is immersed in a reservoir with a 3.0 percent NaCl solution, and

the other side to another reservoir containing a 0.3 N NaOH solution (1.2% NaOH) (Figure 2-4).

The cumulative electrical charge, measured in coulombs, represents the current passed through

the concrete sample during the test period. The area under the current versus time curve was

found to correlate with the resistance of the specimen to chloride ion penetration (Whiting 1981).

According to ASTM C1202, permeability levels based on charge passed through the sample are

presented on Table 2-1.The RCP test has received much criticism from researchers during the

26

past decade for inconsistencies found when the electrical resistivity-based measurements

obtained are compared with diffusion-based test procedures like the 90-day salt ponding test

(Andrade 1993; Feldman et al. 1994; Pfeifer, McDonald and Krauss 1994; Scanlon and Sherman

1996 and Shi, Stegemann and Caldwell 1998; Shi 2003). One of the main criticisms is that

permeability depends on the pore structure of the concrete, while electrical conductivity of the

water saturated concrete depends not only on the pore structure but also the chemistry of pore

solution. Changes in pore solution chemistry generate considerable alterations in the electrical

conductivity of the sample. These variations can be produced by adding fly ash, silica fume,

metakaoline or ground blast furnace slag. Silica fume, metakaoline and ground blast furnace slag

are reactive materials that may considerably improve the pore structure and reduce the

permeability of the concrete. This is not the case with fly ash, however, because it is slow

reacting and generally reduces permeability by only 10 to 20% at 90 days. In addition, the

reduction in charge passed in the presence of fly ash is mainly due to a reduction of pore solution

alkalinity, rather than a reduction in the permeability of the concrete (Shi 2003).

Another criticism is that the high voltage of 60 volts applied during the test leads to an

increase in temperature, especially for a low quality concrete, which may result in an apparent

increase in the permeability due to a higher charge being passed (McGrath and Hooton 1999;

Snyder et al. 2000 and Yang, Cho and Huang 2002). Several modifications to the procedures

have been proposed to minimize the temperature effect. One (Yang, Cho and Huang 2002)

proposes an increase in the standardized acrylic reservoirs from 250 ml (as recommended by

ASTM C1202) to 4750 ml. It was found that the chloride diffusion coefficient from RCP reached

a steady-state after chloride-ions pass through the specimen. Another modification is to record

27

the charge passed at the 30-minute mark and linearly extrapolate to the specified test period of 6

hours (McGrath and Hooton 1999).

The standardized RCP test method, ASTM C1202, is commonly required by construction

project specifications for both precast and cast-in-place concrete. An arbitrary value, chosen

from the scale shown on Table 2-1 of less than 1000 coulombs is usually specified by the

engineer or owner for concrete elements under extremely aggressive environments (Pfeifer,

McDonald and Krauss 1994). This low RCP coulomb limit is required by the Florida Department

of Transportation (FDOT) when Class V or Class V Special concrete containing silica fume or

metakaolin as a pozzolan is tested on 28 days concrete samples (FDOT 346 2004).

Surface Resistivity Test Using the Four-Point Wenner Probe (FM 5-578)

Concrete conductivity is fundamentally related to the permeability of fluids and the

diffusivity of ions through a porous material (Whiting and Mohamad 2003). As a result, the

electrical resistivity can be used as an indirect measure of the ease in which chlorides ions can

penetrate concrete (Hooton, Thomas and Stanish 2001). The resistivity of a saturated porous

medium, such as concrete, is mainly measured by the conductivity through its pore solution

(Streicher and Alexander 1995).

Two procedures have been developed to determine the electrical resistivity of concrete.

The first method involves passing a direct current through a concrete specimen placed between

two electrodes. The electrical concrete porous resistivity between the two electrodes is measured.

The actual resistance measured by this method can be reduced by an unknown amount due to

polarization at the probe contact interface. The second method solves the polarization problem

by passing an alternating current (AC) through the sample. A convenient tool to measure using

this method is the four-point Wenner Probe resistivity meter (Hooton, Thomas and Stanish

2001). The set up utilizes four equally spaced surface contacts, where a small alternating current

28

is passed through the concrete sample between the outer pair of contacts. The current drive

presents a trapezoidal waveform at a frequency of 13-Hz. A digital voltmeter is used to measure

the potential difference between the two inner electrodes, obtaining the resistance from the ratio

of voltage to current (Figure 2-5). This resistance is then used to calculate resistivity of the

section. The resistivity ρ of a prismatic section of length L and section area A is given by:

LAR

=ρ (2-5)

where R is the resistance of the specimen calculated by dividing the potential V by the applied current I.

The resistivity ρ for a concrete cylinder can be calculated by the following formula:

⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛

⎟⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛=

IV

Ld 14

2πρ (2-6)

where d is the cylinder diameter and L its length (Morris, Moreno and Sagües 1996).

Assuming that the concrete cylinder has homogeneous semi-infinite geometry (the

dimensions of the element are large in comparison of the probe spacing), and the probe depth is

far less than the probe spacing, the concrete cylinder resistivity ρ is given by Equation 2-7

( ) ⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛=

IVaπρ 2 (2-7)

where a is the electrode spacing (Figure 2-5).

The non-destructive nature, speed, and ease of use make the Wenner Probe technique a

promising alternative test to characterize concrete permeability. Results from Wenner Probe

testing can vary significantly if the degree of saturation or conductivity of the concrete is

inconsistent. Techniques to achieve more uniform saturation, such as vacuum saturation or

submerging in water overnight, can be performed in the laboratory. However, the laboratory pre-

saturation procedure still presents some inconsistencies. The known conductivity of the added

solution changes when mixed with the ions (mainly alkali hydroxides) still present in the

29

concrete pores after the drying process (Hooton, Thomas and Stanish 2001). To overcome this

problem, Streicher and Alexander (1995) suggested the use of a high conductivity solution, for

example 5 M NaCl, to saturate the sample so that the change in conductivity from the ions

remaining in the concrete is insignificant.

Use of the Wenner Probe on concrete in the field presents further complications. The test

can give misleading results when used on field samples with unknown conductivity pore

solution. Therefore, the pore solution must be removed from the sample to determine its

resistivity or the sample must be pre-saturated with a known conductivity solution (Hooton,

Thomas and Stanish 2001). Moreover, pre-saturation of the concrete requires that the sample be

first dried to prevent dilution of the saturation solution. Some in situ drying techniques, however,

can cause microcracks to form in the pore structure of the concrete, resulting in an increase in

diffusivity. Another possible problem with the in situ readings is that reinforcing steel can cause

a “short circuit” path and give a misleadingly low reading. The readings should be taken at right-

angles to the steel rather than along the reinforcing length to minimize this error (Broomfield and

Millard 2002). Hooton, Thomas and Stanish (2001) have suggested that because of these

problems, the Wenner probe should only be used in the laboratory, on either laboratory-cast

specimens or on cores taken from the structure without steel.

The test probe spacing is critical to obtaining accurate measurements of surface resistivity.

The Wenner resistivity technique assumes that the material measured is homogeneous (Chini,

Muszynski and Hicks 2003). In addition, the electrical resistivity of the concrete is mainly

governed by the cement paste microstructure (Whiting, and Mohamad 2003). It depends upon

the capillary pore size, pore system complexity and moisture content. Changes in aggregate type,

however, can influence the electrical resistivity of concrete. Monfore (1962) measured the

30

electrical resistivity of several aggregates typically used in concrete by themselves (Table 2-2).

The resistivity of a concrete mixture containing granite aggregate has higher than a mixture

containing limestone (Whiting and Mohamad 2003). Moreover, other research (Hughes, Soleit

and Brierly 1985) shows that as the aggregate content increases, the electrical resistance of the

concrete will also increase. Gowers and Millard (1999) determined that the minimum probe

spacing should be 1.5 times the maximum aggregate size, or ¼ the depth of the specimen, to

guarantee more accurate readings. Morris, Moreno and Sagües 1996 suggest averaging multiple

readings taken with varying internal probe spacings. Another reasonable technique is to average

multiple readings in different locations of the concrete surface. In the case of test cylinders, the

readings can be made in four locations at 90-degree increments to minimized variability induced

by the presence of a single aggregate particle interfering with the readings (Chini, Muszynski

and Hicks 2003).

Chini, Muszynski and Hicks (2003) evaluated the possible replacement of the widely used

electrical RCP test (AASHTO T277, ASTM C1202) by the simple non-destructive surface

resistivity test. The research program correlated results from the two tests from a wide

population of more than 500 sample sets. The samples were collected from actual job sites of

concrete pours at the state of Florida. The tests were compared over the entire sample population

regardless of concrete class or admixture present to evaluate the strength of the relationship

between procedures. The two tests showed a strong relationship. The levels of agreement (R2)

values reported were as high as 0.95 for samples tested at 28 days and 0.93 for samples tested at

91 days. Finally, a rating table to aid the interpretation of the surface resistivity results was

proposed (Table 2-3) based on the previous permeability ranges provided in the standard RCP

test (Table 2-1).

31

Time Dependent Diffusion in Concrete

As concrete matures, the ongoing internal hydration process reduces the diffusion

coefficient (Stanish and Thomas 2003). The diffusion will decrease as the time passes since the

capillary pore volume is reduce by the continued formation of internal hydration products.

Moreover, some chloride ions will become chemically or physically bound as they penetrate the

pore system (Nokken et al. 2006). Previous research has found that the change in chloride

diffusion during time followed a nonlinear tendency (Boddy et al. 1999; Mangat and Molloy

1994; Nokken et al. 2006). When plotted on a logarithmic scale the data were found to be linear.

(Figure 2-6). Therefore, the variation of the chloride diffusion coefficient with time can be

expressed as a power function:

mref

ref tt

DtD ⎟⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛=)( (2-8)

where D(t) - diffusion coefficient at time t (instantaneous diffusion coefficient) Dref - the diffusion coefficient at some reference time tref m - curve fitting constant that describes the rate of change of the diffusion coefficient. The constant m depends on the concrete mix proportions such as the type of cementitious

materials used for the mixture to account for the rate of reduction of diffusion with time (Nokken

et al. 2006). Only few values of the m are available from the literature for relatively short time

periods of exposure. Although these data represent only concrete behavior at early ages (up to 3

years), further research (Thomas and Bamforth 1999) have indicated that the transport properties

continue to decay at the same rate predicted from these early age tests. Further research to

properly quantify this parameter would improve the precision of the diffusion predictions. Table

2-4 shows some reported constant m values by previous research projects (Stanish and Thomas

2003; Boddy, Hooton and Gruber 2001; Thomas and Bamforth 1999; Nokken et al. 2006;

Thomas et al. 1999).

32

The mathematical model proposed by Crank’s solution to Fick’s second law of diffusion

assumes a constant diffusion coefficient over the testing period. This same mathematical model

is typically used in some form to calculate the diffusion coefficient for the previously discussed

chloride penetration test methods. In reality, the diffusion coefficient is decreasing rather rapidly

(Figure 2-6) during the early age of the sample. Consequently, the resultant coefficient value is

an average of the changing diffusion coefficient over the period of exposure. This average

measured diffusion coefficient will equal the instantaneous diffusion coefficient at some point

during the testing period. The diffusion coefficient obtained from Equation 2-8, D(t), represents

this instantaneous diffusion coefficient at time t. Given that the change in diffusion with time is

non-linear, the determination of the effective age during the exposure that correlates to the

average diffusion coefficient determined for that period is not straightforward. Stanish and

Thomas (2003) developed a useful method to establish at what age the instantaneous diffusion

coefficient, effective age, is equal to the average diffusion coefficient. To determine this age, the

instantaneous diffusion coefficient presented in Equation 2-8 was integrated over time in order to

determine an average of diffusion coefficient:

∫

∫ ⎟⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛

=2

1

2

1t

t

t

t

mref

ref

AVGdt

dtt

tD

D (2-9)

where DAVG - average diffusion coefficient over the testing period. t1 and t2 – represent the age of the concrete at the start and completion of the diffusion test exposure, respectively. Additionally, the effective age at which the average of diffusion coefficient occurs was

also determined from the Equation 2-8:

m

eff

refrefAVG t

tDD ⎟

⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛= (2-10)

33

where: teff – effective age at which the DAVG occurs.

The obtained expression by equating Equations 2-9 and 2-10 determines at what age the

average of diffusion coefficient will occur based on diffusion tests conditions (beginning and end

of the immersion period, t1 and t2) and the rate of change of diffusion coefficient with time, m.

Moreover, a subsequent research project by Nokken et al. (2006) calculated different diffusion

coefficient estimations by using three different times (effective age, average age and total age)

(Figure 2-7). They found that there was a significant variation in the diffusion coefficients

calculated at the selected times in the time-dependent reduction Equation 2-8. This can lead to

significantly conservative or unconservative estimations of the service life of structures (Stanish

and Thomas 2003).

The concrete diffusion coefficient values have been used to model the period of time for

chloride ions to reach a critical corrosion concentration at the surface of the steel reinforcement

(Kirkpatricka et al. 2002). The time for corrosion initiation can be estimated from the diffusion

equation (Equation 2-4) when the concentration of chloride ions at steel reinforcement (C(x,t)) is

set equal to the chloride corrosion initiation concentration. Therefore, it is believed that this

estimation would be more accurate if the rate of change in the concrete diffusion properties with

time were included in the prediction (Nokken et al. 2006).

Effective Diffusion Coefficients of Concrete Structures Exposed to Marine Environments

The most notable assumption when using the previously described methods to determine

diffusion coefficients is that diffusion is the unique chloride mechanism that transports the

chloride ions through the concrete. This is a reasonable assumption for tests conducted under

controlled laboratory conditions, such as the bulk diffusion test. The bulk diffusion test is

believed to attain controlled “diffusion only” results with no contribution from other chloride

transports mechanisms. Figure 2-8 shows a typical example of a bulk diffusion sample fit to the

34

non-linear Fick’s Second Law of Diffusion. The results show very good agreement with the

expected diffusion regression. However, this controlled laboratory testing method presents

several drawbacks on estimating the lifetime behavior of concrete structural members exposed to

aggressive marine environments with consistently high temperature and humidity. These

environment conditions forced the chloride intrusion through additional mechanisms. Chloride

ingress by absorption and leaching of surface chloride are some of the additional mechanisms

induced by these environmental conditions. In order to differentiate between them, previous

researches (Kranc and Sagüés 2003; Sohanghpurwala 2006) have catalogued the results obtained

from laboratory samples as “apparent” diffusion coefficients and “effective” for diffusion

coefficients calculated from samples exposed to field conditions.

A marine substructure element is intermittently subjected to chloride exposure due to

changes of the water tides. These changes in water tides are due to the periodic tidal forces and

the effects of meteorological, hydrological and oceanographic conditions. This wetting and

drying phenomenon creates a chloride intrusion mechanism by absorption. Since the concrete

exposed surface is dry during a low tide period and hot weather conditions, an absorption effect

occurs when it is exposed to a high tide water level. The absorption is generated by capillary

suction of the concrete at the surface pulling chlorides into the concrete. This allows chloride ion

to penetrate more rapidly than by natural diffusion. The chloride ions then continue to move by

natural diffusion. Therefore, the absorption effect decreases the chloride path to reach the

reinforcing steel (Thomas et al. 1995).

The continuous changes on the water tides also induce leaching of unbonded shallow

surface chlorides. During concrete drying period, shallow surface water evaporates and chlorides

are left either as chemically bonded to the pore walls or as unbonded crystal forms.

35

Subsequently, when the concrete is again wetted, some of these unbonded crystals are leached

out of the concrete surface. Therefore, chloride profiles content can thus differ from that of a

chloride penetration under permanent immersion. The chloride concentration near the exposed

surface can be considerably less than deeper into the concrete. The profile shown in Figure 2-8

was obtained from a cored sample at the splash zone of a substructure element of a bridge. The

profile shows considerably lower chloride concentration near to the surface than the predicted by

Fick’s Law. It also shows that the consequent chloride profile penetrations, following the initial

surface values affected by leaching, fit the diffusion trend behavior. These consequent chlorides

accumulated at a further penetration either by the initial diffusion or absorption followed a

diffusion behavior. Therefore, effective diffusion coefficients can be also approximately

calculated by fitting the Fick’s Second Law of Diffusion by excluding these misleading peaks in

the regression analysis.

The effective diffusion coefficients account for all the effects that an aggressive

environment could subject a concrete element. Therefore, it provides a good estimate of the rate

of migration of chloride ions into the concrete. Previous researches (Sagüés 1994, Sagüés et al.

2001) have quantified few effective diffusion coefficients for particular structures located at the

state of Florida. These diffusion coefficients were calculated from cored samples obtained at

different bridge substructure locations around the state. The high cost and labor associated with

coring concrete samples from existing structures make this approach of analysis sometimes

untenable. Therefore, there is limited information on how these diffusion coefficients can be

predicted.

36

Table 2-1. Comparison of RCP Results with Ponding Tests (AASHTO T277, ASTM C1202) (Whiting 1981).

Chloride Permeability

Charge (Coulombs) Type of Concrete

Total Integral Chloride to 41 mm Depth After 90-day Ponding Test

High > 4,000 High water-to-cement ratio (>0.6) conventional Portland cement concrete

> 1.3

Moderate 2,000 - 4,000 Moderate water-to-cement ratio (0.4-0.5) conventional Portland cement concrete

0.8 - 1.3

Low 1,000 - 2,000 Low water-to-cement ratio (<0.4) conventional Portland cement concrete

0.55 – 0.8

Very Low 100 - 1,000 Latex modified concrete, internally sealed concrete

0.35 – 0.55

Negligible < 100 Polymer impregnated concrete, polymer concrete

< 0.35

Table 2-2. Measured Electrical Resistivities of Typical Aggregates used for Concrete (Monfore

1968). Type of Aggregate Resistivity (ohm-cm) Sandstone 18,000 Limestone 30,000 Marble 290,000 Granite 880,000 Table 2-3. Apparent Surface Resistivity for 4-inch (102-mm) Diameter by 8-inch (204-mm)

Long Concrete Cylinder using a Four-point Wenner Probe with 1.5-inch (38-mm) Probe Spacing. Values for 28 and 91-day Test (Chini, Muszynski and Hicks 2003).

Surface Resistivity Test Chloride Ion

Permeability RCP Test Charge

(Coulombs) 28-Day Test

(KOhm-cm) 91-Day Test

(KOhm-cm) High > 4,000 < 12 < 11 Moderate 2,000 - 4,000 12 -21 11 -19 Low 1,000 - 2,000 21 – 37 19 – 37 Very Low 100 - 1,000 37 – 254 37 – 295 Negligible < 100 > 254 > 295

37

Table 2-4. Several Curve Fitting Constants m that Describes the Rate of Change of the Diffusion Coefficient with Time for Various Concrete Mix Designs (Stanish and Thomas 2003; Boddy, Hooton and Gruber 2001; Thomas and Bamforth 1999; Nokken et al. 2006; Thomas et al. 1999).

Mix Design(a) m Mix Design(a) m 0.40w/c-0% 0.43 0.35w/c-12%FA 0.77 0.50w/c-0% 0.32 0.35w/c-18%FA 0.70 0.66w/c-0% 0.10 0.31w/c-12%FA 0.55 0.30w/c-4% SF 0.60 0.48w/c-70%Slag 1.20 0.40w/c-8% SF 0.61 0.30w/c-4%SF, 25%Slag 0.64 0.40w/c-12% SF 0.49 0.30w/c-8%SF, 25%Slag 0.75 0.50w/c-25%FA 0.66 0.40w/c-8%HRM 0.44 0.50w/c-56%FA 0.79 0.40w/c-12%HRM 0.50 0.54w/c-30%FA 0.70 0.30w/c-10%SF, 25%FA 0.45 (a) Fly-Ash (FA), Silica Fume (SF), Ground Blast Furnace Slag (Slag) and High Reactivity Metakaolin

(HRM).

38

0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

0 20 40 60 80Mid-Layer Profile from Surface (mm)

Chl

orid

e C

once

ntra

tion

(%C

oncr

ete)

Test ValuesFitted Regression

Surface Chloride Concentration

Figure 2-1. Fick’s Second Law of Diffusion Regression Analysis Example.

3 % NaCl Solution

3 in0.5 in

12 in

12 in

ConcreteSlab

Plastic dam

50 % relative humidity atmosphere

Figure 2-2. Ninety-day Salt Ponding Test Setup (AASHTO T259).

39

16.5 % NaCl Solution

Sealed on All Faces Except One

Concrete Cylinder (4 in diameter, 4 in length)

Figure 2-3. Bulk Diffusion Test Setup (NordTest NTBuild 443).

Data Logger

Stainless steel anode Stainless steel cathode

3.0 % NaClreservoir1.2 % NaOH

reservoir

60 V Power supply + -

Epoxy Coated Concrete Sample (4 in diameter, 2 in length)

Figure 2-4. Rapid Chloride Permeability Test Setup (AASHTO T277, ASTM C1202).

40

a a a

Current Applied (I)

Potential Measured (V)

Con

cret

e Su

rfac

e

to b

e Te

sted

Current FlowLines

Equipotential lines

Figure 2-5. Four-point Wenner Probe Test Setup.

0

5E-12

1E-11

1.5E-11

2E-11

0 400 800 1200Total Time (days)

App

. Diff

usio

n (m

2 /s)

0.4/0%HRM 0.4/8%HRM0.4/12%HRM 0.3/0%HRM0.3/8%HRM 0.3/12%HRM A

1E-13

1E-12

1E-11

1E-10

10 100 1000 10000Total Time (days)

App

. Diff

usio

n (m

2 /s)

0.4/0%HRM 0.4/8%HRM0.4/12%HRM 0.3/0%HRM0.3/8%HRM 0.3/12%HRM B

Figure 2-6. Time-Dependent Diffusion Coefficients for Concrete having Various

Water/Cementitious and Contents of High Reactivity Metakaolin (HRM) Plotted using A) Linear Scale and B) Logarithmic Scale (Boddy, Hooton and Gruber 2001).

41

Figure 2-7. Different Times t for Calculating the Curve Fitting Constant that Describes the Rate

of Change of the Diffusion (Nokken et al. 2006).

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 10 20 30 40 50Mid-Layer from Surface (mm)

Chl

orid

e C

once

ntra

tion

( lb/

yd3 )

Include in the RegressionNot Include in the RegressionFitted Regression

Figure 2-8. Diffusion Regression Analysis Example of a Bridge Cored Sample.

42

CHAPTER 3 CONCRETE MIXTURE DESIGNS AND FIELD CORE SAMPLING

Concrete Mixtures

Nineteen concrete mixtures were selected and prepared in the laboratory and in the field

for the project. A labeling system was implemented to identify each of the selected concrete

mixture designs. The first term of the notation system represents the water-cementitious ratio in

percentage, followed by the cementitious amount in pounds per cubic yard (lb/yd3) and finally

the pozzolans or corrosion inhibitor contents in percentage of cementitious measured by weight.

For example the concrete mixture labeled as “35_752_8SF_20F” (Table 3-2) has a water-

cementitious ratio of 35 percent (35%), 752 pounds per cubic yard (lb/yd3) of total cementitious

materials, 8 percent (8%) by weight of cementitious of Silica Fume and 20 percent (20%) by

weight of cementitious of Fly-Ash.

Laboratory Concrete Mixtures

Twelve representative mixtures using locally available materials in the State of Florida

were selected and cast in the laboratory, such that they represented a variety of different concrete

qualities and constituents. These concrete mixtures were selected from a range of possibilities,

from the most permeable possible designs to less permeable quality mixtures that include

pozzolans and a single mixture containing calcium nitrite corrosion inhibitor (Table 3-1 and

Table 3-2). The wide permeability range between the selected designs should allow a better point

of comparison between the test procedures under for different conditions.

The mixtures were performed under controlled environmental conditions, with a constant

air temperature for each mixture. The size of the concrete batch for each mixture was six cubic

feet (0.17 cubic meters). This volume of concrete included the specimens, concrete for quality

43

control testing, and several extra samples. The quality control procedures executed during

mixing and casting of the test samples were:

Standard Test Method for Slump of Hydraulic Cement Concrete (ASTM C 143).

Standard Test Method for Air Content of Freshly Mixed Concrete by the Volumetric Method (ASTM C 173).

Standard Test Method for Temperature of Freshly Mixed Portland Cement Concrete (ASTM C 1064).

Standard Test Method for Density (Unit Weight) of Freshly Mixed Concrete (ASTM C 138).

The standard process for casting concrete cylinders proposed by the AASHTO T23 method

was followed (Table 3-3). An external vibration device, also known as vibrating table was used

to ensure complete compaction of the specimens. The 4-inch (102-mm) diameter cylinders were

cast and vibrated in two layers as is shown in Table 3-3. The vibration period for each mixture

was determined by visual inspection of the first set of samples vibrated. The samples were

vibrated until the larger air bubbles ceased breaking through the top of surface but before visible

segregation occurred. It was generally between 15-seconds to 30-seconds for each inserted layer.

After the samples were cast in their respective molds and the top exposed surface finished with

the help of a trowel, they were left approximately 24-hours for atmospheric curing. During this

period, the exposed surfaces of samples were covered with plastic bags (Figure 3-1) to minimize

evaporation of the water in the surface of the concrete. Finally, the samples were de-molded and

placed in their particular curing environment until their testing date.

Field Concrete Mixtures

In addition to the laboratory concrete mixtures, seven field mixtures obtained from FDOT

construction projects around the State were collected. The mixtures were chosen to represent a

wide range of concrete permeabilities through the use of different constituents. From the FDOT

concrete specification (Table 3-4), Class II concrete was chosen as the lower bound of the range

44

as most permeable, and Class V and VI as the least permeable (Table 3-5 and Table 3-6). These

mixtures also represent the typical concretes used in structural members such as bridge concrete

barriers, prestressed concrete beams and piles that are constantly exposed to chloride attacks.

The State of Florida is divided by the FDOT into seven geographic regions (Figure 3-4). In

order to attain a balanced group of samples that reflected local materials of the state, specimens

from three districts were collected. Samples from District 3 (North Florida), District 2 (Central

Florida) and District 4 (South Florida) were selected (Figure 3-4 and Table 3-7). The concrete

batches for the specimens were supplied directly from mixer trucks to several wheel barrows at

the job site or at the ready mix plant (Figure 3-2). The volume of concrete supplied was enough

for the casting of the specimens, quality control testing, and several extra samples. The same

quality control testing and standard casting procedures for the laboratory mixtures were followed

in the field.

After the samples were cast in their respective molds, they were left approximately 24-

hours for atmospheric air curing with the exposed surfaces covered by plastic bags to prevent

evaporation of water from the concrete. Afterward, they were de-molded and submerged in water

tanks so that their treatment prior to arriving at the laboratory is controlled curing conditions was

as uniform as possible (Figure 3-3). The high temperature of the water tanks induced by

Florida’s hot weather was controlled by the addition of several bags of ice.

Field Core Sampling

The laboratory test procedure Bulk Diffusion was used to estimate the long-term chloride

diffusion performance of concrete. However, this test was conducted using a maximum of 3-year

chloride exposure. Longer term diffusion test results are needed to confirm these laboratory

findings. Therefore, to provide additional data to which these laboratory results can be

45

corroborated, several concrete specimens were collected from FDOT bridges located in marine

environments.

Bridge Selection

With the assistance of FDOT personal, recently constructed bridges (since 1991) were

surveyed. The search criteria included bridges in which the structural elements were originally

designed to meet the FDOT specifications (FDOT 346 2004) for concrete elements under

extremely aggressive environments. The mixture designs for the selected structural elements

used silica fume as a pozzolan for a FDOT class V or class V special mixture. The search criteria

also included mixtures for which RCP data were available (Table 3-11). This information

allowed a direct comparison with the laboratory results reported in previous sections. Six bridges

had substructures that met these requirements (Table 3-8, Table 3-9 and Table 3-10).

The intent of the sampling was to take concrete cores from undamaged concrete near the

tide lines. The cores were then sliced or ground and chloride content was measured to produce a

profile, from which the diffusion coefficient was calculated.

Coring Procedures

A total of 14 core samples were obtained from the substructures of the six selected bridges.

Figure 3-5 through Figure 3-16 show a general view of the bridge structures and the cored

substructure elements. Concrete cores were extracted from the substructure elements in the tidal

region between the high tide line (HTL) and the organic tide line (OTL) (Figure 3-17). HTL was

determined visually by the oil or scum stain on the structural element. OTL was also identified

visually as the elevation that appeared to have continuous marine growth present such as

barnacles or other growth. This line is usually lower than the HTL and represents a tide level that

is regularly inundated providing a regular source of water to support the marine growth and to

keep the concrete saturated. The location of the extracted cores was measured from HTL and

46

OTL to the sample center. Core elevations ranged from 3-inch (76-mm) to 12-inch (305-mm)

below HTL and 3-inch (76-mm) to 10-inch (254-mm) above OTL. Table 3-12 shows a summary

of the date and location of the cores were extracted.

A rebar locator was used to measure the depth of cover and bar spacing in the structural

members (Figure 3-18). Due to high variability, however, the coring bit rarely reached the

reinforcement during the drilling process (Figure 3-19). The samples were cored with a

cylindrical 4-inch (102-mm) diameter core drill bit, resulting in a core diameter of 3-3/4-inch

(95-mm). The specimens were cored using a fresh-water bit-cooling system. After the desired

depth was reached, the cores were extracted as shown in Figure 3-19. The structural members

were then repaired using a high bond strength mortar containing silica fume. The mortar material

was applied and compacted in several layers as is shown in Figure 3-20.

47

Table 3-1. Laboratory Mixtures Material Sources.

Materials Source Portland Cement CEMEX Type II Fly-Ash Boral Materials Technologies Inc. Fly Ash Class F Classified Fly-Ash Boral Materials Technologies Inc. Micron3 Silica Fume W.R. Grace Force 10,000D Metakaolin Burgess Pigment Co. Burgess #30 Slag Lafarge NewCem-Grade 120 Calcium Nitrite W.R. GRACE DCI-S Water Gainesville, FL Fine Aggregate Silica Sand Coarse Aggregate Crushed Limestone Air Entrainer W.R. Grace Darex Water Reducer W.R. Grace WRDA 64 Super Plasticizer W.R. GRACE Daracem 19 Table 3-2. Laboratory Mixture Designs. Mixture Name(a) Materials 49_564 35_752 45_752 28_900_8SF

_20F 35_752

_20F 35_752

_12CF Casting Date 9/29/03 10/15/03 10/21/03 10/22/03 10/23/03 1/5/04 W/C 0.49 0.35 0.45 0.28 0.35 0.35 Cement (pcy) 564 752 752 648 601.6 661.8 Pozzolan 1

(pcy) - - - Fly-Ash

(20%) 180

Fly-Ash (20%) 150.4

Classified Fly-Ash

(12%) 90.2

Pozzolan 2 (pcy)

- - - Silica Fume (8%) 72

- -

Water (pcy) 276.4 263.2 338.4 252 263.2 263.2 Fine Aggregate

(pcy) 1,105 1,080 990 1,000 1,043 1,061

Coarse Aggregate (pcy)

1,841 1,750 1,647 1,670 1,750 1,750

Calcium Nitrite (oz)

- - - - - -

Air Entrainer (oz)

3.0 4.0 4.0 6.8 5.6 5.6

Water Reducer (oz)

18.3 24.4 24.4 29.3 24.4 24.4

Super Plasticizer (oz)

20.2 29.7 17.7 180 37.6 45.1

(a) Fly-Ash (F), Classified Fly-Ash (CF) and Silica Fume (SF).

48

Table 3-2. Continued. Mixture Name(a)

Materials 35_752 _8SF

35_752_8SF_20F

35_752 _10M

35_752_10M _20F

35_752 _50Slag

35_752 _4.5CN

Casting Date 1/28/04 1/29/04 2/4/04 2/5/04 2/17/04 3/9/04 W/C 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 Cement (pcy) 691.8 541.4 676.8 526.4 376 752 Pozzolan 1

(pcy) - Fly-Ash

(20%) 150.4

- Fly-Ash (20%) 150.4

- -

Pozzolan 2 (pcy)

SF(a) (8%) 60.2

SF(a) (8%) 60.2

M(a) (10%)

75.2

M(a) (10%)

75.2

Slag (50%)

376

-

Water (pcy) 263.2 263.2 263.2 263.2 263.2 229.5

Fine Aggregate (pcy)

1,058 1,021 1,051 1,037 1,053 1,030


1,750 1,750 1,750 1,729 1,750 1,703

Calcium Nitrite (oz)

- - - - - 576

Air Entrainer (oz)

5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 7.5

Water Reducer (oz)

24.4 24.4 24.4 24.4 24.4 24.4


37.6 45.1 90.2 136.9 33.8 33.8

(a) Calicium Nitrite (CN), Fly-Ash (F), Silica Fume (SF) and Metakaolin (M). Table 3-3. Standard Method for Casting and Vibrating Concrete Cylinders (AASHTO T23). Cylinder

Diameter (in) Number of

Layers Number of Vibrator

Insertions per Layer Approximate Depth of Layer 4 2 1 ½ depth of specimen 6 2 2 ½ depth of specimen 9 2 4 ½ depth of specimen

49

Table 3-4. Specified Compressive Strength of FDOT Concrete Classes.

FDOT Concrete Classes Design Compressive Strength (psi) Class I 3,000 Class I Special 3,000 Class II 3,400 Class II Bridge Deck 4,500 Class III 5,000 Class III Seal 3,000 Class IV 5,500 Class IV Drill Shaft 4,000 Class V 6,500 Class V Special 6,000 Class VI 8,500 Table 3-5. Field Mixture Designs.

Mixture Name(a), FDOT Concrete Classes and Geographic Location

45_570 29_450

_20F 33_658

_18F 34_686

_18F 30_673

_20F 28_800

_20F 29_770

_18F Class II Class II Class V Class V Class V Class VI Class VI

Materials South

FL North

FL South FL Central

FL North

FL Central

FL North FL Casting Date 8/11/03 7/11/03 8/12/03 7/18/03 7/9/03 7/17/03 7/10/03 W/C 0.45 0.29 0.33 0.34 0.30 0.28 0.29 Cement(pcy) 569.7 450 657.4 686 673 800 770 Pozzolan 1

(pcy) - Fly-Ash

(20%) 115

Fly-Ash (18%)

150

Fly-Ash (18%)

154

Fly-Ash (20%)

169

Fly-Ash (20%)

200

Fly-Ash (18%)

165 Water (pcy) 254.5 162.3 269.7 288 251.9 280 267.5 Fine

Aggregate (pcy)

1,434 1,137 1,048 935 973.5 868 727.5


1,655 1,918 1,724 1,720 1,914 1,650 1,918

Air Entrainer (oz)

0.3 2.0 1.0 5.0 4.0 2.0 5.0

Water Reducer (oz)

45.6 22 8.0 17 40 16 47


- - 70.0 55.0 110 52 110

(a) Fly-Ash (F).

50

Table 3-6. Field Mixture Material Sources. Source(a)

Materials 45_570 29_450_20F 33_658_18F 34_686_18F Portland

Cement RINKER

Miami Type II

Southdown Brooksville Type II

RINKER Monjos Type I

PENNSUCO Type II

Fly-Ash - BORAL Plant Daniel Class F

BORAL BOWEN Class F

ISG Fernandine Beach, FL Class F

Water Miami, FL St. George Island, FL

West Palm Beach, FL

Jacksonville, FL

Fine Aggregate

Silica Sand Silica Sand Silica Sand Silica Sand

Coarse Aggregate

Crushed Limestone

Crushed Granite Crushed Limestone

Crushed Limestone

Air Entrainer W.R. GRACE DAREX

Master Builders MBAE-90


Master Builders MBVR-S

Water Reducer

W.R. GRACE WRDA 60

Master Builders POZZ 300R


Master Builders POZZ 100XR

Super Plasticizer

- - Master Builders POZZ 400N

Master Builders RHEO 1,000

(a) Fly-Ash (F). Table 3-6. Continued.

Source(a) Materials 30_673_20F 28_800_20F 29_770_18F Portland Cement CEMEX Type II PENNSUCO Type II CEMEX Type II

Fly-Ash BORAL Plant Daniel Class F

ISG Fernandine Beach, FL Class F

BORAL Plant Daniel Class F

Water St. George Island, FL Jacksonville, FL St. George Island, FL

Fine Aggregate Silica Sand Silica Sand Silica Sand

Coarse Aggregate Crushed Granite Crushed Limestone Crushed Granite

Air Entrainer Master Builders MBAE-90

Master Builders MBVR-S


Water Reducer Master Builders POZZ 300R

Master Builders POZZ 100XR


Super Plasticizer Master Builders RHEO 1,000

Master Builders 3,000FC


(a) Fly-Ash (F).

51

Table 3-7. Locations of Field Mixtures.

FDOT District

Mixture Name(a)

Concrete Class

Location of the Concrete Casting

Location and Contact Information of the Concrete Supplier Plant

45_570 Class II Interstate I-95 at West Palm Beach, FL.

RINKER MATERIALS CORP. 1501 Belvedere Road. Belle Glade West Palm Beach, FL 32406 Phone: (561) 833-5555 FDOT Plant No. 93-104

DISTRICT 4

33_658 _18F

Class V At the Plant S. EASTERN PRESTRESS CONCRETE INC. West Palm Beach, FL 33416 P.O. BOX 15043 Phone: (561) 793-1177 FDOT Plant No. 93-101

34_686 _18F

Class V DISTRICT 2

28_800 _20F

Class VI

At the Plant GATE CONCRETE PRODUCTS 402 Hecksher Drive Jacksonville, FL 32226 Phone: (904) 757-0860 FDOT Plant No. 72-055

29_450 _20F

Class II At the Plant

30_673 _20F

Class V

DISTRICT 3

29_770 _18F

Class VI

St. George Island Bridge Construction Site

COUCH CONCRETE 60 Otterslide Rd. Eastpoint, FL 32328 Phone: (850) 670-5512 FDOT Plant No. 49-479

(a) Fly-Ash (F).

52

Table 3-8. FDOT Cored Bridge Structures for the Investigation.

Bridge Name Abbr. County

(District) Location Bridge # Project # Year Built

Hurricane Pass HPB Lee (D1) SR-865 San Carlos Blvd

120089 12004-3506

1980/91(a)

Broadway Replacement East Bound

BRB Volusia (D5)

US-92 E International Speedway Blvd.

790187 79080-3544

2001

Seabreeze West Bound

SWB Volusia (D5)

SR-430 790174 79220-3510

1997

Granada GRB Volusia (D5)

SR-40 Granada Blvd.

