<%BANNER%>

Nondestructive Testing to Monitor Concrete Deterioration Caused by Sulfate Attack


PAGE 1

NONDESTRUCTIVE TESTING TO MONI TOR CONCRETE DETERIORATION CAUSED BY SULFATE ATTACK By SCOTT RUSSELL CUMMING A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ENGINEERING UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2004

PAGE 2

Copyright 2004 by Scott Russell Cumming

PAGE 3

This thesis is dedicated to my family : my parents, Neil Alexander Cumming and Elizabeth Loraine Cumming; my sister, Lisa Janice Cumming; my grandfather, William Beveridge Moyes; and my late grandmother, Ch ristina Swan Moyes. It has been with the support of all of my family and friends over the course of my life that I have been able to achieve my aspirations.

PAGE 4

iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank all of the members of my supervisory committee for their help and input throughout this effort. Dr. A ndrew Boyd, the committee chair, provided valuable time, and knowledge of the subject ma tter. He also provided financial support, making this research, and my pursuit of a graduate degree, successful. I would also like to thank Dr. Byron Ru th and Dr. Bjorn Birgisson for their contribution of time and knowledge, which prove d to be tremendously helpful during the preparation of this thesis. Gratitude is also expresse d to Chris Ferraro and Geor ge Lopp for their time and assistance provided during the re search. Assistance of th e members of the materials group at the University of Florida (Xiaoyan Zheng, Betty Quintana, Eileen Czarnecki, Ningfeng Liang, and Dominic Langelier) is also gratefully appreciated. A large debt of gratitude is owed to the Florida Department of Transportation State Materials Office in Gainesville, Florida (inc luding Charles Ishee, David Cerlanek, Mitch Langley, Beth Tuller, Mario Paredes, Toby Dillow and Richard DeLorenzo) for their time and assistance with preparation of th e samples used for this experiment. I would also like to express tremendous thanks and appreciation to my best friend, Rachel Conn for her support, patience, and understanding offered to me during the research and writing of this thesis.

PAGE 5

v TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES...........................................................................................................viii LIST OF FIGURES..........................................................................................................xii ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................xvii i CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.............................................................................................3 Introduction to Structural Health Monitoring...............................................................3 Sulfate Attack...............................................................................................................3 Evidence of Sulfate Attack....................................................................................5 Mechanisms of Sulfate Attack...............................................................................6 Internal Sources of Sulfates...................................................................................7 External Sources of Sulfates..................................................................................7 Consequences of External Sulfate Attack...........................................................10 External appearance and volume stability....................................................10 Microstructure of concrete...........................................................................12 Mechanical properties of concrete...............................................................13 Nondestructive Testing...............................................................................................16 Rebound Hammer Test........................................................................................17 Impact-Echo Method...........................................................................................19 Development................................................................................................20 General description......................................................................................21 Basic principles............................................................................................23 Significance of P-waves...............................................................................24 Conversion of a waveform to a frequency spectrum....................................25 Measurements using the impact-echo method.............................................26 Plate thickness..............................................................................................27 Flaw depth....................................................................................................27 Limitations of flaw depth measurements.....................................................29 Summary......................................................................................................30

PAGE 6

vi Resonant Frequency............................................................................................31 Theory..........................................................................................................31 Test methods................................................................................................32 Limitations of resonant frequency................................................................32 Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Test............................................................................34 Instrumentation.............................................................................................35 Principles of the test.....................................................................................36 Testing configurations..................................................................................38 Factors affecting pulse velocity....................................................................39 Applications.................................................................................................40 Estimation of concrete strength....................................................................40 Estimation of concrete homogeneity............................................................41 Durability of concrete...................................................................................41 Dynamic modulus of elasticity.....................................................................42 Limitations of the test...................................................................................43 Combined Methods.............................................................................................43 Advantages and limitations..........................................................................46 Applications.................................................................................................46 Pressure Tension Test..........................................................................................47 3 EXPERIMENTAL SETUP........................................................................................52 Test Specimens...........................................................................................................52 Mixture Design...........................................................................................................54 Mixing of Concrete.....................................................................................................55 4 MONITORING OF CHEMICAL DETERIORATION VIA NONDESTRUCTIVE TESTING...............................................................................62 Prior Research.............................................................................................................62 Methodology...............................................................................................................63 Testing Procedure.......................................................................................................64 Results and Discussion...............................................................................................66 5 DESTRUCTIVE TEST RESULTS............................................................................77 Coring......................................................................................................................... 77 Compressive Strength Test Results............................................................................79 Splitting Tensile Test Results.....................................................................................83 Pressure Tension Test Results....................................................................................89 Summary.....................................................................................................................99 6 RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN DESTRUCTIVE AND NONDESTRUCTIVE TEST RESULTS.................................................................102 Nondestructive Tomography Testing.......................................................................102 Rebound Hammer Testing.................................................................................104

PAGE 7

vii Compressive strength versus rebound number...........................................105 Pressure tensile strengt h versus rebound number......................................107 Tomography Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Testing...............................................108 Compressive strength versus ultrasonic pulse velocity..............................111 Pressure tensile strength vers us ultrasonic pulse velocity..........................113 Impact-Echo Tomography Testing....................................................................115 Compressive strength versus impact-echo P-wave speed..........................116 Pressure tension strength versus impact-echo P-wave speed.....................117 Compressive Strength Predictions by Combined Tomography Methods.........118 Nondestructive Core Testing....................................................................................124 Core Rebound Hammer Testing........................................................................124 Core Pulse Velocity Testing..............................................................................125 Compressive strength versus pulse velocity...............................................125 Pressure tension strength versus pulse velocity.........................................126 Compressive strength versus ul trasonic pulse velocity and rebound number....................................................................................128 Core Resonant Frequency Testing.....................................................................132 Summary...................................................................................................................134 7 CONCLUSIONS......................................................................................................137 APPENDIX A MIXTURE PROPORTIONS AND PLASTI C PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE....141 B NONDESTRUCTIVE TEST MO NITORING DATA FOR BLOCKS 1-8 AND 17-24........................................................................................148 C REBOUND HAMMER TEST RESULTS...............................................................323 D ULTRASONIC PULSE VELOCITY TOMOGRAPHY TEST RESULTS.............348 E IMPACT-ECHO TEST DATA................................................................................373 F CORE TEST RESULTS...........................................................................................377 LIST OF REFERENCES.................................................................................................402 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...........................................................................................406

PAGE 8

viii LIST OF TABLES Table page 3.1: Concrete mixture proportions...................................................................................55 3.2: Summary of block iden tification and conditioning..................................................56 5.1: Compressive strength data for Mixture A................................................................82 5.2: Compressive strength data for Mixture B................................................................82 5.3: Splitting tensile strengt h data for Mixture A............................................................86 5.4: Splitting tensile strengt h data for Mixture B............................................................86 5.5: Pressure tensile stre ngth data for Mixture A............................................................92 5.6: Pressure tensile stre ngth data for Mixture B............................................................92 6.1: Average pulse velocities from tomography testing for Mixture A........................109 6.2: Average pulse velocities from tomography testing for Mixture B.........................110 A.1: Mix proportions for Mixture A..............................................................................142 A.2: Mix proportions for Mixture B...............................................................................145 B.1: Block monitoring data for Block 1.........................................................................149 B.2: Block monitoring data for Block 2.........................................................................164 B.3: Block monitoring data for Block 3.........................................................................179 B.4: Block monitoring data for Block 4.........................................................................192 B.5: Block monitoring data for Block 5.........................................................................205 B.6: Block monitoring data for Block 6.........................................................................212 B.7: Block monitoring data for Block 7.........................................................................219 B.8: Block monitoring data for Block 8.........................................................................228

PAGE 9

ix B.9: Block monitoring data for Block 17.......................................................................237 B.10: Block monitoring data for Block 18.......................................................................250 B.11: Block monitoring data for Block 19.......................................................................263 B.12: Block monitoring data for Block 20.......................................................................280 B.13: Block monitoring data for Block 21.......................................................................295 B.14: Block monitoring data for Block 22.......................................................................302 B.15: Block monitoring data for Block 23.......................................................................309 B.16: Block monitoring data for Block 24.......................................................................316 C.1: Rebound hammer test results for Block 1..............................................................324 C.2: Rebound hammer test results for Block 2..............................................................325 C.3: Rebound hammer test results for Block 3..............................................................326 C.4: Rebound hammer test results for Block 4..............................................................327 C.5: Rebound hammer test results for Block 5..............................................................328 C.6: Rebound hammer test results for Block 6..............................................................329 C.7: Rebound hammer test results for Block 7..............................................................330 C.8: Rebound hammer test results for Block 8..............................................................331 C.9: Rebound hammer test results for Block 9..............................................................332 C.10: Rebound hammer test results for Block 10............................................................333 C.11: Rebound hammer test results for Block 11............................................................334 C.12: Rebound hammer test results for Block 12............................................................335 C.13: Rebound hammer test results for Block 17............................................................336 C.14: Rebound hammer test results for Block 18............................................................337 C.15: Rebound hammer test results for Block 19............................................................338 C.16: Rebound hammer test results for Block 20............................................................339 C.17: Rebound hammer test results for Block 21............................................................340