790132 79150-3515

1983/97(a)

Turkey Creek TCB Brevard (D5)

US-1 700203 70010-3529

1999

New Roosevelt NRB Martin (D4) US-1/SR-5 890152 -(b) 1997

(a) Built year/Modified year (b) Unknown Information

53

Table 3-9. FDOT Cored Bridge Element Mixture Designs. Bridge Name Abbreviation HPB BRB SWB GRB TCB NRB

Class V Class V Class V Class V

Special Class V

Special Class (a)

Materials Lee (D1) Volusia

(D5) Volusia

(D5) Volusia

(D5) Brevard

(D5) Martin

(D4) FDOT

Mixture # 3514 05-M2028 05-0446 05-0426 07-M0223B -(a)

W/C 0.35 0.33 0.35 0.35 0.33 -(a) Cement(pcy) 617 605 595 618 785 -(a)

Pozzolan 1 (pcy)

Fly-Ash (19.5%)

135

Fly-Ash (19.5%)

168

Fly-Ash (18%)

145

Fly-Ash (18%)

150

Fly-Ash (18%)

192

-(a)

Pozzolan 2 (pcy)

SF(b) (10.3%)

87

SF(b) (10.3%)

89

SF(b) (7.8%)

63

SF(b) (8.3%)

70

SF(b) (8.1%)

86

-(a)

Water (pcy) 263 219 271.6 292 355 -(a)

Fine Aggregate (pcy)

1,111 912 1,055 1,314 1,281 -(a)


1,616 1,925 1,784 1,475 2,286 -(a)

Air Entrainer (oz)

7 8.4 10 6.8 9.2 -(a)

Water Reducer (oz)

30.85 42 17.9 30.9 31.4 -(a)


56 134 95.2 185.4 98.1 -(a)

(a) Unknown Information (b) Silica Fume

54

Table 3-10. FDOT Cored Bridge Element Mixture Material Sources. Bridge Name Abbreviation

Materials HPB BRB SWB Portland

Cement Florida Mining &

Materials AASHTO M-85 Type II

Pennsuco Tarmac AASHTO M-85 Type II

BROCO (Brooksville) AASHTO M-85 Type II

Fly-Ash Florida Mining & Materials Class F

Boral Bowen Class F Florida Mining & Materials Class F

Silica Fume W.R. GRACE DARACEM 10,000

Master Builders MB-SF 110

W.R. GRACE DARACEM 10,000D

Water Port Manatee, FL Dayton Beach, FL Orlando, FL Fine

Aggregate Florida Crushed Stone

Silica Sand Florida Rock Ind. Silica

Sand Florida Rock Ind. Silica

Sand

Coarse Aggregate

Florida Crushed Stone Crushed Limestone

Martin Marietta Aggregates Crushed Granite


Air Entrainer W.R. GRACE Daravair 79

Master Builders MBAE 90

W.R. GRACE DAREX

Water Reducer W.R. GRACE WRDA Master Builders POZZ.200N

W.R. GRACE WRDA 64

Super Plasticizer

W.R. GRACE WRDA 19


W.R. GRACE DARACEM 100

55

Table 3-10. Continued. Bridge Name Abbreviation

Materials GRB TCB NRB Portland

Cement BROCO (Brooksville) AASHTO M-85 Type II

BROCO (Brooksville) AASHTO M-85 Type II

-(a)

Fly-Ash MONEX Crystal River Class F

Florida Fly Ash Class F -(a)

Silica Fume Master Builders RHEOMAC SF 100

W.R. GRACE DARACEM 10,000D

-(a)

Water West Palm Beach, FL Tampa, FL -(a)

Fine Aggregate

Florida Rock (Marison) Silica Sand

Vulca/ICA Silica Sand -(a)

Coarse Aggregate


Florida Crushed Stone Crushed Limestone

-(a)

Air Entrainer Master Builders MBVR-S W.R. GRACE Daravair 79 -(a)

Water Reducer Master Builders LL961R W.R. GRACE WRDA -(a)

Super Plasticizer


W.R. GRACE WRDA 19 -(a)

(a) Unknown Information

56

Table 3-11. 28-Day RCP Test Data from Concrete Mixture Designs of the Cored Samples. Bridge Name 28-Day RCP (Coulombs) Hurricane Pass -(a) Broadway Replacement East Bound 952 Seabreeze West Bound 700 Granada 538 Turkey Creek -(a) New Roosevelt -(a) (a) Data unavailable

57

Table 3-12. Summary of Cores Extracted and Associated Properties.

Bridge Abbr.

Lab. #

Date Cored

Structural Element Type(a)

Bent #(b)

Pier #(b)

Struct. Cored Side

Elevation Below HTL (in)

Elevation Above OTL (in)

5016 2-1-06 Pile PC 3 1 NW 3 3

5017 2-1-06 Pile PC 7 1 NW 6 0

HPB

5018 2-1-06 Pile PC 6 1 NW 6 0

5054 3-2-06 Column CIP 11 1 SW 12 0 BRB

5081 5-3-06 Column CIP 7 1 NE 4 8

5082 5-3-06 Column CIP 3 1 NE 8 8 SWB

5083 5-3-06 Column CIP 7 1 SW 5 10

GRB 5084 5-3-06 Crashwall CIP 9 1 NW 6 8

5078 5-24-06 Pile PC 3 15 NE 4 10

5079 5-24-06 Pile PC 4 15 NE 9 6

TCB

5080 5-24-06 Pile PC 5 15 NE 9 6

5075 6-1-06 Pile Cap CIP 8 1 S 7 6

5076 6-1-06 Pile Cap CIP 10 1 S 6 7

NRB

5077 6-1-06 Pile Cap CIP 7 1 S 6 7

(a) CIP: Cast in Place and PC: Pretensioned Concrete. (b) Bent# and Pier# were labeled in ascendant number from North to South or West to East direction depending on the bridge location. The Bent# 1 is considered as the bridge abutment.

58

Figure 3-1. Air Curing of Cast Concrete Specimens.

Figure 3-2. Casting of Field Mixture Specimens.

Figure 3-3. Field Samples Curing during transport to Laboratory.

59

St. George IslandCPR15CPR18CPR21

JacksonvilleCPR17CPR20

West Palm BeachCPR13CPR16

Figure 3-4. FDOT District Map with Field Mixture Locations.

Figure 3-5. Hurricane Pass Bridge (HPB) General Span View.

60

Figure 3-6. Hurricane Pass Bridge (HPB) Substructure Elements.

Figure 3-7. Broadway Replacement East Bound Bridge (BRB) General Span View.

Figure 3-8. Broadway Replacement East Bound Bridge (BRB) Substructure Elements.

61

Figure 3-9. Seabreeze West Bound Bridge (SWB) General Span View.

Figure 3-10. Seabreeze West Bound Bridge (SWB) Substructure Elements.

Figure 3-11. Granada Bridge (GRB) General Span View.

62

A B Figure 3-12. Granada Bridge (GRB) Substructure Elements. A) Pier Elements, B) Barge

Crashwall.

Figure 3-13. Turkey Creek Bridge (TCB) General Span View.

Figure 3-14. Turkey Creek Bridge (TCB) Substructure Elements.

63

Figure 3-15. New Roosevelt (NRB) General Span View.

Figure 3-16. New Roosevelt (NRB) Substructure Elements.

High Tide Line (HTL)

Organic Tide Line (OTL)

Figure 3-17. Cored Element Location Defined by the Water Tide Region between High Tine

Line (HTL) and the Organic Tide Line (OTL). Sample from Broadway Replacement East Bound Bridge (BRB) (East Bound) BENT 11, PIER 1.

64

A B Figure 3-18. Bridge Coring Process. A) Locating Reinforcing Steel, B) Locating Drill for

Coring.

A B Figure 3-19. Obtaining Cored Sample. A) Extracting Drilled Core, B) Location of the Extracted

Core that Reached Prestressing Strand.

65

A B Figure 3-20. Repairing Structural Cored Member. A) Patching Cored Opening B) Finished Pier

Member.

66

CHAPTER 4 TEST PROCEDURES

Laboratory and Field Concrete Sample Matrix

A total of 988 samples from 19 separate mixtures were cast for testing. The concrete

mixtures were divided into two groups. Twelve were mixed and formed at the FDOT State

Materials Office (SMO) in Gainesville. The remaining 7 mixtures were obtained at various field

sites around the state and brought back to the SMO for storage and eventual testing (Table 4-1).

The cast samples were primarily 4-inch (102-mm) diameter by 8-inch (204-mm) long cylinders.

Chloride Ion Content Analysis

Chloride ions are typically present in concrete in two forms, soluble chlorides in the

concrete pore water and chemically bound chlorides. There are several laboratory methods to

estimate these amounts of chloride in the concrete structure. The FDOT standardized test method

(FM 5-516) to determine low-levels of chloride in concrete and raw materials was selected for

the analysis. This wet chemical analysis method also known as acid-soluble method determines

the sum of all chemically bound and free chlorides ions from powdered concrete samples.

Diffusion Test

Bulk Diffusion Test

The Bulk Diffusion Test was conducted using the NT BUILD 443 (NT BUILD 443 1995)

test procedure. Samples were 4-inch (102-mm) diameter by 8-inch (204-mm) long, with three

samples cast for each mixture. The samples were kept in a moist room with a sustained 100%

humidity for 28 days, removed from the moist conditions, and sliced on a water-cooled diamond

saw into two halves (Figure 4-1). The cut specimens were immersed in a saturated Ca(OH)2

solution in an environment with an average temperature of 73oF (23oC). The samples were

weighed daily in a surface-dry condition until their mass did not change by more than 0.1

67

percent. The specimens were then sealed with Sikadur 32 Hi-Mod epoxy (on all surfaces except

the saw-cut face) and left to cure for 24-hours. The sealed samples were then returned to the

Ca(OH)2 tanks to repeat the above saturation process by weight control. The samples were then

immersed under surface-dry conditions in salt solution (16.5 percent of sodium chloride solution

mixed with deionized water) in tanks with tight closing lids (Figure 2-3 and Figure 4-2). The

tanks were shaken once a week and the NaCl solution was changed every 5 weeks. The original

procedure called for at least 35 days of exposure before the chloride penetration analysis was to

be conducted. Moreover, it suggests to sample between 0.04-inch to 0.08-inch (1-mm to 2-mm)

increments by powder grinding the profiles for this exposure time and type of high quality

concrete. With the equipment available for the use on the project, an exposure of 35 days is

insufficient to achieve a measurable chloride profile. A coarser chloride sampling evaluation was

implemented; 0.25-inch (6.5-mm) increments were tested on 1 and 3 years old samples. Finally,

the respective acid-soluble chloride content of the profile samples at varying depths were

obtained in accordance with the FDOT standard test method FM 5-516. The initial chloride

background levels for each of the concrete mixes were also determined from the extra unexposed

samples.

Electrical Conductivity Tests

Rapid Chloride Permeability Test (RCP)

The RCP test was conducted in conformance with AASHTO T277 and ASTM C1202. The

specimen dimensions were 4-inch (102-mm) diameter by 8-inch (204-mm) long. All samples

were kept in a moist room with a sustained 100% humidity until testing day. RCP tests were

conducted at ages of 14, 28, 56, 91, 182 and 364 days, with three samples tested at each age.

The procedure calls for two days of specimen preparation. On the first day, the samples

were removed from the moist room to be cut on a water-cooled diamond saw. A ¼-inch (6.4-

68

mm) slice was first removed to dress the top edge of the sample (Figure 4-3), and then the 2-inch

(51-mm) thick sample required for the test was sliced (Figure 4-4). The sides of the specimens

were roughened (Figure 4-4) followed by application of Sikadur 32 Hi-Mod epoxy to seal the

specimen (Figure 4-5).

The second day of preparation began with the desiccation process to water-saturate the

samples. The specimens were placed in a desiccation chamber connected to a vacuum pump

capable of maintaining a pressure of less than 1 mm Hg (133 Pa). The vacuum was maintained

for three hours to remove the pore solution from the samples. The container was then filled with

boiled de-aerated water until the samples were totally submerged and the pump was left running

for an additional hour (Figure 4-6). The desiccation chamber was return to atmospheric pressure

and the samples were left submerged for 18 hours, plus or minus 2 hours.

After the samples were removed from the desiccation chamber, each sample was placed

into their acrylic cells and sealed with silicone (Figure 2-4 and Figure 4-7). The upper surface of

the specimen was left in contact with the 3.0 percent NaCl solution (this side of the cell was

connected to the negative terminal of the power supply) and the bottom face was exposed to the

0.3 N NaOH solution (this side of the cell was connected to the positive terminal of the power

supply). The test was left running for 6 hours with a constant 60-volt potential applied to the cell.

A data logging system recorded the temperature of the anolyte solution, charge passed, and

current every 5 minutes. Furthermore, it calculated the cumulative charge passed during the test

in coulombs by determining the area under the curve of current (amperes) versus time (seconds).

The three total readings from each sample were averaged to obtain a representative final result

for the specimens set.

69

Surface Resistivity Test

The Surface Resistivity test was conducted conforming to Florida Method of Test

designation FM 5-578. The Surface Resistivity was measured on 4-inch (102-mm) diameter by

8-inch (204-mm) long concrete cylinders. To evaluate the effect of curing, two sets of three

samples each were tested. The first set was kept in a moist room with a sustained 100%

humidity, and the other in saturated Ca(OH)2 solution (dissolved in tap water) tanks. Due to its

nondestructive test nature, the test was performed to a wider amount of ages than the other

electrical tests. For the purpose of this project, the samples were tested at 14, 28, 56, 91, 182,

364, 454 and 544 days. Additionally, these samples are being monitoring until no further

changes in the surface resistivity reading is observed as part of another research project.

Commercial four-probe Wenner array equipment was utilized for resistivity measurements. The

model used had wooden plugs in the end of the probes that were pre-wetted with a contact

medium to improve the electrical transfer with the concrete surface (Figure 4-8). The inter-probe

spacing was set to 1.5-inch (38-mm) for all measurements.

On the day of testing the samples were removed from their curing environment and the

readings were taken under surface wet condition. Readings were then taken with the instrument

placed such that the probes were aligned with the cylinder axis. Four separate readings were

taken around the circumference of the cylinder at 90-degrees increments (0o, 90o, 180o and 270o).

This process was repeated once again, in order to get a total of eight readings that were then

averaged. This minimized possible interference due to the presence of a single aggregate particle

obstructing the readings (Chini, Muszynski and Hicks 2003).

Bridge Core Sample Chloride Ion Content Analysis

The core samples obtained from the bridge substructures were profiled at varying depths to

obtain their respective acid-soluble chloride content in accordance with the FDOT standard test

70

method FM 5-516 (APPENDIX D). The core surface was first cleaned to remove barnacles or

other debris. Two methods were used to obtain the respective profile samples. The top 0.48-inch

(12-mm) was profiled using a milling machine. Powder samples were taken at increments of

0.08-inch (2-mm) (Figure 4-9). Subsequent profiles were obtained by cutting the sample into

0.25-inch (6.5-mm) thick slices using a water-cooled diamond saw. The core profiling scheme

summary is presented in Table 4-2. The sample obtained from the two profiling methods was

pulverized and placed in plastic bags until the chloride content testing was executed. The initial

chloride background levels of cored samples were determined from the deepest section of the

specimens (APPENDIX D), assuming that chlorides have not yet reached this depth.

71

Table 4-1. Concrete Permeability Research Sample Matrix for Laboratory Mixtures. Total Number of Samples per Test (4”x8” Cylinders)

Mixture Name

Strength (ASTM C39)

RCP (AASHTO T277)

Surface Resistivity (FM 5-578)

Bulk Diffusion (NTBuild 443)

Extra Cylinders

49_564 18 18 6 3 7 35_752 18 18 6 3 7 45_752 18 18 6 3 7 28_900_8SF_20F 18 18 6 3 7 35_752_20F 18 18 6 3 7 35_752_12CF 18 18 6 3 7 35_752_8SF 18 18 6 3 7 35_752_8SF_20F 18 18 6 3 7 35_752_10M 18 18 6 3 7 35_752_10M_20F 18 18 6 3 7 35_752_50Slag 18 18 6 3 7

Lab. Mixes

35_752_4.5CN 18 18 6 3 7 45_570 18 18 6 3 7 29_450_20F 18 18 6 3 7 33_658_18F 18 18 6 3 7 34_686_18F 18 18 6 3 7 30_673_20F 18 18 6 3 7 28_800_20F 18 18 6 3 7

Field Mixes

29_770_18F 18 18 6 3 7 Total 342 342 114 57 133 Table 4-2. Bridge Core Samples Profiling Scheme. Core Sample

Identification Profile Penetration

(mm) Profiling Method

A 0 – 2 Milling B 2 – 4 Milling C 4 – 6 Milling D 6 – 8 Milling E 8 – 10 Milling F 10 – 12 Milling G 12 – 18.35 Slicing H 18.35 – 24.70 Slicing I 24.70 – 31.05 Slicing J 31.05 – 37.40 Slicing

72

Figure 4-1. Cutting Bulk Diffusion Samples into Two Halves.

Figure 4-2. Bulk Diffusion Saline Solution Exposure.

73

Figure 4-3. RCP test top surface removal of the sample preparation procedure.

A B Figure 4-4. RCP Sample Preparation: A) Cutting of the 2-inch Sample for the Test and B)

Preconditioning RCP Sample Surfaces to Receive Epoxy.

74

Figure 4-5. RCP Sample Sealed with Epoxy.

A B Figure 4-6. RCP Sample Preconditioning Procedure: A) Reduction of Absolute Pressure and B)

Sample Desiccation

75

Figure 4-7. RCP Test Set-up.

Figure 4-8. Surface Resistivity Measurements.

76

A B Figure 4-9. Profile Grinding Using a Milling Machine. A) Milling Machine Set Up and B)

Milling Process.

77

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Fresh Properties

Several quality control procedures were executed during mixing and casting of the test

samples for the laboratory and field mixtures. The results obtained from the standard testing

procedures for slump (ASTM C 143), air content (ASTM C 173), concrete temperature (ASTM

C 1064), air temperature and unit weight of the concrete (ASTM C 138) are included in Table

5-1. Due to natural variability of concrete workability, a consistent concrete slump from mixture

to mixture is difficult to obtain. The laboratory concrete mixture slump measurements ranged

between 2.25 to 9.75-inch (57 to 248-mm) and the field mixtures between 0.5 to 7.75-inch (13 to

197-mm). The laboratory mixture unit weight measurements presented a coefficient of variation

of 1.5% and the field mixtures vary by 2.3%. This indicates that there were no large variations in

entrapped air or aggregate volume proportions among mixtures. The air content for all batches

was within the target range of 1.0 to 6.0%. The laboratory concrete mixture air contents range

from 1.25% to 6.0% and the field mixtures from 1.5% to 4%.

Mechanical Properties

The compressive strength of each mixture was evaluated in accordance with ASTM C39.

Though compressive strength is not a concrete permeability indicator, it represents a helpful tool

for checking the design compressive strength. Therefore, the compressive strength changes

caused by the mixture proportions and different added pozzolan can then be used as quality

indicators of the corrected preparation of the cast mixtures. Moreover, the strength trend of

change by time can be used as an indirect comparative reference to the electrical conductivity

results tested at the same age. The electrical conductivity of water saturated concrete depends on

78

part on its pore structure; as the pore structure of a concrete samples is reduced, the electrical

conductivity will decrease and the concrete strength will increase.

Compressive strengths were tested after 14, 28, 56, 91,182 and 364 days of continuous

moist curing for all the concrete mixtures. Detailed results are given in APPENDIX B.

Maximum values of strength were achieved in mixtures with the lowest water-cementitious

ratios. The effect on the mixtures by the addition of fly ash resulted in a slower gain of strength

during the early ages of hydration. During the first 56 days after casting, compressive strength of

fly ash mixes mixture was significantly less than those of the control mixture (Figure 5-1). This

lower early strength development is due to the low reactivity of the mineral admixture fly ash

(Mindess,Young and Darwin 2002). Strength tests conducted between 56 and 180 days showed

that the fly ash mixtures gained a compressive strength comparably equal to those of the control

mixture. Finally at 364 days after casting, the fly ash mixtures developed higher compressive

strength exceeding those of the control mixture.

The effect on the mixtures by the addition of the highly reactive pozzolan silica fume

contributed to the early development of compressive strength. During the first 14 days after

casting, compressive strengths of silica fume mixtures were less than those of the control mixture

(Figure 5-1). On the other hand, strength tests conducted between 28 and 182 days showed that

the silica fume mixtures had higher compressive strengths than those of the control mixture.

Finally at 364 days after casting, the effect of silica fume was stabilized and the compressive

strength was comparably equal to those of the control mixture.

The effect on the mixture by the addition of the pozzolan metakaoline contributed to the

early development of compressive strength. This beneficial effect was sustained until 364-days

after casting (Figure 5-1). On the other hand, the addition of calcium nitrite reduced the concrete

79

compressive strengths compared to the control mixture by about 30 percent for all the testing

days. Similar concrete strength behavior was reported by previous researches (Berke 1987;

Kondratova, Montes and Bremner 2003). They reported that the calcium nitrite can reduce

concrete compressive strength. However, other findings by Ann et al. (2005) contradict this

conclusion. They found that the calcium nitrite addition enhanced the concrete strength at early

ages compared to a control mixture.

Finally, Figure 5-2 shows some of the field mixtures compressive strength compared to the

laboratory control mixture. The compressive strengths are reduced compared to the control as the

water-cementitious ratio is increased or the amount of cementitious is reduced. Conversely, a

noticeable increase in strength was observed on the field mixture 28_ 800_20F with lower water-

cementitious ratio and higher amount of cementitious than the laboratory control mixture

(35_752).

Long-Term Chloride Penetration Procedures

The Nordtest Bulk Diffusion (NTBuild 443) test results after a 1 and 3 years of exposure

period were used as a benchmark to evaluate the conductivity tests. After their exposure period,

each of the samples were profiled and tested using the FDOT standard test method FM5-516 to

obtain their acid-soluble chloride ion content at varying depths.

The Bulk Diffusion procedure represents the most common test method of determining

chloride diffusion coefficients for concrete specimens. This procedure is believed to simulate a

“diffusion only” mechanism (Hooton, Thomas and Stanish 2001). The saturation of the samples,

previous exposure to the chloride solution, eliminates the contribution by the absorption

mechanism. Furthermore, the wicking effect is also eliminated with the sealing of all specimen

faces except the one exposed to the NaCl solution. The diffusion coefficients were determined by

fitting the data obtained in the chloride profiles analysis to Fick’s Diffusion Second Law

80

equation. The measured chloride contents at varying depths were fitted to Fick’s diffusion

equation by means of a non-linear regression analysis in accordance with the method of least

square fit. The computerized mathematical tools of the program MathCad were used to fit the

data to the non-linear regressions. Table 5-2 to Table 5-5 show the obtained chloride diffusion

coefficients and surface concentration for 1 and 3 years of exposure. Moreover, chloride profiles

and curve fitting results for each concrete mixture are summarized in APPENDIX C.

The mixture proportions affect directly the rate of chloride diffusion into concrete. Several

factors such as the water-cementitious ratios and the types and amounts of cementitious materials

used for the mixture will change the rate of chloride diffusion. Figure 5-3 and Figure 5-4 show a

comparison of the obtained chloride diffusion coefficients for 1 and 3 years of exposure for the

entire set of mixtures.

Table 5-6 shows the relative decrease in diffusion from 1 to 3-years of exposure.

Moreover, the effects on the diffusion coefficient by the addition of different pozzolans and

corrosion inhibitor are compared in Table 5-7. Mixtures having the same water-cementitious

ratios, cementitious contents and different pozzolan combinations and corrosion inhibitor were

compared. The chosen mixtures were cast under laboratory conditions with the same source of

materials. Mixture 35_752 that did not contain pozzolan was selected as the control to make the

comparisons. The changes in diffusion from 1 to 3-years compared to the control mixture are

also presented graphically in Figure 5-5. The results show that the addition of metakaolin

(35_752_10M) decreases the chloride diffusion compared to the control mixture by about 70

percent for the 1 and 3 years of exposure results. Moreover, the addition of silica fume

(35_752_8SF), ground blast furnace slag (35_752_50Slag) and ternary blends of fly-ash with

metakaolin (35_752_10M_20F) or silica fume (35_752_8SF_20F) decreases the chloride

81

diffusion approximately 50 percent for the 1 and 3 years of exposure results. The chloride

diffusion for samples containing fly-ash (35_752_20F) and classified fly-ash (35_752_12CF) did

not improve for samples exposed for a year. However, they improved for the longer exposure

period of 3 year. These could be related to the slow pozzolanic reaction of the mineral admixture

fly ash. Finally, the addition of calcium nitrite (35_752_4.5CN) did not improve the concrete

diffusion coefficient. The addition of calcium nitrite increased the chloride diffusion compared to

the control mixture by about 60 percent for the 1 year of exposure results and 133 percent for the

longer exposure of 3 years. Similar chloride diffusion behaviors were reported by previous

researches (Berke 1987; Ma, Li and Peng 1998; Kondratova, Montes and Bremner 2003). They

reported that the calcium nitrite tends to increase concrete chloride permeability values. Ma, Li

and Peng (1998) found that the addition of calcium nitrite influences the hydration process of

cement paste. It appears that calcium nitrite has the function of accelerating and stabilizing the

formation of the crystal phase of calcium hydroxide. This leads to an increase in the micropore

diameter in the hardened cement paste and thus to an increase in chloride permeability compared

to concrete without inhibitor.

Comparison of Conductivity and Long-Term Diffusion Tests

Rapid Chloride Permeability Test (RCP)

The results of the Rapid Chloride Permeability tests (RCP) (AASHTO T277) at ages 14,

28, 56, 91, 182 and 364 days were plotted with their respective 1 and 3 years Bulk Diffusion. It

was found that a power regression provided the best representation of the trends (APPENDIX F).

Other researchers (Hooton, Thomas and Stanish 2001) have also found this to be true in their

work. As an example, Figure 5-6 shows the 28-day and 91-day RCP results against the 1-year

Bulk Diffusion results for both the laboratory and field samples. Similarly, Figure 5-7 shows the

same RCP results plotted against the 3-year Bulk Diffusion results.

82

Previous research has shown that the RCP test method presents some limitations when

applied to concrete modified with chemical admixtures as corrosion inhibitors (Shi, Stegemenn

and Caldwell 1998). Concrete modified with a corrosion inhibitor such as calcium nitrite exhibits

a higher coulomb value than the same concrete without the corrosion inhibitor when tested with

the RCP test. Yet long-term chloride ponding tests have indicated that concrete with calcium

nitrite is at least as resistant to chloride ion penetration as the control mixture. Conversely, the

RCP results compared with the 1 and 3 years Bulk Diffusion results tend to follow the same

trend as the other concrete mixtures. The calcium nitrite effect, however, is represented by only

one mixture on the entire specimen population. Consequently, there is not enough information to

draw a solid final conclusion from the available data results. Therefore, the concrete mixture

containing calcium nitrite (35_752_4.5CN) was not included on the general correlations with

long-term tests in order to establish a uniform level of comparison between all the electrical tests.

General levels of agreement (R2) to references are presented in Table 5-8. Moreover, detailed

graphs with their least-squares line-of-best fit for the complete set of data are presented in

APPENDIX G.

Surface Resistivity

The electrical conductivity derived from the surface resistivity test was also compared to

their respective 1 and 3 years Bulk Diffusion. The surface resistivity test was conducted using

two methods of curing, one at 100% humidity (moist cured) and the other in a saturated Ca(OH)2

solution (lime cured). Surface resistivity results from the two curing regimens at 14, 28, 56, 91,

182, 364, 455 and 546 days of age are compared to their respective diffusion test results. The

data were then fit with a curve to provide an empirical relationship between the short and long

term tests. Power function was selected because it provided the best fit with the relationship

between the two set of test results (APPENDIX F). Concrete modified with a corrosion inhibitor

83

as calcium nitrite may exhibit misleading results in electrical resistivity tests (Shi, Stegemenn

and Caldwell 1998). Consequently, these values were excluded from the curve fit. Figure 5-8 and

Figure 5-9 show detailed graphs of the test correlations with their respective derived least-square

line-of-best fit.

The surface resistivity correlation coefficients (R2) for the two curing regimens are

compared in Figure 5-12 and Figure 5-13. The figures show the R2 results for the Bulk Diffusion

correlation for the two exposure periods, respectively. The comparison between the two curing

procedures shows little difference. A relative gain in correlation, however, was observed for the

moist cured regimen at 14 days of age. The difference in the number of samples tested at that age

(Table 5-9) might explain the relative increase in the correlation. Fewer samples were tested for

the moist cured regimen than for the lime cured specimens. Consequently, the probability of

fitting a set of data increases for fewer numbers of records. Therefore, it is concluded that either

of the methods will derive on equal surface resistivity behavior. General levels of agreement (R2)

to references for both curing methods are presented in Table 5-9. Moreover, detailed graphs with

their least-squares line-of-best fit for the complete set of data are presented in APPENDIX G.

Relating Electrical Tests and Bulk Diffusion

The standardized RCP test method, ASTM C1202, is commonly required on construction

project specifications for both precast and cast-in-place concrete. Pfeifer, McDonald and Krauss

(1994) indicate that the engineer or owner usually select an arbitrary limit of 1000 coulombs for

concrete elements under extremely aggressive environments. This RCP coulomb limit for 28-day

moist cured concrete is required by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) when

Class V or Class V Special concrete containing silica fume or metakaolin is specified (FDOT

346 2004). The typical application for this high performance concrete is piling to be installed in

salt water.

84

The commonly used 1000 coulomb limit at 28-day RCP test has been chosen based on a

scale reported in the standardized test procedure (Table 2-1). This scale presents a qualitative

method that relates the equivalent measured charge in coulombs to the chloride ion permeability

of the concrete. The original research program that derived the rating scale (Whiting 1981) was

based upon a reduced amount of single core concrete samples that did not include pozzolans or

corrosion inhibitors. The set of data results were linearly fitted (R2 of 0.83) and five qualitative

ranges of chloride permeability were defined based on the long-term chloride ponding test

AASHTO T259. These permeability ranges were selected by grouping concrete mixture with

similar AASHTO T259 and RCP results.

The applicability of the RCP has been considered extensively in the literature (Whiting

1981; Whiting 1988; Whiting and Dziedzic 1989; Ozyildirim and Halstead 1988; Scanlon and

Sherman 1996) with samples containing a wide variety of pozzolans and corrosion inhibitors.

They have demonstrated no consistent correlation between the RCP results and the rates of

chloride permeability presented in standard procedure. The electrical conductivity of the water

saturated concrete depends on part on the chemistry of pore solution. Changes in pore solution

chemistry generate considerable alterations in the electrical conductivity of the sample. These

variations can be produced by the presence of pozzolans or corrosion inhibitors that were not

included on the original research that developed the rating table. Therefore, this indicates that the

RCP test was never intended as a quantitative predictor of chloride permeability into any given

concrete (Pfeifer, McDonald and Krauss 1994). The test was designed as a quality control

procedure that should be calibrated with long-term tests. As stated in the scope of the RCP

standard method, the rapid test procedure is applicable to types of concrete in which correlations

have been established between this rapid test procedure and long-term chloride ponding tests.

85

It has been argued by the industry that a RCP limit of 1000 coulombs to categorize very

low chloride permeability concrete on a 28-day sample is unreasonably low. The original RCP

coulomb limits were derived from correlations between 90-day RCP samples and 90-day

AASHTO T259 ponding test. Therefore, the use of these restrictions on lower testing ages, as 28

days, represents a conservative approach to quality control. The electrical conductivity of

concrete decreases with time as the process of hydration takes place. This is particularly true of

fly ash or other slower reacting pozzolans. Conversely, silica fume is rather fast acting resulting

in low apparently age RCP values. Figure 5-15 shows these effects on the electrical conductivity

by the addition of fly ash and silica fume. Moreover, Figure 5-16 illustrates the changes on RCP

results for the complete set of mixtures. Results show a higher rate of RCP coulombs decrease

for the first 91 days of curing, followed by a relative stable flat trend in most of the cases.

Furthermore, the chloride ponding test used as a benchmark to derive the original RCP

coulomb limits, AASHTO T259, presents several limitations. Chloride profiles obtained from the

long-term chloride ponding test were analyzed using the total integral chloride method. This

method calculates the total quantity of chlorides that has penetrated the samples during the

exposure period of exposure. It is obtained by integrating the area under the chloride profile

curve from the surface of exposure to the point where the chloride background is reached (Figure

5-14). Previous research findings (Hooton, Thomas and Stanish 2001; Vivas, Hamilton and Boyd

2007) have indicated that this chloride content measurement method is not a good indicator of

diffusion of chlorides in concrete. The method only takes into consideration the total amount of

soluble chlorides for a particular depth. Significant information such as the shape of the chloride

penetration curve is not reflected in this result.

86

Diffusion mechanism is considered the principal mechanism that drives chloride ions into

the pore structure of concrete (Tuutti 1982; Stanish and Thomas 2003). However, the AASHTO

T259 test set up induces a combined effect of diffusion, adsorption and vapor conduction

(wicking) mechanisms. Previous research (McGrath and Hooton 1999) has suggested that the

relative importance of the absorption effect is overestimated by the AASHTO T259 test set up.

Hooton, Thomas and Stanish (2001) have indicated that the relative amounts of chloride ions

drawn into the concrete by the absorption effect compared to the amount entering by diffusion

will be greater when the test is run only for a short period of time compared to the relative

amounts during the lifetime of a structure. Moreover, they exposed that the wicking effect is also

overestimated by the test procedure. The actual structure humidity gradient will likely be less, at

least for part of the time, than the exposed during the test. Therefore, the use of a well-controlled

“diffusion only” ponding test as Bulk Diffusion test will improve the precision of the chloride

penetration profile and may more accurately reflect the extent of long-term penetration of

chloride into concrete than the AASHTO T259 test. Consequently, a method to relate the

equivalent measured charge in coulombs to the chloride ion permeability of the concrete based

on the Bulk Diffusion test is needed.

Curve fitting of the relationship between RCP or SR and the 1 and 3-year Bulk Diffusion

test results were previously presented. Figure 5-17 and Figure 5-18 shows the correlation

coefficients (R2) of those fits as a function of the time at which the respective RCP test was

conducted. The plots are for 1 and 3-year Bulk Diffusion results. The R2 values for both Bulk

Diffusion ages increase dramatically for approximately the first 91-days. The RCP R2 reaches

plateau at 91 days when compared to those of 1-year Bulk Diffusion. This is believed to be

related to the high variability on the different pozzolan internal reactions at early age concretes.

87

Concrete mixtures containing highly reactive pozzolans as silica fume will react faster than

mixtures containing slower reacting pozzolans as fly ash. However, as the concrete internal

hydration takes place, these reactions will be reduced. Consequently, the short-term test results

obtained from these more stable mixtures will correlate better to the long-term specimens. RCP

samples compared to those of 3-year Bulk Diffusion achieve a maximum R2 value at 1 year of

testing. R2 values from correlations of Surface Resistivity tests (Table 5-9) to the references were

also included in the comparison with similar results. Even duo the maximum R2 value for the 3-

year Bulk Diffusion results is reached at 1-year RCP, the 91-day R2 is considered also a

reasonable correlation level. Therefore based on the reduced variability reached at 91-days, it is

concluded that the earliest effective age at which the RCP and SR will correlate with the 1 or 3

year Bulk Diffusion test is 91 days. Furthermore, the relationship between the 91-day RCP

results and the BD tests can be used to derive a target Bulk Diffusion coefficient for Florida

concretes. This target is based on the 1000 coulomb requirement that is commonly used to

characterize durable concrete. The ultimate goal is to be able to predict a 1 or 3-year Bulk

Diffusion from a test conducted at 91-days. The diffusion coefficient related to a given coulomb

value can be obtained from the trend line equation of the test correlations as shown in Figure

5-19 and Figure 5-20. Table 5-10 shows a complete scale for categorizing 91 day RCP results

related to the chloride permeability measured by a 1 and 3 year Bulk Diffusion test.

Refinement of the Long-Term Diffusion Coefficient Prediction Using Monte Carlo Simulation

Closed form statistical solutions were used to develop the scale presented in the previous

section. 91-days was found to be the earliest effective testing age to predict the chloride diffusion

penetration of a 1 and 3 year Bulk Diffusion test when using either SR or RCP. The proposed

diffusion coefficients related to a given coulomb value were obtained from a fit of the available

88

experimental data (Figure 5-19 and Figure 5-20). Each of the data values used in the test

correlations was a product of an average of three experimental results. Some of these results had

high coefficient of variation with up to 15% on the RCP results (APPENDIX E) and 30% on the

Bulk Diffusion (Table 5-2 and Table 5-4).

To ensure that the variability in the data was accounted for appropriately Monte Carlo

simulation was conducted. This simulation was focused on obtain the respective diffusion

coefficient results related to the standard RCP limits. The available RCP data and Bulk Diffusion

test results at 1 and 3 years of chloride exposure were included in the analysis. Each of the Bulk

Diffusion coefficients and RCP test results were simulated with separate independent random

variables using a normal distribution. The parameters required to define the shape of the normal

distribution, mean and standard deviation, were calculated from the three available data points

from each set of mixture test results. A complete set of Bulk Diffusion and RCP results were

randomly generated from the different normal distribution models. In some of the cases due to

the high coefficient of variation of the variables, the RCP or Bulk Diffusion randomly generated

values resulted on negative values, which was incorrect. Therefore, these negative simulated

results were replaced with new positive random results. The respective best-fit-equation was then

calculated based on the power function model. The diffusion coefficients related to the standard

coulomb limit values were then obtained from the new trend line equation. This process was

repeated many times and different diffusion coefficient results for each RCP limits were

obtained. Finally, the average and standard deviation of the obtained group of diffusion results

were assembled in a histogram.

Figure 5-21 shows a schematic of the correlation process using the Monte Carlo

simulation. Initially 100 simulations were run and the average and standard deviation of each

89

group was recorded. The coefficient of variation (COV) of the obtained set of results for each of

the number of samples was then calculated (Figure 5-22 and Figure 5-23). To ensure a low COV

the selected number of interaction was increased from 100 to 50000 samples which reduced the

COV to less than 1%.

The average and standard deviation of the correlation coefficient (R2) obtained for each of

RCP and Surface Resistivity curve-fitting using the simulation (Table 5-11) are compared in

Figure 5-24 and Figure 5-25. The obtained results corroborated previous findings. The average

of RCP and Surface Resistivity trend of agreement reaches a maximum value on samples tested

at 91 days when compared to those of 1 and 3 year Bulk Diffusion. Therefore, it is concluded

that the most effective RCP and Surface Resistivity testing age to predict the chloride diffusion

penetration of a 1 or 3 year Bulk Diffusion test is 91 days. More realistic diffusion coefficients

associated with these test results can be derived. The average and standard deviation of the

chloride permeability measured by a 1 and 3 year Bulk Diffusion test related to 91 day RCP

results including the grade of variability from the experimental data is presented in Table 5-12.

90

Table 5-1. Fresh Concrete Properties.