PAGE 10

x C.18: Rebound hammer test results for Block 22............................................................341 C.19: Rebound hammer test results for Block 23............................................................342 C.20: Rebound hammer test results for Block 24............................................................343 C.21: Rebound hammer test results for Block 25............................................................344 C.22: Rebound hammer test results for Block 26............................................................345 C.23: Rebound hammer test results for Block 27............................................................346 C.24: Rebound hammer test results for Block 28............................................................347 D.1: Ultrasonic pulse velo city data for Block 1.............................................................349 D.2: Ultrasonic pulse velo city data for Block 2.............................................................350 D.3: Ultrasonic pulse velo city data for Block 3.............................................................351 D.4: Ultrasonic pulse velo city data for Block 4.............................................................352 D.5: Ultrasonic pulse velo city data for Block 5.............................................................353 D.6: Ultrasonic pulse velo city data for Block 6.............................................................354 D.7: Ultrasonic pulse velo city data for Block 7.............................................................355 D.8: Ultrasonic pulse velo city data for Block 8.............................................................356 D.9: Ultrasonic pulse velo city data for Block 9.............................................................357 D.10: Ultrasonic pulse velo city data for Block 10...........................................................358 D.11: Ultrasonic pulse velo city data for Block 11...........................................................359 D.12: Ultrasonic pulse velo city data for Block 12...........................................................360 D.13: Ultrasonic pulse velo city data for Block 17...........................................................361 D.14: Ultrasonic pulse velo city data for Block 18...........................................................362 D.15: Ultrasonic pulse velo city data for Block 19...........................................................363 D.16: Ultrasonic pulse velo city data for Block 20...........................................................364 D.17: Ultrasonic pulse velo city data for Block 21...........................................................365 D.18: Ultrasonic pulse velo city data for Block 22...........................................................366

PAGE 11

xi D.19: Ultrasonic pulse velo city data for Block 23...........................................................367 D.20: Ultrasonic pulse velo city data for Block 24...........................................................368 D.21: Ultrasonic pulse velo city data for Block 25...........................................................369 D.22: Ultrasonic pulse velo city data for Block 26...........................................................370 D.23: Ultrasonic pulse velo city data for Block 27...........................................................371 D.24: Ultrasonic pulse velo city data for Block 28...........................................................372 E.1: Impact-echo test results for Blocks 1-9..................................................................374 E.2: Impact-echo test results for Blocks 10-12 and 17-22.............................................375 E.3: Impact-echo test results for Blocks 23-28..............................................................376 F.1: Core data for Blocks 1 and 2..................................................................................378 F.2: Core data for Blocks 3 and 4..................................................................................380 F.3: Core data for Blocks 5 and 6..................................................................................382 F.4: Core data for Blocks 7 and 8..................................................................................384 F.5: Core data for Blocks 9 and 10................................................................................386 F.6: Core data for Blocks 11 and 12..............................................................................388 F.7: Core data for Blocks 17 and 18..............................................................................390 F.8: Core data for Blocks 19 and 20..............................................................................392 F.9: Core data for Blocks 21 and 22..............................................................................394 F.10: Core data for Blocks 23 and 24..............................................................................396 F.11: Core data for Blocks 25 and 26..............................................................................398 F.12: Core data for Blocks 27 and 28..............................................................................400

PAGE 12

xii LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2.1: Reactions taking place between Po rtland cement components and magnesium sulfate solution...........................................................................................................9 2.2: Sulfate transport mechanism in footings..................................................................12 2.3: Effect of cement content on strength and expansion of mortars under internal sulfate attack (1.0 ksi x 6.89 MPa)...........................................................................13 2.4: Variation in cube strength with time under the following experimental conditions: distilled water im mersion, immersion in 0.35 M Na2SO4 with-out pH control, and immersion in 0.35 M Na2SO4 solution while maintaining the solution pH at 6, 10 and 11.5.........................................................15 2.5: Comparison of expansion of mortar bars and tensile strength of briquets in 0.15 M solution of Na2SO4 at 22 oC.........................................................................15 2.6: Effect of cement content on stre ngth and expansion of mortars under external sulfate attack...............................................................................................16 2.7: Operation of a rebound hammer...............................................................................18 2.8: The impact-echo method .........................................................................................22 2.9: Typical wave propagation thr ough a cross section of a solid .................................24 2.10: Example of frequency analysis using the fast Fourier transform.............................26 2.11: Set-up for P-wave speed measurement....................................................................27 2.12: Comparison of P-wave responses from a flawless slab and a cracked slab.............28 2.13: Comparison of P-wave responses from a void and a crack at the same depth ........29 2.14: Typical forced vibration re sonant frequency test setup............................................33 2.15: Dynamic modulus of elasticity versus compressive strength...................................33 2.16: A portable ultrasonic test ing apparatus used at the University of Florida...............35

PAGE 13

xiii 2.17: Pulse velocity test circuit..........................................................................................36 2.18: Ultrasonic pulse velocity test procedure..................................................................37 2.19: Pulse velocity measurement configurations.............................................................39 2.20: Example strength versus velocity relationship for estimation of strength of concrete..................................................................................................41 2.21: Strength curves for reference concrete in the SONREB method.............................45 2.22: Bridgmans explanation of the diphase concept.......................................................49 2.23: Pressure tension experiment details.........................................................................49 3.1: Typical core locations on a block.............................................................................53 3.2: Coarse aggregate being added to the concrete mixer at the State Materials Office of the Florida Department of Tr ansportation in Gainesville, FL..................58 3.3: Mixing Concrete at the State Materials Office of th e Florida Department of Transportation in Gainesville, FL............................................................................58 3.4: Concrete block that has ju st been cast into a form...................................................59 3.5: Concrete blocks immersed in solution in a curing tank...........................................61 3.6: Lift used for moving c oncrete block specimens.......................................................61 4.1: Sulfate transport mechanism in footings..................................................................63 4.2: An ultrasonic pulse velocity test bein g performed at the University of Florida......64 4.3: An impact-echo test being perfor med at the University of Florida..........................65 4.4: Locations of ultrasonic pulse veloci ty tests on concrete block specimens...............66 4.5: Wave speed over time for 3-mont h control block from Mixture A.........................67 4.6: Wave speed over time for 12-mont h control block from Mixture A.......................67 4.7: Wave speed over time for 3-mont h control block from Mixture B..........................68 4.8: Wave speed over time for 12-mont h control block from Mixture B.......................68 4.9: Wave speed over time for the 3-month sulfate-exposed block from Mixture A......71 4.10: Wave speed over time for the 12-month sulfate-exposed block from Mixture A....71

PAGE 14

xiv 4.11: Wave speed over time for the 3-month sulfate-exposed block from Mixture B......72 4.12: Wave speed over time for the 12-month sulfate-exposed block from Mixture B....72 4.13: Efflorescence is noticeable at the immersion line on blocks exposed to sulfate solution.........................................................................................................73 4.14: Surface scaling due to sulfate crys tallization on Block 1 (0.45 W/C ratio) at age of 52 weeks....................................................................................................74 4.15: Surface scaling due to sulfate crysta llization on Block 19 (0.65 W/C ratio) at age of 52 weeks....................................................................................................74 5.1: Coring of a block at Th e University of Florida........................................................77 5.2: Photograph of a cored block.....................................................................................78 5.3: MTS 810 Materials Test System load fram e used at the University of Florida.......79 5.4: A concrete core subjected to compressive loading..................................................80 5.5: Average compressive strength over time for specimens exposed to lime-saturated water.................................................................................................81 5.6: Average compressive strength over time for specimens exposed to 5% sodium sulfate solution......................................................................................81 5.7: A concrete core subjected to a splitting tensile load................................................84 5.8: Average splitting tensile strength over time for specimens exposed to lime-saturated water.................................................................................................85 5.9: Average splitting tensile strength over time for specimens exposed to 5% sodium sulfate solution......................................................................................85 5.10: Photograph of cores failed under a splitting tensile load.........................................88 5.11: Close-up photograph of a cylinder failed under a splitting tensile load...................88 5.12: A concrete core subjected to pressure tensile loading..............................................90 5.13: Pressure tensile strength over time for specimens exposed to lime-saturated water.................................................................................................91 5.14: Pressure tensile strengt h over time for specimens exposed to 5% sodium sulfate solution.........................................................................................................91 5.15: Close up photograph of core 181A showing a large amount of voids in the specimen due to inadequate consolidation...........................................93