Mixture Name Slump

(in)

Air Content(%)

Concrete Temperature (oF)

Air Temperature (oF)

Unit Weight (pcf)

49_564 7.5 3.5 76 72 140.62 35_752 3 2 79 72 144.62 45_752 9.75 2.5 80 75 140.40 28_900_8SF_20F 9 3 81 75 142.32 35_752_20F 2.25 1.5 80 72 144.32 35_752_12CF 6 4.5 80 73 140.52 35_752_8SF 3 2.5 76 72 143.72 35_752_8SF_20F 4 4.5 78 70 139.72 35_752_10M 5.5 4.5 76 78 145.22 35_752_10M_20F 8 1.25 80 80 144.02 35_752_50Slag 6 2 74 72 142.82

Lab. Mixes

35_752_4.5CN 9 6 76 72 140.49 45_570 0.5 4 94 81 140.49 29_450_20F 3 1.5 92 96 148.64 33_658_18F 7 3.5 88 98 145.01 34_686_18F 7 2 90 89 143.08 30_673_20F 6.5 1.7 96 99 148.77 28_800_20F 7.75 2.8 98 93 142.16

Field Mixes

29_770_18F 5.5 2 93 96 147.39

91

Table 5-2. 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficients. 1-Year Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/sec)

Mixture Name Sample A Sample B Sample C Average Standard

Deviation

Coefficient of Variation (%)

49_564 22.451 16.607 17.347 18.801 3.182 17 35_752 4.050 4.433 4.863 4.449 0.407 9 45_752 10.645 9.738 9.440 9.941 0.627 6 28_900_8SF_20F 1.345 1.175 1.254 1.258 0.085 7 35_752_20F 4.222 5.255 5.948 5.142 0.869 17 35_752_12CF 5.374 4.637 4.378 4.796 0.516 11 35_752_8SF 2.299 2.255 1.656 2.070 0.360 17 35_752_8SF_20F 2.351 2.729 3.562 2.881 0.619 21 35_752_10M 0.877 1.206 1.232 1.105 0.198 18 35_752_10M_20F 2.251 2.425 2.587 2.421 0.168 7 35_752_50Slag 2.994 2.100 3.151 2.748 0.567 21 35_752_4.5CN 6.644 8.406 6.622 7.224 1.024 14 45_570 11.703 9.155 9.404 10.087 1.405 14 29_450_20F 6.306 4.452 4.656 5.138 1.017 20 33_658_18F 5.829 5.723 5.851 5.801 0.068 1 34_686_18F 3.027 5.729 4.526 4.427 1.354 31 30_673_20F 2.231 2.169 2.366 2.255 0.101 4 28_800_20F 3.330 2.490 1.662 2.494 0.834 33 29_770_18F 2.212 3.361 1.756 2.443 0.827 34

92

Table 5-3. 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Surface Concentration. 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Surface Concentration (lb/yd3)


Deviation



93

Table 5-4. 3-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficients. 3-Year Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/sec)


Deviation



94

Table 5-5. 3-Year Bulk Diffusion Surface Concentration. 3-Year Bulk Diffusion Surface Concentration (lb/yd3)


Deviation



95

Table 5-6. Bulk Diffusion Ratio of Change from 3-Years to 1-Year of Exposure. Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/sec)

Mixture Name 1-Year Samples 3-Year Samples

Bulk Diffusion Ratios (3-Years/1-Year)

49_564 18.801 26.448 1.41 35_752 4.449 4.929 1.11 45_752 9.941 10.633 1.07 28_900_8SF_20F 1.258 0.887 0.71 35_752_20F 5.142 2.208 0.43 35_752_12CF 4.796 3.708 0.77 35_752_8SF 2.070 1.958 0.95 35_752_8SF_20F 2.881 2.645 0.92 35_752_10M 1.105 1.407 1.27 35_752_10M_20F 2.421 2.149 0.89 35_752_50Slag 2.748 2.303 0.84 35_752_4.5CN 7.224 11.479 1.59 45_570 10.087 25.416 2.52 29_450_20F 5.138 10.481 2.04 33_658_18F 5.801 3.174 0.55 34_686_18F 4.427 2.528 0.57 30_673_20F 2.255 2.012 0.89 28_800_20F 2.494 2.208 0.89 29_770_18F 2.443 1.382 0.57 Table 5-7. Pozzolans and Corrosion Inhibitor Effects on Bulk Diffusion Coefficients.

1-Year Samples 3-Year Samples

Mixture Name (a) Bulk Diff. (x10-12)

(m2/sec)

Ratio of Diff. to Control Mixture(c)

Bulk Diff. (x10-12) (m2/sec)

Ratio of Diff. to Control Mixture(c)

35_752(b) 4.449 1.00 4.929 1.00 35_752_20F 5.142 1.16 2.208 0.45 35_752_12CF 4.796 1.08 3.708 0.75 35_752_8SF 2.070 0.47 1.958 0.40 35_752_8SF_20F 2.881 0.65 2.645 0.54 35_752_10M 1.105 0.25 1.407 0.29 35_752_10M_20F 2.421 0.54 2.149 0.44 35_752_50Slag 2.748 0.62 2.303 0.47 35_752_4.5CN 7.224 1.62 11.479 2.33 (a) These mixtures were cast at the laboratory with the same source of materials. (b) 35_752 is defined as the Control Mixture.

96

Table 5-8. Correlation Coefficients (R2) of RCP to Reference Tests.

Test Procedure Test Conducted

Age (Days) 1-Year Bulk

Diffusion (a) 3-Year Bulk

Diffusion (a) Number of

Sample Sets

14 0.59 0.39 18

28 0.67 0.47 18 56 0.81 0.70 18 91 0.80 0.76 18

182 0.79 0.78 18

RCP

(AASHTO T277)

364 0.77 0.81 18 (a) Concrete Mixture Containing Calcium Nitrite (35_752_4.5CN) was not included in the correlation.

Table 5-9. Correlation Coefficients (R2) of Surface Resistivity to Reference Tests.

Test Procedure Test Conducted

Age (Days) 1-Year Bulk

Diffusion (a) 3-Year Bulk

Diffusion (a) Number of

Sample Sets

14 0.48 0.29 18

28 0.77 0.49 18 56 0.80 0.60 18 91 0.84 0.72 18

182 0.81 0.77 18 364 0.70 0.77 18 455 0.70 0.77 18

Surface Resistivity (Lime Cured)

546 0.68 0.73 18 14 0.76 0.50 13(b)

28 0.75 0.53 18 56 0.75 0.60 18 91 0.79 0.72 18

182 0.77 0.79 18 364 0.74 0.76 18 455 0.70 0.78 18

Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured)

546 0.69 0.75 18 (a) Concrete Mixture Containing Calcium Nitrite (35_752_4.5CN) was not included in the correlation.

(b) Fewer set of samples were available for this correlation.

Table 5-10. 1 and 3 year Bulk Diffusion Relative to 91-Day RCP Charge Passed (Coulombs). 91-Day RCP Charge Passed

(Coulombs) 1-Year Bulk Diffusion

(x10-12) (m2/s) 3-Year Bulk Diffusion

(x10-12) (m2/s) > 4,000 > 8.478 > 10.518

2,000 – 4,000 4.044 – 8.478 3.834 – 10.518 1,000 – 2,000 1.929 – 4.044 1.398 – 3.834

100 – 1,000 0.165 – 1.929 0.049 – 1.398 < 100 < 0.165 < 0.049

97

Table 5-11. Correlation Coefficients (R2) of RCP and Surface Resistivity to Reference Tests by Monte Carlo Simulation Analysis.

1-Year Bulk Diffusion (a) 3-Year Bulk Diffusion (a)

Test Procedure

Test Conducted Age (Days) Average

Standard Deviation Average

Standard Deviation

14 0.54 0.07 0.37 0.04

28 0.61 0.08 0.46 0.05 56 0.75 0.06 0.66 0.05 91 0.74 0.05 0.73 0.04

182 0.73 0.05 0.75 0.04

RCP (AASHTO T277)

364 0.72 0.05 0.78 0.04 14 0.43 0.08 0.28 0.04 28 0.71 0.07 0.48 0.04 56 0.74 0.07 0.58 0.04 91 0.78 0.06 0.69 0.04

182 0.74 0.06 0.73 0.06 364 0.66 0.05 0.75 0.04 455 0.65 0.05 0.74 0.04

Surface Resistivity (Lime Cured)

546 0.64 0.05 0.71 0.04 14 0.73 0.04 0.48 0.03 28 0.69 0.06 0.51 0.04 56 0.69 0.07 0.58 0.05 91 0.73 0.06 0.70 0.04

182 0.72 0.05 0.76 0.04 364 0.70 0.05 0.73 0.04 455 0.65 0.05 0.75 0.04

Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured)

546 0.64 0.05 0.72 0.04 (a) Concrete Mixture Containing Calcium Nitrite (35_752_4.5CN) was not included in the correlation.

Table 5-12. 1 and 3 year Bulk Diffusion Relative to 91-Day RCP Charge Passed (Coulombs) by

Monte Carlo Simulation Analysis. 1-Year Bulk Diffusion (x10-12)

(m2/s) 3-Year Bulk Diffusion (x10-12)

(m2/s) 91-Day RCP Charge Passed (Coulombs) Average

Standard Deviation Average

Standard Deviation

> 4,000 > 8.924 > 0.676 > 10.866 > 0.969 2,000 – 4,000 4.020 – 8.924 0.196 – 0.676 3.814 – 10.866 0.204 – 0.969 1,000 – 2,000 1.820 – 4.020 0.170 – 0.196 1.345 – 3.814 0.115 – 0.204

100 – 1,000 0.162 – 1.820 0.039 – 0.170 0.044 – 1.345 0.013 – 0.115 < 100 < 0.162 < 0.039 < 0.044 < 0.013

98

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

0 100 200 300 400Age (Days)

Stre

ngth

(psi)

35_752 (Control)35_752_20F

A

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

0 100 200 300 400Age (Days)

Stre

ngth

(psi)

35_752 (Control)35_752_8SF

B

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

0 100 200 300 400Age (Days)

Stre

ngth

(psi)

35_752 (Control)35_752_4.5CN

C

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

0 100 200 300 400Age (Days)

Stre

ngth

(psi)

35_752 (Control)35_752_10M

D Figure 5-1. Comparative Compressive Strength Development of Laboratory Control Mixture

(35_752) and Laboratory Mixtures Containing: A) Fly Ash (35_752_20F), B) Silica Fume (35_752_8SF), C) Calcium Nitrite (35_752_4.5CN) and D) Metakaoline (35_752_10M).

99

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

0 100 200 300 400Age (Days)

Stre

ngth

(psi)

35_752 (Control)45_570

A

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

0 100 200 300 400Age (Days)

Stre

ngth

(psi)

35_752 (Control)34_686_18F

B

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

0 100 200 300 400Age (Days)

Stre

ngth

(psi)

35_752 (Control)28_800_20F

C Figure 5-2. Comparative Compressive Strength Development of Laboratory Control Mixture

(35_752) and Field Mixtures: A) 45_570, B) 34_686_18F and C) 28_800_20F.

100

0

10

20

30

49_5

64

45_5

70

45_7

52

35_7

52_4

.5C

N

33_6

58_1

8F

35_7

52_2

0F

29_4

50_2

0F

35_7

52_1

2CF

35_7

52

34_6

86_1

8F

35_7

52_8

SF_2

0F

35_7

52_5

0Sla

g

28_8

00_2

0F

29_7

70_1

8F

35_7

52_1

0M_2

0F

30_6

73_2

0F

35_7

52_8

SF

28_9

00_8

SF_2

0F

35_7

52_1

0M

Mixture Name

Bul

k D

iff. C

oef.

(x10

-12 )(m

2 /s)1-Year Samples

Note: Calicium Nitrite (CN), Fly-Ash (F), Classified Fly-Ash (CF), Silica Fume (SF) and Metakaolin (M).

Figure 5-3. 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficient Comparisons.

0

10

20

30

49_5

64

45_5

70

35_7

52_4

.5C

N

45_7

52

29_4

50_2

0F

35_7

52

35_7

52_1

2CF

33_6

58_1

8F

35_7

52_8

SF_2

0F

34_6

86_1

8F

35_7

52_5

0Sla

g

28_8

00_2

0F

35_7

52_2

0F

35_7

52_1

0M_2

0F

30_6

73_2

0F

35_7

52_8

SF

35_7

52_1

0M

29_7

70_1

8F

28_9

00_8

SF_2

0F

Mixture Name

Bul

k D

iff. C

oef.

(x10

-12 )(m

2 /s)

3-Year Samples


Figure 5-4. 3-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficient Comparisons.

101

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

35_7

52_4

.5C

N

35_7

52_2

0F

35_7

52_1

2CF

35_7

52

35_7

52_8

SF_2

0F

35_7

52_5

0Sla

g

35_7

52_1

0M_2

0F

35_7

52_8

SF

35_7

52_1

0M

Mixture Name

Rat

io o

f Diff

. Coe

ff. to

Con

trol

Mix 1-Year Data

3-Year Data


Control Mixture

Figure 5-5. Pozzolans and Corrosion Inhibitors Effects on Bulk Diffusion Coefficients.

y = 1042x0.862

R2 = 0.669

0

5000

10000

15000

0 10 20 30Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s)

RC

P (C

oulo

mbs

) .

Calcium Nitrite Mix

A

y = 541x0.936

R2 = 0.802

0

5000

10000

15000


RC

P (C

oulo

mbs

) .

Calcium Nitrite Mix

B Figure 5-6. 1-Year Bulk Diffusion vs. RCP (AASHTO T277) at A) 28 Days and B) 91 Days.

102

y = 1647x0.549

R2 = 0.474

0

5000

10000

15000


RC

P (C

oulo

mbs

) .

Calcium Nitrite Mix

A

y = 795x0.687

R2 = 0.755

0

5000

10000

15000


RC

P (C

oulo

mbs

) .

Calcium Nitrite Mix

B Figure 5-7. 3-Year Bulk Diffusion vs. RCP (AASHTO T277) at A) 28 Days and B) 91 Days.

y = 0.037x0.658

R2 = 0.770

0

0.1

0.2

0.3


SR C

ondu

ctiv

ity(1

/(kO

hm-c

m))

Calcium Nitrite Mix

A

y = 0.019x0.803

R2 = 0.840

0

0.1

0.2

0.3


SR C

ondu

ctiv

ity(1

/(kO

hm-c

m))

Calcium Nitrite Mix

B Figure 5-8. 1-Year Bulk Diffusion vs. SR (Lime Cured) Conductivity at: A) 28 Days and B) 91

Days.

103

y = 0.054x0.397

R2 = 0.492

0

0.1

0.2

0.3


SR C

ondu

ctiv

ity(1

/(kO

hm-c

m))

Calcium Nitrite Mix

A

y = 0.027x0.560

R2 = 0.715

0

0.1

0.2

0.3


SR C

ondu

ctiv

ity(1

/(kO

hm-c

m))

Calcium Nitrite Mix

B Figure 5-9. 3-Year Bulk Diffusion vs. SR (Lime Cured) Conductivity at: A) 28 Days and B) 91

Days.

y = 0.028x0.763

R2 = 0.747

0

0.1

0.2

0.3


SR C

ondu

ctiv

ity(1

/(kO

hm-c

m))

Calcium Nitrite Mix

A

y = 0.016x0.848

R2 = 0.787

0

0.1

0.2

0.3


SR C

ondu

ctiv

ity(1

/(kO

hm-c

m))

Calcium Nitrite Mix

B Figure 5-10. 1-Year Bulk Diffusion vs. SR (Moist Cured) Conductivity at: A) 28 Days and B) 91

Days.

104

y = 0.042x0.487

R2 = 0.533

0

0.1

0.2

0.3


SR C

ondu

ctiv

ity(1

/(kO

hm-c

m))

Calcium Nitrite Mix

A

y = 0.023x0.615

R2 = 0.723

0

0.1

0.2

0.3


SR C

ondu

ctiv

ity(1

/(kO

hm-c

m))

Calcium Nitrite Mix

B Figure 5-11. 3-Year Bulk Diffusion vs. SR (Moist Cured) Conductivity at: A) 28 Days and B) 91

Days.

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

14 28 56 91 182 364 454 544Age (Days)

Cor

rela

tion

Coe

ffici

ent (

R2 )

SR (Lime Cured) SR (Moist Cured)

Figure 5-12. Curing Method Comparison of Correlation Coefficients with 1-Year Bulk Diffusion

Test.

105

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

14 28 56 91 182 364 454 544Age (Days)

Cor

rela

tion

Coe

ffici

ent (

R2 )

SR (Lime Cured) SR (Moist Cured)

Figure 5-13. Curing Method Comparison of Correlation Coefficients with 3-Year Bulk Diffusion

Test.

Depth of Penetration (mm)

Chl

orid

e C

once

ntra

tion

(%C

oncr

ete)

Initial Chloride Background

Total Integral Chloride Content

Figure 5-14. AASHTO T259 Total Integral Chloride Content Analysis.

106

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

0 100 200 300 400Testing Age (Days)

RC

P (C

oulo

mbs

) .35_752 (Control)35_752_20F35_752_8SF

Figure 5-15. RCP Test Coulomb Results Change With the Addition of Fly Ash and Silica Fume.

107

0

4000

8000

12000


RC

P (C

oulo

mbs

) .49_56435_75245_75228_900_8SF_20F35_752_20F35_752_12CF

A

0

4000

8000

12000


RC

P (C

oulo

mbs

) .

35_752_8SF35_752_8SF_20F35_752_10M35_752_10M_20F35_752_50Slag35_752_4.5CN

B

0

4000

8000

12000


RC

P (C

oulo

mbs

) .

45_57029_450_20F33_658_18F34_686_18F

C

0

4000

8000

12000


RC

P (C

oulo

mbs

) .30_673_20F28_800_20F29_770_18F

D Figure 5-16. RCP Test Coulomb Results Change With Age for: A,B) Laboratory Mixtures and

C,D) Field Mixtures.

108

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0 200 400 600Age (Days)

Cor

rela

tion

Coe

ffici

ent (

R2 )

RCPSurface Resistivity (Lime)Surface Resistivity (Moist)

91 D

ays

Figure 5-17. General Correlation Coefficients (R2) of Electrical Tests by Testing Ages with 1-

Year Bulk Diffusion.

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0 200 400 600Age (Days)

Cor

rela

tion

Coe

ffici

ent (

R2 )


91 D

ays


Year Bulk Diffusion.

109

y = 541x0.936

R2 = 0.802

0

5000

10000

15000


RC

P (C

oulo

mbs

) .

Calcium Nitrite Mix

A

0

500

1000

1500

2000

0 1 2 3 4Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s)

RC

P (C

oulo

mbs

) .

1.929x10-12

B Figure 5-19. Relating Electrical Tests and Bulk Diffusion. A) 1-Year Bulk Diffusion vs. RCP at

91 Days and B) 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficient Associated with a 91-Day RCP Test of a 1000 Coulombs.

y = 795x0.687

R2 = 0.755

0

5000

10000

15000


RC

P (C

oulo

mbs

) .

Calcium Nitrite Mix

A

0

500

1000

1500

2000


RC

P (C

oulo

mbs

) .

1.398x10-12

B Figure 5-20. Relating Electrical Tests and Bulk Diffusion. A) 3-Year Bulk Diffusion vs. RCP at

91 Days and B) 3-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficient Associated with a 91-Day RCP Test of a 1000 Coulombs.

110

RC

P (C

oul o

mbs

)

Bulk Diffusion (m /s)2 A Bulk Diffusion (m /s)2

RC

P (C

oul o

mbs

)

Best-fit-curve based on Power Function Model

B

RC

P (C

oul o

mbs

)

Bulk Diffusion (m /s)2

Variables GeneratedFamily of Curves Fitted to the Random

C

RC

P (C

oulo

mbs

)

Bulk Diffusion (m2/s)

RCP Limit

Ass

o cia

ted

Bul

k D

iffu s

ion

Co e

ffic

ien t

s

D Figure 5-21. Schematic Process of Bulk Diffusion Correlation to RCP Using Monte Carlo

Simulation: A) Generating Data Parameters from Normal Random Variables, B) Curve Fitting of Generated Variables Based on Power Function Model, C) Family of Curves Generated for each Set of Random Variables, D) Associated Bulk Diffusion Coefficients to the RCP Limits of each Fitted Curve and E) Bulk Diffusion Histogram for Simulated Data.

111

0

200

400

600

3.3 3.8 4.2 4.7Bulk Diffusion (x10-12)(m2/s)

Freq

uenc

y

E Figure 5-21. Continued.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

100 1000 10000 100000Number of Samples

CO

V (%

)

100 Coulombs1000 Coulombs2000 Coulombs4000 Coulombs

A

0

2

4

6

8

10


CO

V (%

)


B Figure 5-22. 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficient of Variation Change by the Number of Samples

Used in Monte Carlo Simulation for the Different RCP Standard Limits. A) Mean and B) Standard Deviation for 28-Day RCP Test.

112

0

0.5

1

1.5

2


CO

V (%

)


A

0

2

4

6

8

10


CO

V (%

)


B Figure 5-23. 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficient of Variation Change by the Number of Samples

Used in Monte Carlo Simulation for the Different RCP Standard Limits. A) Mean and B) Standard Deviation for 91-Day RCP Test.

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

0 200 400 600Age (Days)

Cor

rela

tion

Coe

ffici

ent (

R2 )



Year Bulk Diffusion by Monte Carlo Simulation Analysis.

113

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

0 200 400 600Age (Days)

Cor

rela

tion

Coe

ffici

ent (

R2 )



Year Bulk Diffusion by Monte Carlo Simulation Analysis.

114

CHAPTER 6 FIELD CORE SAMPLING

Diffusion Coefficients of Cored Samples

The chloride diffusion coefficients and surface chloride concentrations of the cored

samples were obtained by fitting the obtained concentrations at varying depths and the initial

chloride background levels to the non-linear Fick’s Second Law of Diffusion solution (Table

6-1). The Fick’s Second Law solution assumes that the unique chloride mechanism that

transports the chloride ions through the concrete is diffusion. This is a reasonable assumption for

tests conducted under controlled laboratory conditions, such as the Bulk Diffusion test. Elements

located in marine environments, however, are intermittently subjected to chloride exposure due

to tidal fluctuations. Wetting and drying due to tides encourages absorption, which is generated

by capillary suction of the concrete pulling seawater into the concrete. Moreover, the tidal

fluctuations also induce leaching of unbonded shallow surface chlorides. During concrete drying

period, shallow surface water evaporates and chlorides are left either as chemically bonded to the

pore walls or as unbonded crystal forms. Subsequently, when the concrete is again wetted, some

of these unbonded crystals are leached out of the concrete surface. Therefore, chloride profiles of

field cores can differ from that obtained under permanent chloride immersion, such as the

laboratory test Bulk Diffusion. The chloride concentration near the exposed surface can be

considerably less than deeper into the concrete. However, previous research (Sagüés et al. 2001)

has shown that diffusion coefficients can be approximately calculated by fitting the Fick’s

Second Law of Diffusion solution by excluding these misleading peaks in the regression

analysis. The consequent chloride profile penetrations, following the initial surface values

affected by leaching and absorption, fit the “pure diffusion” trend behavior. Figure 6-1 shows

115

some of the diffusion coefficient regression analysis of the bridge cored samples. Diffusion

analyses for each of the cored sample are summarized in APPENDIX D.

The chloride profile obtained from the Granada crash wall (Figure 6-2) was initially

puzzling. The flat trend of chloride ingress showing chloride levels barely above background

levels indicated little chloride penetration. This low penetration was likely caused by the epoxy

coating applied to the surface of the structural elements (Figure 3-12).

Correlation of Long-Term Field Data to Laboratory Test Procedures

The true aim of both the short and long-term chloride exposure testing is to capture the

ability of the concrete in the field to resist chloride intrusion. As the chloride concentration

builds up in a concrete member, it approaches the chloride threshold, which is the point at which

the reinforcement begins to corrode. The longer the chloride penetration is delayed, the longer

the service life of the structure. Unfortunately, the exposure conditions in the field are quite

varied and do not really match those of the standard short or long term laboratory tests that have

been discussed thus far. Some of the factors include chloride concentration of solution, absolute

and variation in temperature, humidity and age of concrete among others. Additionally,

mechanisms other than diffusion contribute to the intrusion of chlorides. Nevertheless, it is

common to take cores of field concrete, determine chloride concentration at varying depths and

calculate chloride diffusion coefficients.

The diffusion coefficients obtained from a pile exposed to seawater are affected by the

sampling locations. The FDOT Structures Design Guidelines (FDOT SDG 2007) defines the

splash zone as the vertical distance from 4 feet below mean low water level (MLW) to 12 feet

above mean high water level (MHW) for structural coastal crossings. This defined exposure zone

is considered to be too wide for comparison purposes of diffusion coefficients. Previous

researchers (Luping 2003; Sagüés et al. 2001) have shown that chloride sampling is very

116

sensitive to the position within the splash zone where the concrete core is taken. Small

differences in the core position have resulted in significant differences in the chloride profile. A

common approach is to measure the location of the core sample in reference to MHW level.

Moreover, additional subdivision of chloride exposure zone has been presented in previous

literature (Tang and Andersen 2000; Tang, L. 2003; Cannon et al. 2006). Figure 6-3 shows these

chloride exposure zones for a typical bridge piling surrounded by seawater. The tidal zone is the

exposed area defined between the MHW and MLW marks that is intermittently subjected to

chloride exposure due to changes of water tides. The submerged zone, defined as that portion of

the pile below the MLW mark, is continuously exposed to salt solution. The splash zone is above

the MHW mark and is subjected to wetting and drying due to wave action. Finally, the dry zone

is above the splash zone and is not directly exposed to chlorides present in seawater but may

receive occasional airborne chlorides. There is no general agreement in current literature that

defines where the splash zone ends and the dry zone begins. The results presented in this section

are based on samples obtained in the tidal zone of exposure.

Diffusion is believed to be the predominant chloride ingress mechanism for samples

obtained from the submerged zone because the concrete is continuously exposed to salt solution

similar to the laboratory test Bulk Diffusion. The chloride concentration in the seawater

surrounding the pile is usually relatively constant. The chlorides ions will naturally migrate from

the high concentration on the outside (high energy) to the low concentration (low energy) in the

inside with a constant moisture present along the path of migration. When the pile is not

continuously submerged, other chloride ingress mechanisms tend to control the chloride

penetration.

117

Previous research (Tang and Andersen 2000; Tang 2003) that compared samples exposed

to the different zones over a 5 year period showed that the diffusion coefficients were highest in

the submerged zone followed by tidal, splash and dry zone. Tang (2003) showed, however, that

when the exposure period was 10 years, the chloride ingress in the tidal zone significantly

increased during the period from year 5 to year 10. Table 6-2 summarizes the results of this

previous research. The table also includes diffusion coefficients calculated from chloride

sampling on 39-year old piles extracted during a bridge demolition (Cannon et al., 2006).

Diffusion analyses for each of these cored samples are summarized in APPENDIX H. The

diffusion coefficients from the 39-year old piles appear to confirm the trend implied by Tang’s

work.

Table 6-2 also includes the ratio of the diffusion coefficient for the submerged zone to that

of the tidal zone. These ratios are plotted in Figure 6-4 and show a decreasing trend over the life

of the structure. Indeed the data from the 39-year old piles constructed with a completely

different mixture appears to confirm the decreasing trend that Tang’s work implies.

The trend illustrated in Figure 6-4 might be used to relate the results of bulk diffusion test

to those of the field cores obtained from the bridges in service. If it is assumed that the

environmental conditions of the bulk diffusion test are similar to those of the completely

submerged pile in service, then the diffusion coefficients can be compared to give a reasonable

correlation between laboratory tests and field conditions. From this viewpoint, the plot in Figure

6-4 indicates that the bulk diffusion test will likely give the highest diffusion coefficient for

concretes less than about ten years old. As the concrete ages, however, the tidal zone diffusion

coefficient appears to exceed that of the submerged zone signifying that the bulk diffusion test

might not give the most conservative results.

118

This connection can be tested by comparing the results of the 1 and 3 year bulk diffusion

testing to the diffusion coefficients of the piles from which the samples were collected for this

research, as long as the mixture proportions and constituents are comparable. The diffusion

coefficients from mixture design 35_752_8SF_20F (Table 5-2 and Table 5-4) are compared to

diffusion coefficients from extracted cores that were taken from piles that used a similar mixture

design (including the addition of silica fume). The comparison is based on the cores taken at the

tidal zone. Additionally, available chloride profiles from FDOT research currently in progress

(Paredes 2007) were included in this analysis. Table 6-3 shows the summary of the calculated

laboratory diffusion coefficients with the statistical parameters average and standard deviation.

Detailed data on these calculations are presented in APPENDIX H.

Figure 6-5 shows the diffusion coefficients of the selected laboratory and field samples

plotted on a logarithmic scale. The field samples used in the plot were selected because they

were extracted from tidal zone. There is nearly an order of magnitude difference between the

diffusion coefficients from the bulk diffusion tests and those from the field-cored samples. This

variation can be attributed to the several factors affecting chloride diffusion under field

conditions as the sampling location and the concrete ageing.

Assuming that the ratio of the submerged to tidal diffusion coefficients is controlled

primarily by environment, then the ratios from Table 6-2 can be used to “convert” the tidal

diffusion coefficient to a submerged diffusion coefficient. Although this assumption is probably

not strictly correct since variation in concrete permeability will likely affect the ratio as well, it

makes a convenient method by which the laboratory results can be related to field results.

Because the piles sampled for this research were approximately ten years in service, the highest

calculated ratio of 1.52 for a comparable age of exposure of 10 years will give the most

119

conservative result. Applying this ratio to the field results ostensibly converts those diffusion

coefficients to a submerged condition as is shown in Figure 6-5. Comparing these diffusion

coefficients to the laboratory diffusion coefficients indicates that the 1 and 3 year bulk diffusion

coefficients are higher than the field values for a ten year period.

It is not clear why 1 and 3 year laboratory values are higher than the ten-year field values.

This analysis considered only the diffusion coefficients and not the chloride content at the level

of the steel. The diffusion coefficients are derived from fitting a curve to the chloride profile

data. It perhaps gives a better indication of the shape of the curve rather than a direct indication

of the chloride content at a certain depth. Further data are needed to better characterize this time

dependency. One suggestion is to obtain shorter and longer exposure periods in the laboratory

samples to establish time variations of the diffusion for the laboratory samples. This trend can

then be used to establish correlation with the longer-term results obtained from the field on

comparable mixtures. Nevertheless, it appears that the 1 and 3-year bulk diffusion results

overestimate the diffusion coefficients from ten-year old concrete in the field.

120

Table 6-1. Calculated Diffusion Parameters of Cored Samples.

Bridge Name Lab. # Exposure (Years)

Initial Chloride Content (lb/yd3)

Surface Chloride Content (lb/yd3)

Diffusion Coefficient (x10-12) (m2/sec)

Water Chloride Content (ppm)

5016 0.547(a) 20.336 0.050

5017 0.533 41.112 0.149

Hurricane Pass (HPB)

5018

15

0.561 44.904 0.151

19284

5054 0.467 33.012 0.585 Broadway Replacement (BRB) 5081

5

0.858(b) 32.401 0.358

14864(c)

5082 0.467 42.497 0.628 Seabreeze West Bound (SWB) 5083

9

0.432 49.660 0.329

14864(c)

Granada (GRB) 5084 9 0.637 0.942 0.051 14864(c)

5078 0.556 26.791 0.185

5079 0.423 30.269 0.132

Turkey Creek (TCB)

5080

7

0.417 33.237 0.155

9608

5075 0.614 27.046 0.361

5076 0.432 28.700 0.540

New Roosevelt (NRB)

5077

9

0.382 29.696 0.373

31072

(a) Initial Chlorides were not tested for this sample. An average between Lab sample# 5017 and 5018 was reported.

(b) Initial Chloride value was considered an erroneous value (too high). The value of initial chlorides from Lab sample# 5054 was used.

(c) The Bridge Structures are exposed to the same body of water.

121

Table 6-2. Time Dependent Changes in Diffusion Coefficients from Submerged and Tidal Zones. Diffusion Coefficient (x10-12) (m2/sec)

Mixture Chloride

Exposure Zone

Exposed for 0.6-1.3 years



Exposed for ~39 years

Submerged 4.55 2.51 1.95 -Tidal 1.98 1.31 1.43 -1-40(a)(c) Ratio (Sub./Tidal) 2.30 1.92 1.36 -Submerged 2.35 1.93 1.67 -Tidal 0.54 0.91 1.10 -2-40 (a) (c) Ratio (Sub./Tidal) 4.35 2.12 1.52 -Submerged 3.78 1.26 1.25 -Tidal 1.49 0.41 1.33 -3-40(a) (d) Ratio (Sub./Tidal) 2.54 3.07 0.94 -Submerged - - - 11.48Tidal - - - 18.27Pile 44-2(b) (c) Ratio (Sub./Tidal) - - - 0.63

(a) Tang, L. 2003. (b) Cannon et al. 2006. (c) Plain cement concrete mixture. No additional cementitious materials were added. (d) Concrete mixture containing silica fume. Table 6-3. Laboratory Bulk Diffusion Coefficients for Comparable Mixtures with an Expected

Low Chloride Permeability Design. 1-Year Bulk Diffusion

Coefficient (x10-12) (m2/sec) 3-Year Bulk Diffusion

Coefficient (x10-12) (m2/sec)

Mixture(a) Sample

ID Results Average Standard Deviation Results Average

Standard Deviation

A 2.351 2.850B 2.729 2.683

35_752 _8SF_20F

C 3.562 2.4022.645 0.226

A 1.691 - - -HRP3(b) B 1.782 - - -A 2.071 - - -HRP4(b) B 1.355

2.220 0.744

- - -(a) Mixture design: w/c: 0.35, Cementitious:752 pcy, 20% Fly Ash and 8% Silica Fume. (b) Samples obtained from FDOT research currently in progress (Paredes 2007).

122

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 0.5 1 1.5 2Mid-Layer from Surface (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (

lb/y

d3 ) Include in the Regression

Not Include in the RegressionFitted Regression

A

0

10

20

30

40

50


Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (

lb/y


Not Include in the RegressionFitted Regression

B Figure 6-1. Diffusion Regression Analysis for Cored Samples: A) NRB (Lab #5075) and B) HPB

(Lab# 5017).

0

10

20

30

40

50


Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (

lb/y


Fitted Regression

Figure 6-2. Diffusion Regression Analysis for Cored Sample GRB (Lab #5084).

123

Supe

rstru

ctur

eSu

bstru

ctur

e

Water Level

MHW

MLW

Tidal Zone

Submerged Zone

Splash Zone

Dry Zone

Figure 6-3. Chloride Exposure Zones of a Typical Bridge Structure.

0

1

2

3

4

5

0 10 20 30 40Cl Exposure Period (Years)

Rat

io o

f Cl D

iffus

ion

(Sub

mer

ged/

Tid

al)

1-40(a) 2-40(a)3-40(a) Pile 44-2(b)

(a) Tang, L. 2003. (b) Cannon et al. 2006.

Figure 6-4. Time Dependent Changes in Diffusion Coefficients from Submerged and Tidal

Zones.

124

0.01

0.1

1

10

100 1000 10000Cl Exposure Period (Days)

Diff

usio

n C

oeffi

cien

ts (x

10-1

2 ) (m

2 /s)

35_752_8SF_20F (Sample A) 35_752_8SF_20F (Sample B)35_752_8SF_20F (Sample C) HRP3 (Sample A)HRP3 (Sample B) HRP4 (Sample A)HRP4 (Sample B) HPB(LAB#5017)HPB(LAB#5018) BRB(LAB#5054)BRB(LAB#5081) SWB(LAB#5082)SWB(LAB#5083) TCB(LAB#5078)TCB(LAB#5079) TCB(LAB#5080)NRB(LAB#5075) NRB(LAB#5076)NRB(LAB#5077)

Field Data Average

1-Year Laboratory Data

Field Data Average x 1.52

(a)

(b)(c)

(a) Submerged Exposure(b) Tidal Exposure(c) Estimated Submerged Exposure

Figure 6-5. Time Dependent Laboratory and Field Diffusion Coefficient Trend of Change.

125

CHAPTER 7 RECOMMENDED APPROACH FOR DETERMINING LIMITS OF CONDUCTIVITY TESTS

In the previous section, it was concluded that 91 days was the earliest age at which the

RCP and Surface Resistivity testing age correlated well with the chloride diffusion penetration of

a 1 or 3 year Bulk Diffusion test. More realistic diffusion coefficients associated with these test

results can be derived. However, the present FDOT specifications (FDOT 346 2004) require

shorter time period of 28 days to predicted diffusion rates for a specific mix design. Therefore,

the following recommendations present a method by which RCP and Surface Resistivity rapid

electrical tests can be calibrated so that, with reasonable confidence, diffusion coefficients can be

predicted from 28 days samples. It is anticipated that this approach would be used for quality

control purpose and not for service life prediction.

The original RCP coulomb limit standards (Table 2-1) are the staring point for the new

recommendations. These coulomb limits were derived in the original research from 91-day RCP

samples. Therefore, to maintain consistency with the original method and because this age

appears to be optimal for predicting the long-term chloride diffusion, the diffusion coefficient

associated with the coulombs limits for a 91-day test were selected as the “standards” for which

the allowable limits would be set when the RCP or SR test is conducted at 28 days after casting.

The 1-year Bulk Diffusion results derived from the Monte Carlo analysis were selected as the

“standard” benchmark coefficients (Table 5-12) for the analysis. The fundamental assumption is

that the selected diffusion coefficient is sufficiently low to give the desired service life with the

associated concrete cover.

RCP and Bulk Diffusion

The coulomb limits associated with the “standard” diffusion coefficients (Table 5-12) are

calculated from the trend line equation derived on the 28-day RCP correlation to the 1-year Bulk

126

Diffusion test. A statistical study is included to ensure the validity of this new RCP limit. A

confidence interval for the mean response of the test correlations was employed. This confidence

interval represents the statistical probability that the next set of samples tested will fall within the

specified acceptance range. It was found that a modified linear regression trend presented as a

power function (APPENDIX F) provided the best representation of the relationship between the

RCP and Bulk Diffusion test results. Therefore, the confidence interval was calculated according

to the analytical derivation presented as followed:

)(Y oox yyo

εμ ±= (7-1)

( )xx

oo S

xxn

sty21)(

−+= αε (7-2)

2−−

=n

bSSs xyyy (7-3)

( )∑=

−=n

iixx xxS

1

2 (7-4)

( )∑=

−=n

iiyy yyS

1

2 (7-5)

( )( )∑=

−−=n

iiixy yyxxS

1

(7-6)

where oxYμ is the mean confidence limit response for an independent variable xo; yo: dependent

variable from regression analysis equation;ε(yo) is the standard error of dependent variable; tα: one-tailed Student’s t-distribution value with n-2 degrees of freedom for an specific confidence level; yi: experimental dependent variables; y : mean of experimental dependent variables; xi: experimental independent variables; x : mean of experimental independent variables; b: slope value from regression analysis; n: number of samples.

Figure 7-1 shows the 90% confidence limit for the mean response of the 28-day RCP test

correlation to the 1-year Bulk Diffusion reference test. The 28-day RCP test coulomb limit for

concrete elements with very low chloride permeability with 90% confidence on the correlated

data is derived as shown in Figure 7-2. Moreover, several coulomb limits for concrete elements

under extremely aggressive environments at different levels of confidence are presented in Table

127

7-1. The RCP coulomb limits were rounded to reflect the variability in the data and for a more

practical utilization. The different levels of confidence are provided to offer some flexibility to

the Florida Department of Transportation to make a final decision specifically suitable to their

standards.

It is important to recognize that the limits presented in Table 7-1 and in the following

sections are based on the relatively limited data gathered from the laboratory specimens prepared

and tested as a part of this research project. For example, consider the 90% confidence level in

the table. This indicates that if a random sample is selected from the tests reported in this

research that has an RCP value less than 1,422 coulombs, then, with 90% confidence, that same

concrete would have a 1-year bulk diffusion coefficient that is less than 1.820x10-12 m2/s. Recall

that this diffusion coefficient standard was established in the previous chapter to represent

concrete that will have RCP test results of 1000 coulombs when tested at 91 days.

In addition, the recommended RCP limits are evaluated to corroborate their applicability to

the standard FDOT specifications. These more flexible proposed RCP limits still need to meet

the basic rating criteria of the current FDOT specification. Therefore, the recommended limits

must discriminate between concrete samples that were designed as low chloride permeable and

samples with higher permeability. FDOT categorizes Class V and Class V Special containing

silica fume or metakaolin as a pozzolan as low permeable mixtures. The higher RCP associated

with the lower confidence level showed in Table 7-1 is selected as the more representative limit

for the evaluation. The project concrete mixtures were divided into two groups. The first group

included mixtures that were not design to meet FDOT standard specifications and the second

group included samples designed to meet the minimum requirements. Table 7-2 shows the 28-

day RCP pass rates by FDOT standard specifications for the two groups of samples. All the RCP

128

coulomb results from the first group of samples exceed the current FDOT standard of 1000

coulombs as well as the limit of 1400 coulombs. In the second group, less than half of the

samples passed the current FDOT RCP limit. Data from field mixtures were also used to evaluate

various RCP limits (Chini, Muszynski, and Hicks 2003). Data from the 491 samples collected on

construction projects were included in the analysis (Table 7-2). The samples were collected from

actual job sites of concrete pours in the state of Florida.