PAGE 15

xv 5.16: Cores from top of a block faile d under a pressure tensile load................................96 5.17: Cores from the immersion line of a block failed under a pressure tensile load.................................................................................................97 5.18: Cores from the bottom of a block failed under a pressure tensile load....................97 5.19: Cylinders failed under a pressure tensile load..........................................................98 5.20: Pressure tension failure locations.............................................................................98 6.1: Tomography grid pattern........................................................................................103 6.2: Tomography grid pattern on a block......................................................................103 6.3: Photograph of a block that has been cored.............................................................104 6.4: Rebound hammer testing........................................................................................104 6.5: Compressive strength versus reboun d number from tomography testing..............106 6.6: Photograph of dimples induced by rebound hammer testing.................................107 6.7: Pressure tensile strength ve rsus average rebound number for tomography testing.................................................................................................107 6.8: Ultrasonic pulse velo city tomography testing........................................................108 6.9: Relationship suggested by Samarin & Meynink for compressive strength versus pulse velocity from tomography testing......................................................112 6.10: Relationship suggested by Malhotra for compressive strength versus pulse velocity from tomography testing..........................................................................112 6.11: Pressure tensile strength versus to mography ultrasonic pulse velocity from tomography testing.................................................................................................113 6.12: Impact-echo testing at th e University of Florida....................................................115 6.13: Compressive strength versus P-wa ve speed from impact-echo testing..................116 6.14: Pressure tensile strength vers us impact-echo P-wave speed..................................118 6.15: Relationship suggested by Samarin and Meynink for SONR EB correlation for specimens immersed in lime-saturated water.........................................................120 6.16: Relationship suggested by Samarin and Meynink for SONR EB correlation for specimens immersed in sulfate solution.................................................................120

PAGE 16

xvi 6.17: Relationship suggested by Malhotra for SONREB correlation for specimens immersed in lime-saturated water..........................................................................121 6.18: Relationship suggested by Malhotra for SONREB correlation for specimens immersed in sulfate solution..................................................................................121 6.19: Predicted versus actual values of compressive strength for tomography data as per relationship suggested by Samarin and Meynink........................................123 6.20: Predicted versus actual values of compressive strength for tomography data as per relationship suggested by Malhotra.............................................................123 6.21: Compressive strength vers us rebound number for cores.......................................124 6.22: Ultrasonic pulse veloci ty experimental setup.........................................................125 6.23: Compressive strength versus pul se velocity for individual cores..........................126 6.24: Pressure tension strength versus pulse velocity for individual cores.....................127 6.25: Relationship suggested by Samarin and Meynink for SONR EB correlation for cores from blocks immersed in lime-saturated water.............................................129 6.26: Relationship suggested by Samarin and Meynink for SONR EB correlation for cores from blocks immersed in sulfate solution.....................................................129 6.27: Relationship suggested by Malhotra for SONREB correlation for specimens immersed in lime-saturated water..........................................................................130 6.28: Relationship suggested by Malhotra for SONREB correlation for specimens immersed in sulfate solution..................................................................................130 6.29: Predicted versus actual values of co mpressive strength for core data as per relationship suggested by Samarin and Meynink...................................................131 6.30: Predicted versus actual values of co mpressive strength for core data as per relationship suggested by Malhotra........................................................................132 6.31: Typical resonant fr equency test at the Un iversity of Florida.................................133 6.32: Core data for compressive stre ngth versus resonant frequency.............................134 6.33: Core data for pressure tensile strength versus resonant frequency........................134 B.1: Wave speed versus age for Block 1.......................................................................163 B.2: Wave speed versus age for Block 2.......................................................................178 B.3: Wave speed versus age for Block 3.......................................................................191

PAGE 17

xvii B.4: Wave speed versus age for Block 4.......................................................................204 B.5: Wave speed versus age for Block 5.......................................................................211 B.6: Wave speed versus age for Block 6.......................................................................218 B.7: Wave speed versus age for Block 7.......................................................................227 B.8: Wave speed versus age for Block 8.......................................................................236 B.9: Wave speed versus age for Block 17.....................................................................249 B.10: Wave speed versus age for Block 18.....................................................................262 B.11: Wave speed versus age for Block 19.....................................................................279 B.12: Wave speed versus age for Block 20.....................................................................294 B.13: Wave speed versus age for Block 21.....................................................................301 B.14: Wave speed versus age for Block 22.....................................................................308 B.15: Wave speed versus age for Block 23.....................................................................315 B.16: Wave speed versus age for Block 24.....................................................................148

PAGE 18

xviii Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Engineering NONDESTRUCTIVE TESTING TO MONI TOR CONCRETE DETERIORATION CAUSED BY SULFATE ATTACK By Scott Russell Cumming May 2004 Chair: Andrew J. Boyd Major Department: Civil and Coastal Engineering The objective of this work was to enable the Florida Department of Transportation to nondestructively assess and monitor the quality of in-situ concrete structures. As part of the research, a literature review of relevant nondestructive test methods was performed. Research on a relatively new dest ructive test procedure for the measurement of the tensile strength of c oncrete was also performed. Laboratory research focused on monitoring th e changes in nondest ructive test data from field-sized concrete samples exposed to continuous sulfate att ack over time. The intent was to decipher differences between low-permeability and high-permeability concrete and to assess which nondestructive te sting techniques were most sensitive for detecting sulfate attack. A ttempts were made to identif y the nondestruc tive properties and their relation to ultimate strength pr operties by using dest ructive tests after nondestructive tests were performed.

PAGE 19

xix Field studies have suggest ed that wave velocities through concrete samples decrease with increasing damage However, to date there has been no replication of this effect in a laboratory setting al lowing for a controlled experiment to quantify this effect. The primary objective was to see how the e xposure of concrete to sulfate solutions related to surface wave velocity and thr ough wave velocity. The impact-echo method and the ultrasonic pulse velocity test we re used to quantify these relationships respectively.

PAGE 20

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Throughout the life of a concrete structur e, it will most likely experience some form of deterioration. One of the most severe forms of deteriorati on is sulfate attack. Often, it is difficult for inspectors to determin e the quality of concrete without removing samples of the structure via destructive means such as coring. Coring a structure is an intrusive process, and often leaves flaws that can propagate failure at a future point in time. Coring can also lead to long-term durability concerns for the concrete. The objective of this work was to Monitor simulated concrete footings fo r deterioration cause d by sulfate attack, using ultrasonic pulse velocity and impactecho testing at regular intervals. Assess various nondestructive testing (NDT) pr ocedures as to whether they are able to detect damage inflicted on concrete by sulfate attack. Decipher differences between low -permeability and high -permeability concrete subjected to sulfate attack. Develop relationships and trends betw een nondestructive and destructive test results. A literature review was conducted on sulfat e attack and the different nondestructive testing techniques used in this research. La boratory research was performed to simulate damage caused by sulfate attack in the field, and to assess the sensitivity of each NDT procedure in detecting the damage. Concrete specimens were prepared to simu late the effect of both curing and damage for field-sized specimens. Two different wate r-to-cement ratio mixture proportions were used to cast the test specimens. The specime ns were placed in solutions to observe

PAGE 21

changes in the material properties over time. One set of specimens was partially immersed in 5% sulfate solution to simulate the effect of a harsh environment and its effects on concrete specimens over time. Th e other set of specimens was partially immersed in lime-saturated water to simulate the effect of curing. Testing was performed to monitor the change in mechanical properties over time of both the exposure specimens and control speci mens for 3 different exposure periods. The samples were exposed for 1 month, 3 months, and 12 months. Test procedures used for this monitoring included measurement of ultr asonic pulse velocity and measurement of surface P-wave speed using the impact-echo me thod. The testing regime consisted of biweekly nondestructive testing of the concrete samples. Monitoring of this nature was performed for the 3-month and 12-month conditioning periods. The samples were removed from their respec tive solutions at the conclusion of the exposure periods. Core samples were taken at three levels from each block; as close as possible to the top of the block, the immers ion line, and the bottom of the block. Ultrasonic pulse velocity and resonant fre quency tests were performed on each core. Destructive tests included compressive streng th, splitting tensile st rength, and pressure tensile strength.