The diffusion coefficients presented in Table 7-1 were also used to derive the entire

equivalent charges in coulombs for the different chloride permeability ranges. The allowable

coulomb limits for a 28-day RCP test response with a 90% of confidence on the correlated data

are derived in Figure 7-3 to Figure 7-5. Coulomb limits for concrete elements with different

chloride permeability at different levels of confidence are summarized in Table 7-3 to Table 7-5.

Moreover, the RCP coulomb limits were rounded for a more practical utilization.

SR and Bulk Diffusion

Chini, Muszynski and Hicks (2003) evaluated the possible replacement of the widely used

electrical RCP test (AASHTO T277, ASTM C1202) by the simple non-destructive Surface

Resistivity test. A permeability rating table to aid the categorization of the equivalent Surface

Resistivity results to the chloride permeability of the concrete was proposed (Table 2-3). A

minimum resistivity value of 37 KOhm-cm was reported to represent concrete with low chloride

ion permeability. However, the permeability interpretation of the Surface Resistivity test results

was entirely based on correlations to the previous ranges provided in the standard RCP test

(Table 2-1). As it was indicated in the previous section, incorrect interpretation of electrical test

results can be made when relying entirely on these RCP standard ranges. Therefore, a more

rational approach to setting the limits of the Surface Resistivity results is needed.

129

The Surface Resistivity test was conducted using two methods of curing, one at 100%

humidity (moist cured) and the other in a saturated Ca(OH)2 solution (lime cured). It was

previously concluded that either of the methods will derive an equal resistivity behavior.

Consequently, Surface Resistivity results from the most commonly used curing method, moist

cured, are used in this section. The long-term diffusion coefficients derived in the previous

section are also used as a benchmark for the interpretation of the Surface Resistivity results

(Table 5-12). These coefficients are believed to represent a realistic interpretation of low chloride

permeability concrete. The 28-day Surface Resistivity limits associated with the standard

diffusion are calculated from the trend line equation of correlation to the reference test. A

statistical study is included to ensure the validity of these new Surface Resistivity limits. A

confidence interval for the mean response of the test correlations was included. Figure 7-6 shows

the 90% confidence interval for the mean response of the 28-day Surface Resistivity test

correlation to the 1-year Bulk Diffusion reference test. The allowable 28-day Surface Resistivity

limit for concrete elements with very low chloride permeability with a 90% of confidence on the

correlated data is derived in Figure 7-7. Moreover, several Surface Resistivity limits for concrete

elements under extremely aggressive environments at different levels of confidence are

presented in Table 7-6. The limits were rounded for a more practical utilization. The different

levels of confidence are provided to offer some flexibility to the Florida Department of

Transportation to make a final decision specifically suitable to their standards.

Additionally, the recommended Surface Resistivity limits are evaluated to corroborate their

applicability to evaluate low chloride permeability concrete. A low chloride permeability

concrete is assumed as the FDOT standard to be a Class V or Class V Special concrete

containing silica fume or metakaolin as a pozzolan. Similar analysis as shown in Table 7-2 for

130

the RCP limits evaluation is presented. The lower resistivity limit associated with the lower

confidence level (Table 7-6) is selected as the more representative for the evaluation.

Furthermore, Surface Resistivity results reported by Chini, Muszynski and Hicks (2003) research

are also included in the validation (Table 7-7).

The diffusion coefficients presented in Table 7-1 were also used to derive the entire

equivalent surface resistivity limits for the different chloride permeability ranges. The allowable

Surface Resistivity limits for a 28-day SR test response with a 90% of confidence on the

correlated data are derived in Figure 7-8 to Figure 7-10. Resistivity limits for concrete elements

with different chloride permeability at different levels of confidence are summarized in Table

7-8 to Table 7-10. Moreover, the Surface Resistivity limits were rounded for a more practical

utilization.

131

Table 7-1. Allowable RCP Values for a 28-Day Test for Concrete Elements Under Extremely Aggressive Environments (Very Low Chloride Permeability) and Associated Confidence Levels.

28-Day RCP Limits

Charge Passed (Coulombs)

Charge Passed (Rounded Values) (Coulombs) Confidence Level

1,422 1,400 90% 1,335 1,300 95% 1,174 1,150 99%

Table 7-2. 28-Day RCP Pass Rates of Several Concrete Samples by FDOT Standard

Specifications (FDOT 346 2004).

28-Day RCP Limits (Coulombs)

Without Silica Fume or MK(3) With Silica Fume or MK(3) 1000 1150 1300 1400 1000 1150 1300 1400

Total Number of Mixtures

14 14 14 14 5(1) 5(1) 5(1) 5(1)

Number of Passed Mixtures

0 0 0 0 2 2 3 4

Cur

rent

Res

earc

h

Percentage of Passed Mixtures

0% 0% 0% 0% 40% 40% 60% 80%

Total Number of Mixtures (2)

455 455 455 455 36 36 36 36


4 8 13 18 15 18 21 23

Chi

ni, M

uszy

nski

, and

Hic

ks 2

003


<1% 2% 3% 4% 42% 50% 58% 64%

(1) All Mixtures were cast at the FDOT laboratory. (2) All Mixtures were collected from actual job sites. (3) Metakaolin.

132

Table 7-3. Allowable RCP Values for a 28-Day Test with a 90% Confidence Levels for Concrete Elements with Different Chloride Permeability.

AASHTO T277 Standard Limits Current Research Allowable RCP Limits 90% Confidence Level

28-Day RCP Chloride

Permeability

91-Day RCP Charge Passed (Coulombs)

1-Year Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s)


Charge Passed (Rounded Values) (Coulombs)

High > 4,000 > 8.924 > 5,473 > 5,450Moderate 2,000 - 4,000 4.020 – 8.924 2,991 - 5,473 2,950 - 5,450Low 1,000 - 2,000 1.820 – 4.020 1,422 - 2,991 1,400 - 2,950Very Low 100 - 1,000 0.162 – 1.820 113 - 1,422 110 - 1,400Negligible < 100 < 0.162 < 113 < 110 Table 7-4. Allowable RCP Values for a 28-Day Test with a 95% Confidence Levels for Concrete

Elements with Different Chloride Permeability.


28-Day RCP Chloride

Permeability





High > 4,000 > 8.924 > 5,105 > 5,100Moderate 2,000 - 4,000 4.020 – 8.924 2,861 - 5,105 2,850 - 5,100Low 1,000 - 2,000 1.820 – 4.020 1,335 - 2,861 1,300 - 2,850Very Low 100 - 1,000 0.162 – 1.820 93 - 1,335 90 - 1,300Negligible < 100 < 0.162 < 93 < 90 Table 7-5. Allowable RCP Values for a 28-Day Test with a 99% Confidence Levels for Concrete

Elements with Different Chloride Permeability.


28-Day RCP Chloride

Permeability





High > 4,000 > 8.924 > 4,427 > 4,400Moderate 2,000 - 4,000 4.020 – 8.924 2,614 - 4,427 2,600 - 4,400Low 1,000 - 2,000 1.820 – 4.020 1,174 - 2,614 1,150 - 2,600Very Low 100 - 1,000 0.162 – 1.820 61 - 1,174 60 - 1,150Negligible < 100 < 0.162 < 61 < 60

133

Table 7-6. Allowable Surface Resistivity Values for a 28-Day Test for Concrete Elements Under Extremely Aggressive Environments.

28-Day Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) Conductivity

(1/(kOhm-cm)) Resistivity

(kOhm-cm) Resistivity (Rounded

Values) (kOhm-cm) Confidence

Level 0.0377 26.52 27 90% 0.0360 27.76 28 95% 0.0328 30.50 31 99%

Table 7-7. 28-Day Surface Resistivity Pass Rates of Several Concrete Samples by FDOT

Standard Specifications (FDOT 346 2004).

28-Day Surface Resistivity Limits (KOhm-cm)

Without Silica Fume or MK(3) With Silica Fume or MK(3) 37 31 28 27 37 31 28 27

Total Number of Mixtures

14 14 14 14 5(1) 5(1) 5(1) 5(1)


0 0 0 0 1 3 4 4

Cur

rent

Res

earc

h


0% 0% 0% 0% 20% 60% 80% 80%

Total Number of Mixtures (2)

462 462 462 462 40 40 40 40


7 16 25 28 8 18 19 20

Chi

ni, M

uszy

nski

, and

Hic

ks 2

003


2% 4% 5% 6% 20% 45% 48% 50%

(1) All Mixtures were cast at the FDOT laboratory. (2) All Mixtures were collected from actual job sites. (3) Metakaolin.

134

Table 7-8. Allowable Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) Values for a 28-Day Test with a 90% Confidence Levels for Concrete Elements with Different Chloride Permeability.

AASHTO T277 Standard Limits

Current Research Allowable SR Limits 90% Confidence Level

28-Day Surface Resistivity




Conductivity (1/(kOhm-cm))

Resistivity (kOhm-cm)

Resistivity (Rounded Values) (kOhm-cm)

High > 4,000 > 8.924 > 0.1248 < 8.01 < 8Moderate 2,000-4,000 4.020 – 8.924 0.0722-0.1248 8.01-13.86 8 - 14Low 1,000-2,000 1.820 – 4.020 0.0377-0.0722 13.86-26.52 14 - 27Very Low 100-1,000 0.162 – 1.820 0.0043-0.0377 26.52-232.93 27 - 233Negligible < 100 < 0.162 < 0.0043 > 232.93 > 233 Table 7-9. Allowable Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) Values for a 28-Day Test with a 95%

Confidence Levels for Concrete Elements with Different Chloride Permeability. AASHTO T277 Standard

Limits Current Research Allowable SR Limits 95% Confidence Level








High > 4,000 > 8.924 > 0.1186 < 8.43 < 9Moderate 2,000-4,000 4.020 – 8.924 0.0699-0.1186 8.43-14.31 9 – 15Low 1,000-2,000 1.820 – 4.020 0.0360-0.0699 14.31-27.76 15 – 28Very Low 100-1,000 0.162 – 1.820 0.0037-0.0360 27.76-269.58 28 – 270Negligible < 100 < 0.162 < 0.0037 > 269.58 > 270 Table 7-10. Allowable Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) Values for a 28-Day Test with a 99%

Confidence Levels for Concrete Elements with Different Chloride Permeability. AASHTO T277 Standard

Limits Current Research Allowable SR Limits 99% Confidence Level








High > 4,000 > 8.924 > 0.1069 < 9.36 < 10Moderate 2,000-4,000 4.020 – 8.924 0.0654-0.1069 9.36-15.29 10 – 16Low 1,000-2,000 1.820 – 4.020 0.0328-0.0654 15.29-30.50 16 – 31Very Low 100-1,000 0.162 – 1.820 0.0028-0.0328 30.50-363.58 31 – 364Negligible < 100 < 0.162 < 0.0028 > 363.58 > 364

135

y = 1042x0.862

R2 = 0.669

0

5000

10000

15000

0 10 20 30Bulk Diffusion (x10-12)(m2/s)

RC

P (C

oulo

mbs

) .

90% Confidence Limit

Fitted Correlation

Figure 7-1. 90% Confidence Limit for Mean Response of 28-Day RCP Test vs. 1-Year Bulk

Diffusion Test Correlation.

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

1 1.4 1.8 2.2Bulk Diffusion (x10-12)(m2/s)

RC

P (C

oulo

mbs

).

Fitted Correlation90% Confidence Limit

1.820x10-12

1422

Figure 7-2. 28-Day RCP Coulombs Limit with a 90% Confidence Level for Concrete Elements

with a Very Low Chloride Permeability.

136

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

0 2 4 6 8 10 12Bulk Diffusion (x10-12)(m2/s)

RC

P (C

oulo

mbs

).Fitted Correlation90% Confidence Limit

8.924x10-12

5473


with a Moderate Chloride Permeability.

0

2000

4000

6000

2 3 4 5 6Bulk Diffusion (x10-12)(m2/s)

RC

P (C

oulo

mbs

).

Fitted Correlation90% Confidence Limit

4.020x10-12

2991


with a Low Chloride Permeability.

137

0

100

200

300

400

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4Bulk Diffusion (x10-12)(m2/s)

RC

P (C

oulo

mbs

).Fitted Correlation90% Confidence Limit

0.162x10-12

113


with a Negligible Chloride Permeability.

y = 0.028x0.763

R2 = 0.747

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0 10 20 30Bulk Diffusion (x10-12)(m2/s)

SR C

ondu

ctiv

ity (1

/(kO

hm-c

m)


Fitted Correlation

Figure 7-6. 90% Confidence Limit for Mean Response of 28-Day Surface Resistivity Test (Moist

Cured) vs. 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Test Correlation.

138

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

1 1.5 2Bulk Diffusion (x10-12)(m2/s)

SR C

ondu

ctiv

ity (1

/(kO

hm-c

m) Fitted Correlation


1.820x10-12

0.0377

Figure 7-7. 28-Day Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) Limit with a 90% Confidence Level for

Concrete Elements with a Very Low Chloride Permeability.

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0 2 4 6 8 10 12Bulk Diffusion (x10-12)(m2/s)

SR C

ondu

ctiv

ity (1

/(kO

hm-c



8.924x10-12

0.1248


Concrete Elements with a Moderate Chloride Permeability.

139

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

2 3 4 5 6Bulk Diffusion (x10-12)(m2/s)

SR C

ondu

ctiv

ity (1

/(kO

hm-c



4.020x10-12

0.0722


Concrete Elements with a Low Chloride Permeability.

0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4Bulk Diffusion (x10-12)(m2/s)

SR C

ondu

ctiv

ity (1

/(kO

hm-c



0.162x10-12

0.0043


Concrete Elements with a Negligible Chloride Permeability.

140

CHAPTER 8 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This work details results of a research project aimed at evaluating currently available

conductivity tests and compare the results of these tests to those from long-term diffusion tests.

Rapid Chloride Permeability (RCP) and Surface Resistivity (SR) were evaluated. The long-term

test Bulk Diffusion was selected as a benchmark to evaluate conductivity tests. This test was

conducted using 1 and 3 years chloride exposure. Diffusion coefficients from Bulk Diffusion test

results were determined by fitting the data obtained in the chloride profiles analysis to Fick’s

Diffusion Second Law equation. The electrical results from the short-term tests RCP and SR at

14, 28, 56, 91, 182 and 364 days of continuous moist curing were then compared to the long-

term diffusion reference test. Moreover, cored samples obtained at the tidal zone of marine

exposure from several bridge structures around the state of Florida were obtained to be compared

to the laboratory diffusion results. Conclusions were as follows:

• The SR test was conducted using two methods of curing, one at 100% humidity (moist

cured) and the other in a saturated Ca(OH)2 solution (lime cured). The comparison of

results of the SR tests between the two curing procedures showed no significant

differences. Therefore, it is concluded that either of the methods will provide similar

results.

• The mixture proportions affected directly the rate of chloride diffusion into concrete. The

mixture designs with the higher water-cementitious ratios, lower cementitious contents

and without the presence of pozzolans showed significantly higher diffusion coefficients

compared with the rest of the samples. Furthermore, the addition of metakaolin decreased

the chloride diffusion compared to the control mixture about 70 percent for the 1 and 3

years of exposure results. Moreover, the addition of silica fume, ground blast furnace slag

141

and ternary blends of fly-ash with metakaolin or silica fume decreased the chloride

diffusion approximately 50 percent for the 1 and 3 years of exposure results. The chloride

diffusion for samples containing fly-ash and classified fly-ash did not improve for

samples exposed for a year. However, they improved for the longer exposure period of 3

year. These could be related to the slow pozzolanic reaction of the mineral admixture fly

ash. Finally, the addition of calcium nitrite did not improve the concrete diffusion

coefficient. The calcium nitrite admixture reduces the tendency for reinforcing steel to

undergo corrosion but not the penetration of chlorides through concrete.

• The correlation coefficients (R2) obtained for the short-term tests showed that the best

testing age for an RCP and SR test to predict a 1 and 3 years Bulk Diffusion test was 91

days. Moreover, this finding was corroborated by the use of a Monte Carlo simulation. A

simulation was used to obtain the respective correlation coefficients (R2) for respective

tests including the grade of variability from the experimental data.

• A calibrated scale relating the equivalent RCP measured charge in coulombs to the

chloride ion permeability of the concrete was developed. The proposed scale was based

on the correlation of the 91-day RCP results related to the chloride permeability

measured by a 1-year Bulk Diffusion test.

• A method by which RCP and SR can be calibrated so that, with reasonable confidence,

diffusion coefficients can be predicted from 28 days samples was presented.

• The diffusion results obtained from the bridge cored samples obtained at the tidal zone

with an average of ten-year of exposure showed considerable lower chloride penetration

than the 1 and 3 year laboratory results. It appears that the laboratory methods

overestimate the chloride ingress from concrete exposed in the field.

142

APPENDIX A CONCRETE MIXTURE LABELING SYSTEM CONVERSION

The names of the concrete mixtures in the previous main body sections are different than

the presented in the following Appendix sections. Therefore Table A-1 shows the respective

mixture labeling conversions.

Table A-1. Appendix Concrete Mixture Labeling System Conversion. Main Body Mixture

Name Labels Appendix Mixture

Name Labels 49_564 CPR1 35_752 CPR2 45_752 CPR3 28_900_8SF_20F CPR4 35_752_20F CPR5 35_752_12CF CPR6 35_752_8SF CPR7 35_752_8SF_20F CPR8 35_752_10M CPR9 35_752_10M_20F CPR10 35_752_50Slag CPR11 35_752_4.5CN CPR12 45_570 CPR13 29_450_20F CPR15 33_658_18F CPR16 34_686_18F CPR17 30_673_20F CPR18 28_800_20F CPR20 29_770_18F CPR21

143

APPENDIX B CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTHS

Table B-1. Concrete Compressive Strength Data Results MIX CPR1

Testing Age(Days) A B C AVG.

14 5442 5502 5732 555928 5710 5745 5690 571556 6214 5992 6321 617691 6400 6208 6510 6373

182 6638 6247 6217 6367364 6594 6145 6314 6351

COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (psi)

MIX CPR2Testing Age

(Days) A B C AVG.

14 7952 7914 8104 799028 8462 7857 8030 811656 8814 8576 7703 836491 8681 8608 8194 8494

182 8371 8768 8738 8626364 8842 8817 8842 8834


MIX CPR3


14 5869 5866 5782 583928 6352 6284 6219 628556 6293 6431 6442 638991 6300 6411 6390 6367

182 7185 6990 7023 7066364 6768 7295 6779 6947


MIX CPR4Testing Age

(Days) A B C AVG.

14 8382 8434 8531 844928 9122 9058 8797 899256 9261 9198 9173 921191 9475 9620 9499 9531

182 9406 9416 9073 9298364 9077 9416 9908 9467


MIX CPR5


14 6797 6686 7079 685428 7441 7354 7023 727356 8376 8393 7942 823791 8482 8390 8471 8448

182 9016 8601 8533 8717364 9212 9323 9089 9208


MIX CPR6Testing Age

(Days) A B C AVG.

14 5784 6053 5722 585328 6163 6386 6327 629256 6682 7004 6889 685891 7505 7251 7295 7350

182 7745 7444 7405 7531364 7670 8086 7600 7785


MIX CPR7 Sample not included in Average


14 7709 7850 7026 752828 8082 8343 8861 842956 8995 8896 8158 868391 8161 9410 8924 8832

182 9483 8424 8891 8933364 8951 9111 7379 9031


MIX CPR8Testing Age

(Days) A B C AVG.

14 6533 6536 6342 647028 7106 6969 7153 707656 6936 7499 7515 731791 7072 5224 7475 6590

182 7535 7969 8004 7836364 8007 7198 7769 7658


MIX CPR9


14 8493 8957 8795 874828 8681 8541 8443 855556 8792 9418 8996 906991 8352 8117 8225 8231

182 9239 9028 9335 9201364 9520 9018 9962 9500


MIX CPR10Testing Age

(Days) A B C AVG.

14 7768 7727 8195 789728 8098 8598 8169 828856 8582 8939 8593 870591 8964 8859 9078 8967

182 9573 9277 9343 9398364 9050 9489 9270 9270


144

Table B-1. Continued. MIX CPR11


17 7251 6858 8007 737228 7647 8109 8101 795256 8021 7883 8460 812191 7940 8016 8236 8064

182 8629 8035 8323 8329364 8547 8752 8649 8649



(Days) A B C AVG.

14 5257 5893 5264 547128 5824 5035 5633 549756 6573 6375 5373 610791 6323 6598 5689 6203

182 6351 6072 5871 6098364 6562 5320 7732 6538


MIX CPR13


14 5710 6065 5927 590128 6425 6432 6705 652156 7550 7398 6725 722491 7625 7392 6862 7293

182 7940 7314 7421 7558364 8258 7996 7879 8044



(Days) A B C AVG.

14 4036 3275 3904 373828 5069 4633 3768 449056 5826 4982 4961 525691 6208 5309 5871 5796

182 6070 6151 6709 6310364 6094 6614 6673 6460


MIX CPR16


14 5926 6448 5792 605528 6388 5629 6303 610756 6942 7645 6761 711691 7658 6427 7687 7257

182 7674 8234 7854 7921364 7533 7904 8683 8040



(Days) A B C AVG.

14 6241 5525 7198 632128 7052 7056 7612 724056 7926 7986 7979 796491 8024 8284 8345 8218

182 9808 9678 8409 9298364 10314 10308 10425 10349


MIX CPR18


14 5835 6126 6792 625128 6709 6934 6962 686856 7163 6954 8076 739891 8112 8196 8211 8173

182 9137 8634 8747 8839364 8644 9366 9370 9127



(Days) A B C AVG.

14 8889 8976 8987 895128 10125 9521 9510 971956 10116 11309 10036 1048791 11368 10708 11696 11257

182 12044 11159 11383 11529364 12337 11634 11221 11731


MIX CPR21


14 5298 5697 5601 553228 5940 6252 6112 610156 7138 7707 7209 735191 7396 8691 7512 7866

182 8910 8333 8294 8512364 8689 9270 8691 8883


145

CPR1-W/C=0.49, Plain564 lb Cementitious

3000

6000

9000

12000

14 28 56 91 182 364Age (Days)

Stre

ngth

(psi)

CPR2-W/C=0.35, Plain752 lb Cementitious

3000

6000

9000

12000

14 28 56 91 182 364Age (Days)

Stre

ngth

(psi)

CPR3-W/C=0.45, Plain

752 lb Cementitious

3000

6000

9000

12000

14 28 56 91 182 364Age (Days)

Stre

ngth

(psi)

CPR4-W/C=0.28, 20%FA, 8%SF900 lb Cementitious

3000

6000

9000

12000

14 28 56 91 182 364Age (Days)

Stre

ngth

(psi)

CPR5-W/C=0.35, 20%FA752 lb Cementitious

3000

6000

9000

12000

14 28 56 91 182 364Age (Days)

Stre

ngth

(psi)

CPR6-W/C=0.35, 12%CFA752 lb Cementitious

3000

6000

9000

12000

14 28 56 91 182 364Age (Days)

Stre

ngth

(psi)

CPR7-W/C=0.35, 8%SF752 lb Cementitious

3000

6000

9000

12000

14 28 56 91 182 364Age (Days)

Stre

ngth

(psi)

CPR8-W/C=0.35, 20%FA, 8%SF 752 lb Cementitious

3000

6000

9000

12000

14 28 56 91 182 364Age (Days)

Stre

ngth

(psi)

Figure B-1. Concrete Compression Strength Graphs.

146

CPR9-W/C=0.35, 10%Meta752 lb Cementitious

3000

6000

9000

12000

14 28 56 91 182 364Age (Days)

Stre

ngth

(psi)

CPR10-W/C=0.35, 10% Meta, 20% FA752 lb Cementitious

3000

6000

9000

12000

14 28 56 91 182 364Age (Days)

Stre

ngth

(psi)

CPR11-W/C=0.35, 50%Slag752 lb Cementitious

3000

6000

9000

12000

14 28 56 91 182 364Age (Days)

Stre

ngth

(psi)

CPR12-W/C=0.35, 4.5CN752 lb Cementitious

3000

6000

9000

12000

14 28 56 91 182 364Age (Days)

Stre

ngth

(psi)

CPR13-W/C=0.45, Plain 569.7 lb Cementitious

3000

6000

9000

12000

14 28 56 91 182 364Age (Days)

Stre

ngth

(psi)

CPR15-W/C=0.29, 20%FA 565 lb Cementitious

3000

6000

9000

12000

14 28 56 91 182 364Age (Days)

Stre

ngth

(psi)

CPR16-W/C=0.33, 18%FA 807.4 lb Cementitious

3000

6000

9000

12000

14 28 56 91 182 364Age (Days)

Stre

ngth

(psi)


3000

6000

9000

12000

14 28 56 91 182 364Age (Days)

Stre

ngth

(psi)

Figure B-1. Continued.

147


3000

6000

9000

12000

14 28 56 91 182 364Age (Days)

Stre

ngth

(psi)


3000

6000

9000

12000

14 28 56 91 182 364Age (Days)

Stre

ngth

(psi)


3000

6000

9000

12000

14 28 56 91 182 364Age (Days)

Stre

ngth

(psi)

Figure B-1. Continued.

148

APPENDIX C LABORATORY LONG-TERM CHLORIDE PENETRATION TEST (BULK DIFFUSION)

DATA AND ANALYSIS RESULTS

Table C-1. Initial Chloride Background Level of Concrete Mixtures. Initial Chloride Background Level (lb/yd3)

Mixture Name Sample A Sample B Sample C Average

Standard Deviation


CPR1 0.112 0.149 0.137 0.133 0.019 14 CPR2 0.097 0.053 0.087 0.079 0.023 29 CPR3 0.093 0.136 0.145 0.125 0.028 22 CPR4 0.192 0.130 0.130 0.151 0.036 24 CPR5 0.181 0.112 0.126 0.140 0.036 26 CPR6 0.097 0.114 0.110 0.107 0.009 8 CPR7 0.284 0.204 0.212 0.233 0.044 19 CPR8 0.077 0.111 0.101 0.096 0.017 18 CPR9 0.070 0.076 0.080 0.075 0.005 7 CPR10 0.087 0.070 0.066 0.074 0.011 15 CPR11 0.146 0.209 0.200 0.185 0.034 18 CPR12 0.147 0.139 0.136 0.141 0.006 4 CPR13 0.181 0.174 0.178 0.178 0.004 2 CPR15 0.467 0.546 0.533 0.515 0.042 8 CPR16 0.124 0.130 0.125 0.126 0.003 3 CPR17 0.187 0.212 0.139 0.179 0.037 21 CPR18 0.221 0.274 0.281 0.259 0.033 13 CPR20 0.146 0.100 0.112 0.119 0.024 20 CPR21 0.323 0.286 0.338 0.316 0.027 8

149

Table C-2. 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Chloride Profile Testing Results. MIX CPR1

Depth(in.) A B C AVG

0.0 - 0.25 34.545 38.941 36.229 36.5720.25 - 0.50 26.321 29.105 23.789 26.4050.50 - 0.75 23.144 21.452 21.007 21.8680.75 - 1.0 17.010 18.183 18.610 17.9341.0 - 1.25 14.090 14.491 13.567 14.0491.25 - 1.5 12.543 11.26 10.128 11.3101.5 - 1.75 9.394 9.119 8.519 9.0111.75 - 2.0 6.883 6.768 6.285 6.6452.0 - 2.25 5.741 4.512 4.169 4.8072.25 - 2.5 4.962 3.346 2.783 3.6972.5 - 2.75 4.417 2.206 1.693 2.7722.75 - 3.0 3.858 1.351 0.992 2.067

NaCl (lb/yd3)

MIX CPR2


0.0 - 0.25 39.658 42.397 39.408 40.4880.25 - 0.50 24.826 27.064 27.004 26.2980.50 - 0.75 16.312 17.004 15.944 16.4200.75 - 1.0 8.230 10.622 10.422 9.7581.0 - 1.25 2.457 3.732 5.092 3.7601.25 - 1.5 0.597 1.149 1.575 1.1071.5 - 1.75 0.203 0.449 0.406 0.3531.75 - 2.0 0.208 0.442 0.261 0.3042.0 - 2.25 - - - -2.25 - 2.5 - - - -2.5 - 2.75 - - - -2.75 - 3.0 - - - -

NaCl (lb/yd3)

MIX CPR3


0.0 - 0.25 46.106 48.040 46.615 46.9200.25 - 0.50 30.350 35.387 33.338 33.0250.50 - 0.75 23.419 22.518 22.259 22.7320.75 - 1.0 18.898 17.604 18.464 18.3221.0 - 1.25 12.992 14.951 13.151 13.6981.25 - 1.5 9.483 9.737 8.800 9.3401.5 - 1.75 6.724 5.864 5.611 6.0661.75 - 2.0 4.326 3.502 3.011 3.6132.0 - 2.25 2.188 2.098 1.214 1.8332.25 - 2.5 1.005 1.225 0.506 0.9122.5 - 2.75 - - - -2.75 - 3.0 - - - -

NaCl (lb/yd3)

MIX CPR4


0.0 - 0.25 38.985 42.387 35.510 38.9610.25 - 0.50 17.066 16.198 14.251 15.8380.50 - 0.75 3.553 3.701 3.363 3.5390.75 - 1.0 0.861 0.966 1.195 1.0071.0 - 1.25 0.524 0.475 0.554 0.5181.25 - 1.5 0.338 0.369 0.348 0.3521.5 - 1.75 0.365 0.380 0.314 0.3531.75 - 2.0 0.297 0.306 0.285 0.2962.0 - 2.25 - - - -2.25 - 2.5 - - - -2.5 - 2.75 - - - -2.75 - 3.0 - - - -

NaCl (lb/yd3)

MIX CPR5


0.0 - 0.25 38.780 40.827 41.401 40.3360.25 - 0.50 27.843 29.107 24.517 27.1560.50 - 0.75 13.999 18.215 15.873 16.0290.75 - 1.0 7.220 9.060 10.595 8.9581.0 - 1.25 3.955 5.210 7.267 5.4771.25 - 1.5 2.644 3.287 5.609 3.8471.5 - 1.75 2.475 3.224 4.141 3.2801.75 - 2.0 2.131 2.888 4.202 3.0742.0 - 2.25 2.616 3.267 4.375 3.4192.25 - 2.5 2.420 2.952 4.131 3.1682.5 - 2.75 - - - -2.75 - 3.0 - - - -

NaCl (lb/yd3)

MIX CPR6


0.0 - 0.25 46.150 50.752 52.240 49.7140.25 - 0.50 33.319 35.785 33.166 34.0900.50 - 0.75 21.566 22.170 20.228 21.3210.75 - 1.0 12.985 11.790 12.543 12.4391.0 - 1.25 5.993 4.713 5.547 5.4181.25 - 1.5 2.060 1.480 1.623 1.7211.5 - 1.75 0.607 0.551 0.513 0.5571.75 - 2.0 0.423 0.341 0.350 0.3712.0 - 2.25 - - - -2.25 - 2.5 - - - -2.5 - 2.75 - - - -2.75 - 3.0 - - - -

NaCl (lb/yd3)

150

Table C-2. Continued. MIX CPR7


0.0 - 0.25 43.899 43.250 45.915 44.3550.25 - 0.50 22.238 25.091 20.441 22.5900.50 - 0.75 11.418 9.791 8.095 9.7680.75 - 1.0 4.154 2.405 2.653 3.0711.0 - 1.25 1.083 0.995 0.540 0.8731.25 - 1.5 0.436 0.520 0.322 0.4261.5 - 1.75 0.296 0.418 0.276 0.3301.75 - 2.0 0.321 0.350 0.257 0.3092.0 - 2.25 - - - -2.25 - 2.5 - - - -2.5 - 2.75 - - - -2.75 - 3.0 - - - -

NaCl (lb/yd3)

MIX CPR8


0.0 - 0.25 43.411 52.654 47.410 47.8250.25 - 0.50 26.436 33.023 31.477 30.3120.50 - 0.75 10.189 15.293 17.026 14.1690.75 - 1.0 2.072 4.142 7.735 4.6501.0 - 1.25 0.444 0.780 2.201 1.1421.25 - 1.5 0.285 0.277 0.485 0.3491.5 - 1.75 0.261 0.328 0.323 0.3041.75 - 2.0 0.230 0.246 0.254 0.2432.0 - 2.25 - - - -2.25 - 2.5 - - - -2.5 - 2.75 - - - -2.75 - 3.0 - - - -

NaCl (lb/yd3)

MIX CPR9


0.0 - 0.25 48.113 45.023 56.627 49.9210.25 - 0.50 14.635 17.553 22.058 18.0820.50 - 0.75 1.920 4.008 5.600 3.8430.75 - 1.0 0.309 0.757 1.258 0.7751.0 - 1.25 0.173 0.295 0.318 0.2621.25 - 1.5 0.156 0.252 0.264 0.2241.5 - 1.75 0.226 0.255 0.260 0.2471.75 - 2.0 0.193 0.233 0.287 0.2382.0 - 2.25 - - - -2.25 - 2.5 - - - -2.5 - 2.75 - - - -2.75 - 3.0 - - - -

NaCl (lb/yd3)

MIX CPR10


0.0 - 0.25 45.224 37.533 41.907 41.5550.25 - 0.50 25.403 22.540 29.947 25.9630.50 - 0.75 9.655 9.029 9.319 9.3340.75 - 1.0 3.648 2.556 2.318 2.8411.0 - 1.25 1.001 0.697 0.569 0.7561.25 - 1.5 0.629 0.332 0.239 0.4001.5 - 1.75 0.396 0.343 0.267 0.3351.75 - 2.0 0.297 0.197 0.252 0.2492.0 - 2.25 - - - -2.25 - 2.5 - - - -2.5 - 2.75 - - - -2.75 - 3.0 - - - -

NaCl (lb/yd3)

MIX CPR11


0.0 - 0.25 44.076 58.043 48.732 50.2840.25 - 0.50 30.684 34.266 36.170 33.7070.50 - 0.75 14.201 10.895 13.385 12.8270.75 - 1.0 3.512 2.216 6.459 4.0621.0 - 1.25 0.509 0.777 1.621 0.9691.25 - 1.5 0.254 0.257 0.888 0.4661.5 - 1.75 0.262 0.224 0.321 0.2691.75 - 2.0 0.242 0.273 0.244 0.2532.0 - 2.25 - - - -2.25 - 2.5 - - - -2.5 - 2.75 - - - -2.75 - 3.0 - - - -

NaCl (lb/yd3)

MIX CPR12


0.0 - 0.25 69.233 49.494 57.569 58.7650.25 - 0.50 40.869 32.618 31.393 34.9600.50 - 0.75 29.825 26.071 25.373 27.0900.75 - 1.0 20.954 18.914 19.066 19.6451.0 - 1.25 15.925 13.838 12.720 14.1611.25 - 1.5 8.291 8.149 6.450 7.6301.5 - 1.75 4.341 1.584 2.119 2.6811.75 - 2.0 1.801 0.279 0.422 0.8342.0 - 2.25 - - - -2.25 - 2.5 - - - -2.5 - 2.75 - - - -2.75 - 3.0 - - - -

NaCl (lb/yd3)

151



0.0 - 0.25 43.625 50.518 53.273 49.1390.25 - 0.50 32.307 35.405 35.104 34.2720.50 - 0.75 25.692 22.104 28.521 25.4390.75 - 1.0 23.628 18.670 22.457 21.5851.0 - 1.25 14.022 15.142 13.773 14.3121.25 - 1.5 9.532 9.368 9.182 9.3611.5 - 1.75 5.203 6.037 5.750 5.6631.75 - 2.0 2.839 3.341 2.915 3.0322.0 - 2.25 1.150 1.266 0.740 1.0522.25 - 2.5 0.747 0.953 0.660 0.7872.5 - 2.75 - - - -2.75 - 3.0 - - - -

NaCl (lb/yd3)

MIX CPR15


0.0 - 0.25 46.511 53.907 53.385 51.2680.25 - 0.50 37.704 47.275 41.115 42.0310.50 - 0.75 32.423 17.389 16.610 22.1410.75 - 1.0 24.999 11.275 12.845 16.3731.0 - 1.25 10.027 7.656 9.560 9.0811.25 - 1.5 5.243 3.889 4.210 4.4471.5 - 1.75 1.956 2.185 2.929 2.3571.75 - 2.0 0.853 1.379 1.210 1.1472.0 - 2.25 - - - -2.25 - 2.5 - - - -2.5 - 2.75 - - - -2.75 - 3.0 - - - -

NaCl (lb/yd3)

MIX CPR16


0.0 - 0.25 51.166 44.492 37.763 44.4740.25 - 0.50 33.770 31.682 27.849 31.1000.50 - 0.75 26.831 21.832 18.556 22.4060.75 - 1.0 17.011 12.563 12.231 13.9351.0 - 1.25 5.372 6.033 4.443 5.2831.25 - 1.5 2.526 3.360 2.343 2.7431.5 - 1.75 0.730 1.438 1.163 1.1101.75 - 2.0 0.552 0.883 1.111 0.8492.0 - 2.25 - - - -2.25 - 2.5 - - - -2.5 - 2.75 - - - -2.75 - 3.0 - - - -

NaCl (lb/yd3)

MIX CPR17


0.0 - 0.25 25.271 23.579 22.050 23.6330.25 - 0.50 14.685 16.791 15.539 15.6720.50 - 0.75 9.357 10.492 9.782 9.8770.75 - 1.0 2.395 6.113 4.634 4.3811.0 - 1.25 0.818 5.194 2.314 2.7751.25 - 1.5 0.318 1.786 0.740 0.9481.5 - 1.75 0.315 0.585 0.368 0.4231.75 - 2.0 0.272 0.360 0.478 0.3702.0 - 2.25 - - - -2.25 - 2.5 - - - -2.5 - 2.75 - - - -2.75 - 3.0 - - - -

NaCl (lb/yd3)

MIX CPR18


0.0 - 0.25 23.175 23.337 25.515 24.0090.25 - 0.50 17.438 15.201 17.456 16.6980.50 - 0.75 2.444 3.556 5.027 3.6760.75 - 1.0 1.471 1.728 1.353 1.5171.0 - 1.25 0.554 0.525 0.546 0.5421.25 - 1.5 0.537 0.513 0.489 0.5131.5 - 1.75 0.500 0.514 0.453 0.4891.75 - 2.0 0.475 0.486 0.451 0.4712.0 - 2.25 - - - -2.25 - 2.5 - - - -2.5 - 2.75 - - - -2.75 - 3.0 - - - -

NaCl (lb/yd3)

MIX CPR20


0.0 - 0.25 21.321 22.307 21.288 21.6390.25 - 0.50 13.299 13.693 10.158 12.3830.50 - 0.75 6.956 4.668 3.236 4.9530.75 - 1.0 3.511 2.889 1.052 2.4841.0 - 1.25 1.143 0.432 0.270 0.6151.25 - 1.5 0.683 0.277 0.872 0.6111.5 - 1.75 0.390 0.305 0.278 0.3241.75 - 2.0 0.386 0.233 0.317 0.3122.0 - 2.25 - - - -2.25 - 2.5 - - - -2.5 - 2.75 - - - -2.75 - 3.0 - - - -

NaCl (lb/yd3)

152



0.0 - 0.25 32.782 24.576 25.698 27.6850.25 - 0.50 22.953 20.168 13.717 18.9460.50 - 0.75 5.269 8.619 3.701 5.8630.75 - 1.0 0.937 2.435 1.234 1.5351.0 - 1.25 0.401 0.467 0.369 0.4121.25 - 1.5 0.416 0.328 0.304 0.3491.5 - 1.75 0.318 0.313 0.335 0.3221.75 - 2.0 0.455 0.345 0.326 0.3752.0 - 2.25 - - - -2.25 - 2.5 - - - -2.5 - 2.75 - - - -2.75 - 3.0 - - - -

NaCl (lb/yd3)

153

0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60

80CPR1 (Sample A) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion

Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)

Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.245E-11 Background(lb/yd̂ 3) 0.133Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 34.385 Sum(Error)^2 22.047

0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60

80CPR1 (Sample B) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion

Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60

80CPR1 (Sample C) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion

Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


Figure C-1. 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficient Regression Analysis.