PAGE 22

3 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction to Structural Health Monitoring Throughout the life of a concrete structur e, it may be subjected to many kinds of degradation. Concrete can be attacked bot h physically and chemically. Quite often, when chemical attack is taking place, it is no t evidenced early on, and a large amount of damage can occur before the problem is realize d. This is especially true when sulfates attack concrete. In the past, testing of concrete to det ect this kind of deterioration has been performed destructively, by taking core samp les from the structure. More recently, efforts have been put forth to diagnose chemical attack of concrete by various nondestructive testing methods. Sulfate Attack The term sulfate attack is typically used to describe a series of chemical reactions that take place between sulfat e ions and the components of the hydrated cement paste in the presence of water. The definition of su lfate attack has been a long-debated topic as it is a very complicated subject. Damage can be inflicted on concrete in many different ways. The sulfates can come from within the co ncrete itself or from an external source. The problem of sulfate attack has been r ecognized for hundreds of years. European scientists conducted th e first studies on sulf ate-resistant concrete in the nineteenth century. The problem was first realized in North America as early as 1908. Work performed by scientists duri ng that era led to the devel opment of the Bogue method for

PAGE 23

4 determining the mineralogical composition of cement, and also led to the creation of sulfate-resistant cements (Skalny et al. 2002). In 1992, American Concrete Institu te (ACI) Committee 201 published a Guide to durable concrete in which they defined two chemical mechanisms that were considered to be sulfate attack: the combination of su lfate with calcium ions liberated during the hydration of cement to form gypsum (Ca2SO4 2H2O); and the combination of sulfate with hydrated calcium aluminate (monosulfoalum inate) to form calcium sulfoaluminate (3CaO Al2O3 3CaSO4 3H2O) (more commonly known as et tringite). Both reactions are accompanied by a volume expansion that is believed to be the main source of damage to concrete; with the formation of ettringite thought to be worse than the formation of gypsum (ACI 1992). Other researchers on th e topic consider the progressive loss of strength and loss of mass to be sulfate attack as well. Relevant literature also shows that depending on sulfate ion concentrations, environmental conditions, and processing practices, the volume expansi on accompanying the formation of ettringite and gypsum are not always the source of damage (Skalny et al. 2002). There are many kinds of sulfate salts that can attack concrete. Calcium sulfate (CaSO4), magnesium sulfate (MgSO4), sodium sulfate (Na2SO4), and potassium sulfate (K2SO4) are the salts of concern (ACI 1992). The salt that is the focus of this research is sodium sulfate. Many literature sources divide sulfate attack in to categories of physical or chemical attack mechanisms, as well as internal or ex ternal attack. Chemical sulfate attack is widely considered to be the result of chem ical reactions that i nvolve the sulfate anion SO4 2-. Physical sulfate attack takes place with the formation of sodium sulfate

PAGE 24

5 decahydrate (Na2SO4 10H2O), which is then followed by its repeated recrystallization into sodium sulfate anhydrite (Na2SO4), and vice versa (Skalny et al. 2002). Internal sulfate attack refers to circumstances where th e sulfates come from a source internal to the concrete, such as fly ash, slag, aggregate, or certain chemical admixtures. External sulfate attack occurs when sulfates from a source external to the concrete matrix penetrate into the matrix and attack the hydrated cement paste. Such sources may be groundwater, fertilizers, soil that is rich in sulfate content, or others (Skalny et al. 2002). Evidence of Sulfate Attack Evidence of sulfate attack can appear in many different ways. Some of the visible damage includes spalling, delamination, macroc racking, and in extreme cases loss of cohesion. Typically the first si gns of sulfate attack appear in the form of hairline cracks or white, powdery stains manifesting on the concrete surface (known as efflorescence). All of the reactions that lead to these signs of distress are on a scale far too small for the naked eye to see. Some or all of the following processes may be involved in a typical case of sulfate attack (Neville 1996, Skalny et al. 2002), depending upon the sp ecific sulfate salt that is involved Dissolution or removal of calcium hydroxide from the cement paste. Complex and continuous changes in the ionic composition of the pore liquid phase. Adsorption or chemisorption of ionic co mponents present in the pore liquid phase on the surface of the hydrated solid s present in the cementing system. Decomposition of unhydrated clinker components. Decomposition of previously formed hydration components. Formation of gypsum.

PAGE 25

6 Formation of ettringite. Formation of thaumasite. Formation of brucite and magnesium silicate hydrate. Formation of hydrous silica (silica gel). Formation and repeated recrys tallization of sulfate salts. Mechanisms of Sulfate Attack The sulfate attack reaction mechanism is a very complex process as it potentially involves all of the hydration products present in hardened cement paste. Damage inflicted on the concrete can include cracking, expansion of the concre te as a whole, and softening and disintegration of the cement paste. Typically sulfate attack ca n be broken down into a sequence of three processes Sulfate ions diffuse into the pores of the concrete Sulfates react with calcium hydroxide to produce gypsum CH + SO42(aqueous) CSH2 (gypsum) +2OH(aqueous) Gypsum reacts with the monos ulfoaluminate in the hydrated cement paste to form ettringite. C4ASH12 (monosulfate) + 2CSH2 (gypsum) +16H C6AS3H32 (ettringite) A clear relationship has been established between the susceptibility of concrete to sulfate attack and its tricalcium aluminate (C3A) content; a concrete with a high content of C3A is more likely to experien ce degradation due to sulfate attack than is a concrete with a low C3A content. The damage is caused by corrosion of the sulfoaluminate and subsequent formation of ettringite. This is the most important reaction in external sulfate attack. The formation of ettringite is accompanied by a 55% increase in solid volume, which causes internal stresses that eventually lead to cr acking (Skalny et al. 2002).

PAGE 26

7 Before sulfoaluminate corrosion can occur, a separate reaction must first occur between the sulfate ions and calcium hydroxi de. This reaction is the corrosion of gypsum, and it is accompanied with a 120% expa nsion in volume. Gypsum corrosion is considered to be of secondary importance in sulfate attack, but for prolonged exposure periods (typically 10 years or more) gypsum corrosion can eventually become a more serious problem than ettringite formation. The gypsum corrosion reaction encourages penetration of sulfates into th e concrete and concentrates th em in a form in which they can react directly with the monos ulfoaluminate (Ska lny et al. 2002). Though the volume expansion associated wi th gypsum corrosion is more than double that associated with sulfoaluminate corrosion, the volume of monosulfoaluminate in the hydrated cement paste is far more than the other constituen ts involved in the reaction, thus making it the more serious issue. Often, sulfate attack does not involve a large volume expansion, but instead induces a softening or disint egration of the cement due to decalcification, renderi ng it no more rigid than pu tty (Skalny et al. 2002). Internal Sources of Sulfates Calcium sulfate is added to all cement cli nker during the refining process to control flash setting of C3A. Additional sulfates may be present in the clinker from the raw materials, or from the fuel combustion produc ts. Sulfates and sulfides may also be present in aggregate as well as both mineral and chemical admixtures. Mixing water may also contain sulfates. However, concentrati ons in water are usually so low that mixing water can be dismissed as a source of se rious damage (Skal ny et al. 2002). External Sources of Sulfates Solid salts do not attack concrete, but wh en the salts are present in solution, they can react with, and deteriorate hardened cement paste. The primary forms of sulfates for

PAGE 27

8 external attack are magnesium, calcium, sodium and potassium salts. Agricultural wastes often contain sulfates due to the fertilizer s used (although sulfates are usually not the most aggressive chemicals found therein). I ndustrial wastewaters of ten contain sulfates, especially water from cooling towers wher e sulfate concentrations can become quite high. Sulfate concentrations are also quite high in seawat er, though sulfate attack from this source is somewhat mitigated due to th e protective nature of magnesium hydroxide. Also, gypsum and ettringite are more soluble in solutions high in chloride concentrations. Even atmospheric pollution can be consider ed to be a source of wastewater and, depending on conditions such as temperature and humidity, can even lead to increased concentration of sulfates in soils and groundwater, thus in creasing the likelihood of the occurrence of sulfate at tack (Neville 1996). In areas of low humidity, concrete structur es that are in contact with both air and groundwater containing sulfates ar e particularly vulnerable to attack. This is due to the increasing concentrations of su lfates at the air-exposed surf ace due to the evaporation of surface moisture (Skalny et al. 2002). Effect of alkali sulfates. When alkali sulfates attack concrete, the sulfate ions react with the monosulfate that was formed in the hydration process as previously discussed. If all of the aluminum ions in th e zone undergoing interact ion with the sulfate ions have been consumed, and there are still SO4 2ions available, gypsum is formed instead of ettringite. Thus, in concrete undergoing external sulf ate attack, gypsum may be found closer to the surface of the concrete than ettringite The following zones may be recognized in a cement paste that is experien cing sulfate attack and are illustrated in Figure 2.1 (Skalny et al. 2002)

PAGE 28

9 The original cement paste that is not involved in the corrosion process A zone in which ettringite has been formed in the reaction with monosulfoaluminate; the amount of calcium hydroxide is reduced A zone containing gypsum; calcium hydroxi de is absent, th e C-S-H phase is partially decalcified (formati on of horizontal cracks is preferential in this region) A zone containing the C-S-H phase with a significantly reduced C/S ratio as its main constituent. Limited amounts of su lfate in adsorbed form may also be present. Figure 2.1: Reactions taking place between Portland cement components and magnesium sulfate solution (Ska lny et al. 2002). In regard to the alkali ions that were pr eviously combined with the sulfate ions, these typically migrate into the pore system of the cement paste thereby increasing the alkalinity of the pore solution. This can lead to the undesirable situation in which alkalisilica reaction takes place in a ddition to sulfate attack. The first sign of the attack of alkali sulfat es on concrete is an increase in strength within the affected region. A filling of the existing pores with ettringite causes this increase in strength through densification of the microstr ucture. However, as the formation of ettringite continues the availa ble pore space becomes completely occupied.