154

0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


Figure C-1. Continued.

155

0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)



156

0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)



157

0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)



158

0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)



159

0 20 40 60 80 1000

20

40

60


Depth (mm)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)



160

0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)



161

0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)



162

0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)



163

Table C-3. 3-Year Bulk Diffusion Chloride Profile Testing Results. MIX CPR1


0.0 - 0.25 45.278 33.452 34.588 37.7730.25 - 0.50 38.017 35.226 34.828 36.0240.50 - 0.75 37.825 33.214 28.138 33.0590.75 - 1.0 26.818 27.243 28.077 27.3791.0 - 1.25 27.616 26.474 22.327 25.4721.25 - 1.5 24.401 25.658 14.609 21.5561.5 - 1.75 24.728 22.339 20.012 22.3601.75 - 2.0 21.513 17.235 19.116 19.2882.0 - 2.25 19.501 14.146 14.477 16.0412.25 - 2.5 17.308 13.994 12.994 14.7652.5 - 2.75 17.812 12.696 12.880 14.4632.75 - 3.0 10.401 11.258 11.358 11.0063.0 - 3.25 13.905 10.252 8.386 10.8483.25 - 3.5 12.947 8.306 6.849 9.3673.5 - 4.0 12.709 - 8.006 10.358

NaCl (lb/yd3)

MIX CPR2


0.0 - 0.25 37.154 39.357 42.339 39.6170.25 - 0.50 27.537 29.155 34.621 30.4380.50 - 0.75 23.160 25.107 27.150 25.1390.75 - 1.0 16.862 19.349 20.440 18.8841.0 - 1.25 14.387 12.610 15.927 14.3081.25 - 1.5 9.829 10.459 13.710 11.3331.5 - 1.75 10.340 5.863 8.575 8.2591.75 - 2.0 - 5.697 4.866 5.2822.0 - 2.25 4.130 1.298 - 2.7142.25 - 2.5 1.981 0.844 - 1.4132.5 - 2.75 1.146 0.917 - 1.0322.75 - 3.0 0.607 0.773 - 0.6903.0 - 3.25 - - - -3.25 - 3.5 - - - -3.5 - 4.0 - - - -

NaCl (lb/yd3)

MIX CPR3


0.0 - 0.25 30.180 41.429 36.779 36.1290.25 - 0.50 28.312 34.038 30.973 31.1080.50 - 0.75 21.316 29.453 25.809 25.5260.75 - 1.0 20.950 25.212 22.980 23.0471.0 - 1.25 13.411 18.944 21.055 17.8031.25 - 1.5 15.245 15.550 19.729 16.8411.5 - 1.75 11.003 13.631 14.762 13.1321.75 - 2.0 9.063 11.477 13.927 11.4892.0 - 2.25 8.265 8.165 10.256 8.8952.25 - 2.5 5.523 7.706 9.120 7.4502.5 - 2.75 3.916 5.431 7.437 5.5952.75 - 3.0 1.531 3.156 5.436 3.3743.0 - 3.25 1.351 2.584 3.425 2.4533.25 - 3.5 1.175 1.697 2.363 1.7453.5 - 4.0 1.214 1.319 1.474 1.336

NaCl (lb/yd3)

MIX CPR4


0.0 - 0.25 36.046 41.032 34.361 37.1460.25 - 0.50 22.629 23.515 17.399 21.1810.50 - 0.75 14.121 11.295 5.292 10.2360.75 - 1.0 5.975 3.172 2.386 3.8441.0 - 1.25 1.317 1.371 0.482 1.0571.25 - 1.5 - 1.357 0.576 0.9671.5 - 1.75 0.385 0.371 0.466 0.4071.75 - 2.0 0.368 0.856 0.372 0.5322.0 - 2.25 - - - -2.25 - 2.5 - - - -2.5 - 2.75 - - - -2.75 - 3.0 - - - -3.0 - 3.25 - - - -3.25 - 3.5 - - - -3.5 - 4.0 - - - -

NaCl (lb/yd3)

MIX CPR5


0.0 - 0.25 42.960 39.266 42.149 41.4580.25 - 0.50 28.962 38.666 29.563 32.3970.50 - 0.75 24.604 22.811 23.244 23.5530.75 - 1.0 15.365 12.896 12.387 13.5491.0 - 1.25 5.200 5.711 8.140 6.3501.25 - 1.5 2.083 2.537 3.222 2.6141.5 - 1.75 1.534 2.113 1.791 1.8131.75 - 2.0 1.168 2.039 1.756 1.6542.0 - 2.25 1.295 1.360 1.621 1.4252.25 - 2.5 1.452 1.206 1.546 1.4012.5 - 2.75 1.789 1.531 1.791 1.7042.75 - 3.0 1.877 1.642 2.041 1.8533.0 - 3.25 2.059 2.730 1.719 2.1693.25 - 3.5 1.884 2.470 2.030 2.1283.5 - 4.0 - - - -

NaCl (lb/yd3)

MIX CPR6


0.0 - 0.25 38.232 39.903 43.053 40.3960.25 - 0.50 33.886 34.925 34.932 34.5810.50 - 0.75 27.434 29.759 28.634 28.6090.75 - 1.0 15.267 21.663 21.051 19.3271.0 - 1.25 13.720 13.355 13.408 13.4941.25 - 1.5 9.621 8.028 8.831 8.8271.5 - 1.75 5.210 2.932 4.416 4.1861.75 - 2.0 2.309 1.367 1.681 1.7862.0 - 2.25 0.656 0.274 0.598 0.5092.25 - 2.5 0.349 0.285 0.612 0.4152.5 - 2.75 - - - -2.75 - 3.0 - - - -3.0 - 3.25 - - - -3.25 - 3.5 - - - -3.5 - 4.0 - - - -

NaCl (lb/yd3)

164



0.0 - 0.25 37.602 35.221 36.545 36.4560.25 - 0.50 25.020 26.580 22.891 24.8300.50 - 0.75 21.457 20.615 15.849 19.3070.75 - 1.0 9.612 12.823 11.790 11.4081.0 - 1.25 4.064 5.054 7.054 5.3911.25 - 1.5 0.886 0.975 2.702 1.5211.5 - 1.75 0.466 0.268 0.440 0.3911.75 - 2.0 0.291 0.254 0.202 0.2492.0 - 2.25 - - - -2.25 - 2.5 - - - -2.5 - 2.75 - - - -2.75 - 3.0 - - - -3.0 - 3.25 - - - -3.25 - 3.5 - - - -3.5 - 4.0 - - - -

NaCl (lb/yd3)

MIX CPR8


0.0 - 0.25 36.681 35.872 37.243 36.5990.25 - 0.50 31.887 26.630 28.037 28.8510.50 - 0.75 24.104 25.113 21.110 23.4420.75 - 1.0 17.647 15.455 14.300 15.8011.0 - 1.25 9.109 7.672 8.621 8.4671.25 - 1.5 3.162 2.094 1.698 2.3181.5 - 1.75 0.615 0.480 0.406 0.5001.75 - 2.0 0.240 0.255 0.296 0.2642.0 - 2.25 - - - -2.25 - 2.5 - - - -2.5 - 2.75 - - - -2.75 - 3.0 - - - -3.0 - 3.25 - - - -3.25 - 3.5 - - - -3.5 - 4.0 - - - -

NaCl (lb/yd3)

MIX CPR9


0.0 - 0.25 39.434 49.439 45.287 44.7200.25 - 0.50 30.800 30.579 28.557 29.9790.50 - 0.75 18.881 18.325 18.288 18.4980.75 - 1.0 9.913 8.528 9.834 9.4251.0 - 1.25 1.903 3.119 3.735 2.9191.25 - 1.5 0.761 1.551 0.722 1.0111.5 - 1.75 0.316 0.759 0.422 0.4991.75 - 2.0 0.294 0.212 0.395 0.3002.0 - 2.25 - - - -2.25 - 2.5 - - - -2.5 - 2.75 - - - -2.75 - 3.0 - - - -3.0 - 3.25 - - - -3.25 - 3.5 - - - -3.5 - 4.0 - - - -

NaCl (lb/yd3)

MIX CPR10


0.0 - 0.25 43.994 39.019 41.456 41.4900.25 - 0.50 38.626 35.126 35.993 36.5820.50 - 0.75 22.472 22.847 26.470 23.9300.75 - 1.0 22.922 13.241 14.800 16.9881.0 - 1.25 2.251 5.591 6.117 4.6531.25 - 1.5 0.552 0.604 1.337 0.8311.5 - 1.75 0.263 0.303 0.204 0.2571.75 - 2.0 0.173 0.720 0.310 0.4012.0 - 2.25 - - - -2.25 - 2.5 - - - -2.5 - 2.75 - - - -2.75 - 3.0 - - - -3.0 - 3.25 - - - -3.25 - 3.5 - - - -3.5 - 4.0 - - - -

NaCl (lb/yd3)

MIX CPR11


0.0 - 0.25 50.261 42.966 53.800 49.0090.25 - 0.50 38.149 44.938 38.003 40.3630.50 - 0.75 29.264 26.989 23.563 26.6050.75 - 1.0 19.071 19.626 16.032 18.2431.0 - 1.25 10.176 11.156 7.755 9.6961.25 - 1.5 2.532 4.770 1.961 3.0881.5 - 1.75 0.603 0.990 0.450 0.6811.75 - 2.0 0.235 0.162 0.390 0.2622.0 - 2.25 - - - -2.25 - 2.5 - - - -2.5 - 2.75 - - - -2.75 - 3.0 - - - -3.0 - 3.25 - - - -3.25 - 3.5 - - - -3.5 - 4.0 - - - -

NaCl (lb/yd3)

MIX CPR12


0.0 - 0.25 47.519 36.716 44.526 42.9200.25 - 0.50 30.467 24.307 33.428 29.4010.50 - 0.75 26.049 22.354 25.778 24.7270.75 - 1.0 24.141 18.097 24.907 22.3821.0 - 1.25 20.604 19.309 21.900 20.6041.25 - 1.5 11.860 19.183 18.654 16.5661.5 - 1.75 11.790 17.116 13.320 14.0751.75 - 2.0 12.301 16.036 13.351 13.8962.0 - 2.25 7.340 11.693 12.555 10.5292.25 - 2.5 9.698 8.211 10.170 9.3602.5 - 2.75 6.666 5.572 7.173 6.4702.75 - 3.0 5.368 4.447 5.200 5.0053.0 - 3.25 1.820 3.661 4.153 3.2113.25 - 3.5 0.740 1.865 1.752 1.4523.5 - 4.0 0.508 2.560 0.936 1.335

NaCl (lb/yd3)

165



0.0 - 0.25 34.930 33.659 36.597 35.0620.25 - 0.50 29.764 30.213 32.687 30.8880.50 - 0.75 28.128 26.011 26.826 26.9880.75 - 1.0 23.025 22.113 23.230 22.7891.0 - 1.25 20.798 18.833 20.670 20.1001.25 - 1.5 18.275 16.903 16.829 17.3361.5 - 1.75 16.273 14.012 15.173 15.1531.75 - 2.0 14.508 13.162 12.891 13.5202.0 - 2.25 14.764 13.859 12.889 13.8372.25 - 2.5 14.579 13.890 12.099 13.5232.5 - 2.75 14.287 14.664 10.597 13.1832.75 - 3.0 12.319 11.382 9.227 10.9763.0 - 3.25 11.493 9.532 5.952 8.9923.25 - 3.5 10.303 7.997 6.558 8.2863.5 - 4.0 9.078 6.700 5.017 6.932

NaCl (lb/yd3)

MIX CPR15


0.0 - 0.25 25.830 34.635 36.062 32.1760.25 - 0.50 22.799 30.031 31.169 28.0000.50 - 0.75 20.588 29.284 29.640 26.5040.75 - 1.0 20.337 28.959 24.304 24.5331.0 - 1.25 15.978 19.974 22.326 19.4261.25 - 1.5 12.256 18.060 19.882 16.7331.5 - 1.75 8.534 13.630 14.740 12.3011.75 - 2.0 6.896 11.755 11.020 9.8902.0 - 2.25 - 5.861 7.455 6.6582.25 - 2.5 - 3.889 6.594 5.2422.5 - 2.75 - 3.536 4.457 3.9972.75 - 3.0 - 3.087 4.608 3.8483.0 - 3.25 - 3.522 4.484 4.0033.25 - 3.5 - 3.459 4.731 4.0953.5 - 4.0 - 4.688 5.851 5.270

NaCl (lb/yd3)

MIX CPR16


0.0 - 0.25 46.394 39.542 40.104 42.0130.25 - 0.50 33.459 32.955 33.203 33.2060.50 - 0.75 28.506 23.568 25.585 25.8860.75 - 1.0 21.678 13.284 19.108 18.0231.0 - 1.25 13.546 7.706 13.506 11.5861.25 - 1.5 8.632 4.968 7.104 6.9011.5 - 1.75 4.026 3.091 3.773 3.6301.75 - 2.0 1.387 1.320 2.324 1.6772.0 - 2.25 - - 1.322 1.3222.25 - 2.5 - - 0.882 0.8822.5 - 2.75 - - - -2.75 - 3.0 - - - -3.0 - 3.25 - - - -3.25 - 3.5 - - - -3.5 - 4.0 - - - -

NaCl (lb/yd3)

MIX CPR17


0.0 - 0.25 43.951 45.944 51.951 47.2820.25 - 0.50 35.440 37.455 44.942 39.2790.50 - 0.75 25.867 28.429 28.558 27.6180.75 - 1.0 16.003 18.825 21.209 18.6791.0 - 1.25 8.010 5.838 17.922 10.5901.25 - 1.5 2.813 1.584 7.898 4.0981.5 - 1.75 0.770 0.469 2.625 1.2881.75 - 2.0 0.442 0.293 1.209 0.6482.0 - 2.25 0.309 0.306 0.453 0.3562.25 - 2.5 0.359 0.317 0.327 0.3342.5 - 2.75 - - - -2.75 - 3.0 - - - -3.0 - 3.25 - - - -3.25 - 3.5 - - - -3.5 - 4.0 - - - -

NaCl (lb/yd3)

MIX CPR18


0.0 - 0.25 34.944 29.519 43.414 35.9590.25 - 0.50 36.966 30.591 35.498 34.3520.50 - 0.75 28.346 26.119 21.906 25.4570.75 - 1.0 9.759 11.017 6.781 9.1861.0 - 1.25 3.010 2.713 1.731 2.4851.25 - 1.5 0.557 0.624 0.526 0.5691.5 - 1.75 0.425 0.485 0.409 0.4401.75 - 2.0 0.535 0.644 0.659 0.6132.0 - 2.25 0.644 0.426 0.329 0.4662.25 - 2.5 0.529 0.458 0.387 0.4582.5 - 2.75 - - - -2.75 - 3.0 - - - -3.0 - 3.25 - - - -3.25 - 3.5 - - - -3.5 - 4.0 - - - -

NaCl (lb/yd3)

MIX CPR20


0.0 - 0.25 41.525 49.320 58.420 49.7550.25 - 0.50 33.760 37.401 39.894 37.0180.50 - 0.75 26.664 26.421 27.469 26.8510.75 - 1.0 17.167 13.624 15.999 15.5971.0 - 1.25 11.977 6.043 6.853 8.2911.25 - 1.5 6.402 2.083 2.079 3.5211.5 - 1.75 1.775 0.878 0.564 1.0721.75 - 2.0 0.913 0.848 0.500 0.7542.0 - 2.25 0.221 0.180 0.209 0.2032.25 - 2.5 0.143 0.171 0.164 0.1592.5 - 2.75 - - - -2.75 - 3.0 - - - -3.0 - 3.25 - - - -3.25 - 3.5 - - - -3.5 - 4.0 - - - -

NaCl (lb/yd3)

166



0.0 - 0.25 36.265 51.995 38.738 42.3330.25 - 0.50 32.551 41.476 31.858 35.2950.50 - 0.75 18.981 25.400 15.377 19.9190.75 - 1.0 5.263 6.456 4.530 5.4161.0 - 1.25 2.084 2.411 1.513 2.0031.25 - 1.5 0.729 0.554 0.722 0.6681.5 - 1.75 0.471 0.560 0.582 0.5381.75 - 2.0 0.554 0.889 0.596 0.6802.0 - 2.25 0.459 0.379 0.463 0.4342.25 - 2.5 0.473 0.428 0.414 0.4382.5 - 2.75 - - - -2.75 - 3.0 - - - -3.0 - 3.25 - - - -3.25 - 3.5 - - - -3.5 - 4.0 - - - -

NaCl (lb/yd3)

167

0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)

Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.983E-11 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.133Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 42.142 Sum(Error)^2 111.39

0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


Figure C-2. 3-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficient Regression Analysis.

168

0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)



169

0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)



170

0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)



171

0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (mm)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)



172

0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)



173

0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)



174

0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)



175

0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)



176

0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 3 40

20

40

60


Depth (mm)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)



177

APPENDIX D FIELD CORE SAMPLING DATA AND ANALYSIS RESULTS

Table D-1. Initial Chloride Background Level of Cored Samples. Initial Chloride Samples (lb/yd3)

Bridge Name Lab. # A B C Average

5016 - - - 0.547(a)

5017 0.515 0.514 0.570 0.533

Hurricane Pass (HPB)

5018 0.529 0.594 0.560 0.561

5054 0.426 0.483 0.492 0.467 Broadway Replacement (BRB) 5081 0.843 0.904 0.828 0.858(b)

5082 0.435 0.508 0.458 0.467 Seabreeze West Bound (SWB) 5083 0.390 0.441 0.465 0.432

Granada (GRB) 5084 0.669 0.649 0.594 0.637

5078 0.550 0.574 0.544 0.556

5079 0.423 0.420 0.427 0.423

Turkey Creek (TCB)

5080 0.414 0.415 0.423 0.417

5075 0.623 0.609 0.609 0.614

5076 0.445 0.423 0.427 0.432

New Roosevelt (NRB)

5077 0.332 0.407 0.408 0.382 (a) Initial Chlorides were not tested for this sample. An average between Lab sample# 5017 and 5018 was

reported.

(b) Initial Chloride value was considered an erroneous value (too high). The value of initial chlorides from Lab sample# 5054 was used.

178

Table D-2. Chloride Profile Testing Results of Cored Samples. Bridge Hurricane (HPB)Lab # 5016

Depth(in) A B C AVG

0.0 - 0.25 13.327 13.285 13.452 13.3550.25 - 0.50 3.110 3.512 3.555 3.3920.50 - 0.75 2.155 2.201 2.176 2.1770.75 - 1.0 0.677 0.688 0.687 0.6841.0 - 1.25 0.564 0.490 0.495 0.516

1.25 - 1.50 0.440 0.441 0.422 0.4341.50 - 1.75 0.357 0.341 0.349 0.3491.75 - 2.0 0.373 0.435 0.360 0.3892.0 - 2.25 0.349 0.350 0.345 0.348

NaCl (lb/yd3)

Bridge Hurricane (HPB)Lab # 5017

Depth(in) A B C AVG

0.0 - 0.08 32.329 32.186 31.936 32.1500.08 - 0.16 33.485 33.629 32.969 33.3610.16 - 0.24 26.499 26.952 26.844 26.7650.24 - 0.32 22.561 22.301 22.305 22.3890.32 - 0.40 20.412 20.575 20.585 20.5240.40 - 0.48 15.275 15.260 15.259 15.2650.48 - 0.72 7.910 8.005 8.149 8.0210.72 - 0.97 2.766 2.737 2.774 2.7590.97 - 1.22 0.773 0.795 0.802 0.7901.22 - 1.47 0.317 0.366 0.359 0.347

NaCl (lb/yd3)

Bridge Hurricane (HPB)Lab # 5018

Depth(in) A B C AVG

0.0 - 0.08 37.618 37.627 38.201 37.8150.08 - 0.16 34.599 34.440 34.804 34.6140.16 - 0.24 30.440 30.431 30.556 30.4760.24 - 0.32 25.696 25.936 26.046 25.8930.32 - 0.40 22.942 23.073 22.980 22.9980.40 - 0.48 19.042 17.179 17.252 17.8240.48 - 0.72 7.728 8.263 7.944 7.9780.72 - 0.97 1.744 1.772 1.783 1.7660.97 - 1.22 0.454 0.504 0.469 0.4761.22 - 1.47 0.592 0.603 0.548 0.581

NaCl (lb/yd3)

Bridge Broadway Replacement (BRB)Lab # 5054

Depth(in) A B C AVG

0.0 - 0.08 20.128 20.785 20.920 20.6110.08 - 0.16 26.407 25.674 26.311 26.1310.16 - 0.24 23.063 22.699 22.624 22.7950.24 - 0.32 19.445 20.026 19.302 19.5910.32 - 0.40 19.561 19.906 19.906 19.7910.40 - 0.48 16.881 16.904 17.254 17.0130.48 - 0.72 7.497 8.001 7.857 7.7850.72 - 0.97 1.175 1.222 1.217 1.2050.97 - 1.22 0.553 0.589 0.596 0.5791.22 - 1.47 0.453 0.475 0.501 0.476

NaCl (lb/yd3)

Bridge Broadway Replacement (BRB)Lab # 5081

Depth(in) A B C AVG

0.0 - 0.08 30.614 30.399 30.521 30.5110.08 - 0.16 24.608 24.693 24.628 24.6430.16 - 0.24 20.438 20.166 19.773 20.1260.24 - 0.32 16.360 16.016 15.949 16.1080.32 - 0.40 14.177 13.895 14.079 14.0500.40 - 0.48 12.665 12.318 12.657 12.5470.48 - 0.72 3.649 3.711 3.586 3.6490.72 - 0.97 0.248 0.264 0.236 0.2490.97 - 1.22 0.252 0.265 0.268 0.2621.22 - 1.47 0.288 0.300 0.266 0.285

NaCl (lb/yd3)

Bridge Seabreeze (SWB)Lab # 5082

Depth(in) A B C AVG

0.0 - 0.08 40.658 40.645 40.062 40.4550.08 - 0.16 38.187 37.863 38.175 38.0750.16 - 0.24 31.937 31.980 31.836 31.9180.24 - 0.32 29.026 28.978 29.297 29.1000.32 - 0.40 27.541 27.760 27.114 27.4720.40 - 0.48 26.470 26.290 26.278 26.3460.48 - 0.72 20.980 20.701 20.330 20.6700.72 - 0.97 7.624 7.376 8.123 7.7080.97 - 1.22 - - - -1.22 - 1.47 - - - -

NaCl (lb/yd3)

179

Table D-2. Continued. Bridge Seabreeze (SWB)Lab # 5083

Depth(in) A B C AVG

0.0 - 0.08 39.841 39.841 39.868 39.8500.08 - 0.16 38.948 39.148 38.488 38.8610.16 - 0.24 34.426 35.015 34.545 34.6620.24 - 0.32 32.315 32.972 32.720 32.6690.32 - 0.40 26.697 26.801 27.009 26.8360.40 - 0.48 22.871 23.330 23.327 23.1760.48 - 0.72 13.869 14.011 14.201 14.0270.72 - 0.97 1.623 1.990 2.382 1.9980.97 - 1.22 0.459 0.459 0.436 0.4511.22 - 1.47 0.466 0.495 0.452 0.471

NaCl (lb/yd3)

Bridge Granada Crashwall (GRB)Lab # 5084

Depth(in) A B C AVG

0.0 - 0.08 0.918 0.869 0.858 0.8820.08 - 0.16 0.671 0.676 0.694 0.6800.16 - 0.24 0.560 0.595 0.616 0.5900.24 - 0.32 0.478 0.501 0.490 0.4900.32 - 0.40 0.450 0.472 0.484 0.4690.40 - 0.48 0.504 0.443 0.437 0.4610.48 - 0.72 0.445 0.459 0.408 0.4370.72 - 0.97 0.385 0.402 0.381 0.3890.97 - 1.22 0.453 0.398 0.377 0.4091.22 - 1.47 0.354 0.397 0.404 0.385

NaCl (lb/yd3)

Bridge Turkey Creek (TCB)Lab # 5078

Depth(in) A B C AVG

0.0 - 0.08 26.038 25.618 25.965 25.8740.08 - 0.16 19.101 19.205 19.277 19.1940.16 - 0.24 14.341 14.275 14.242 14.2860.24 - 0.32 11.838 12.028 11.490 11.7850.32 - 0.40 9.381 9.381 9.303 9.3550.40 - 0.48 6.469 6.447 6.363 6.4260.48 - 0.72 4.410 4.328 4.338 4.3590.72 - 0.97 1.605 1.616 1.599 1.6070.97 - 1.22 2.257 - - 2.2571.22 - 1.47 0.770 0.816 0.743 0.776

NaCl (lb/yd3)


Depth(in) A B C AVG

0.0 - 0.08 28.194 27.837 27.908 27.9800.08 - 0.16 21.143 21.023 21.023 21.0630.16 - 0.24 14.089 14.089 13.962 14.0470.24 - 0.32 10.707 10.489 10.430 10.5420.32 - 0.40 8.336 8.122 7.789 8.0820.40 - 0.48 5.869 5.748 5.986 5.8680.48 - 0.72 2.699 2.681 2.714 2.6980.72 - 0.97 0.748 0.773 0.736 0.7520.97 - 1.22 0.399 0.407 0.404 0.4031.22 - 1.47 0.359 0.388 0.411 0.386

NaCl (lb/yd3)


Depth(in) A B C AVG

0.0 - 0.08 30.194 30.474 30.039 30.2360.08 - 0.16 24.939 34.464 25.219 28.2070.16 - 0.24 16.425 16.257 16.663 16.4480.24 - 0.32 13.378 13.398 13.060 13.2790.32 - 0.40 9.990 10.331 10.372 10.2310.40 - 0.48 6.699 6.790 6.746 6.7450.48 - 0.72 2.893 2.930 2.902 2.9080.72 - 0.97 0.665 0.673 0.679 0.6720.97 - 1.22 0.305 0.346 0.329 0.3271.22 - 1.47 0.276 0.260 0.263 0.266

NaCl (lb/yd3)

Bridge New Roosevelt (NRB)Lab # 5075

Depth(in) A B C AVG

0.0 - 0.08 15.410 14.872 14.674 14.9850.08 - 0.16 21.570 22.262 21.926 21.9190.16 - 0.24 19.279 19.279 19.575 19.3780.24 - 0.32 16.989 17.213 17.144 17.1150.32 - 0.40 15.694 15.593 15.784 15.6900.40 - 0.48 13.353 13.481 13.530 13.4550.48 - 0.72 8.330 8.465 8.497 8.4310.72 - 0.97 2.973 2.856 3.172 3.0000.97 - 1.22 0.467 0.420 0.490 0.4591.22 - 1.47 0.315 0.327 0.343 0.328

NaCl (lb/yd3)

180

Table D-2. Continued. Bridge New Roosevelt (NRB)Lab # 5076

Depth(in) A B C AVG

0.0 - 0.08 14.954 14.833 15.161 14.9830.08 - 0.16 14.049 14.165 14.162 14.1250.16 - 0.24 13.676 13.814 13.712 13.7340.24 - 0.32 14.504 14.612 14.603 14.5730.32 - 0.40 16.213 16.186 16.358 16.2520.40 - 0.48 15.562 15.595 15.438 15.5320.48 - 0.72 13.960 13.934 14.240 14.0450.72 - 0.97 5.197 5.876 5.986 5.6860.97 - 1.22 3.265 3.288 3.252 3.2681.22 - 1.47 0.401 0.416 0.417 0.411

NaCl (lb/yd3)

Bridge New Roosevelt (NRB)Lab # 5077

Depth(in) A B C AVG

0.0 - 0.08 17.903 17.903 17.816 17.8740.08 - 0.16 23.959 23.888 24.035 23.9610.16 - 0.24 21.334 21.872 21.374 21.5270.24 - 0.32 19.257 19.140 19.134 19.1770.32 - 0.40 16.463 16.652 16.576 16.5640.40 - 0.48 14.474 14.926 14.789 14.7300.48 - 0.72 10.243 10.398 9.955 10.1990.72 - 0.97 2.528 2.576 2.588 2.5640.97 - 1.22 0.513 0.526 0.507 0.5151.22 - 1.47 0.246 0.270 0.256 0.257

NaCl (lb/yd3)

181

0 1 2 30

20

40

60Hurricane Bay Bridge #120089 LAB#5016

Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 30

20

40


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 30

20

40


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 30

20

40

60Broadway Replac. Bridge #790187 LAB#5054

Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 30

20

40

60Broadway Replac. Bridge #790187 LAB#5081

Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 30

20

40

60Seabreeze Bridge #790174 LAB#5082

Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


Figure D-1. Cored Samples Chloride Diffusion Coefficient Regression Analysis.

182

0 1 2 30

20

40

60Seabreeze Bridge #790174 LAB#5083

Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 30

20

40

60Granada Crashwall #790132 LAB#5084

Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 30

20

40

60Turkey Creek Bridge #700203 LAB#5078

Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 30

20

40


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 30

20

40


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 30

20

40

60New Roosevelt Bridge #890152 LAB#5075

Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


Figure D-1. Continued.

183

0 1 2 30

20

40


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 1 2 30

20

40


Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


Figure D-1. Continued.

184

APPENDIX E SHORT-TERM ELECTRICAL TEST DATA RESULTS

Table E-1. RCP Coulombs Testing Results. Sample A Sample B Sample C Average Std

CPR1 8719 8965 8780 8821 128.10 1.45CPR2 5054 5001 5291 5115 154.42 3.02CPR3 11689 12568 13535 12597 923.35 7.33CPR4 1450 1248 1380 1359 102.57 7.55CPR5 7348 7269 8877 7831 906.43 11.57CPR6 8244 8033 6785 7687 788.53 10.26CPR7 2065 1942 2145 2051 102.26 4.99CPR8 2373 2408 2426 2402 26.95 1.12CPR9 1090 1169 896 1052 140.48 13.36CPR10 1362 1362 1318 1347 25.40 1.89CPR11 2610 2988 2979 2859 215.69 7.54CPR12 12217 13887 12744 12949 853.72 6.59CPR13 8288 7058 7427 7591 631.19 8.31CPR15 9141 7761 - 8451 975.81 11.55CPR16 3964 5704 5001 4890 875.33 17.90CPR17 5010 5423 - 5217 292.04 5.60CPR18 6680 7277 - 6979 422.14 6.05CPR20 4201 4904 - 4553 497.10 10.92CPR21 7427 7708 - 7568 198.70 2.63

MIX COV (%)

14-Day RCP Data (Coulomb)Sample A Sample B Sample C Average Std

CPR1 6917 6644 6847 6803 141.80 2.08CPR2 3753 4333 3779 3955 327.62 8.28CPR3 9580 9141 9113 9278 261.91 2.82CPR4 781 806 757 781 24.50 3.14CPR5 5537 5686 5414 5546 136.21 2.46CPR6 6548 8648 7699 7632 1051.62 13.78CPR7 1371 1485 1248 1368 118.53 8.66CPR8 1582 1397 1468 1482 93.33 6.30CPR9 1063 821 949 944 121.07 12.82CPR10 1178 1362 1213 1251 97.71 7.81CPR11 2215 2496 1969 2227 263.69 11.84CPR12 5186 6363 8631 6727 1751.06 26.03CPR13 5669 5836 6820 6108 621.95 10.18CPR15 7014 8156 - 7585 807.52 10.65CPR16 3894 4263 3727 3961 274.27 6.92CPR17 5036 3542 3234 3937 963.86 24.48CPR18 3252 3032 - 3142 155.56 4.95CPR20 3173 3691 2997 3287 360.77 10.98CPR21 4377 5502 - 4940 795.50 16.10

MIX COV (%)

28-Day RCP Data (Coulomb)

Sample A Sample B Sample C Average StdCPR1 6952 8411 7207 7523 779.24 10.36CPR2 3779 3858 4263 3967 259.65 6.55CPR3 8640 10107 6978 8575 1565.51 18.26CPR4 540 514 448 501 47.43 9.47CPR5 2645 2645 2426 2572 126.44 4.92CPR6 4184 4368 4395 4316 114.82 2.66CPR7 984 1055 1055 1031 40.99 3.97CPR8 1011 1002 1090 1034 48.42 4.68CPR9 834 830 888 851 32.39 3.81CPR10 923 905 838 889 44.79 5.04CPR11 1679 1740 1723 1714 31.48 1.84CPR12 5871 5915 6064 5950 101.15 1.70CPR13 5098 5713 5537 5449 316.73 5.81CPR15 5774 5115 2821 4570 1550.10 33.92CPR16 3261 2742 2610 2871 344.14 11.99CPR17 2303 2268 2162 2244 73.42 3.27CPR18 1591 1740 1652 1661 74.91 4.51CPR20 2250 1863 1960 2024 201.36 9.95CPR21 2347 2575 2461 2461 114.00 4.63

56-Day RCP Data (Coulomb)MIX COV (%) Sample A Sample B Sample C Average Std

CPR1 4676 5054 5599 5110 464.01 9.08CPR2 3076 3770 4131 3659 536.19 14.65CPR3 8042 7181 7110 7444 518.81 6.97CPR4 408 460 388 419 37.17 8.88CPR5 1775 1723 1749 1749 26.00 1.49CPR6 2979 3120 2900 3000 111.45 3.72CPR7 858 719 976 851 128.64 15.12CPR8 967 1037 1099 1034 66.04 6.38CPR9 819 786 923 843 71.50 8.49CPR10 805 878 949 877 72.00 8.21CPR11 1564 1635 1854 1684 151.16 8.97CPR12 5655 4484 5207 5115 590.86 11.55CPR13 4421 4913 4720 4685 247.90 5.29CPR15 3568 4148 4412 4043 431.75 10.68CPR16 2092 2206 2224 2174 71.58 3.29CPR17 1793 2347 2118 2086 278.38 13.35CPR18 1160 1134 984 1093 95.00 8.69CPR20 1477 1301 1547 1442 126.75 8.79CPR21 1510 1646 1529 1562 73.65 4.72

91-Day RCP Data (Coulomb)MIX COV (%)

Sample A Sample B Sample C Average StdCPR1 6047 5801 6056 5968 144.70 2.42CPR2 2883 2883 2584 2783 172.63 6.20CPR3 6759 6003 5933 6232 458.02 7.35CPR4 386 359 396 380 19.14 5.03CPR5 1213 1195 1283 1230 46.49 3.78CPR6 4400 2992 4334 3909 794.54 20.33CPR7 1027 887 - 957 98.99 10.34CPR8 814 989 - 902 123.74 13.73CPR9 719 738 - 729 13.44 1.84CPR10 577 657 - 617 56.57 9.17CPR11 1222 1325 - 1274 72.83 5.72CPR12 4604 4436 - 4520 118.79 2.63CPR13 4166 4184 3955 4102 127.34 3.10CPR15 2769 2329 2566 2555 220.22 8.62CPR16 1538 1195 1090 1274 234.30 18.39CPR17 1644 1283 1626 1518 203.43 13.40CPR18 544 621 588 584 38.63 6.61CPR20 867 923 914 901 30.07 3.34CPR21 712 914 888 838 109.89 13.11

182-day RCP Data (Coulomb)MIX COV (%) Sample A Sample B Sample C Average Std

CPR1 4922 4660 - 4791 185.26 3.87CPR2 2684 3011 3060 2918 204.41 7.00CPR3 4627 5111 4050 4596 531.18 11.56CPR4 309 300 268 292 21.55 7.37CPR5 862 792 753 802 55.23 6.88CPR6 1371 1520 1564 1485 101.15 6.81CPR7 791 721 - 756 49.50 6.55CPR8 863 797 - 830 46.67 5.62CPR9 490 533 - 512 30.41 5.94CPR10 349 393 - 371 31.11 8.39CPR11 1103 983 - 1043 84.85 8.14CPR12 3618 3727 - 3673 77.07 2.10CPR13 4192 4488 - 4340 209.30 4.82CPR15 1814 1794 1839 1816 22.55 1.24CPR16 1180 1031 - 1106 105.36 9.53CPR17 1175 1579 1508 1421 215.70 15.18CPR18 329 357 306 331 25.54 7.72CPR20 891 732 882 835 89.31 10.70CPR21 390 432 453 425 32.08 7.55

364-day RCP Data (Coulomb)MIX COV (%)

185

Table E-2. SR (Lime Cured) Testing Results.

0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270A 5.4 5.9 5.4 5.6 5.3 5.6 5.4 5.7 5.54B 5.1 5 5.3 5.1 5 5.1 5.3 5.1 5.13C 4.6 5.3 5.4 5.4 4.6 5.2 5.5 5.4 5.18A 7.8 7.7 8.3 7.9 7.7 7.8 8.7 8 7.99B 7.7 7.6 6.8 7 7.7 7.6 6.8 7.1 7.29C 7 7.8 6.1 6.5 7.1 6.5 6 6.4 6.68A 5 5.2 5.1 5.6 5 5.1 5.3 5.5 5.23B 5 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.8 4.5 4.6 4.8 4.69C 5.6 4.9 4.8 4.7 5.6 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.94A 19 17.1 19.5 19.7 17.3 17.7 19.1 19.6 18.6B 19.5 17.6 17.3 19.8 19.5 17.7 19.7 19 18.8C 17.5 20.4 15.5 17.1 17.3 19.1 15.9 17.4 17.5A 5.7 6.3 6.2 5.8 5.5 6.2 6.2 5.6 5.94B 6.1 6.2 6.5 5.8 6.1 6 6.3 5.5 6.06C 5.4 5.8 6.2 5.6 5.2 5.7 5.8 5.7 5.68A 6 5.6 5.7 6.2 5.9 5.7 5.9 6 5.88B 6.4 6.3 6.3 5.9 5.8 6 6.2 6 6.11C 6.6 6 5.8 6.7 6.7 5.7 5.7 6.6 6.23A 10.8 9.9 10 10.5 10.2 10.4 9.6 10.6 10.3B 9.7 10.2 10.6 11.8 9.8 10.4 10.5 11.8 10.6C 9.6 10.2 10.5 11.8 10.5 10.8 10.4 11.8 10.7A 8.4 9 8.2 8.2 7.8 9.1 8.3 8.3 8.41B 8.5 8.9 7.9 7.9 8.6 8.8 8.1 7.8 8.31C 8.4 9.1 8.7 8 8 8.6 8.6 8 8.43A 31.2 28.4 27.6 27.1 31.6 28.4 28.3 27.5 28.8B 27.7 24.1 27.9 26.8 27.7 24.8 28.2 27.2 26.8C 26.5 28.2 29.9 29.6 26.6 28.2 30.4 29.6 28.6A 21.8 24.4 24.2 19.9 22.3 21.3 20.6 22.7 22.2B 21.8 23.6 23.1 21.7 21.6 23.8 23.4 21.9 22.6C 24.2 19.9 23.7 24.9 24.4 21.3 24.3 22.5 23.2

5.3 0.23CPR1

0.66

28.1 1.10

CPR8

14-Day Surface Resistivity (Lime Cured) (kΩ.cm)SampleMIX COV

(%)Std. Dev.

Reading Locations (Deg.)Average

4.26

5.0 0.27 5.43

18.3 0.68 3.71

7.3

8.4 0.06 0.74

8.98

5.9 0.20 3.36

6.1 0.18 2.94

CPR10

CPR9 3.90

22.6 0.50 2.21

CPR6

CPR7 2.2510.5 0.24

CPR2

CPR3

CPR4

CPR5

0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270A 12.2 11.1 11 11.1 11.3 10.9 10.9 12.1 11.3B 10.7 10 11.1 10.1 10.8 9.8 10.9 10.1 10.4C 11.7 10.2 10.9 10.6 11.6 9.8 9.8 10.9 10.7A 8.2 8.3 10 10.1 8.5 8.4 9.9 9.8 9.15B 8.7 8.7 9.6 10.3 9.2 9.8 10.1 9.9 9.54C 8.1 8.7 8.1 8.5 8.2 8.2 8.5 8.5 8.35A 6.5 7.1 6.7 6.7 6.8 6.9 6.6 7.2 6.81B 6.3 6.4 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.4 6.1 6.4 6.31C 6.5 7 7.1 6.8 6.9 6.8 6.6 6.6 6.79A 4.5 4 4.3 4.6 4.6 4 4.3 4.7 4.38B 3.2 4.3 3.8 3.9 3.7 4.1 4 3.8 3.85C 2.7 3.7 3.3 4.6 3.3 3.7 4.5 5.1 3.86A 6.4 6.8 7 7 6.5 6.5 6.9 7 6.76B 6.2 7.2 6.3 7.5 6.5 7.3 6.2 7.5 6.84C 6.7 7.1 7.5 7.8 6.7 6.7 7.5 7.8 7.23A 6.2 6.1 6.7 6.1 6 6.2 6.3 6.6 6.28B 5 5.6 5.7 5.5 5.2 5.7 6 5.2 5.49C 5.5 5.3 5.7 6.1 6.3 5.4 5 5.7 5.63A 8.2 7.6 7 8 8 7.5 7.2 8.1 7.7B 7.2 7.4 7.4 7.1 7.3 7.7 7.2 6.9 7.28C 6.5 6.4 6.8 7.8 6.4 7 7.3 7.6 6.98A 5.1 6.3 4.8 6.1 5 6 4.8 6.6 5.59B 5.4 4.3 5.1 6.2 5.4 6.4 6.1 5.3 5.53C 7.7 7.1 6.9 6.6 7 7.2 6.8 6.3 6.95A 5.7 5 5 5.2 5.2 4.9 4.8 4.9 5.09B 5.4 5 5.3 5 5.4 4.9 5.4 5 5.18C 5.2 4.8 4.7 5.2 5.2 5.1 4.5 5.2 4.99

MIX Sample14-Day Surface Resistivity (Lime Cured) (kΩ.cm)

COV (%) Reading Locations (Deg.) Std.

Dev.Average

CPR20

CPR21

10.8 0.46 4.23

9.0 0.61 6.72

6.6 0.28 4.24

4.0 0.30 7.43

6.9 0.25 3.58

5.8 0.42 7.26

7.3 0.36 4.98

6.0 0.81 13.38

5.1 0.09 1.85

CPR11

CPR12

CPR13

CPR15

CPR16

CPR17

CPR18

0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270A 5.6 6.3 6 6.5 5.7 5.9 5.7 6.1 5.98B 5.7 5.8 6 5.6 6 5.8 6 5.9 5.85C 5.4 5.9 6.2 6.1 5.5 5.7 6.2 6.1 5.89A 8.7 8.8 9.8 8.8 7.6 8.8 9.7 8.8 8.88B 8.9 8.8 8 8.2 8.9 9.1 7.6 8.1 8.45C 8 8.3 6.8 7 8.1 7.4 6.8 7.1 7.44A 5.6 5.6 6.1 6.2 5.4 5.5 5.6 6.4 5.8B 5.6 5 5.2 5 5.5 5 5.2 5.2 5.21C 6.3 5.3 5.2 5.1 6 5.6 5.2 5.1 5.48A 33 30.8 34.2 34.6 35.4 31.9 34.5 32.4 33.4B 36.2 33.1 31.4 35.4 35.8 32.1 31.7 40.2 34.5C 33.6 37.5 27.8 27.1 33.9 34.7 29.3 27.7 31.5A 7.5 7.8 7.6 7.5 7.2 8.1 8 7.1 7.6B 7.6 7.8 8.6 7.5 7.5 8.4 8.4 8.1 7.99C 6.8 7.3 7.6 7 6.6 6.9 7.5 7.1 7.1A 7.1 7.7 6.8 7.2 7 7.1 7.1 6.7 7.09B 7.1 7.5 7.3 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.3 7.1 7.24C 7.9 6.9 7.1 7.7 7.7 6.8 7 7.8 7.36A 21.2 20.9 19 20.4 20.3 19.2 19.4 20.2 20.1B 18.4 19.5 20.3 20.9 18.2 19.7 20 20.6 19.7C 20.6 21.1 20.1 22.5 19 22.1 20.6 22.7 21.1A 14.7 16.1 16.3 17.1 15.8 16.8 15.8 15.9 16.1B 15.6 17.4 15 15.8 15.8 17.5 15.7 15.3 16C 16.1 16.7 16.5 16.2 16.3 17.2 16.7 16.1 16.5A 34.6 29.4 27.9 28.2 33.4 30.7 28.7 29.6 30.3B 27.9 27.9 31.4 27.5 30.4 27.2 30.3 26 28.6C 28 28.4 31 34.9 28.1 27.7 30.6 34.7 30.4A 21.3 22.7 19 23.2 20.6 21.3 19.4 20.8 21B 21.6 24.1 24.3 22.2 21.8 23.9 23.5 22.5 23C 24.1 22.1 26.1 25.1 25.1 20 25.9 23.8 24

CPR10 22.7 1.52 6.69

CPR9 29.8 1.04 3.48

CPR8 16.2 0.25 1.57

CPR7 20.3 0.72 3.54

CPR6 7.2 0.14 1.90

CPR5 7.6 0.44 5.88

CPR4 33.1 1.53 4.64

CPR3 5.5 0.29 5.36

CPR2 8.3 0.74 8.95

CPR1 5.9 0.06 1.09


Dev.AverageMIX Sample

28-Day Surface Resistivity (Lime Cured) (kΩ.cm)

0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270A 16.3 15.4 15.4 16.1 17.1 17.1 15.4 15.2 16B 14.7 13.8 15.3 14.7 14.6 13.9 15.3 13.9 14.5C 15.7 13.3 14.3 14.2 15.8 13.4 14.1 14.3 14.4A 9.5 9.8 11.4 10.7 9.6 9.6 10.6 11.2 10.3B 11 11.5 10 11.3 10.7 11.6 9.9 11.2 10.9C 9.4 9.6 9.5 9.6 9.5 9.8 9.7 9.4 9.56A 7.3 7.5 7.2 7.1 7.3 7.4 7.1 7.1 7.25B 6.8 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.8 6.6 6.5 6.6 6.64C 7.1 7.5 7 7.1 7.1 7.4 7.5 7 7.21A 8.6 9.2 7.6 8 8.9 9.2 7.9 8.6 8.5B 7.8 8.8 9.6 9 8.8 8.8 9.1 9.3 8.9C 8.6 8.8 10.3 7.1 8.6 9.2 9.8 7.2 8.7A 7.2 7.3 7.2 7.3 7 7.2 7.2 7.4 7.23B 7.2 7.7 6.8 8.2 7.8 7.8 6.9 8 7.55C 7.2 7.9 8.4 7.7 7 8.8 8.3 7.7 7.88A 8.1 8.5 9.6 9.5 8.2 8.4 9.6 8.9 8.85B 8.3 7.9 9.2 8.6 9 8 9.4 8.2 8.58C 8.4 8.5 8.9 8.6 9 7.9 9.1 8.7 8.64A 13.1 10.4 10.1 10.8 12.4 10.3 9.9 10.6 11B 11.1 10.9 11 10.9 10.9 12.9 11.6 11 11.3C 10 11.4 10.7 11.8 10.1 11.3 10.5 11.3 10.9A 10.4 12.6 10.9 10.9 10.9 10.5 10 10.1 10.8B 11.4 12.6 11.8 12.7 11.4 11.4 11.4 12.2 11.9C 12.9 11.9 11.2 15.5 14.7 12.6 12.3 15.3 13.3A 9.7 9.1 8.8 9.4 10 9.1 9.7 10.1 9.49B 9.6 9.7 10 9.8 10.1 9.3 9.3 9.5 9.66C 8.9 9.7 8.4 11.3 10.5 9.6 9.6 10.7 9.84



Dev.Average

CPR21 9.7 0.18 1.81

CPR20 12.0 1.26 10.52

CPR18 11.0 0.22 1.95

CPR17 8.7 0.14 1.66

CPR16 7.6 0.33 4.30

CPR15 8.7 0.20 2.30

CPR13 7.0 0.34 4.88

CPR12 10.3 0.67 6.53

CPR11 15.0 0.89 5.97

186

Table E-2. Continued.

0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270A 6.5 7 6.7 7.1 6.4 7.2 6.4 7.1 6.8B 6.8 6.4 7.1 6.5 6.5 6.3 6.8 6.5 6.61C 6.1 6.9 7.2 7 6 6.9 7.2 6.9 6.78A 9.6 10 10.9 9.9 10 9.6 10.8 10.3 10.1B 9.8 9.7 9.3 9 9.7 9.1 9 8.9 9.31C 8.9 8.8 7.7 8 8.3 9.3 7.9 8 8.36A 6.2 6.5 6.3 6.8 6.6 6 6.3 6.5 6.4B 6.2 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.9 5.7 5.7 5.8 5.84C 7.3 6.3 6.1 5.8 6.7 6 5.9 5.6 6.21A 48.2 44.4 52 53.4 47 44.9 52.6 50.4 49.1B 55.9 53.3 50.5 48.1 57.4 49.5 52.1 48.5 51.9C 44.6 48.4 41.7 42.5 44.9 47.5 43.8 40.7 44.3A 10.5 11.1 11.6 10.6 10.7 12.7 11.4 10 11.1B 11.8 11.7 12.3 10.9 11.3 12.3 12.2 10.6 11.6C 10.4 10.7 10.1 10.6 10.2 11.1 10.4 10.3 10.5A 9.4 9.2 8.8 9.9 9.5 8.8 8.7 9.6 9.24B 9.6 9.4 9.4 9.1 9.2 9.6 9.4 9.8 9.44C 10.2 8.8 9.3 10.2 10.3 9.1 9.4 10.4 9.71A 36.7 37.9 34.9 34.1 36.3 36.2 35.1 35.1 35.8B 35.3 35.1 36.4 36.7 34 37 36.3 37.6 36.1C 36.4 37 37.1 40.9 35.7 38.3 37 39.1 37.7A 24.1 29.2 29 27.5 27.3 29 27.8 27.3 27.7B 26.8 28.9 26.5 27.2 26.4 29.4 26.9 27.1 27.4C 29.1 30.4 29 27.3 28.3 28.6 29.3 27 28.6A 39.8 37 35.9 34.6 40.6 37.1 33 35.1 36.6B 37.2 33.8 39.2 32.8 36.4 34 38.7 34.6 35.8C 34.8 35 41.5 45.3 36.3 36.5 41.4 45.1 39.5A 28.5 31.7 27.4 30.2 30.6 32.2 25.7 30.9 29.7B 29.1 32.2 29.7 29.6 25.2 30.6 31.7 30.6 29.8C 35.2 31.4 33 31.1 34.1 30.5 34.5 31.7 32.7

CPR4

CPR5 0.58 5.26

CPR10

CPR6

CPR7

CPR8

CPR9

30.7 1.70 5.54

37.3

27.9 0.65 2.32

9.58

1.510.10

11.1

1.92 5.14

9.5 0.24 2.52

36.5 1.03 2.82

4.66

48.4 3.87 7.99

CPR1 6.7

6.2 0.29

9.3 0.89CPR2

CPR3



Dev.Average0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270

A 20.7 20 20.1 20.3 21.5 19.7 19.8 21 20.4B 18 17.7 19.6 18.1 18.9 17.8 19.4 18.4 18.5C 20.1 17.4 18.9 18.3 20.4 17.2 17.8 18.1 18.5A 10.5 10.2 11.7 11.2 10 10.2 11.6 11.2 10.8B 12.2 12.9 12.2 12.2 11.7 12.7 11.1 12.2 12.2C 11.5 11 10.6 10.2 10.5 11.1 10.7 9.8 10.7A 8.1 8.2 8.1 8.4 8.1 7.9 7.9 8.6 8.16B 7.5 7.6 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.5 7.3 7.7 7.51C 7.7 8.3 8.3 7.8 7.7 8.3 8.6 7.8 8.06A 8.6 8.7 7.9 8.4 8.2 8.4 8 9.1 8.41B 8.1 8.3 9.1 8.5 8.5 8 8.9 8.8 8.53C 8.4 8.2 9.3 7.8 8.6 8.5 8.8 7.9 8.44A 8.9 9.1 8.9 9.7 8.8 9.1 9.1 10.1 9.21B 9.3 9.7 8.6 10.4 9.8 9.8 8.5 10.6 9.59C 8.8 10 10.3 9.6 8.8 10 10.4 9.9 9.73A 12.1 12.3 13.1 13.4 12 12.4 12.8 12.6 12.6B 12.2 12 12.6 11.9 12.8 12.5 12.5 12.1 12.3C 11.8 11.7 12.2 12.1 12.1 12.2 11.9 12 12A 19.8 18.2 17.6 18.4 19.9 18.6 17.7 18.6 18.6B 19.9 18.6 19.7 19.2 19.1 19.7 17.4 19.4 19.1C 18.5 19.1 18.6 19.8 18.7 19.2 18.8 19.8 19.1A 14.6 16.2 15.8 14.8 14.7 15.7 15.3 15 15.3B 13.8 15.9 16.5 16.2 14.6 15.3 15.8 15.7 15.5C 16 16.1 15 15 16.1 15.9 15.5 15.3 15.6A 16 14.8 14.7 15.5 16.2 14.7 15.3 16 15.4B 15.3 14 15.4 14.1 14.8 14 14.9 14 14.6C 13.3 13.7 13.6 15 13.1 13.9 13 14.9 13.8

CPR17

CPR18

CPR12

CPR13

CPR20

CPR21 14.6 0.79

2.39

5.44

18.9 0.29 1.51

15.5 0.18 1.14

12.3 0.29

0.70

9.5 0.27 2.79

7.24

7.9 0.35 4.42

11.2 0.81

8.5 0.06CPR15

CPR16

CPR11 19.1 1.09 5.68



Dev.Average

0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270A 7.3 8.3 7.7 8.3 7.2 8.2 7.6 8.5 7.89B 7.1 7.3 7.5 7.6 7.1 7.4 7.9 7.5 7.43C 7.1 7.3 7.8 7.6 6.6 7.3 7.8 7.6 7.39A 11.2 10.9 11.2 10.5 11.2 10.8 11.6 11 11.1B 10.1 10 9.9 9.8 10.2 10 10.8 9.2 10C 10.4 9.7 9.7 12.2 10.1 9.8 9.7 11.5 10.4A 8.7 7.1 7.6 8.2 7.1 7.1 6.9 7.7 7.55B 6.4 7 5.9 6.7 6.4 6.5 5.5 6.2 6.33C 7.5 7.4 7.2 5.8 6.9 6.8 6.8 5.7 6.76A 63.8 52 63.2 61.4 58.5 56 59.1 64.6 59.8B 64.9 59.4 66 62.7 56.5 62.9 71.9 60.8 63.1C 55.7 60.8 55.3 49.7 54.1 54.7 57.1 51.9 54.9A 14.9 16.1 14.6 13.7 14 16.3 15.8 13.8 14.9B 16.3 15.7 16.1 14.6 15.3 16.2 15.7 14.2 15.5C 13.4 13.7 16 14.6 13.3 14.2 15.6 13.6 14.3A 11.6 11.6 10.8 11.6 11.7 10.9 11.6 11.4 11.4B 12.3 11.5 10.7 11.6 11.6 11.5 11.2 11.3 11.5C 11.4 10.5 11.5 12.3 12.5 10.7 11.5 12.8 11.7A 37.8 43.1 38.3 38.1 40.2 40.1 36.8 39.7 39.3B 36.6 40.1 42.4 41.3 37.4 41.6 40.8 41.5 40.2C 37.7 43.2 43 47.4 43.4 43.2 44.6 47 43.7A 35.2 38 33.6 33.4 33.7 36.9 33.6 33.8 34.8B 34.8 38 33.8 35.1 35.6 36.4 32.6 33 34.9C 34.4 33.5 35.1 33.3 34.3 33.5 35.6 33.2 34.1A 42.2 36.9 35.8 36.3 44.5 39.3 38.9 35.5 38.7B 35.8 36.2 41.2 36.4 35.3 34.7 41.7 35.8 37.1C 36.6 40.6 41.4 49 38.4 40.7 42.7 46.6 42A 31.2 33.2 28.4 31 30.7 32.7 27.4 30.7 30.7B 30 30.8 31.8 31.5 30.6 29.9 31.9 31.9 31.1C 36 28.5 36.3 35.1 36.8 33.7 36.9 34.3 34.7

CPR2

CPR3

CPR4

CPR5

59.3 4.14 6.98

10.5

CPR6

CPR7

CPR8

3.680.287.6CPR1

6.9 0.62 9.02

CPR10

CPR9

0.13 1.13

32.1 2.23 6.93

39.3 2.49 6.33

41.1 2.33 5.67

34.6

0.53 5.07

0.43 1.24

14.9 0.61 4.07

11.5

AverageMIX Sample

91-Day Surface Resistivity (Lime Cured) (kΩ.cm)COV (%) Reading Locations (Deg.) Std.

Dev. 0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270A 23.4 22.6 21.8 23 22.8 21.8 21.1 22.7 22.4B 19.5 18.7 22.1 20 18.6 18.6 20.8 19.8 19.8C 21.4 19.2 20.4 19.8 22.1 20.2 20.6 19.8 20.4A 11.1 11 12.6 12.1 10.8 10.5 12.7 12.4 11.7B 12.4 13.1 11.5 13.3 11.9 11.6 11.5 12.9 12.3C 11 11 11.1 10.9 11.1 10.9 11 10.9 11A 8.9 9.1 8.9 9.3 8.9 9.1 8.7 8.6 8.94B 8.2 8.2 8.3 8.7 8.2 8.5 8.4 8.3 8.35C 8.6 9.1 9.1 8.5 8.4 9.4 8.9 8.6 8.83A 9.8 10.1 9.6 10.1 10.4 10.3 9.8 10.5 10.1B 9.8 10.5 10.7 9.8 10.7 10.3 10.3 9.8 10.2C 10.7 10 11 10.3 10.6 10.1 11.6 10.1 10.6A 12.9 13.8 12.2 14.4 12.4 13.2 13 14.5 13.3B 14.2 13.9 13.6 15.9 15.6 14.5 14.2 14.6 14.6C 12.5 14.1 14.2 11.2 12.3 14.1 13.5 12.8 13.1A 15.1 16.3 17.7 17 15.8 16.8 17.7 16.4 16.6B 17.6 16.6 17.5 15.8 17.2 16.4 15.9 14.9 16.5C 15.6 16.3 16.2 15.9 16.7 15.8 16.1 16 16.1A 31.2 28.5 28.7 30 31.4 29.3 29.5 29.4 29.8B 31.5 32.2 30.9 29.2 29.3 30.2 29.7 28.9 30.2C 25.5 28.2 28.5 29.3 26.6 28.9 27 29.1 27.9A 20.4 20.3 20.6 20 20.9 20 19.4 20.3 20.2B 19.2 20.6 19.2 21.5 20.8 19.6 21.4 21.1 20.4C 20.1 22 21.7 18.9 20.6 20.8 20.2 20.4 20.6A 24.7 25.3 22.9 21.9 22.5 25.2 23.2 22.9 23.6B 22.2 22.5 22.9 21.4 22.3 22.9 23.4 21 22.3C 25.2 26.3 23.5 24.4 25.9 25.9 23.6 22.7 24.7

CPR21

CPR15

CPR16

CPR17

CPR18

11.6 0.64 5.53

CPR20

CPR12

CPR13 8.7 0.31 3.58

10.3 0.24 2.35

13.7 0.80 5.84

16.4 0.28 1.69

23.5 1.18 5.02

29.3 1.24 4.23

20.4 0.18 0.86

20.9 1.37 6.57

MIX

CPR11

Sample91-Day Surface Resistivity (Lime Cured) (kΩ.cm)


Dev.Average

187


0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270A 8.8 9.4 8.6 9.5 11 9.7 8.5 9.2 9.34B 8.7 8.5 9.2 8.4 8.6 8.5 9.4 8.5 8.73C 8.9 8.5 10.3 10.2 8.6 8.1 10 9.8 9.3A 13.4 16.7 13.5 12.3 12.1 12.7 14.3 12.7 13.5B 14.4 12.9 12.7 12.3 12.8 14.4 13.2 12.2 13.1C 11.4 15.5 10.6 12.4 12.6 11.4 10.9 10.6 11.9A 9 10.1 8.2 9.1 8.3 8.4 8.3 8.5 8.74B 8.6 9.2 8.8 7.9 9.3 9 9.2 7.7 8.71C 8.1 10.6 8.5 6.9 9 9.2 8.4 7.2 8.49A 72.5 75.5 79.7 85.6 70.3 76.3 78.6 79.2 77.2B 79.2 78.4 77.6 83.4 88.4 76.2 85.8 82 81.4C 82.6 79.7 61.8 62.6 71.7 82.5 67.1 69.4 72.2A 25.4 26.5 31.3 25.6 26.2 26.1 27.9 23.5 26.6B 23.6 27.3 27.6 31.1 24.3 26.6 28.5 23.7 26.6C 21.5 22.3 24.2 22.3 23.3 23.1 23.8 22.2 22.8A 16.3 15.8 15.1 16 16.3 15.5 15.1 15.3 15.7B 14.7 15.4 15.4 15 14.3 15.5 15.4 15.8 15.2C 17.6 14.7 15.5 16.9 18 15.3 15.7 16.9 16.3A 41.6 47.2 44.2 44.7 43.6 51.6 40.1 41 44.3B 42.7 45 50.2 47.7 43.4 44.1 44.7 47.3 45.6C 48.7 47.7 46.4 50.2 45.5 44.7 47.6 51.6 47.8A 43.6 44.5 44 39 42.3 48.1 43.2 39.4 43B 44.6 44.4 40.2 41.2 41.8 44.1 41.1 41.6 42.4C 41.1 45.2 45.4 43.7 41.2 49.7 43.6 44.1 44.3A 45.6 43.6 42.6 42.3 47.3 44.6 41.7 42.4 43.8B 42.8 40.5 44.2 39 40.8 39.6 45.7 40.3 41.6C 41.6 40.9 45.8 48.4 42.8 44.8 45.3 48.6 44.8A 40 41.9 34.5 41 39.4 40.7 35.5 31.5 38.1B 37.9 40 41.7 37.8 42.2 42.5 42.3 40.2 40.6C 44.4 42.5 47.3 45.4 46.9 42.5 45.9 46.5 45.2

Average

1.61 3.72

41.3 3.61 8.74

CPR2

CPR1 3.760.349.1

CPR3

CPR4

CPR5

43.4

45.9

8.6

76.9

CPR7

CPR8

CPR9

1.79 3.90

43.2 0.95 2.21

0.14 1.59

12.8 0.81 6.28

5.99

CPR6

25.3 2.16 8.52

15.7 0.57 3.63

CPR10


COV (%) Reading Locations (Deg.)

4.61

Std. Dev. 0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270

A 28 26.5 26.1 25.6 29 25.9 25.4 25 26.4B 24.3 22.4 25.9 23.6 23.4 22.3 25.6 23.9 23.9C 26.3 22.7 22.6 23.7 26.2 22.5 22.9 23.1 23.8A 12.1 11.9 13.4 13.5 11.8 11.6 13.7 13.4 12.7B 13.3 15.4 13.9 13.6 14.1 13.4 14.2 14.1 14C 12.6 13.3 11.8 12.1 13.4 12.2 11.8 12.1 12.4A 11.1 12.1 10.5 10.8 10.4 11 10.2 10.8 10.9B 10.6 11.4 10.1 10.7 10.7 9.9 10.1 10.4 10.5C 11.1 12.8 11.3 10.6 11 11.2 10.3 10.7 11.1A 14.8 15.5 14.1 15.2 13.2 15.2 8.5 15.2 14B 16.5 16.1 16.9 16.1 16.5 15.4 15.9 16.5 16.2C 13.4 15.6 15.8 15 15.4 15.4 16.7 15.8 15.4A 20.7 21.5 21.2 24.3 20.1 20.6 20.7 24.6 21.7B 24.1 23.7 21.4 26.7 24.8 23.3 20.4 26.9 23.9C 20.7 25.2 22.1 21.4 18 22.6 22.4 20.7 21.6A 22.5 23.9 24.9 24.6 22.4 24.4 25.3 24 24B 25.2 25.1 23.4 24.8 26.7 25.2 23.9 24.3 24.8C 24.5 22.8 23.4 23.3 24.5 23.9 23.6 22.7 23.6A 59.8 51.1 59.2 61.4 58.3 55.7 55.5 57 57.3B 56 57 55.6 56.3 55.1 62.2 58.2 55.6 57C 51.2 53 52.8 52.6 50.4 54 51.7 55.8 52.7A 34.8 31.7 29.3 30.7 31.5 31.9 31 29 31.2B 31.1 32.5 29.4 33.3 32.2 29.2 29.6 31.5 31.1C 29.6 34 30.1 27.8 32.1 29.7 31.9 28.1 30.4A 42.7 24.4 14.1 23.7 21 12.2 15.7 13.4 20.9B 10.7 40.3 40.2 39.7 42.1 43.1 42.1 37.6 37C 46.9 42.6 40.2 42.8 45.4 41.3 40.9 41.7 42.7

Average

24.1

CPR13

CPR15

CPR16

CPR17

CPR18

0.44CPR20

CPR21

0.63 2.61

33.5 11.31 33.73

55.6 2.57 4.61

30.9 1.43

1.15 7.56

22.4 1.29 5.76

15.2

0.85 6.53

10.8 0.32 2.96

13.0

24.7 1.50 6.09CPR11

CPR12



Dev.

0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270A 14.3 13.4 10 9.7 12 11.7 10.1 10.3 11.4B 9.7 13.4 12.6 11.4 14.2 9.8 15.5 10.7 12.2C 12.5 13.2 9.9 14.6 9.3 16 10.4 14.3 12.5A 14.7 14.4 14.8 14.3 13.3 16.2 14.5 14.4 14.6B 14.7 12.7 16.2 12.1 13.7 13.1 14.2 12.4 13.6C 13.4 12.6 10.2 12.3 13.3 13.4 9.9 12.9 12.3A 11.2 3 8.3 11.1 11 9 8.3 9.7 8.95B 9.1 12.3 9.2 7 9.2 8.7 6.8 6.8 8.64C 9.1 9.2 9.8 7.9 8.8 10.3 10.6 7.6 9.16A 83.5 92.9 96.3 104 87.1 82.6 99.1 100 93.3B 97.9 85 92.8 82.5 102 90.8 96.7 85 91.6C 85.2 95.8 74.6 76 88.8 92.4 75.8 77.4 83.3A 34.1 41.8 42.4 30.7 36 40.8 40.4 34 37.5B 44 43.6 38.2 43.6 39.5 36.7 35.6 41.4 40.3C 36.4 43.6 35.7 34.5 37.8 32.8 38.3 34.6 36.7A 22.4 21.8 21.3 23.1 22.6 22.4 21.2 23.8 22.3B 20.6 23.2 21.5 22 22.5 22.1 22.4 22.1 22.1C 23.4 19.9 22.8 22.1 24.5 21.2 22.2 22.2 22.3A 47.3 41.9 33.6 43.5 40.7 43.6 41.9 44.5 42.1B 55.4 42.3 40.5 47.2 46.5 42 45.6 47.3 45.9C 43.3 46.5 44.2 50.1 40.6 46.9 43.8 52.3 46A 48.4 53.4 43.8 47.5 45.9 51 45.1 46.6 47.7B 48.2 51.4 48.1 43.6 39.8 44.7 45.7 41.1 45.3C 47.8 49.3 39.7 46.4 50.1 49.6 48.7 47.3 47.4A 51.8 55.7 45.7 48 54.5 47.3 53.1 46 50.3B 70.2 42.5 50.6 45.4 47.7 46.1 50.9 45.3 49.8C 52 59.7 54.3 46.8 48.9 50.4 51.1 53.3 52.1A 55.8 56.4 51.3 53.2 55.2 55.2 52.6 53.5 54.2B 51.8 52.3 56.5 52.3 51.6 52.7 53.4 52.5 52.9C 61.4 55.2 57 63.1 58.3 57.2 57.4 57.2 58.4

Average

CPR2

CPR3

CPR4

CPR5

CPR6

CPR7

CPR8

38.2

CPR9 50.7 1.18

CPR10

CPR1

89.4 5.36

2.96

13.5 1.17 8.67

8.9 0.26

1.90

22.2 0.15 0.67

6.00

4.600.5512.0

2.33

55.1 2.86 5.19

46.8 1.29 2.75

4.96

44.6 2.18 4.89

Reading Locations (Deg.) Std. Dev.


COV (%)

0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270A 32.8 30.6 26.9 32.7 29.2 29.4 27.7 28 29.7B 26.2 27.3 30.5 29.8 25.8 25 31.1 27.8 27.9C 37.2 27.2 26.1 26.9 32.4 28.5 25.1 28.2 29A 12.6 12.5 15.6 14.1 12.9 12.2 15.3 14.7 13.7B 15.8 16.7 16 16.4 15.2 16.3 15.3 16.3 16C 15.5 15.9 13.6 13.4 14.2 15.6 13 13.3 14.3A 10.4 11.6 11 11.4 10.5 11.2 10.6 11.3 11B 10 10.6 10.2 10.2 10.5 10.9 10.1 10.1 10.3C 11.4 11.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 11.2 11.3 11.1 11.2A 20.5 20.7 20.3 20.4 20.2 20.4 21 20.4 20.5B 22.7 23.7 23.6 22 24.7 22.3 25.9 22.5 23.4C 20.3 21.8 22.9 22.6 27 23.7 25.3 23.7 23.4A 29.2 29.5 26.7 35.7 31.3 29.7 28.6 33 30.5B 38 34.7 46 40.3 47.4 45.7 35.7 38.1 40.7C 34.4 38.7 49.8 43.6 32.6 39 45.1 36.9 40A 29.5 32.7 32.9 31.5 31.1 31.3 29.8 31.2 31.3B 35.4 34.4 32.4 32.3 38.4 32.7 34.8 31.5 34C 37.9 39.9 32.7 35.7 34.3 37.6 37.3 33.3 36.1A 101 90.3 87.7 92.3 97.6 94.9 89.5 89.9 92.9B 87.2 102 84.2 91.7 95.2 88.8 88.2 89.5 90.8C 82.7 86.2 84.8 85.2 80.2 83.7 82.3 82.4 83.4A 54.8 44.6 44.1 43.6 39.1 41.5 39.8 42.2 43.7B 41.6 42.4 44.2 44.2 37.3 42.6 44.2 45.2 42.7C 48 46.8 45.5 50.2 47.5 53.6 46.2 44.3 47.8A 64.1 69.7 63.8 61.5 67.9 69.5 63 65.8 65.7B 64.1 62.3 63.8 62.2 64.8 62.7 67.5 61.2 63.6C 73.1 68 63.6 65.2 71 67.5 63.9 65.1 67.2

Average

CPR21

CPR15

CPR16

CPR17

CPR18

14.7 1.18 8.01

CPR20

CPR12

CPR13 10.8 0.44 4.06

22.4 1.69 7.54

37.1 5.73 15.47

33.8 2.43 7.18

65.5 1.81 2.76

89.1 4.97 5.58

44.7 2.67 5.98

CPR11 28.9 0.87 3.00

Reading Locations (Deg.)MIX Sample364-Day Surface Resistivity (Lime Cured) (kΩ.cm)

COV (%)Std.

Dev.

188


0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270A 10.8 12.2 10.8 10.5 13.2 11.4 10.5 10.3 11.2B 12.1 12.2 15.3 12.2 11.2 11.1 13.3 11.9 12.4C 14.8 10.7 14.4 13.8 10 14.1 11.8 17.8 13.4A 18.5 15.5 14.1 14.5 14.2 22.1 14.5 13.3 15.8B 13.3 26.9 16.4 14.1 15.4 27.5 17.9 12.7 18C 14.3 17 21.5 20.7 14.2 15.7 12.5 12.2 16A 15.8 9.8 10.5 9.2 8.9 8.5 8.4 9.4 10.1B 8.1 7.4 14.6 9.2 11.5 8 7.7 8.6 9.39C 9.5 8.4 10.2 8.4 10 11.1 7.7 8.3 9.2A 107 108 95.3 121 96 122 92.1 115 107B 104 100 135 109 130 111 112 121 115C 109 108 96.8 96.3 105 108 102 93.1 102A 47.3 45.8 68.4 34.1 47.8 41.2 46.8 33 45.6B 38.7 52.8 47.1 40.9 37.4 43.2 44.5 41 43.2C 39.3 34.8 39.8 37.7 33.9 37.9 37.6 35.2 37A 23.6 22.8 20.7 22.2 23.2 22.4 21.2 24.5 22.6B 21.2 22.4 22.3 21.8 22.8 21.9 21.9 23.8 22.3C 23.7 24.8 22.9 20.9 23.5 24.1 23.2 20.8 23A 39.5 39 38.8 46.6 38.7 39.1 39.4 45.9 40.9B 39.5 42.3 42.3 40.7 38.4 41.9 42.2 41.9 41.2C 41.7 45.7 39.9 42.7 40.1 45 40.2 42.2 42.2A 46.9 47.2 49.8 51.3 46.5 45.8 49.4 49.9 48.4B 47.4 48.4 44.6 51.2 48.5 44.7 45.1 51.9 47.7C 47.2 45.1 51.4 51.1 48.7 43.5 49 50.7 48.3A 46.5 42.7 44.6 43.5 45.2 45.2 44.6 43.2 44.4B 40.9 42.8 45.6 38.1 40.8 41.3 47.2 39.6 42C 41.7 50.1 55.5 45.8 48.9 56 51.8 45.8 49.5A 55 57.8 50.2 57.2 55.6 55.9 50.8 56.1 54.8B 50.3 54.4 53.4 53.6 51.7 53.3 55 55.7 53.4C 55.8 60.1 60.8 57.4 60.9 64.8 63.7 56.6 60

CPR2

CPR3

CPR4

CPR5

CPR6

CPR7

CPR8

CPR9

108.2 6.59 6.09

7.31

9.6 0.45 4.75

8.35

56.1 3.47 6.19

1.67

48.1 0.36 0.74

22.6 0.36 1.61

41.9

8.971.1112.4

10.50

CPR10

16.6 1.22

4.40

41.4 0.69

45.3 3.78

CPR1



Dev.Average0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270

A 31.3 33.5 32 28.5 32.1 33.3 29.5 27.6 31B 26.8 26.8 30.4 26.3 26.7 27.4 30.7 25.3 27.6C 33.9 28.7 28.7 27.4 31.6 26.8 28.4 25.7 28.9A 13 15.5 14.8 13.3 13.1 15.2 14.8 13.6 14.2B 14.5 15.7 15.1 16.5 14.3 16.4 15.3 16.3 15.5C 14.2 13.2 13.8 15.6 14.2 13.3 14.8 15.8 14.4A 11.6 13.3 13 12.3 12.4 12.3 11.2 11.5 12.2B 10.9 10.9 11.6 10.7 10.5 10.9 11.1 10.8 10.9C 11.6 12.1 10.1 11.6 10.9 12.1 11 10.4 11.2A 24.4 23.4 23.6 24.2 23.7 22.7 23.7 22.9 23.6B 25.3 26.6 24.3 25.2 26.6 26.1 23.2 24.1 25.2C 25.8 25.4 27.5 24.1 25.7 24.5 28.1 26.4 25.9A 27.2 31.1 28.2 33.2 31.4 32.8 27.1 33.2 30.5B 35.1 44.5 34.7 38.1 43.8 37.9 33.1 38.6 38.2C 27.3 33.9 39.6 32.5 30.8 30.1 37.8 34.4 33.3A 31.4 34.3 33.5 33.2 33.2 33.8 34.8 32 33.3B 34.9 33.1 33.3 33.5 36.4 33.3 33 34.1 34C 33.6 33.2 31.9 33.7 34 33 31.9 33.2 33.1A 107 91.1 98.2 99 98.1 92.3 94.3 100 97.5B 91.1 98.6 97.5 92.6 100 97.1 92.3 91.5 95.1C 83.2 89.6 90.7 97.7 93.1 88.9 92.4 92.3 91A 46.6 46.7 45.5 45.1 46.5 48.2 45.6 44.6 46.1B 43.4 46.6 48.3 45.8 46.3 49.4 48.3 44.3 46.6C 42.7 46.2 42.9 42 41.6 45.7 44.8 43.3 43.7A 69.2 69.1 72.1 70.4 68.9 71.8 66.9 73.2 70.2B 59.6 64.2 64.2 62.5 66.1 60 70.1 64.4 63.9C 71.3 66.5 64.4 71.4 72.3 62.9 70.1 68.8 68.5

1.39

67.5 3.26 4.83

94.5 3.31 3.50

45.4

24.9 1.21 4.84

1.56 3.44

34.0 3.90 11.46

33.4 0.46

4.96

11.5 0.67 5.82

CPR12

CPR13

14.7 0.73

CPR20

CPR21

CPR15

CPR16

CPR17

CPR18

1.73 5.9229.1CPR11



Dev.Average

0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270A 12.2 11.8 10.5 11.3 9.7 11.2 9.5 12.4 11.1B 9.7 7.2 12 11.9 9.2 9.6 11.1 11.6 10.3C 9.2 10.1 10.6 10.3 8.8 10.1 10 10.6 9.96A 12.1 13.4 14 13.3 13 12.9 14.6 13.2 13.3B 14.7 12.6 15.8 18.3 12.7 12.3 14.8 16.2 14.7C 14.6 14.6 11.8 12.8 18.3 11.5 12.7 11.9 13.5A 8.8 8.2 8.7 8.8 8.7 8.5 8.7 8.9 8.66B 9.2 8.2 7.1 7.2 8.8 7.8 6.8 7.3 7.8C 8.7 9.4 8 7.5 8.3 10 7.7 7.8 8.43A 83.7 115 98.7 85.2 84.7 101 92.5 86.9 93.5B 95.4 97 103 90.2 99.1 102 109 89.2 98.1C 87.8 86.6 73.9 94.1 90.1 86.3 83.6 94.6 87.1A 36.9 32.9 40.6 37.9 37.7 34.6 41.8 38.8 37.7B 37.9 35.6 40.4 40.8 38.5 39.8 46 42 40.1C 33.6 36.2 32.8 37.2 34.5 36.8 35.2 35 35.2A 25.6 26.8 23.2 23.5 25.5 27.1 22.3 24.6 24.8B 22.3 24.4 24.9 23.9 22.6 24.2 23.1 24.4 23.7C 26.4 26 24.1 21.9 26.5 26.4 24.7 22.3 24.8A 39.7 43.3 38.9 39.3 40.1 42.8 39.9 38.8 40.4B 38.6 41.4 42.6 40.5 41.9 42.1 39.3 39.5 40.7C 39.5 41.3 37.8 39.8 36.1 44.2 41.1 49 41.1A 51 51.6 51.9 47 49.4 52.9 53 49.5 50.8B 54.2 52 47 50.3 53.7 54.4 46.4 49.4 50.9C 50.5 52.7 54.2 49.8 49.7 52.2 53.1 48.6 51.4A 45.6 51.2 48 49.8 53.3 50.4 47.9 45.3 48.9B 44.6 45.2 48.3 45.3 45.1 44.9 51.4 48.8 46.7C 51.9 51.3 55.7 58.6 49 50.2 54.6 58.5 53.7A 60.3 60.1 51.9 57.5 61.5 63.5 54 61 58.7B 60.1 59.9 60.2 60 58.3 60.1 64.5 69.4 61.6C 70.6 68.6 71.8 69.1 70.5 61.5 64.1 66.8 67.9

CPR10

CPR6

CPR7

CPR8

CPR9

CPR2

CPR3 5.37

CPR4

CPR5

13.8 0.73

2.48

92.9 5.49

0.62 2.55

37.6

CPR1 5.480.5710.4

5.30

8.3 0.45

4.68 7.47

0.38 0.92

0.29 0.57

3.59 7.21

62.7

5.91

40.7

51.0

49.8

6.59

24.4



Dev.Average0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270

A 33.8 30.2 30 31.4 31.2 32.5 31.1 34.3 31.8B 28 27.3 30 31.1 27.9 26.2 31.9 29.2 29C 37 29 30.6 34.3 31.6 29.3 24.4 30.9 30.9A 13.2 12.5 15.9 15.6 13.1 12.7 15 14.4 14.1B 14.9 16.1 14.8 16.2 14.6 16.3 14.2 16.2 15.4C 14.3 13.5 13 12.8 14.4 14.4 14.4 10.3 13.4A 16.2 15.9 13.3 13.9 14 16.4 11.5 11.2 14.1B 14.4 13.2 13.5 12.2 11.3 10.7 10.1 12.3 12.2C 11.6 18.3 14.3 12.8 11.2 12.7 12.3 11.2 13.1A 26.5 23.7 24.6 26.6 26.5 24 24.4 23 24.9B 27.3 29.6 28.6 29.3 29.2 27.5 30 25.4 28.4C 26.7 25.2 25.6 26.7 26.2 28.1 25.5 24.7 26.1A 32.1 38 33.3 39.8 35.6 38.1 33.5 37 35.9B 38.5 42.2 54.1 48.4 45.2 54.8 50.7 45.9 47.5C 34.7 43.5 49 37.8 36.5 44.1 52.1 33.2 41.4A 31.1 32.5 33 31.5 33.2 34.3 32.6 31 32.4B 35.7 35.6 34.1 33.7 39.1 35.6 33.8 37.2 35.6C 32.6 41 33.9 34.7 36.2 33.8 33.1 31.6 34.6A 114 98.7 99.6 109 114 104 106 106 106B 96.8 92.4 102 93.3 102 112 98.4 97.9 99.3C 108 99.5 94.2 103 103 108 93.6 97.1 101A 47.4 48.5 43.1 42.5 46.3 45.1 48.4 46 45.9B 44.7 41.9 43.2 47.1 44.6 44.3 46.2 48.5 45.1C 47.5 41.8 40.3 38.8 42.4 49.1 43.1 44.2 43.4A 81.1 83.5 74.8 79.5 76.3 78.7 72.5 73.8 77.5B 72.5 69.5 74.1 71.4 72.3 70.5 73.4 67.2 71.4C 84.9 77.2 75.3 75.2 79.3 79.7 72.6 78.7 77.9

CPR13

CPR20

CPR21

CPR15

CPR16

CPR17

CPR18

14.3 1.03 7.23CPR12

13.1 0.92 7.02

26.5 1.75 6.63

41.6 5.78 13.89

34.2 1.64 4.79

4.84

102.1 3.75 3.67

44.8 1.28 2.85

CPR11

75.6 3.66

30.6 1.46 4.78



Dev.Average

189

Table E-3. SR (Moist Cured) Testing Results.