PAGE 29

10 Ettringite formation continues and potentia lly damaging expansive forces are generated within the concrete matrix. Often, the first vi sible sign that this damage is occurring is surface scaling of the concrete (Mindess et al. 2003). When evaporation of a pore solution having high alkalinity occurs from the surface of concrete, a crystallization of the salts within that solution will take place. Salt crystallization is primarily referred to as phys ical sulfate attack. As the crystals form, they generate expansive pre ssures, inflicting further damage to the concrete. A particularly bad scenario develops when the crystals come in contact with water, and repeated crystallization is allowed to occur by the following reaction: Na2SO4 + 10H2O (thenardite) Na2SO4 10H2O (mirabilite). This reaction is associated with an increase in solid volume of 315% (Skalny et al. 2002). The appearance of scaling is indicative of serious damage occurring at that location. However, the internal damage can be much more serious than just the scaling at the surface. As the sulfateladen water migrates upward through the concrete, the sulfates continue to attack any hydrated cemen t paste that they come into contact with, thereby inducing microcracking and degrading the mechanical properties of the concrete on the way through (Boyd & Mindess 2004). Consequences of Ext ernal Sulfate Attack External appearance and volume stability A vast amount of research has been conduc ted on the subject of volume instability of concrete exposed to sulfate solutions. Th e American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) has published standard C1012 for m easuring the length change of small specimens subjected to continuous immersion in the test solution, in which prismatic specimens are measured at regular time interval s for changes in length. The test provides

PAGE 30

11 a means of assessing the sulfate resistance of concretes and mortars made using portland cement, blends of portland cement with po zzolans or slags and blended hydraulic cements (ASTM 2001h). Laboratory experiments have shown that the expansion of concrete is typically accompanied by cracking of the hydrated cement paste matrix. Cracking usually begins at the surface of the concrete and moves pr ogressively toward the central portion of the member. It has been found that cracks can be first detected visually when linear expansion of the sample reaches approximately 0.7% (Lagerbald 1999). Studies of field concrete exposed to sulf ate attack have shown that degradation does not result in the sudden fa ilure of the structure. The detrimental action is a progressive process of de terioration that can often lead to collapse or require demolition. Deterioration of concrete in the field has been found to be far more severe for structures that are continuously kept in saturated condi tions. Typical first signs of damage are cracks appearing in the structure. This is especially the case for concrete slabs and footings that are exposed to moist soils cont aminated with sulfates. Such slabs usually fail in buckling, and in some cases, even though the cracks could possibly have been attributed to soil expansion, volume instabilit y often appeared as the primary cause of distress (Skalny et al. 2002). When foo tings or foundations come under attack, the bottom of the footing is almost completely saturated with sulfate-laden groundwater while the upper portion remains exposed and re latively dry. This creates a transport mechanism for the sulfates as they are drawn up into the concrete, permeate upward toward drier regions, and are left behind on or near the surface when the water evaporates. The sulfate transport mechan ism in footings is shown in Figure 2.2.

PAGE 31

12 Evidence of this form of atta ck usually manifests itself as a line of surface scaling just above the grade line (B oyd & Mindess 2004). Figure 2.2: Sulfate transport mechanis m in footings (Boyd & Mindess 2004). Cracking is not the sole c onsequence of sulfate attac k. Other signs of damage include spalling and exfoliation. Almost excl usively, these forms of deterioration are associated with slabs and foundations that ar e directly in contact with sulfate-bearing soils. The presence of efflorescence has often been observed as a first symptom of sulfate attack but may be confused with leaching and carbonation of calcium hydroxide (Haynes et al. 1996). Microstructure of concrete Microscopic examination of concrete samp les experiencing internal or external sulfate attack has shown that the microstr uctural damage varies from one form of degradation to anothe r (Skalny et al. 2002). Damage caused by internal attack tends to be homogenous throughout the entire volume of the concrete. Scanning electr on microscopy has shown that damage of

PAGE 32

13 concrete samples immersed in sulfate soluti on moves progressively inward from the outer surfaces. Damage in layers is not limited to laboratory specimens; slabs exposed to sulfate rich soils show heavier damage on the surface in contact with the sulfates. At the surface of the concrete, high levels of gypsum te nd to be present, while deeper into the concrete, high levels of ettri ngite are found (Ju et al. 1999). Mechanical propertie s of concrete Research on internal sulfate attack has concluded that this form of degradation results in the formation of a network of micr oscopic and macroscopic cracks, but it also contributes to a significant reduc tion in the mechanical propert ies of concrete (Skalny et al. 2002). The effect of internal sulfate at tack on the volume stability and compressive strength of a series of mo rtars is shown in Figure 2.3. Figure 2.3: Effect of cement content on stre ngth and expansion of mortars under internal sulfate attack (1.0 ksi x 6.89 MPa) (Ouyang et al. 1998)

PAGE 33

14 As shown in Figure 2.3, the compressive st rength relationships exhibit similar behavior trends regardless of cement content, though th e magnitude increases with cement content. Numerous researchers have studied the infl uence of external sulfate attack on the mechanical properties of concrete. Almost all studies have concl uded that along with a reorganization of the internal microstructure of the concrete there is a significant reduction in the materials strength and elastic modulus (Skalny et al. 2002). The layered damage in concrete resulting from external sulfate attack has often complicated the work of researchers. Fo r this reason, researchers have begun testing relatively small samples in efforts to work on a more homogenous material that exhibits damage that is uniform throughout its volume. This explains why recent studies have focused on mortar sample s (Skalny et al. 2002). Figure 2.4 shows typical laborator y results related to the e ffect of sulfate attack on the compressive strength of mortar mixtures, while Figur e 2.5 shows the effect of sulfate attack on the tensile strengths of mortar mixtur es. For both situations, it can be seen that immersion in sulfate solution initially result s in an increase in strength, though a rapid drop in strength follows this initial strength gain. Time zero in both plots refers to the time that concrete was immersed in the conditio ning solution. The early increase can be attributed to hydration effects and densification of the conc rete microstructure through the formation of ettringite. The loss of st rength and rigidity of the material can be attributed to the continued formation of ettringite, which causes expansion and subsequent microcracking as previously disc ussed. It has been found that the loss of strength usually corresponds to an expansion of 0.1% (Ouyang 1989) (Figure 2.6).

PAGE 34

15 Figure 2.4: Variation in cube strength w ith time under the following experimental conditions: distilled water im mersion, immersion in 0.35 M Na2SO4 with-out pH control, and immersion in 0.35 M Na2SO4 solution while maintaining the solution pH at 6, 10 and 11.5 (Brown 1981). Figure 2.5: Comparison of expansion of mortar bars and tensile stre ngth of briquets in 0.15 M solution of Na2SO4 at 22 oC (Thorvaldson et al. 1927).

PAGE 35

16 Figure 2.6: Effect of cement content on stre ngth and expansion of mortars under external sulfate attack (Ouyang et al. 1988). Studies have concluded that external sulfate attack has detrimental effects on concrete in the field as well. It has been found that shear resistan ce and tensile strength of concrete are more sensitive to external sulfate attack than compressive strength. This is because compressive stresses have been found to close up cracks; in particular, if cracks are preferentially formed perpendicular to the direction of loading compression tests will not be a sensitive indicator of inte rnal damage (Boyd & Mindess 2004). Nondestructive Testing Nondestructive testing is rapidly gaining notoriety as a means of evaluating concrete quality. Prior research has usually attempted to correlate the results from NDT to the compressive strength of the concrete in question. More recently, efforts have been made to detect chemical damage in conc rete through nondestructive means. Presented herein is a summary of the nondestructive techniques used for this purpose at the University of Florida.