0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270A 6 6.1 6.6 6.8 6 6.2 6.8 7.1 6.5B 5.9 5.2 5.9 6 5.9 5.4 5.9 6 5.8C 6.4 5.9 6.9 5.7 6.3 6 6.2 5.6 6.1A 8.8 9.2 9.4 8.7 8.1 9.6 9.2 8.8 9.0B 7.8 8.1 7.9 8 7.9 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.0C 7.7 8.9 8.7 8.8 7.5 9.3 8.9 8.7 8.6A 5.7 5.4 5.3 5.5 5.1 5.4 5.1 5.6 5.4B 5.7 6.1 5.9 6.2 5.7 5.9 5.9 6.1 5.9C 5.5 5.2 5.5 4.9 5.4 5.1 5.5 5 5.3A 27.7 24.1 25.3 24.6 27.2 23.6 25.1 24.6 25.3B 24.2 25.1 25 26.6 25.3 25.8 24.7 27.6 25.5C 24.1 25.9 28.8 28.1 24.7 23.6 29.1 26.9 26.4A 6.2 6.2 6.1 6.2 5.9 6 6.5 6.1 6.2B 6.3 6.5 5.9 6.5 6.1 6.5 6 6.8 6.3C 6.2 6.3 6 6.5 6.3 6.2 6.6 6.8 6.4A 5.9 5.7 5.7 6.1 5.9 6 5.2 6.2 5.8B 5.8 5.9 5.7 5.7 5.8 6 5.5 5.9 5.8C 6.2 6.6 5.9 5.9 6.2 6.8 5.7 6.2 6.2A 16.5 16.1 14.9 18.5 16.5 15.3 17.2 19.4 16.8B 16.4 17 16.9 15 16.3 16.5 15.8 17 16.4C 17.6 16.6 16.3 16.8 16.9 16.2 16 17 16.7A 15 14.4 14.6 14.6 14.8 14.3 14.7 14.2 14.6B 14.4 14.8 13.9 13.5 14 15.1 13.6 13.4 14.1C 11.8 13.1 13.1 13.3 12.9 13 13.3 12.4 12.9A 38.7 40.9 39.3 36.1 36.9 41.3 39.4 35 38.5B 35.4 36 42.4 35 34.9 36.6 42.1 35.4 37.2C 41.2 40.3 39.2 38.8 43 43.5 39.9 37.6 40.4A 36.4 34.1 36.8 38.8 36.4 35.4 38.1 37.4 36.7B 34.7 35 37.2 34.4 34.4 37.5 36.1 33.9 35.4C 31 32.7 32.8 30.5 31.4 30.7 33.6 30.2 31.6

MIX Sample14-Day Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) (kΩ.cm)


Average Std. Dev.

CPR1 6.1 0.34 5.52

CPR2 8.5 0.49 5.75

CPR3 5.5 0.36 6.49

CPR4 25.7 0.59 2.29

CPR5 6.3 0.11 1.81

CPR6 5.9 0.22 3.67

CPR7 16.6 0.23 1.36

CPR8 13.8 0.88 6.37

CPR9 38.7 1.62 4.19

CPR10 34.6 2.63 7.62

0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270A 13.2 14.4 14.1 13.6 13.4 14.4 14 13.5 13.8B 14.9 13.5 13 17.1 14.3 14 14.8 15.4 14.6C 11.1 13.3 9.9 11.2 10.9 13 10.3 10.9 11.3A 8.6 7.9 7.6 8.1 8.5 7.9 8.2 8.2 8.13B 8.4 8.7 9.1 9.3 8.6 7.8 8.3 8.9 8.64C 7.2 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.4 7.1 7.6 7.5 7.45A 6.7 6.6 6.6 5.9 6.4 6.5 6.4 5.6 6.34B 5.7 6.3 6.6 6 5.9 5.9 6.5 6.3 6.15C 5.3 6.1 5.9 5.8 5.8 7 5.9 6.7 6.06A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0A 8.2 8.6 7.3 8.1 8 8.4 7 8.1 7.96B 7.5 6.1 6.6 6.2 7.7 6.4 6.5 6.1 6.64C 7.6 7.4 7.6 6.7 7.3 7.4 6.9 7.9 7.35A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CPR21 0.0 0.00 0.00

CPR20 0.0 0.00 0.00

CPR18 0.0 0.00 0.00

CPR17 0.0 0.00 0.00

CPR16 7.3 0.66 9.06

CPR15 0.0 0.00 0.00

CPR13 6.2 0.14 2.27

CPR12 8.1 0.60 7.38

CPR11 13.3 1.72 12.98



Average Std. Dev.

0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270A 6.3 7.2 7.4 8 6.1 6.7 7.8 8.1 7.2B 6.3 6.2 7 6.6 6.1 6 6.9 6.6 6.46C 7.4 6.9 7.2 6.5 6.7 7.4 6.8 6.5 6.93A 9.3 9.8 10.5 10 9 9.5 10.6 10.1 9.85B 9 8.9 9.2 9 8.8 8.7 9.4 9 9C 8.9 10.3 9.9 9.7 8.9 10.7 10.2 9.7 9.79A 5.5 5.8 5.7 5.9 5.4 5.7 5.4 5.8 5.65B 6.1 6 6.8 6.5 6.1 6.2 6.7 6.6 6.38C 5.9 5.7 5.8 5.3 5.9 5.6 5.7 5.5 5.68A 46.4 44 44.3 44.4 48.4 41 43.7 44.2 44.6B 45.6 47.5 44 47.5 42.3 46 43.9 44.9 45.2C 47.4 40.1 46.6 46 41.6 38.6 49.3 47.8 44.7A 8.2 7.6 7.9 8.3 7.9 7.9 8 7.8 7.95B 8.1 8.2 7.6 8.2 8.3 8.2 7.5 8.4 8.06C 8 8.4 8.3 9 8 8 8.2 8.9 8.35A 7.4 7.1 6.8 7.2 7.2 6.8 6.7 7.1 7.04B 6.8 7.1 6.9 7 6.7 7.3 6.7 6.8 6.91C 7.4 8.2 7.2 7.5 7.2 8.3 7.1 7.2 7.51A 28.2 25.4 29.8 31.4 28.6 28.5 31.8 31.6 29.4B 28.5 28.6 28.7 25.9 29.8 28.4 28 27 28.1C 31.6 27.2 27.6 29.8 29.6 26.5 27.7 28.9 28.6A 25.4 23.8 25.6 25.6 26.2 24.5 25.2 24.9 25.2B 24.3 27.3 23.6 23.4 23.5 25.4 23.7 23.6 24.4C 24.2 23 23.9 23 23.9 21.9 23.8 23.6 23.4A 33.4 36.6 32.4 32.1 35 35.5 33.7 32.7 33.9B 27.5 34.5 32.6 33.2 29.2 33.9 34.4 32.7 32.3C 36.3 34.9 35.5 32.5 34.2 34.6 34.6 31.6 34.3A 35.9 33.6 32.7 33.9 32.2 33.5 31.4 35.2 33.6B 33.6 32.7 32.9 34.2 32.2 36 31.5 33.1 33.3C 29.5 28.7 30.2 25.7 30 25.5 30.8 26.8 28.4

33.5 1.08 3.23

31.7 2.90 9.13

28.7 0.66 2.28

24.3 0.87 3.58

8.1 0.21 2.54

7.2 0.32 4.42

44.8 0.35 0.79

9.5 0.47 4.96

5.9 0.41 6.98

5.430.376.9

CPR5

CPR10

CPR1

CPR8

CPR9

CPR2

CPR3

CPR6

CPR7

CPR4



Average Std. Dev. 0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270

A 19.3 18.2 18.5 20.5 18.7 18.5 17.7 20.3 19B 18 18.9 18 16.8 17.8 19.5 18.1 17.1 18C 15.3 18.7 13 14.8 15.2 17.7 13 14.7 15.3A 10.1 8.8 7.3 10.1 9.2 9.2 7.9 10.4 9.13B 9.4 8.8 10 9.2 9.6 9.1 8.3 9.9 9.29C 8.2 8.4 8.5 7.9 8.1 7.9 8.5 7.9 8.18A 6.8 6.8 6.5 6 6.8 6.7 6.5 6.3 6.55B 6.7 6.5 6.4 6.5 6.2 6.4 6.8 6.3 6.48C 5.9 6.4 6.1 7.3 5.9 6.5 6.3 7.3 6.46A 9.3 7.7 8 8.1 7.6 7.6 7.1 7.9 7.91B 9 7.5 8.2 7.6 8.7 7.2 8.4 7.6 8.03C 8 7.5 8 7.2 10 7.6 7.6 7.3 7.9A 8.5 9.2 7.2 7.5 8.8 8.9 7.4 7.1 8.08B 8.1 6.7 6.7 6.3 8.2 6.4 6.9 6.3 6.95C 8.8 8.2 7.9 7.9 8.6 8 7.8 7.9 8.14A 11.5 10.8 13 12.9 11.5 10.4 11.5 12.7 11.8B 9.6 9.9 10.5 10.8 9.6 10 10.1 10.8 10.2C 12.5 12.9 13.6 12.2 12.2 13 13.5 11.7 12.7A 14.8 14.8 14.6 13.8 14.6 14.8 15.6 14.8 14.7B 13.6 14.6 13.5 14.9 13.8 13.6 13.2 13.7 13.9C 12.6 13.7 13.6 14 12.8 13.7 12.9 13.6 13.4A 12.3 12.8 14 14.1 12.7 12.9 13.9 13.1 13.2B 14.1 13.4 12.6 11.8 13.4 12.9 13.5 12.1 13C 13 13.2 14.1 12.2 14.1 12.8 13.4 12.7 13.2A 12.9 17.4 15.7 14 12.7 13.5 11.8 13.8 14B 13.6 13.6 10.7 11.8 11.2 11.7 11.5 11.2 11.9C 14.6 13.1 10.9 12.6 15 12.3 11.9 11.7 12.8

1.04 8.05

14.0 0.69 4.93

13.1 0.13 1.03

0.67 8.66

11.6 1.29 11.13

0.05 0.73

7.9 0.07 0.87

1.90 10.92

8.9 0.60 6.78

CPR21

CPR17

CPR18

17.4

6.5

7.7

12.9

CPR20

CPR15

CPR16

CPR11

CPR12

CPR13



Average Std. Dev.

190


0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270A 7.4 7.3 7.9 8.8 7.3 7.5 8 8.8 7.88B 6.6 6.7 7.1 7.3 6.8 6.5 7 7.2 6.9C 8.4 7.5 8.6 7.2 7.9 7.3 8.6 7.3 7.85A 10.2 11 11.1 11 9.7 10 10.6 10.8 10.6B 9.6 9.6 9.8 9.4 9.7 9.4 9.9 9.6 9.63C 9.6 10.8 10.3 10 9.7 11.1 10.1 10.3 10.2A 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.6 5.8 5.7 6 5.79B 6.8 6.6 7 7 6.4 6.5 7 7 6.79C 6.2 5.9 6.4 5.9 6.3 6 6.2 6 6.11A 68.3 58.1 62 63.8 68.5 57.1 63.7 65.1 63.3B 62.4 64.4 54.8 67 61.2 65.4 63.2 69.2 63.5C 57.1 63.7 70.4 64.5 60.3 59.8 72.5 69.7 64.8A 11.6 12.8 12.6 13.4 11.9 12.2 12 12.4 12.4B 13.5 12.5 11.9 12.7 13 13 11.8 12.6 12.6C 12.6 11.6 12.7 13.2 12.2 13.2 12.4 13.7 12.7A 9.6 9.4 9.3 10.1 9.8 9.6 9.2 9.6 9.58B 9.2 10.1 9 9.4 9.3 9.3 9.4 9.1 9.35C 9.7 10.7 9.9 9.7 9.8 10.7 9.2 10.1 9.98A 38.6 37.3 41.2 42.2 37.9 34.9 45.4 43 40.1B 34.2 34.3 41 37.8 37.4 40 39.3 36.3 37.5C 41 38.6 37.6 42.5 41.2 34.9 36.6 38.9 38.9A 35.2 32.6 33.8 34.6 37 34.5 35.6 33.6 34.6B 32.7 34.1 31.5 32.3 32.9 33.1 32.1 32.9 32.7C 30.9 32.2 30.3 31.3 32.9 32.9 34.8 31.6 32.1A 37.7 41.4 39.2 35 38.6 40.9 40.7 36.4 38.7B 35.4 38.3 42.7 37.8 35.1 38.5 39.2 36.9 38C 41.2 39.7 38.4 36.7 39.4 46 49.6 38.6 41.2A 37.7 38.5 39.6 38.6 37.9 39 37.3 41.6 38.8B 38.8 43 39 39.8 38.9 42.2 38.5 37.9 39.8C 36.3 33.1 35.8 31.5 37.1 32.4 34.5 32.2 34.1

CPR10 37.6 3.02 8.04

CPR9 39.3 1.68 4.28

CPR8 33.1 1.31 3.94

CPR7 38.8 1.26 3.26

CPR6 9.6 0.32 3.29

CPR5 12.6 0.18 1.41

CPR4 63.8 0.79 1.24

CPR3 6.2 0.51 8.19

CPR2 10.1 0.47 4.64

CPR1 7.5 0.56 7.37



Average Std. Dev. 0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270

A 21.5 22.2 21.2 20.5 22.4 22.1 22.6 19.8 21.5B 22.5 23.5 20.9 25.7 23.6 22.7 20.2 26.5 23.2C 17.6 20.7 15 17 17.8 21.4 14.7 17.3 17.7A 10 10.8 9.6 11.1 10.4 9.6 9.1 11.1 10.2B 10.2 9.4 9.2 10.8 10.4 9.6 10.9 10.1 10.1C 9 8.4 9.1 8.3 8.9 8.5 9 8.7 8.74A 7.8 7.8 7.5 8.1 6.8 8 7.7 8.2 7.74B 7.3 7.1 7.4 7.1 7.4 7.1 7.7 7.4 7.31C 7.4 7.3 8 7.4 8.3 7.9 8.2 7.6 7.76A 8.6 8.9 8.8 9.4 8.6 9.1 8 9 8.8B 9.8 9 8.8 9 9.7 8.4 8.8 8.9 9.05C 8.8 8.6 9 8.1 8.8 8.5 9 8.2 8.63A 8.1 12.7 9.8 11.3 11.1 12.6 10.8 11.3 11B 11.1 8.9 10.1 8.7 11.3 9 9.8 9.1 9.75C 11.9 10.2 11.2 10.9 11.7 10.3 10.8 11.1 11A 16.7 15.7 17.3 17.6 16.2 15.8 17.8 17.5 16.8B 13.5 12.9 14.2 13.5 13 13 14.1 13.4 13.5C 16.9 17.4 18.4 15.6 16.6 11.5 18.4 16 16.4A 18 17.4 14.6 16.5 18.2 13.5 19.1 15.7 16.6B 13.7 14.8 13.6 17.8 14.3 17.5 17.3 15.7 15.6C 16.1 16.8 17 17.2 18.7 15.9 18.1 16.7 17.1A 11.4 16.5 11.4 11.3 15.5 16.8 11.2 16.8 13.9B 11.8 16.1 11.3 15.2 11.2 16.3 16.9 13.7 14.1C 16.9 16.8 16.6 18 16.6 15.7 16.7 16.1 16.7A 15.3 17.6 15.5 16.3 17.2 17.8 15.6 16.1 16.4B 16.3 15.1 15.6 14.8 15 15.3 16 14.8 15.4C 17.7 17.5 16.1 17.4 16.9 17.5 16 16.9 17

20.8 2.83 13.59

9.7 0.81 8.42

7.6 0.25 3.33

8.8 0.21 2.42

10.6 0.71 6.76

15.5 1.83 11.76

16.4 0.76 4.61

14.9 1.57 10.56

CPR21 16.3 0.83 5.11

CPR16

CPR17

CPR18

CPR20

CPR11

CPR12

CPR13

CPR15



Average Std. Dev.

0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270A 6.4 7.5 7.9 8.4 8.1 7.1 8.4 8.6 7.8B 7.3 7.3 7.4 7.7 7.5 7.3 7.3 7.6 7.43C 8.9 7.9 9 7.7 8.8 7.7 8.3 7.6 8.24A 10.7 12.1 11.5 10.9 10.3 11.3 11.1 11.7 11.2B 9.2 10.8 11 10.4 10.5 11.1 10.8 10.5 10.5C 10.4 10.8 10.9 10.4 10.1 10.7 10.6 10.9 10.6A 6.3 6.2 6.6 6.2 6.4 6.4 6.2 6.7 6.38B 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.5 6.9 7 7.2 7.2 7.14C 6.7 6.2 6.7 6.2 6.5 5.9 7 6.1 6.41A 79.6 74.9 77.7 78 92 72.5 79.9 78.1 79.1B 70.3 77 78 81 71.3 75.5 76.5 78.9 76.1C 65.5 81.4 88.1 79.2 73.6 79.5 87.8 75.7 78.9A 17.2 17 18 20 16 17.9 18.7 18.2 17.9B 18.7 20 17.4 17.7 18.4 19.8 17.2 18.4 18.5C 18 18.3 19 20.8 18.1 19.8 19 20.6 19.2A 13 12.2 12.1 12.2 13.1 12 11.6 12.5 12.3B 12 12.8 12 11.9 12 12.9 11.7 11.9 12.2C 13 14.6 13.3 13.7 13.5 14.4 12.6 13.3 13.6A 43.9 38.4 45.6 45.9 42.4 38.6 42.1 48.4 43.2B 41.1 38.6 40.8 36.9 40.1 40.6 38.2 37.1 39.2C 43.9 38.3 38 41.5 40.8 37.6 38.7 39.8 39.8A 43.6 39.6 42.3 38.7 43.5 41.7 39.4 39.2 41B 38.4 38.2 38.1 37.3 38.3 44.6 35.1 38.5 38.6C 36.6 36.5 38.5 37.2 33.9 38.4 38.4 37.4 37.1A 38.1 35.5 36.1 37.8 41 45.8 38.8 37.1 38.8B 37 41.8 38.6 36.8 34.8 40 39.2 35.8 38C 42.1 42.6 39.2 36.8 41 40.3 39.5 37.4 39.9A 45 43.8 47.2 46.5 47.1 45.3 45.5 46.1 45.8B 42.9 47.1 41.6 42.5 42.6 48.3 47.7 44.9 44.7C 40.9 39.4 41.1 35.3 41.2 41.1 41.2 38.8 39.9

38.9 0.94 2.41

43.5 3.16 7.26

40.7 2.14 5.25

38.9 1.96 5.05

18.5 0.66 3.59

12.7 0.76 5.99

78.0 1.68 2.16

10.8 0.37 3.39

6.6 0.43 6.47

5.200.417.8

CPR5

CPR10

CPR1

CPR8

CPR9

CPR2

CPR3

CPR6

CPR7

CPR4



Average Std. Dev. 0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270

A 25.8 23.2 24.5 22.3 24.8 24.4 24.9 23.3 24.2B 25.4 22.8 22.6 26.5 24.7 23.8 23.6 25.9 24.4C 18.3 21.2 15.4 19 18.6 24.1 15.7 18.6 18.9A 11 10 8.4 10.8 11.1 10.1 8.4 10.7 10.1B 10.9 11 11.6 11.5 11.1 10.7 11.9 11.1 11.2C 0 9.6 9.2 9.7 9.7 9.6 9 9.5 8.29A 8.5 8.4 8.8 7.7 8.4 8.5 8.2 7.7 8.28B 7.8 8.5 8 8.5 8.4 8 7.9 8.1 8.15C 7.8 8.5 8.4 7.6 8.1 8.4 8.5 8.3 8.2A 12.1 10.4 8.9 9.6 9.4 9.8 7.5 9.8 9.69B 11.6 15.3 8.7 8.8 11.9 11.3 9.3 8.7 10.7C 9.8 9.7 9.3 9.2 8.8 10.1 10.1 10 9.63A 17.7 18.2 13.4 15.8 18.1 18.5 13.7 15.5 16.4B 16.6 13.1 13.5 13.3 14.9 13.3 13.3 12.3 13.8C 16.4 14.4 13.5 16.1 17.1 16.6 16.8 15.4 15.8A 20.8 21.4 23.2 23.3 20.8 21.3 22.5 23.2 22.1B 18 18.1 19.4 17.6 18.3 17.3 19.6 17.9 18.3C 21 21.3 23.1 20.7 21.6 22.3 24.1 20.7 21.9A 36.5 39.6 37.1 36.8 35.9 40 36.2 36.4 37.3B 34.5 35.2 35.1 37.5 34 34.7 35.1 37.2 35.4C 34.3 35.8 36.3 36.9 34.7 35.7 34.9 36.6 35.7A 21.4 21.9 24.7 24.2 22.4 22.1 24.9 23 23.1B 24.2 23.9 24.8 20.5 24 23.2 23.4 21.9 23.2C 20.8 20.7 22.6 23.8 21.8 21.2 23.3 21.9 22A 24 21.1 20.2 21.2 23.1 20.7 22 21.4 21.7B 19.6 18.6 17.6 20.5 20.3 19.1 18.4 19.7 19.2C 17.5 19.6 19.8 20.1 18.4 19.6 18 20.5 19.2

1.45 7.22

36.1 1.04 2.87

22.8 0.67 2.92

1.35 8.83

20.7 2.13 10.27

0.06 0.77

10.0 0.60 6.03

3.13 13.93

9.9 1.48 15.01

CPR21

CPR17

CPR18

22.5

8.2

15.3

20.0

CPR20

CPR15

CPR16

CPR11

CPR12

CPR13



Average Std. Dev.

191


0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270A 8.3 7.8 9.7 9.4 8.1 8.9 10.4 10.3 9.11B 8.7 8.5 8.9 8.7 7.7 8.7 9.6 8.3 8.64C 9.4 8.9 10.8 9.4 9.4 9.7 9.8 9.7 9.64A 11.1 12.6 12.9 12.4 11.3 12.5 12.6 11.8 12.2B 11.5 10.4 11.2 11.1 10.9 10.8 10.8 11.1 11C 11 12.7 11.9 11.9 10.6 12.5 12.1 11.9 11.8A 6.5 6.7 6.8 6.5 6.3 6.8 6.6 6.7 6.61B 7.7 7.8 7.6 8.2 8 7.5 7.4 7.3 7.69C 7 7 7.7 6.8 6.7 7 7.4 6.8 7.05A 89.1 79.7 80.2 77.5 88.4 76.1 81.1 77.3 81.2B 75.7 84 79.7 87 71.1 78.6 77.4 86.9 80.1C 72.9 70.2 99.1 77.2 78.5 74.4 97.6 87.2 82.1A 27 27.3 27.6 26.8 26.9 26.3 29.2 30 27.6B 29.2 31.2 27.3 28.3 28.8 30.9 28 28.6 29C 27.4 29.8 29.1 31.8 27.1 27.8 28.3 31.9 29.2A 17.9 17.5 16.7 18.2 18.4 17.8 16.6 18.5 17.7B 17 17.2 17.2 18.6 16.8 18 17.4 18.6 17.6C 19.2 22.3 18.2 18.7 19.5 21.6 19.7 18.6 19.7A 45.7 43.1 45.6 43 44.8 39 44.4 39.5 43.1B 41 37.5 42.1 39.5 38.4 41.1 42.7 39.4 40.2C 42 39.2 40.6 40.2 40.6 39.3 41.2 41.2 40.5A 50.7 44.9 47.9 48 45.8 47 48.4 47.4 47.5B 44 49.6 43.8 42.7 44.2 55.5 43.6 48.5 46.5C 44.3 41.4 48.1 43.2 44.1 46.1 44.4 45.3 44.6A 42.3 46.9 41.7 41.4 38.7 48.7 42.4 39.2 42.7B 39.1 42.2 47.3 41.2 35.6 42.8 47.2 41.2 42.1C 44.7 51.4 44.7 41.4 47.6 54.4 41.3 41.3 45.9A 58.2 59.2 60.6 59.5 55 59.3 61.1 62 59.4B 55.9 63 57 59 53.3 62.7 56.3 56.9 58C 55.5 48.5 52.8 51.4 56.9 50.4 56.7 46.7 52.4

CPR7

CPR8

CPR9

CPR10

81.1 1.04 1.29

CPR6

28.6 0.84 2.95

18.3 1.20 6.54

CPR1

7.1 0.54 7.60

11.7 0.61 5.21

5.480.509.1

41.3 1.60 3.88

46.2 1.47 3.18

43.5 2.03 4.67

56.6 3.71 6.56

CPR2

CPR3

CPR4

CPR5



Average Std. Dev. 0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270

A 25.5 27.6 27.7 23.7 23.9 26.1 27 24.9 25.8B 27.9 27.9 25.3 31.2 27.3 28.2 25.1 32.3 28.2C 21.8 25.4 18.4 20.8 21.7 25.5 19.1 20.8 21.7A 13.4 10.3 10.6 12.3 11.6 11.1 10.4 12.3 11.5B 12.3 10.9 11.5 11 10.9 10.6 11.9 11.5 11.3C 10.5 9.8 9.6 9.7 10.9 9.4 10 9.4 9.91A 9.2 8.6 9.2 8.2 8.9 9.1 9.3 8.2 8.84B 8.6 8.3 8.8 9.2 8.3 8.7 9.1 8.8 8.73C 7.6 8.8 8.3 8.4 7.8 8.8 8.2 9.4 8.41A 15.9 16.6 14.9 17.3 15.5 16.8 14.9 17.3 16.2B 19.5 17.1 17.6 17.3 19 16.5 16.8 16.9 17.6C 16.5 16.7 16.3 15.7 17.1 16 16.4 15.6 16.3A 25.8 27.9 21.2 22.1 26.1 27.7 19.9 22 24.1B 23.4 18.6 19.1 17.5 23.2 18.4 19 17.4 19.6C 24.2 21.5 20.5 21.8 23.7 19.7 22.8 22.1 22A 29.8 30.9 29.8 32.7 30.6 27.4 31.3 32.2 30.6B 25.9 24 26.2 24.8 23.4 24.9 24.7 24.2 24.8C 29.9 31 31.4 30.4 29.2 30 32.8 29.4 30.5A 63.8 67.9 65.5 62.1 57.8 61.4 60.9 59.8 62.4B 55.2 62 61.3 54.8 52 64.8 60 65.6 59.5C 64.2 59.6 60.8 64.3 60.3 61.8 64.8 67.4 62.9A 29.4 31.2 34.6 31.2 31.5 29.6 31.6 33.4 31.6B 35.5 38.3 32.4 31.6 34.7 35 31.3 28 33.4C 33.2 31.6 34.1 36.2 32.8 30.8 35.2 32.1 33.3A 45.2 45.3 39.4 41.1 42 40.3 42.2 43.9 42.4B 45.8 44.6 41.8 40.6 38.7 39 43.3 41.2 41.9C 67 40.2 36.4 37.3 42.9 38.2 36 37.6 42

CPR21

CPR16

CPR17

CPR18

CPR20

CPR11

CPR12

CPR13

CPR15

25.2 3.27 12.97

10.9 0.87 7.98

8.7 0.22 2.54

16.7 0.79 4.76

21.9 2.26 10.32

28.6 3.34 11.68

42.1 0.30 0.71

61.6 1.86 3.02

32.7 1.00 3.07



Average Std. Dev.

0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270A 10 8.7 9.7 11.8 8.9 8.7 10.9 11.4 10B 8.9 7.5 9.7 9.5 8.8 8.1 8.8 9.7 8.88C 9.8 10.3 10.8 9.2 10.3 9.5 9.8 9.3 9.88A 11.7 13.6 13.8 12.8 12.5 13.7 14.2 12.8 13.1B 11.7 11.3 12 11.3 12.3 11.2 11.6 11.8 11.7C 11.6 14.1 13.1 12.7 11.6 13.9 13 13.4 12.9A 6 9 8.3 7.1 6 8.9 7.3 7.6 7.53B 7.5 8.2 8.6 6.6 8.4 8.7 6.9 7.2 7.76C 8.1 6.4 6.1 8.6 5.9 4.9 5.9 4.8 6.34A 95.2 75.9 89.2 92.3 97.7 79.7 92.6 87.1 88.7B 91.6 89.4 86.3 95.5 85.6 93 87.5 96.4 90.7C 81.4 97.6 95.5 97.8 81.2 84.2 89.8 89.6 89.6A 38.3 29.1 25.8 39.5 36.9 34.9 28.5 34.2 33.4B 35 31.2 44.3 34.6 38.4 36.7 33.6 33 35.9C 34.6 39.9 35.4 33 33.2 33.8 33.6 42.3 35.7A 20.1 23.7 22.5 22.8 23.7 21.6 20.2 22.2 22.1B 23.7 22.8 21.9 23.3 24.4 24.5 22.1 22.9 23.2C 24.5 27.8 26.6 27.6 24.6 25.4 24.7 24.1 25.7A 44 39.3 41.6 38.2 46.5 41.7 42.1 48.3 42.7B 43.3 49.3 40.7 38.7 40.5 40.9 40.2 40 41.7C 43.6 33.9 40.8 42.4 45.5 41.2 42.7 44.3 41.8A 66.3 57.5 57.8 58.9 56.3 56.9 60.2 57.9 59B 52.5 58.7 53.8 56.4 58.3 60.5 53 56.1 56.2C 53.6 57 57.2 51 54 51.3 56.6 55.3 54.5A 57.4 64.8 64.2 51.9 55.6 52.5 50.3 49.8 55.8B 62 57.4 62.1 62.7 54.9 59.8 78.6 53.4 61.4C 69.2 68.9 63.3 59.8 61.3 58.9 62.5 58 62.7A 87 90.9 87.1 88 86.5 88.4 74.9 86.7 86.2B 92.7 82.3 60.8 84.9 70.5 104 82.2 99.4 84.6C 83.8 87 92 72.3 97.6 82.3 83.7 83.5 85.3

85.3 0.82 0.96

3.67

56.5 2.26 4.00

6.11

23.7 1.82 7.71

1.33

CPR1

89.7 0.98 1.09

6.480.629.6

6.40

7.2 0.76

CPR10

10.59

12.6 0.80

35.0 1.38

42.1 0.56

60.0

3.94

CPR6

CPR7

CPR8

CPR9

CPR2

CPR3

CPR4

CPR5



Average Std. Dev. 0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270

A 36.7 34.2 35.4 35.6 32.5 34.8 35.2 30.8 34.4B 33.1 31.3 32.6 34.7 32.9 31.1 32 36.9 33.1C 28.5 27.7 25.2 25.3 26.8 30.5 24.7 24.3 26.6A 13.4 11.8 10.7 13.1 13 11.8 10.6 14.2 12.3B 12.4 12.6 14 13.5 12.5 12.8 13.7 14.1 13.2C 12.7 11 11.4 11 11.1 11 12.2 11.4 11.5A 9.9 9.7 9.5 8.6 10 10.1 9.5 8.7 9.5B 9 9.2 9.6 10.1 9.4 9.2 9.7 9.2 9.43C 8.2 9.3 8.9 10.1 8.4 9.1 8.8 10.5 9.16A 25.9 23.8 21.2 25.9 25.7 23.8 19 24.6 23.7B 26.2 23.6 24.5 21.5 26.5 22.7 24.7 22.6 24C 22.8 22.1 21.9 21.6 21.7 22.9 22.8 21.7 22.2A 30.1 39.6 26.8 28.8 34.1 40.3 28.2 30.2 32.3B 31.3 34.2 26.3 25.8 28.6 27.8 25.5 24.7 28C 29.1 25.2 28.5 29.2 31.9 28.6 27.1 28.3 28.5A 29.3 34.2 40.2 43.4 38.6 36.8 38.1 36.8 37.2B 29.4 28.7 33.1 28 27.3 27.6 30.7 28.4 29.2C 31.8 36.5 36.2 32.7 33.7 32.1 36.5 32.5 34A 94.1 96.3 106 93.9 98.9 96.2 100 101 98.2B 88.2 92.4 90.3 91.2 93.8 90.1 88.6 93.1 91C 90.3 97.7 90.5 92.4 96 95.3 92.6 91.8 93.3A 38.6 37 36.5 45 35.4 39.8 41.3 43.3 39.6B 44.4 43.2 45.5 36.6 41.8 44.4 42.9 43.2 42.8C 47.2 43 44.8 44.7 42.6 42.4 43.1 44.1 44A 82.3 72.4 71.8 70.5 79.5 66.4 68 66.1 72.1B 68.2 67.1 64.8 62.9 69.1 62.2 68.1 65.1 65.9C 62 59.5 58.6 64.7 60.4 59.5 59.1 64.4 61

2.26 5.35

33.4 4.04 12.09

66.4 5.56 8.38

94.2 3.69 3.92

42.1

23.3 0.99 4.26

29.6 2.32 7.86

CPR21

31.4 4.16 13.26

12.3 0.86 6.99

9.4 0.18 1.89

CPR16

CPR17

CPR18

CPR20

CPR11

CPR12

CPR13

CPR15



Average Std. Dev.

192


0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270A 11.3 10.8 12.5 12.6 11 10 13.3 12.5 11.8B 10.1 9.8 10.4 10.2 9.8 9.8 10.4 10.9 10.2C 11.9 11.6 13.1 10.8 12.2 11.8 12.5 10.7 11.8A 14.6 16 16.2 16 14.4 16.4 16.4 15.9 15.7B 13.8 13.3 13.3 14.2 13.1 13.7 14 13.3 13.6C 12.8 5.9 14.8 14.6 13.9 16 15.1 15.2 13.5A 8.2 9.3 8.7 9.3 8.1 9.5 9.6 10.1 9.1B 9.7 9.7 9.7 10.4 9.7 9.8 10.2 10.4 9.95C 9.5 9 9.8 8.9 9.2 8.8 10.1 9 9.29A 116 98.2 119 108 119 98.2 112 113 110B 111 112 106 115 115 122 114 117 114C 96.4 103 132 120 105 101 127 113 112A 44.4 44.9 47.6 46.3 43 45.6 47.4 45.4 45.6B 47.9 54.1 45.6 44.3 47.6 48.8 46.5 44 47.4C 49.7 45.4 50.8 52.6 46.3 46.2 47.6 53.8 49.1A 25.8 27.5 25.8 27.8 26.9 29.4 26.9 28.6 27.3B 25.6 25.2 25.8 30.8 27 22.5 25.8 30.2 26.6C 26.3 26.6 27.2 27.1 27 25.8 27.5 26.3 26.7A 50.6 52.4 50.6 47.9 48.9 50.3 49.7 46.1 49.6B 45.8 40.7 44.7 47.1 45.3 41.7 45 47.8 44.8C 47.9 47.7 44.1 45.4 47.5 47.4 44.7 44.5 46.2A 64.2 58.8 61.8 57.2 60.6 57.4 60.7 61.2 60.2B 60.2 66.5 67.2 61.5 62.7 67.6 68.1 61.8 64.5C 47.4 51.6 50 59.8 55.6 51.9 55.7 61.4 54.2A 49.5 47.6 50.8 56.8 51.3 47.8 53.3 56.6 51.7B 45.5 48.3 54.4 49.8 47.5 49 54.2 49.9 49.8C 54.8 50 52.8 54.3 51.4 50.1 53.2 57.2 53A 82.8 85.9 88.2 84.5 80.3 85.6 84.8 86.2 84.8B 76.3 85 84.3 92.3 76.7 85.8 79.8 93.7 84.2C 80.2 72.3 83.6 76.3 81.5 77.1 87.2 74.9 79.1

CPR10

8.79

9.4 0.45 4.73

82.7 3.12 3.77

46.8 2.47 5.28

59.6 5.17 8.66

1.56

51.5 1.59 3.08

1.74 3.67

26.9 0.39 1.45

47.3

CPR8

CPR9

112.1 1.75CPR4

CPR5

CPR6

CPR7

CPR2

CPR3

CPR1 8.280.9311.3

14.3 1.26

Reading Locations (Deg.)Average Std.

Dev.MIX Sample

455-Day Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) (kΩ.cm)COV (%)

0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270A 36.4 34.1 37.5 35.7 35.5 35.6 36.7 37.7 36.2B 37.5 41 33.1 35.7 37.5 42 33.9 35.7 37.1C 28.6 27.3 24.5 35.2 29.8 27.3 24.7 34.5 29A 13.8 12.7 11.2 13.7 13.9 12.2 12.1 13.8 12.9B 13.1 12.9 13.7 14.5 13.1 12.7 14.6 14.3 13.6C 12.5 11.9 11.7 12.4 12.1 12 12.1 12.5 12.2A 11.2 11.6 11.3 10.8 11.9 11.7 11.6 11 11.4B 10.6 10.6 10.5 10.6 10.9 11.1 10.5 11.1 10.7C 9.9 11.9 11 10.7 9.7 11.3 10.8 11.5 10.9A 29.1 25.6 20.9 27.1 27.8 24.9 18.4 28.1 25.2B 32.3 22.1 23.8 22.2 26.4 25.6 25.5 22.8 25.1C 26.9 21.6 23.2 23.1 23.5 22.6 24.5 22.3 23.5A 42.7 48.3 34.6 40.5 48.9 49 35.4 35.3 41.8B 37.3 35.8 32.4 29.5 34.8 35.2 35.7 30.8 33.9C 38.4 32.9 35.6 36 40.5 35.3 33.8 34.6 35.9A 39.8 33.8 38.2 36.5 33.8 33.7 36.2 35.8 36B 36.3 28.5 29.6 26.4 25.2 30 31.4 28 29.4C 34 32.3 33.8 32.9 34.8 34.2 37.5 35.1 34.3A 108 114 101 104 92.1 115 103 0.1 91.9B 89.6 86.7 88.5 93 91.3 91.5 91.7 94.4 90.8C 108 85.4 85.7 104 92.9 98.4 95.6 92.9 95.3A 37 42.9 36.6 46.9 36.8 39.9 38.7 42.4 40.2B 47.5 39.5 42.2 32.5 42.5 39.6 41.2 32.4 39.7C 44.6 41.2 39.2 42.5 37.8 37.4 41.8 41.7 40.8A 83.2 71.4 69.5 70.4 76.7 68.2 75.5 70.2 73.1B 77 70.3 70.5 69.9 72.7 75.2 69.7 73.8 72.4C 71.2 72.2 64.4 66.5 62.2 61.8 61.7 65.7 65.7

CPR11

CPR12

CPR13

CPR20

CPR15

CPR16

CPR17

CPR18

34.1 4.42 12.97

12.9 0.73 5.67

11.0 0.35 3.16

24.6 0.98 4.00

37.2 4.12 11.06

33.2 3.41 10.25

92.7 2.33 2.51

40.2 0.55 1.37

70.4 4.09 5.81CPR21

Average Std. Dev.

Reading Locations (Deg.)MIX Sample455-Day Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) (kΩ.cm)

COV (%)

0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270A 10.4 12 11.7 10.1 10.3 11.3 11.6 9.4 10.9B 9.5 10.3 10.2 9 9.7 10.6 10 9.4 9.84C 11 10.1 12.1 11.2 11.3 10.3 12.1 10.3 11.1A 13.8 14.2 15.2 14.9 13.5 14.8 16 14.8 14.7B 13.1 12.6 13 13 13.6 12.6 12.8 12.4 12.9C 12.9 13.8 13.5 15.4 13.7 14.3 14 15.7 14.2A 7.7 8.5 8.1 8.7 7.8 8.8 8.4 8.9 8.36B 9.4 9.3 9.6 9.5 9.3 9.2 9.7 9.7 9.46C 8.8 8.7 9 8.6 8.8 8.6 9 8.5 8.75A 113 107 103 102 117 110 106 102 108B 104 114 102 109 102 117 99.6 107 107C 94.1 111 119 93.4 98.2 112 118 95.5 105A 44.7 42.4 48 43.5 45.4 43.8 44.3 42.1 44.3B 44.8 44.8 44.2 43.8 45.1 46.3 46.1 46.5 45.2C 43.1 51.2 46.9 43.7 45.4 52.5 45.9 46.1 46.9A 28.1 28.5 31.7 28.7 29.3 30.2 30.8 30.5 29.7B 27.8 25.2 27.3 31.3 28.6 26.5 27.5 31.6 28.2C 26.8 26.5 27.6 29 27 27.1 27.5 29.1 27.6A 47.3 44.1 47.2 48.7 47.3 41.7 45.2 48.1 46.2B 43.2 45.7 40.3 37.1 43.8 38.8 41.2 40.5 41.3C 44.5 43.1 42.8 43.5 43.5 40.2 43.6 44.7 43.2A 64.4 61.1 63.4 62.7 64.4 62.5 61.3 60.9 62.6B 66.6 68.3 74.7 67 68.1 69.6 72.6 58.1 68.1C 61.1 59.2 59.5 74.2 71.3 72.3 59.9 60.5 64.8A 55.6 55.9 53 51.9 55.4 64 54 53.7 55.4B 49.6 53.6 57.8 52.5 48.7 54 55.5 54.8 53.3C 57.5 60 59.5 53.8 56.4 62.5 59.1 55.8 58.1A 91.7 94.2 83.8 92.8 87.7 95 90.9 93.7 91.2B 87.1 94.1 93.1 107 86.4 96.1 92.1 106 95.3C 89.9 78.5 88.9 87.3 80.8 82.9 81.2 85.2 84.3

106.5 1.23 1.15

55.6 2.39 4.29

90.3 5.53 6.13

43.6 2.46 5.64

65.2 2.79 4.28

1.30 2.87

28.5 1.10 3.87

45.4

CPR1 6.140.6510.6

13.9 0.91 6.55

8.9 0.56 6.30

CPR2

CPR3

CPR4

CPR5

CPR10

CPR6

CPR7

CPR8

CPR9



Average Std. Dev. 0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270

A 33.5 38.3 43.3 36.8 34.5 35.4 42.9 35.3 37.5B 38 29.2 36.6 40.7 37.5 32.4 34.8 39.1 36C 29 35.7 28 27.3 30.8 36.4 26.2 29.7 30.4A 11.5 13.6 12.8 12.8 13.3 14.9 11.5 12.2 12.8B 12.1 11.6 11 11.1 13.6 11 10.6 11.6 11.6C 13.4 13.6 14.4 13.8 14.6 13.5 16.3 14.7 14.3A 11.3 11.5 11.7 10.6 10.6 11.2 11.7 10.4 11.1B 10.6 10.7 11 11.4 10.6 10.7 10.8 11 10.9C 10.5 11.4 10.4 11 10.5 10.8 11.3 10.1 10.8A 26.7 27.8 22.8 30.5 26.2 27.5 22.9 30.8 26.9B 33.3 31.5 29.6 27.4 33.2 31 30.4 27.9 30.5C 26.8 27.2 29.3 28.5 28.7 26.7 28.4 27.7 27.9A 46.8 46.5 35.7 36.4 45 49.2 35.3 36 41.4B 36.7 32.4 36 37.9 38.1 37.2 35.8 38.5 36.6C 35 35.3 32.5 36.3 39.7 34.9 34.2 35.1 35.4A 38.1 43.1 45.8 41.3 42.7 41 44.5 45.3 42.7B 35 37.6 38.1 36.1 36.3 39.1 40.2 36.3 37.3C 41.7 32.3 32.9 38.9 39.3 40.2 44.1 41.2 38.8A 127 126 128 121 139 139 126 113 127B 109 114 114 116 109 113 110 118 113C 110 119 125 114 119 114 121 117 117A 44.8 46.7 48.7 51.8 44.6 45.2 50.9 51.4 48B 53.5 55.1 53.4 42.3 56.9 53.7 52.4 44.4 51.5C 50.1 47.2 48.9 53.2 50.3 47.1 52.5 52.8 50.3A 103 85.3 93.4 87.1 102 88.4 89.4 89.3 92.3B 87 86.6 86.5 93.2 86.7 83.9 82.4 90.8 87.1C 77.3 87.8 74.8 88.2 77.2 78.2 77.2 83.5 80.5

86.6 5.88 6.79

119.2 7.43 6.23

49.9 1.75 3.51

37.8 3.17 8.39

39.6 2.78 7.02

0.19 1.78

28.5 1.88 6.60

3.76 10.84

12.9 1.36 10.53

CPR11

CPR12

CPR13

34.6

10.9

CPR21

CPR15

CPR16

CPR17

CPR18

CPR20



Average Std. Dev.

193

APPENDIX F REGRESSION FIT OF CONDUCTIVITY AND LONG-TERM DIFFUSION TESTS

The results of the short-term test RCP and SR were compared to the Bulk Diffusion test

results. Bulk Diffusion test (independent variable) results after a 1 and 3 years of chloride

exposure period were used as a benchmark to evaluate the conductivity tests (dependent

variable) at different concrete ages. It was found that a modified linear regression (Equation F-2)

expressed as a power function provided the best representation of the trends. Other researchers

(Hooton, Thomas and Stanish 2001) have also found this to be true in their work. The scatter

plots of the data (APPENDIX G) showed that the relationship of the test results followed an

increasing rate and variability around the trend as the dependent variable increases. This

behavior can be simulated by the use of a power function. Therefore, the dependent (y-axis) and

independent (x-axis) variable of the general linear regression equation (Equation F-1) can be

modified as followed:

bmxy += (F-1) bmxy += )log()log( bxy m += )log()log(

bmxy 10= maxy = (F-2)

where: y is the dependent variable (electrical tests); x is the independent variable (diffusion tests); m is the slope of the linear regression analysis; b is the intersect to the y-axis of the linear regression analysis; a is 10b.

Figure F-1 and Figure F-2 show the effectiveness of the modified linear regression model

assumption for some of the tests. The modified axis data tend to follow the linear trend.

Moreover, the pattern of residuals (yi-yi_pred; where: yi are the experimental dependent variables

and yi_pred are the dependent variables from the regression analysis) showed homogeneous error

variances across the independent variable axis (constant variance).

194

RCP (91 Days) vs. 364-Day BD

y = 0.936x + 2.733R2 = 0.802

0

1

2

3

4

5

0 0.5 1 1.5Log(BD(x10-12) (m2/s))

Log

(RC

P (C

oul.)

) .RCP (91 Days) vs. 364-Day BD

-0.8

-0.4

0

0.4

0.8

0 0.5 1 1.5

Log(BD(x10-12) (m2/s))

Res

idua

l (y i

-yi_

pred

)

SR(Moist) (91 Days) vs. 364-Day BD

y = 0.848x - 1.787R2 = 0.787

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

00 0.5 1 1.5

Log(BD(x10-12) (m2/s))

Log

(SR

(1/(k

Ohm

-cm

)) )


-0.8

-0.4

0

0.4

0.8

0 0.5 1 1.5

Log(BD(x10-12) (m2/s))

Res

idua

l (yi -

yi_p

red)

SR(Lime) (91 Days) vs. 364-Day BD

y = 0.803x - 1.725R2 = 0.840

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

00 0.5 1 1.5

Log(BD(x10-12) (m2/s))

Log

(SR

(1/(k

Ohm

-cm

)) )


-0.8

-0.4

0

0.4

0.8

0 0.5 1 1.5

Log(BD(x10-12) (m2/s))

Res

idua

l (yi -

yi_p

red)

Figure F-1. Electrical Test Modified Linear Regression Analysis to 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Data (× Concrete mixture containing Calcium Nitrite (CPR12). It was not include in the general correlation calculations).

195


y = 0.687x + 2.900R2 = 0.755

0

1

2

3

4

5

0 0.5 1 1.5Log(BD(x10-12) (m2/s))

Log

(RC

P (C

oul.)


-0.8

-0.4

0

0.4

0.8

0 0.5 1 1.5

Log(BD(x10-12) (m2/s))

Res

idua

l (y i

-yi_

pred

)


y = 0.615x - 1.632R2 = 0.723

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

00 0.5 1 1.5

Log(BD(x10-12) (m2/s))

Log

(SR

(1/(k

Ohm

-cm

)) )


-0.8

-0.4

0

0.4

0.8

0 0.5 1 1.5

Log(BD(x10-12) (m2/s))

Res

idua

l (yi -

yi_p

red)


y = 0.560x - 1.566R2 = 0.715

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

00 0.5 1 1.5

Log(BD(x10-12) (m2/s))

Log

(SR

(1/(k

Ohm

-cm

)) )


-0.8

-0.4

0

0.4

0.8

0 0.5 1 1.5

Log(BD(x10-12) (m2/s))

Res

idua

l (yi -

yi_p

red)

Figure F-2. Electrical Test Modified Linear Regression Analysis to 3-Year Bulk Diffusion Data (× Concrete mixture containing Calcium Nitrite (CPR12). It was not include in the general correlation calculations).

196

APPENDIX G COMPARISON OF CONDUCTIVITY AND LONG-TERM LABORATORY DIFFUSION

TESTS


y = 1550.771x0.788

R2 = 0.5920

5000

10000

15000


RC

P (C

oulo

mbs

) .


y = 1041.691x0.862

R2 = 0.6690

5000

10000

15000


RC

P (C

oulo

mbs

) .


y = 619.604x0.985

R2 = 0.810

0

5000

10000

15000


RC

P (C

oulo

mbs

) .


y = 540.534x0.936

R2 = 0.802

0

5000

10000

15000


RC

P (C

oulo

mbs

) .


y = 382.517x1.012

R2 = 0.787

0

5000

10000

15000


RC

P (C

oulo

mbs

) .


y = 259.604x1.081

R2 = 0.770

0

5000

10000

15000


RC

P (C

oulo

mbs

) .

Figure G-1. RCP Coulombs vs. 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficients (× Concrete mixture

containing Calcium Nitrite (CPR12). It was not include in the general correlation calculations).

197


y = 2415.106x0.482

R2 = 0.3880

5000

10000

15000


RC

P (C

oulo

mbs


y = 1647.192x0.549

R2 = 0.4740

5000

10000

15000


RC

P (C

oulo

mbs

) .


y = 966.545x0.690

R2 = 0.698

0

5000

10000

15000


RC

P (C

oulo

mbs

) .


y = 794.546x0.687

R2 = 0.755

0

5000

10000

15000


RC

P (C

oulo

mbs

) .


y = 565.798x0.762

R2 = 0.782

0

5000

10000

15000


RC

P (C

oulo

mbs

) .


y = 382.249x0.839

R2 = 0.813

0

5000

10000

15000


RC

P (C

oulo

mbs

) .

Figure G-2. RCP Coulombs vs. 3-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficients (× Concrete mixture containing Calcium Nitrite (CPR12). It was not include in the general correlation calculations).

198

SR (Lime) (14 Days) vs. 364-Day Bulk Diffusion

y = 0.063x0.513

R2 = 0.4750

0.1

0.2

0.3

0 5 10 15 20Bulk Diffusion (m2/s)

SR C

ondu

ctiv

ity(1

/(kO

hm-c

m))


y = 0.037x0.658

R2 = 0.7700

0.1

0.2

0.3


SR C

ondu

ctiv

ity(1

/(kO

hm-c

m))


y = 0.024x0.785

R2 = 0.799

0

0.1

0.2

0.3


SR C

ondu

ctiv

ity(1

/(kO

hm-c

m))


y = 0.019x0.803

R2 = 0.840

0

0.1

0.2

0.3


SR C

ondu

ctiv

ity(1

/(kO

hm-c

m))


y = 0.014x0.792

R2 = 0.808

0

0.1

0.2

0.3


SR C

ondu

ctiv

ity(1

/(kO

hm-c

m))


y = 0.011x0.804

R2 = 0.702

0

0.1

0.2

0.3


SR C

ondu

ctiv

ity(1

/(kO

hm-c

m))

Figure G-3. SR (Lime Cured) vs. 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficients (× Concrete mixture containing Calcium Nitrite (CPR12). It was not include in the general correlation calculations).

199


y = 0.011x0.789

R2 = 0.695

0

0.1

0.2

0.3


SR C

ondu

ctiv

ity(1

/(kO

hm-c

m))


y = 0.010x0.823

R2 = 0.682

0

0.1

0.2

0.3


SR C

ondu

ctiv

ity(1

/(kO

hm-c

m))

Figure G-3. Continued.

200


y = 0.086x0.301

R2 = 0.2860

0.1

0.2

0.3

0 10 20 30Bulk Diffusion (m2/s)

SR C

ondu

ctiv

ity(1

/(kO

hm-c

m))


y = 0.054x0.397

R2 = 0.4920

0.1

0.2

0.3


SR C

ondu

ctiv

ity(1

/(kO

hm-c

m))


y = 0.035x0.515

R2 = 0.602

0

0.1

0.2

0.3


SR C

ondu

ctiv

ity(1

/(kO

hm-c

m))


y = 0.027x0.560

R2 = 0.715

0

0.1

0.2

0.3


SR C

ondu

ctiv

ity(1

/(kO

hm-c

m))


y = 0.019x0.586

R2 = 0.773

0

0.1

0.2

0.3


SR C

ondu

ctiv

ity(1

/(kO

hm-c

m))


y = 0.014x0.638

R2 = 0.774

0

0.1

0.2

0.3


SR C

ondu

ctiv

ity(1

/(kO

hm-c

m))

Figure G-4. SR (Lime Cured) vs. 3-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficients (× Concrete mixture containing Calcium Nitrite (CPR12). It was not include in the general correlation calculations).

201


y = 0.014x0.626

R2 = 0.765

0

0.1

0.2

0.3


SR C

ondu

ctiv

ity(1

/(kO

hm-c

m))


y = 0.013x0.644

R2 = 0.731

0

0.1

0.2

0.3


SR C

ondu

ctiv

ity(1

/(kO

hm-c

m))


202

SR (Moist) (14 Days) vs. 364-Day Bulk Diffusion

y = 0.032x0.738

R2 = 0.7570

0.1

0.2

0.3


SR C

ondu

ctiv

ity(1

/(kO

hm-c

m))


y = 0.028x0.763

R2 = 0.7470

0.1

0.2

0.3


SR C

ondu

ctiv

ity(1

/(kO

hm-c

m))


y = 0.021x0.807

R2 = 0.745

0

0.1

0.2

0.3


SR C

ondu

ctiv

ity(1

/(kO

hm-c

m))


y = 0.016x0.848

R2 = 0.787

0

0.1

0.2

0.3


SR C

ondu

ctiv

ity(1

/(kO

hm-c

m))


y = 0.012x0.863

R2 = 0.770

0

0.1

0.2

0.3


SR C

ondu

ctiv

ity(1

/(kO

hm-c

m))


y = 0.009x0.945

R2 = 0.744

0

0.1

0.2

0.3


SR C

ondu

ctiv

ity(1

/(kO

hm-c

m))

Figure G-5. SR (Moist Cured) vs. 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficients (× Concrete mixture containing Calcium Nitrite (CPR12). It was not include in the general correlation calculations).

203


y = 0.009x0.857

R2 = 0.698

0

0.1

0.2

0.3


SR C

ondu

ctiv

ity(1

/(kO

hm-c

m))


y = 0.008x0.907

R2 = 0.685

0

0.1

0.2

0.3


SR C

ondu

ctiv

ity(1

/(kO

hm-c

m))


204


y = 0.047x0.474

R2 = 0.4950

0.1

0.2

0.3


SR C

ondu

ctiv

ity(1

/(kO

hm-c

m))


y = 0.042x0.487

R2 = 0.533

0

0.1

0.2

0.3


SR C

ondu

ctiv

ity(1

/(kO

hm-c

m))


y = 0.031x0.548

R2 = 0.602

0

0.1

0.2

0.3


SR C

ondu

ctiv

ity(1

/(kO

hm-c

m))


y = 0.023x0.615

R2 = 0.723

0

0.1

0.2

0.3


SR C

ondu

ctiv

ity(1

/(kO

hm-c

m))


y = 0.017x0.659

R2 = 0.788

0

0.1

0.2

0.3


SR C

ondu

ctiv

ity(1

/(kO

hm-c

m))


y = 0.013x0.723

R2 = 0.761

0

0.1

0.2

0.3


SR C

ondu

ctiv

ity(1

/(kO

hm-c

m))

Figure G-6. SR (Moist Cured) vs. 3-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficients (× Concrete mixture containing Calcium Nitrite (CPR12). It was not include in the general correlation calculations).

205


y = 0.012x0.683

R2 = 0.777

0

0.1

0.2

0.3


SR C

ondu

ctiv

ity(1

/(kO

hm-c

m))


y = 0.011x0.717

R2 = 0.750

0

0.1

0.2

0.3


SR C

ondu

ctiv

ity(1

/(kO

hm-c

m))


206

APPENDIX H ANALYSIS OF DATA OBTAINED FROM OTHER PROJECTS

Table H-1. HRP Project (Paredes 2007) Concrete Mixture Designs. Materials and Specifications

Mixture Name

FDOT Class W/C

Cementicious (pcy)

Pozzolan (%Cement.)

Pozzolan (%Cement.)

Coarse Aggregate

HRP3 V 0.35 752 Fly-Ash (20%)

Silica Fume Slurry (8%)

89 Limestone

HRP4 V 0.35 752 Fly-Ash (20%)

Silica Fume Densified

(8%)

89 Limestone

Table H-2. Initial Chloride Background Levels from HRP Project (Paredes 2007).

TEST Initial Chloride Background Levels

A B C AVG

HRP3 0.426 0.426 0.435 0.429HRP4 0.310 0.368 0.344 0.341

NaCl (lb/yd3)MIX

Table H-3. 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Chloride Profile Testing from HRP Project (Paredes 2007).

MIX HRP3TEST Bulk DiffusionDepth

(in) A B C AVG0.13 36.518 37.006 - 36.7620.38 22.111 21.579 - 21.8450.63 3.639 5.450 - 4.5450.88 1.665 1.858 - 1.7621.13 0.353 0.346 - 0.3501.38 0.310 0.325 - 0.3181.63 0.326 0.308 - 0.3171.88 0.305 0.329 - 0.317

NaCl (lb/yd3)

MIX HRP4TEST Bulk DiffusionDepth

(in) A B C AVG

0.13 39.780 37.705 - 38.7430.38 24.557 17.593 - 21.0750.63 8.962 4.097 - 6.5300.88 1.052 1.396 - 1.2241.13 0.375 0.404 - 0.3901.38 0.370 0.411 - 0.3911.63 0.368 0.400 - 0.3841.88 0.382 0.397 - 0.390

NaCl (lb/yd3)

207

0 0.5 1 1.5 20

20

40

60HRP3-Sample A(20% Fly-Ash, 8% SF Slurry)

Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 0.5 1 1.5 20

20

40

60HRP3-Sample B(20% Fly-Ash, 8% SF Slurry)

Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 0.5 1 1.5 20

20

40

60HRP4-Sample A(20% Fly-Ash, 8% SF Densified)

Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 0.5 1 1.5 20

20

40

60HRP4-Sample B(20% Fly-Ash, 8% SF Densified)

Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


Figure H-1. Diffusion Coefficient Results from HRP Project (Paredes 2007).

208

Table H-4. St. George Island Bridge Pile Testing Project Chloride Profile Testing of Cored Samples (Cannon et al. 2006).

Pile 44-2Loaction SUBMERGED ZONE (6-ft below MHW)

Depth(in) A B C AVG

0.25 30.239 30.746 30.042 30.3420.75 24.310 24.339 24.339 24.3291.50 20.436 20.041 20.261 20.2462.50 19.451 19.161 19.585 19.3993.50 14.732 14.610 14.703 14.6824.50 13.604 13.630 13.777 13.6705.50 14.549 14.298 14.404 14.417

NaCl (lb/yd3)

Pile 44-2Loaction TIDAL ZONE (1-ft below MHW)

Depth(in) A B C AVG

0.25 18.569 18.985 18.884 18.8130.75 16.492 16.927 17.017 16.8121.50 17.062 16.861 17.247 17.0572.50 14.018 14.111 14.355 14.1613.50 12.435 12.630 12.794 12.6204.50 11.067 10.961 10.957 10.9955.50 10.260 10.596 9.963 10.273

NaCl (lb/yd3)

Pile 44-2Loaction SPLASH ZONE (3-ft above MHW)

Depth(in) A B C AVG

0.25 20.062 19.933 19.801 19.9320.75 16.966 16.973 17.258 17.0661.50 13.277 13.447 13.320 13.3482.50 8.979 8.879 9.026 8.9613.50 5.999 5.866 5.866 5.9104.50 3.739 3.550 3.374 3.5545.50 1.652 1.648 1.655 1.652

NaCl (lb/yd3)

Pile 44-2Loaction DRY ZONE (7-ft above MHW)

Depth(in) A B C AVG

0.25 5.122 5.115 5.198 5.1450.75 7.310 7.203 6.771 7.0951.50 5.223 5.175 5.191 5.1962.50 3.536 3.462 3.454 3.4843.50 1.672 1.745 1.666 1.6944.50 1.013 0.958 1.021 0.9975.50 0.371 0.384 0.355 0.370

NaCl (lb/yd3)

209

0 5 10 15 200

10

20

30PILE 44-2 (6ft below MHW)(SUBMERGED)

Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 5 10 15 200

10

20

30PILE 44-2 (1ft below MHW))(TIDAL)

Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 5 10 15 200

10

20

30PILE 44-2 (3ft above MHW)(SPLASH)

Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


0 5 10 15 200

10

20

30PILE 44-2 (7ft above MHW)(DRY)

Depth (in)

Chl

orid

e C

onte

nt (l

b/yd

^3)


Figure H-2. St. George Island Bridge Pile Testing Project Diffusion Coefficients (Cannon et al. 2006) (Initial chloride background levels information was not available in this project. It was assumed a minimum value of 0.40 lb/yd3 for all the samples).

210

LIST OF REFERENCES

AASHTO T 23 (1993). “Standard Method of Test for Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens.” American Association of States Highway and Transportation Officials.

AASHTO T 259-80 (1993). “Standard Method of Test for Resistance of Concrete to Chloride Ion Penetration.” American Association of States Highway and Transportation Officials.

AASHTO T 260 (1997). “Standard Method of Test for Sampling and Testing for Chloride Ion in Concrete and Concrete Raw Materials.” American Association of States Highway and Transportation Officials.

AASHTO T 277-86 (1990). “Rapid Determination of the Chloride Permeability of Concrete.” American Association of States Highway and Transportation Officials.

ASTM C 39 (1999). “Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens.” American Society for Testing and Materials.

ASTM C 138 (2001). “Standard Test Method for Density (Unit Weight), Yield, and Air Content (Gravimetric) of Concrete.” American Society for Testing and Materials.

ASTM C 143 (2000). “Standard Test Method for Slump of Hydraulic Cement Concrete.” American Society for Testing and Materials.

ASTM C 173 (2001). “Standard Test Method for Air Content of Freshly Mixed Concrete by the Volumetric Method.” American Society for Testing and Materials.

ASTM C 1064 (1999). “Standard Test Method for Temperature of Freshly Mixed Portland Cement Concrete.” American Society for Testing and Materials.

ASTM C1152/C1152M (1990). “Standard Test Method for Acid-Soluble Chloride in Mortar and Concrete.” American Society for Testing and Materials.

ASTM C 1202 (1997). “Standard Test Method for Electrical Indication of Concrete’s Ability to Resist Chloride Ion Penetration.” American Society for Testing and Materials.

Andrade, C. (1993). “Calculation of chloride diffusion coefficients in concrete from ionic migration measurements.” Cement and Concrete Research, 23(3), 724-742.

Ann, K.Y., Jung, H.S., Kim, H.S. and Moon,H.Y. (2005). “Effect of Calcium Nitrite-Based Corrosion Inhibitor in Preventing Corrosion of Embedded Steel in Concrete.” Cement and Concrete Research, 36(3), 530-535.

211

Berke, N.S. (1987). “Effect of Calcium Nitrite and Mix Design on the Corrosion Resistance of Steel in Concrete (Part 2 Long-Term Results)”. Proceedings of the Corrosion-87 Symposium on Corrosion of Metals in Concrete. Houston: National Association of Corrosion Engineers, 134.

Broomfield, J. and Millard, S. (2002). “Measuring concrete resistivity to assess corrosion rates.” A report from The Concrete Society/Institute of Corrosion liaison committee, Current Practice Sheet (128), 37-39.

Boddy, A., Bentz, E., Thomas, M.D.A. and Hooton, R.D. (1999). “An overview and sensitivity study of a multimechanistic chloride transport model.” Cement and Concrete Research, 29(6), 827-837.

Boddy, A., Hooton, R.D. and Gruber K.A. (2001). “Long-term Testing of the Chloride-Penetration Resistance of Concrete Containing High-Reactivity Metakaolin.” Cement and Concrete Research, 31(5), 759-765.

Cannon, E., Lewinger, C., Abi, C. and Hamilton, H. R. (2006). “St. George Island Bridge Pile Testing”. Final Report No. BD545, Florida Department of Transportation.

Chini, A.R, Muszynski, L.C. and Hicks, J. (2003). “Determination of Acceptance Permeability Characteristics for Performance-Related Specifications for Portland Cement Concrete.” Final Report No. BC 354-41, Florida Department of Transportation.

Dhir, R.K., and Byars, E.A. (1993). “PFA concrete: Chloride diffusion rates.” Magazine of Concrete Research, 45(162), 1-9.

Feldman, R.F., Chan, G.W., Brousseau, R.J. and Tumidajski, P.J. (1994). “Investigation of the Rapid Chloride Permeability Test.” ACI Materials Journal, 91(3), 246-255.

FDOT 346 (2004). “Florida Department of Transportation Standard Specification for Road and Bridge Construction.” Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). 346-3.1(d).

FDOT SDG (2007). “Structures Design Guidelines.” Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT).

FM 5-516 (2005). “Florida Method of Test For Determining Low-Levels of Chloride in Concrete and Raw Materials.” Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT).

FM 5-578 (2004). “Florida Method of Test for Concrete Resistivity as an Electrical Indicator of its Permeability.” Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT).

212

Glass, G.K., and Buenfeld, N.R. (1995). “Chloride threshold levels for corrosion induced deterioration of steel in concrete.” International RILEM Workshop.

Gowers, K.R. and Millard, S.G. (1999). “Measurement of Concrete Resistivity for Assessment of Corrosion Severity of Steel Using Wenner Technique.” ACI Materials Journal, 96(5), 536-541.

Hooton, R.D. (1997). “Discussion of the rapid chloride permeability test and its correlation to the 90-day chloride ponding test.” PCI Journal, 42(3), 65-66.

Hooton, R.D.,Thomas, M.D.A. and Stanish, K. (2001). “Prediction of Chloride Penetration in Concrete.” Final Report No. FHWA/RD-00/142, Federal Highway Administration.

Hughes, B.P., Soleit, A.K.O. and Brierly, R.W. (1985). “New Technique for Determining the Electrical Resistivity of Concrete.” Magazine of Concrete Research, 37(133), 243-248.

Kirkpatricka, T., Weyers, R.E., Anderson-Cook, C.M. and Sprinkel, M.M. (2002). “Probabilistic Model for the Chloride-Induced Corrosion Service Life of Bridge Decks.” Cement and Concrete Research, 32(12), 1943-1960.

Kranc, S.C. and Sagüés, A.A. (2003). “Advanced Analysis of Chloride Ion Penetration Profiles in Marine Substructure.” Final Report No. BB 880, Florida Department of Transportation.

Kondratova, I.L., Montes, P. and Bremner, T.W. (2003). “Natural Marine Exposure Results for Reinforced Concrete Slabs with Corrosion Inhibitors.” Cement and Concrete Composites, 25(4), 483-490.

Li, Z., Peng, J., and Ma, B. (1999). “Investigation of chloride diffusion for high-performance concrete containing fly ash, microsilica, and chemical admixtures.” ACI Materials Journal, 96(3), 391-396.

Luping, T. and Nilson, L.O. (1992). “Chloride Diffusivity in High-Strength Concrete at Different Ages.” Nordic Concrete Research, Publication No. 11.

Ma, B., Li, Z. and Peng, J. (1998). “Effect of Calcium Nitrite on High Performance Concrete Containing Fly Ash”. Supplementary Proceedings of the Six CANMET/ACI International Conference on Fly Ash, Silica Fume, Slag and Natural Pozzolans in Concrete. Bangkok, 113–24.

Mangat, P.S. and Molloy, B.T. (1994). “Prediction of Long Term Chloride Concentration in Concrete.” Materials and Structures, 27, 338-346.

213

McGrath, P.F. and Hooton, R.D. (1999). “Re-evaluation of the AASHTO T259 90-day salt ponding test.” Cement and Concrete Research, 29(8), 1239-1248.

Mindess, S., Young, J.F and Darwin, D. (2002). “Concrete.” Second Edition, Prentice-Hall.

Monfore, G.E. (1968). “The Electrical Resistivity of Concrete.” Journal of the PCA Research and Development Laboratories, 10(2), 35-48.

Morris, W., Moreno, E.I. and Sagües, A.A. (1996). “Practical evaluation of resistivity of concrete in test cylinders using a Wenner array probe.” Cement and Concrete Research, 26(12), 1779-1787.

Nokken, M., Boddy, A., Hooton, R.D. and Thomas, M.D.A. (2006). “Time Dependent Diffusion in Concrete—Three Laboratory Studies.” Cement and Concrete Research, 36(1), 200-207.

NT BUILD 443 (1995). “Concrete, hardened: Accelerated chloride penetration.” Nordtest method.

Ozyildirim, C., and Halstead, W.J. (1988). “Use of Admixtures to Attain Low Permeability Concretes” Final Report No. FHWA/VA-88-R11.

Page, C.L., Short, N.R., and El Tarras, A. (1981). “Diffusion of chloride ions in hardened cement pastes.” Cement and Concrete Research, 11(3), 395-406.

Paredes, M. (2007). “High Reactive Pozzolans Project (HRP)”. Project in Progress. Florida Department of Transportation.

Pfeifer, D.W., McDonald, D.B. and Krauss, P.D. (1994). “The rapid chloride permeability test and its correlation to the 90-day chloride ponding test.” PCI Journal, 41(4), 82–95.

Sagüés, A.A. (1994). “Corrosion of Epoxy Coated Rebar in Florida Bridges.” Final Report No. 99700-7556-010, WPI 0510603, Florida Department of Transportation.

Sagüés, A.A., Kranc, S.C., Presuel-Moreno, F., Rey, D., Torres-Acosta, A. and Yao, L. (2001). “Corrosion Forecasting for 75-Year Durability Design of Reinforced Concrete.” Final Report No. BA 502, Florida Department of Transportation.

Scanlon, J.M. and Sherman, M.R. (1996). “Fly ash concrete: An evaluation of chloride penetration testing methods.” Concrete International, 18(6), 57-62.

214

Shi, C., Stegemenn, J.A. and Caldwell, R. (1998). “Effect of Supplementary Cementing Materials on the Specific Conductivity of Pore Solution and Its Implications on the Rapid Chloride Permeability Test (AASHTO T277 and ASTM C1202) Results.” ACI Materials Journal, 95(4), 389-394.

Shi, C. (2003). “Another look at the Rapid Chloride Permeability Test (ASTM C1202 or AASHTO T277)”.

Snyder, K.A., Ferraris, C., Martys, N.S. and Garboczi, E.J. (2000). “Using Impedance Spectroscopy to Assess the Viability of the Rapid Chloride Test for determining Concrete Conductivity.” Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standars and Technology, 105(4), 497-509.

Sohanghpurwala, A.A (2006). “Manual on Service Life of Corrosion Damaged Reinforced Concrete Bridge Superstructure Elements”. CONCORR, Inc.

Stanish, K. and Thomas, M. (2003). “The use of bulk diffusion tests to establish time-dependent concrete chloride diffusion coefficients.” Cement and Concrete Research, 33(1), 55-62.

Streicher, P.E and Alexander, M.G. (1995). “A Chloride Conduction Test for Concrete.” Cement and Concrete Research, 25(6), 1284-1294.

Tang, L. and Andersen, A. (2000). “Chloride ingress data from five years field exposure in a Swedish marine environment”. Proceedings of the 2nd International RILEM Workshop on Testing and Modelling the Chloride Ingress into Concrete, Paris, 11-12, pp. 105-119.

Tang, L. (2003). “Chloride Ingress in Concrete Exposed to Marine Environment–Field data up to 10 years exposure”. SP Swedish National Testing and Research Institute Building Technology and Mechanics. SP REPORT 2003:16.

Thomas, M.D.A., Pantazopoulou, S.J. and Martín-Pérez, B. (1995). “Service Life Modelling of Reinforced Concrete Structures Exposed to Chlorides: A Literature Review.” Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, 45.

Thomas, M.D.A. and Bamforth, P.B. (1999). “Modelling Chloride Diffusion in Concrete Effect of Fly Ash and Slag.” Cement and Concrete Research, 29(4), 487-495.

Thomas, M.D.A., Shehata, M.H., Shashiprakash, S.G., Hopkins, D.S. and Cail, K. (1999). “Use of Ternary Cementitious Systems Containing Silica Fume and Fly Ash in Concrete.” Cement and Concrete Research, 29(8), 1207-1214.

Tuutti, K. (1982). “Corrosion of steel in concrete.” Swedish Cement and Concrete Research Institute, 469.

215

Vivas, E., Boyd, A. and Hamilton, H. R. (2007). “Permeability of Concrete – Comparison of Conductivity and Diffusion Methods.” Final Report No. BD 536, Florida Department of Transportation.

Whiting, D. (1981). “Rapid determination of the chloride ion permeability of concrete.” Federal Highway Administration, Final Report No. FHWA/RD-81/119.

Whiting, D. (1988). “Permeability of Selected Concretes.” Permeability of Concrete, SP-108, American Concrete Institute. 195-222.

Whiting, D., and Dziedzic, W. (1989). “Resistance to Chloride Infiltration of Superplasticized Concrete as Compared With Currently Used Concrete Overlay Systems.” Final Report No. FHWA/OH-89/009.

Whiting, D. and Mohamad, N. (2003). “Electrical Resistivity of Concrete-A Literature Review.” Portland Cement Association, R&D Serial No. 2457.

Wee, T.H., Suryavanshi, A.K. and Tin, S.S. (2000). “Evaluation of Rapid Chloride Permeability Test (RCPT) Results for Concrete Containing Mineral Admixtures.” ACI Materials Journal, 97(2), 221-232.

Yang, C.C., Cho, S.W. and Huang, R. (2002). “The relationship between charge passed and the chloride-ion concentration in concrete using steady-state chloride migration test.” Cement and Concrete Research, 32(2), 217-22.

216

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Enrique A. Vivas was born in 1976 in Valencia, Venezuela, to Yolanda and Pedro Vivas.

He graduated from La Salle High School in Valencia Venezuela in July of 1993. He received his

Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering in the Fall of 1999 from the University of Carabobo,

Venezuela. While attending the University of Carabobo full time, Enrique worked part time for

the Department of Civil Engineering, for three year as an Assistant Engineer at the Physical Plant

Office.

Enrique continued his education by entering graduate school to pursue a Master of

Engineering in the Structural Group of the Civil and Coastal Engineering Department at the

University of Florida in the Spring 2002. He received his Master of Engineering in the Spring of

2004.

ALLOWABLE LIMITS FOR CONDUCTIVITY TEST METHODS AND...

Documents

Transcript of ALLOWABLE LIMITS FOR CONDUCTIVITY TEST METHODS AND...