PAGE 36

17 Rebound Hammer Test The rebound hammer test is used to measure the surface hardness of concrete. Ernest Schmidt developed the test in 1948. Due to its relative ease of use and minimal operating cost, it has become the most wide ly used nondestructiv e testing technique employed worldwide (Malhotra & Carino 2004). The rebound hammer test is described in detail in ASTM standard C805 (ASTM 2002). The test method is typically used to check the uniformity of concrete and in comp aring one concrete against another. It can only be used to obtain an approximate indi cation of concrete strength when a prior correlation exists (Mindess et al. 2003). The main components of a typical re bound hammer include the outer body, the plunger, the hammer mass and the main spring. A latching mechanism is used to lock the hammer mass to the plunger rod, and a slid ing rider to measure the rebound of the hammer mass. The rebound distance is indi cated by the rider and is displayed on an arbitrary scale marked from 10 to 100. Th e operation of a typical rebound hammer is shown in Figure 2.7. A typical test is perfor med by holding the rebound hammer perpendicular to the concrete surface and slowly pushing the body toward the test object. The main spring that connects the hammer mass to the body is st retched. When the spring is stretched to its limit, the latch releases the hammer mass a nd it is then propelled toward the test object with a known energy. Upon impact with the b ack face of the plunger, the mass rebounds.

PAGE 37

18 Figure 2.7: Operation of a rebound hammer (ACI 2003). The rebound distance of the mass is measured by the rider, displayed on the scale, and recorded as the rebound number. The surf ace hardness of the concrete is estimated from this value. Tests performed on hard er surfaces result in longer rebound distances due to an increase in the energy refl ected back to the impinging mass. Despite its apparent simplicity, the rebound hammer test involves complex problems of impact and the associated st ress wave propagation (Neville 1996). The energy absorbed by a concrete sample is rela ted to both its strength and its stiffness. Therefore, it is the combination of concrete strength and stiffness that influences the rebound number (Ferraro 2003). It is necessary to develop a known rela tionship between the strength of the concrete, and the result s of the rebound hammer test. Only then is it possible to make an estimate of concrete strength based on rebound hammer test results. This relationship is

PAGE 38

19 usually established empirically in a laboratory for new concrete. To form the relationship for concrete that is alread y cast-in-place, rebound hammer test s must be performed in the field, and the strength determined from core samples taken adjacent to where the tests were performed (ACI 2003). The results of the test ar e influenced by the following factors (Mindess et al. 2003, Malhotra & Carino 2004) Surface finish of the concrete being tested. Surface and internal moisture conditions of the concrete. Age of the test specimens. Type of cement and coarse aggregate. Temperature. Size, shape, and rigidity of the member. Carbonation. Direction of impact. Generally there exists a correlation betw een the compressive strength of the concrete and the rebound number. However, there is a wide disagreement between researchers as to the accuracy of the strength estimations. Similar relationships between rebound number and flexural strength have also been established, though the scatter inherent in the results is gr eater. Previous research has also attempted to establish a relationship between rebound number and modulus of elasticity. The research showed that no valid correlation could be made be tween the rebound number and static modulus of elasticity unless the rebound hammer was calibrated for each type of concrete. However, empirical relationships have been established between the dynamic modulus of elasticity and rebound number of the c oncrete (Malhotra & Carino 2004). Impact-Echo Method The impact-echo method is used to evalua te the condition of preexisting concrete and masonry structures based on the propaga tion of impact-generated stress (sound)

PAGE 39

20 waves through solid media. When used correctly, the method has achieved incomparable success in pinpointing th e locations and evaluating the exte nt of internal imperfections within many types of solid media, and meas uring the dimensions of the medium being tested. The speed at which impact-echo tests can be performed is far greater than other testing techniques; a single test taking only a fraction of a second to perform. The procedure does not damage the structure being tested in any way whatsoever. Use of the method has led to savings of millions of dolla rs in unnecessary repair and retrofit costs for many types of structures. Development The impact-echo method was invented over a rather short period of time, from 1983-1986, at the United States National Bureau of Standards by Dr. Nicholas J. Carino. Further research and development has since been conducted at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York from 1987 to the present. This research was primarily conducted by Dr. Mary Sansalone, and has lead to the develo pment of many diverse applications of the impact-echo method (Sansalone & Streett 1997). The techniques effectiveness, accuracy, and quickness have all been improved dramatically with advances in analog-todigital data conversion and computer proce ssor speed technologies. The size of the apparatus required to perform basic impactecho testing has also been dramatically reduced, when compared to the original te sting equipment first made commercially available. There have been four major technological advancements since the mid-1980s that have aided the development of the method. The first was the numerical simulation of stress waves in solids using finite element computer models. These models are based on Greens functions, which simulate stresswave propagation in plates. The second

PAGE 40

21 discovery was that the impacts of small st eel ball bearings, typically 4 15 mm in diameter, induce ideal stress waves for the method. The third development was the invention of a transducer that can detect impact generated stress waves. The final key advancement was the use of frequency domain an alysis for signal inte rpretation. This is the determining component in the use of nondest ructive testing as it is very difficult for the human user to interpret the information contained in complicated waveforms. Using a Fourier transform on the time-domain signals makes it possible to graph the waves frequency-domain signal, resulting in a plot of the waves amplitude spectrum (Ferraro 2003). General description The impact-echo method is an evaluati on technique for concrete and masonry structures that is based on low frequency, transient stre ss-wave propagation through solid media. The stress-waves are generated by a shor t-term elastic impact caused by striking the surface of a concrete or masonry structur e with a spherically tipped steel impactor. The stress-waves echo back and forth within the structure and are reflected by internal flaws and/or external surfaces. When the st ress-waves reach the su rface of the medium, a small displacement is generated. On the impact surface, a piezoelectric transducer that is positioned close to the point of impact reco rds these displacements. The displacementtime signals are transferred from the trans ducer to a computer where the data are recorded. These signals are then plotted as a waveform and are converted to the frequency domain allowing plots of wave am plitude versus frequency (spectra) to be generated (Impact-Echo Consultants, Inc. 1998). A schematic illustration, summarizing how the impact-echo method wo rks, is shown as Figure 2.8.

PAGE 41

22 Figure 2.8: The impact-echo method (Sansalone & Streett 1997) The patterns that are displayed in th e waveforms and the spectra are the information sources that give details regard ing the location and the extent of internal flaws or the thickness of the structure. Im pact-echo tests on solid, flaw-free structures produce unique peak distributions within th e waveforms and spectra for each of the geometrical forms that concrete is usually f ound (i.e. plates and colu mns; rectangular, I-, and T-beams, etc.). Any interruption in th ese patterns indicates the presence of an internal defect within the structure (Impact-Echo Consultants, Inc. 1998). Resonant vibrations within the medium are generated by multiple reflections of the stress waves between the internal flaws a nd/or the external surfaces and the impact surface. These resonances can easily be recogn ized in the frequency spectra, and are then used to calculate the depth of the internal flaw or the th ickness of the medium being tested (Sansalone & Streett 1997).

PAGE 42

23 Basic principles Impact-Echo is based on the use of transi ent stress waves that are created by shortterm elastic impacts. A momentary mechan ical impact, generated by striking a concrete or masonry surface with a small spherical steel ball, propagates low-frequency stress waves through the solid medium. These st ress waves reflect off of the interfaces represented by internal flaws and/or extern al surfaces of the structure (Impact-Echo Consultants, Inc. 1998). There are three primary modes of stress wa ve propagation through isotropic, elastic media: dilatational, distortional and Rayleigh waves. Dilatational and distortional waves, more commonly referred to as compression a nd shear waves, or Pand Swaves, are characterized by the direction of particle motion with respec t to the direction that the wave front is propagating. In a P-wave, motion is parallel to the di rection of propagation; in the S-wave, motion is perpendicular to the direction of propagation. P-waves can propagate in all types of media; S-waves can propagate only in media with shear stiffness, i.e. only in solids. Where there is a solid/gas interfa ce, Rayleigh waves (Rwaves) can propagate along the interface. When the stress waves are generated by a point source applied normal to the top surf ace of a plate, the resulting Pand S-wave fronts are spherical and the Rwave front is circular (San salone & Carino 1986). Figure 2.9 illustrates the typical relations hip between stress wave types.

PAGE 43

24 Figure 2.9: Typical wave propagation through a cross section of a solid (Carino 2001) Significance of P-waves P-waves can either be compressional wave s (particle motion is outward along the wave front) or tensional waves (particle motion is inward along wave front). The initial impact-generated P-wave is a compression wave. When the compression wave reaches the bottom of the concrete slab or encounters an internal fl aw such as a void, crack, or delamination, it is reflected as a tension wave. The arrival of the tension wave at the impact surface produces a small downward displ acement. The tension wave is reflected from the impact surface as a compression wave and the cycle begins again. The progress of the P-wave from the impact surface to the bottom surface and back again represents one cycle of P-wave reflection. A piezoelectric transducer that can detect small displacements normal to the surface is placed a few centimeters from the impact point. It responds to R-waves and reflected P-waves, producing positive voltage signals for upward displacements and negative voltage signals for downward di splacements (Carino 2001). Upon arrival of the P-wave (compression wave) at the transducer, a small upward displacement (positive voltage) is produced. When the R-wave passes by the transducer, a downward displacement (negativ e voltage) is produced. This is most often the part of

PAGE 44

25 the signal with the largest amplitude. Info rmation is provided by the R-wave regarding the duration of the impact, which determines the frequency content of the stress waves that are generated. The arrival of the first reflected Pwave (tension wave) causes a downward displacement and a negative voltage signal. The surface again recovers to its original position and the voltage returns to zero. This process is repeated with each successive Pwave arrival. The amplitude of the signal produced by P-wave arrivals decreases with time due to spreading of the spherical wave front and dissipation of the energy of the propagating stress waves. Conversion of a waveform to a frequency spectrum The multiple reflections of the P-wave from the top and bottom surfaces of a plate give the displacement response a periodic char acter. In finite solids containing flaws, reflections occur from multiple interfaces. When this occurs, time domain waveforms can become very difficult to understand as the wave patterns become extremely complicated. To simplify matters, wavefo rms are usually converted from the time domain to the frequency domain where resona nt frequencies become dominant peaks in the amplitude spectra. These frequencies can be used to pinpoint the location of the each interface (Sansalone & Carino 1986). The conversion of the waveform from the time domain to the frequency domain is based on the concept that any waveform can be depicted as a combination of sinusoidal curves, with each of these curves having a particular amplitude and frequency. This transformation is executed using a numerical procedure known as a Fourier transform. Because waveforms generated by impact-echo tests consist of digitized arrays of voltage

PAGE 45

26 versus time, the Fourier transform is perfor med using an advanced numerical technique called a fast Fourier transform or FFT (Sansalone & Carino 1986). In Figure 2.10a, the confusing waveform b ecomes far easier to interpret after being converted to its corresponding frequency domain (Figure 2.10b). Figure 2.10: Example of frequency analysis using the fast Fo urier transform (a) frequency distribution, (b) correspon ding amplitude spectrum (Carino 2001) Measurements using the impact-echo method ASTM Standard Practice, C-1383-98 outlin es the methods for determination of P-wave speed, plate thickness, and flaw depth (ASTM 2001i). P-wave speed The speed of a P-wave can be directly measured by placing two piezoelectric transducers a known distance ap art and then measuring the time required for the P-wave to travel between them. Both transducers ar e controlled by the same clock in the data acquisition system, making it possible to measur e the elapsed time betw een the arrival of a stress wave at the first transducer and its ar rival at the second transducer. The impactor must be positioned to strike along the cen terline passing through the two transducers (Impact-Echo Consultants, Inc. 1998). Measur ement of P-wave speed is shown in Figure 2.11.

PAGE 46

27 Figure 2.11: Set-up for P-wave speed measurement (Impact-Echo Consultants, Inc. 1998) Plate thickness After having measured the P-wave speed independently between two transducers, impact-echo tests can be used to determine th e thickness of concrete plates. The theory for measuring the plate thickness is based on the basic concepts of frequency analysis, already discussed. The impact-generated P-wave propagates back and forth (echoes) between the external surfaces of the concrete plate. Each time that the P-wave arrives at the impact surface, there is a unique displacement pr oduced, thus making the waveform periodic, with a period equal to the interval between successive P-wave arrivals. This time interval is simply the distance traveled twice the plate thickness, divided by the P-wave speed. The frequency is equal to the inverse of th e period (Impact-Echo Consultants Inc. 1998). Flaw depth For it to be possible to measure the depth of a flaw, the P-wave speed must first be known, thus making it possible to determine the period of reflection. When considering a solid slab with an internal flaw, the response is similar to that of a solid slab, but the time interval between P-wave arrivals is shorter.

PAGE 47

28 Note the difference between the periods of the two waveforms and the peaks in the frequency spectra in Figure 2.12; the period for the flawed specimen is much smaller than the specimen that is free of imperfections, and the frequency for the flawed specimen is displaced to the right. The depth of the flaw is determined using the same procedure as for plate thickness; the only di fference being that the period is now equal to the distance traveled to the flaw (instead of the distance traveled to the opposite surface) divided by the speed of the P-wave. Figure 2.12: Comparison of P-wave responses from a flawless slab and a cracked slab (Impact-Echo Consultants, Inc. 1998) This is a very useful application, as it de termines the exact loca tion of any internal imperfections in the structure, to an accuracy of three percent, without having to perform any destructive testing, such as coring, to permit visual inspection of the structure = s interior (Impact-Echo Consultants Inc. 1998).

PAGE 48

29 Limitations of flaw depth measurements The Impact-Echo technique has achieved re markable success in locating flaws and determining their extent within concrete a nd masonry structures. However, in some cases, the method is unable to tell exactly wh at type of flaw is present (i.e. a crack, a void, or a delamination, etc.). A crack or void within a concrete structure forms a concrete/air interface. The responses from cracks and voids are similar, because stress waves are reflected from the first concrete/a ir interface encountered. Thus a crack at a certain depth will give the same response as a void whose upper surface (nearest to the impact surface) is at the same depth (Im pact-Echo Consultants, Inc. 1998). An illustration of this phenomenon is provided as Figure 2.13. Figure 2.13: Comparison of P-wave responses from a void and a crack at the same depth (Impact-Echo Consultants, Inc. 1998) Another major limitation that needs to be considered when performing impact-echo tests is that the energy of the stress wave (a nd thus the amplitude of the particle motion) decreases primarily as a result of wave reflection and mode conversion (compressional waves changing to tensional waves) at each interface between dissi milar media. To counteract this problem, depending on the si tuation, impactors of different sized diameters can be implemented. The larger th e diameter of impactor used, the higher the energy of the stress wave that is generated. To locate flaws at shallow depths, a small impactor that produces a low energy stress wave is preferable. However, due to

PAGE 49

30 attenuation of the wave energy, the stre ss wave is unable to locate deep-seated imperfections. In this case, an impactor with a larger diameter (which generates a high energy stress wave) is best used, as the energy will not be dissipated before it has reached the deep internal flaw. Large impactors cannot always be used, as the stress waves that they generate are not completely reflected by small interfaces that are commonly present at small and/or shallow imperfec tions (Sansalone & Carino 1986). Summary The impact-echo method is a very fast, e fficient, and reliable method for locating internal flaws and measuring the depth of fl aws, and for establis hing the thicknesses of solid media for which access to both sides is not available. According to ASTM, Impact-echo may eventually substitute for core drilling to establish thickness of slabs, pavements and other plate structures (Ferraro 2003). Efforts have also been made to establish relationships between the compressi ve strength of concrete and the P-wave velocity. It was found that at lower velocities, the velo city increased rapidly when compared to the rate of strength gain, while at later ages the velocity did not increase as rapidly with increased strength. Factors affecting the relati onship between P-wave speed and compressive strength include: curing temp eratures, coarse aggregate content, and water-cement ratio. To date th ere has been no research relati ng effect of air content on wave speed. The method has also been used to measure the setting time of concrete by measuring the development of P-wave velo city and relating it to the setting time measured by penetration resistance. The re lationship between comp ressive strength and P-wave speed is specific to a particular mix design, and the relationship must be established between concrete strength and th e in-place test values (Pessiki & Carino 1988).

PAGE 50

31 Resonant Frequency Powers first developed the re sonant frequency method in 1938. He established that the resonant frequency of concrete could be matched to the musical tones produced by tapping the specimens with a hammer (Malho tra & Carino 2004). Over time, the method has evolved, and electronic equipment is now available for the measurement of resonant frequency. Theory An important property of any elastic material is its natural fre quency of vibration. This property can be related to the materials density and dynamic modulus of elasticity. Though the relationships for resonant fre quency were origina lly established for homogenous media, it has been found that the me thod can also be applied to concrete if the specimens being tested are large in relation to their constituent materials (Malhotra & Carino 2004). Past studies have discovered mathema tical relationships between a specimens shape and its resonant frequency. For a cylindrical specimen, Youngs modulus of elasticity can be calculated from the fundame ntal frequency of vibration of a specimen according to Equation 2.1 (Malhotra & Carino 2004). 2 4 2 4 24 k m d N L E (2.1) Where E = Youngs dynamic modulus of elasticity d = density of the material L = length of the specimen N = fundamental flexural frequency

PAGE 51

32 k = the radius of gyration about the bending axis m = a constant (4.73) Test methods ASTM published a standard in 1985 governi ng this method, entitled Standard Test Method for Fundamental Transverse, Longit udinal, and Torsional Frequencies of Concrete Specimens. The procedure dete rmines the resonant frequency via two methods; the forced resonance method and the impact resonance method (ASTM 2001d). Test equipment for the forced resonance method is commercially available, simple to use, and works for a wide variety of speci men geometries. The forced resonance test method is the more commonly used of the two procedures and is the procedure that was used for testing at the University of Florid a. For this method, a vibration generator is used to cause vibration in the concrete sp ecimen. A vibration pickup transducer is coupled to the specimen. As the frequency of the driver is varied, the peak amplitude reading on a voltage indicator is discerned and the frequency used to generate that peak is considered to be the resonant frequency of the specimen. Care must be exercised to distinguish harmonics from the resonant freque ncy. A typical setup for a forced vibration resonant frequency test is shown in Figure 2.14. The driver is coupled to the right side of the specimen while the vibration sensor is coupled to the left. Limitations of resonant frequency Typically, data from the resonant freque ncy method is used in an attempt to estimate the compressive strength of concrete, when in fact the property being measured is the dynamic modulus of elasticity. A vast amount of laboratory testing has shown that compressive strength and modulus of elasticity cannot be dir ectly linked. When concrete

PAGE 52

33 Figure 2.14: Typical forced vibrati on resonant frequency test setup. strength is estimated from resonant frequenc y testing, there are two sources of error that exist, the first being a consid erable amount of experimental error inherent in the test method (Malhotra & Carino 2004). The second source of error is the assumption that must be made when calculating compressive strength from dynamic modulus data, since the relationship between the two quantities is not absolute. This problem can also be shown graphically in Figure 2.15. The figur e shows the relationship between dynamic modulus of elasticity and compressive strength; note th e error is estimated to be 10%. This margin of error assumes that the actua l measurements from the resonant frequency test have no error associated with them at all, when in fact the opposite is true. In reality, the graph should display an uncertainty that is greater than 10% (Ferraro 2003). Figure 2.15: Dynamic modulus of elasticity versus compre ssive strength (Malhotra & Carino 2004).

PAGE 53

34 Regardless as to whether the dynamic modulus or compressive strength of concrete can be calculated resonant fr equency is an effective tool for detecting change in a material. When used as a monitoring tec hnique, resonant frequency can be used to measure qualitative changes in a material. Due to the confounding effect of boundary conditions and the inherent pr operties of concrete, testing is usually performed on small specimens in a laboratory rather than on full-sc ale structures in the field. Specimen shape also becomes a problem, as the calculations for dynamic elastic modulus involve shape factor corrections. This limits the geometry of specimens to prismatic or cylindrical, unless new shape factors are derived for other geometries. If the specimens deviate from these shapes, the correction calculations can become quite complicated (Malhotra & Carino 2004). Regardless, it still remains pos sible to monitor specimens for changes in material property regardless of their shape. Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Test The ultrasonic pulse velocity test has been used for more than 60 years to evaluate the quality of concrete. This technique has been used to (Qasrawi & Marie 2003) Check the uniformity of concrete. Detect cracking and voi ds inside concrete. Control the quality of conc rete and concrete products by comparing results to a similarly made concrete. Monitor the condition and de terioration of concrete. Detect the depth of a surface crack. Determine the strength if previous data are available. The ultrasonic pulse velocity test is pu rely nondestructive in nature in that the procedure uses mechanical waves resulting in no damage whatsoever to the concrete.

PAGE 54

35 Repeated tests at the same location are possible, making it suitable for monitoring concrete for internal cha nges over long periods of time (Malhotra & Carino 2004). However, compared to the rebound hammer te st, it has been found that the ultrasonic pulse velocity test is less re liable in predicting concrete strength when the concrete constituents are not known (Qasrawi 2000). Instrumentation The ultrasonic pulse velocity apparatus used at the University of Florida is shown in Figure 2.16. The instrument consists of mechanisms for generating and introducing a stress wave into the concrete (pulse generator and transducer), detecting the arrival of the pulse (receiver) at a separate point, and accu rately measuring the elapsed time taken for the pulse to travel through the medium (Malhotra & Carino 2004). Portable testing apparatuses are commercially available worldwide. The equipment is lightweight, easy to use, and allows for ra pid testing (Qasrawi 2000). Figure 2.16: A portable ultrasonic testing apparatus used at the University of Florida ASTM has published standard C597 as the recommended test procedure to determine the propagation veloci ty of a pulse of vibrationa l energy through a concrete

PAGE 55

36 member (ASTM 2001g). The operational princi ple of modern testing equipment is illustrated in Figure 2.17. Figure 2.17: Pulse velocity test circuit (ASTM 2001g) Principles of the test The basic concept on which the test procedur e is founded is that the pulse velocity of a compression wave through a medium de pends on the elastic properties and the density of the medium being tested, as show n in Equation (2.2). The experiment shown in Figure 2.18 is a typical test being perf ormed according to ASTM C597-97 at the University of Florida. t L V (2.2) where: V = compression wave pulse velocity L = distance

PAGE 56

37 t = transit time Figure 2.18: Ultrasonic pulse velocity test procedure. The experiment shown in Figure 2.18 provide s the user with a quantitative result. The pulse velocity, V, of stress waves through a concrete mass is related to its physical properties (ASTM 2001g). It is a function of Youngs Modulu s of Elasticity E, the mass density and Poissons Ratio The relevant equation fo r wave speed is shown in Equation 2.3: ) 2 1 )( 1 ( ) 1 ( E V (2.3) A compressional wave sent through the c oncrete experiences scattering at the interface between aggregate particles and hydrat ed cement paste. By the time the wave front arrives at the receiving transducer it has been transformed into a complex waveform containing compression waves and shear waves that have been reflected multiple times (Malhotra & Carino 2004). In order to transmit or receive a pulse, the transducers must be in complete contact with the medium being tested. Often, completely smooth concrete surfaces that are ideal for pulse velocity testing are difficult or impo ssible to find. To overcome this obstacle, and eliminate small air pockets that can ex ist between the concrete and transducer, a

PAGE 57

38 coupling agent is necessary. The coupling agen t is spread in a th in layer between the transducer and the concrete to fill such air voids. Testing configurations There are three possible configurations in which the transducers can be arranged for the pulse velocity test. These arrangements are illustrated in Figure 2.19 (a) to (c). The direct transmission arrangement shown in Figur e 2.19 (a) is the most desirable since the maximum energy of the transmitted pulse is re ceived. The other configurations, while still valid for testing, are not as desirable as the direct transmission method. Problems exist in the semi-direct transmission method w ith attenuation of th e waves and with the indirect surface method with weaker wave amplitudes. Another problem with the indirect surface method is that the waves typi cally travel through the concrete near the surface of the concrete, which quite often has a higher content of cement paste and fine aggregate than the concrete further from the su rface. This tends to make the waves travel slower through the full concrete mass, and t hus the tests are performed on an area of concrete that may not be representative of the entire sample (Malhotra & Carino 2004).

PAGE 58

39 Figure 2.19: Pulse velocity measurement c onfigurations. (a) Direct method. (b) Semi-direct method. (c) Indirect surface method. (Malhotra & Carino 2004) Factors affecting pulse velocity The pulse velocity through concrete is dependent on many different factors (Mindess et al. 2003, Ohdaira & Ma suzawa 2000, Malhotra & Carino 2004) Contact surface smoothness: good contact is needed between the transducers and concrete to ensure a good pulse velocity reading. Path length: as the path length increases, the pulse velocity decreases. Temperature: the pulse velocity is unaffected between ambient temperatures of 40oF to 85oF. Moisture content: pulse velocity and transmission of frequency decreases approximately linearly with a decrease in moisture content. Reinforcing steel: the presence of steel bars will tend to increase the pulse velocity, as the compression wave travels much fa ster through steel th an through concrete. Concrete strength: lower strength concretes typically exhibit lower pulse velocities than do higher strength concretes. Aggregate size, grading, type and content: pulse velocity is lower in cement paste than aggregate, and a concrete with a high aggregate content has a higher pulse velocity than does a concrete with a low aggregate content.

PAGE 59

40 Cement type: type of cement does not have an effect on pulse velocity, but rate of hydration does. At early ages, concrete w ith a rapid rate of hydration will have a higher pulse velocity than will a concre te with a low rate of hydration. Water-to-cement (W/C) ratio: as the w/ c ratio increases the pulse velocity decreases. Admixtures: air entrainment does not ha ve a marked effect on the concrete; accelerators or retarding agents that affect the rate of hydration will increase or decrease the early age puls e velocity respectively. Size and shape of specimen: in most instances, pulse velocity is not affected by the size or shape of the specimen. However, the transducer frequency may not always be suitable for a given path length being tested; a low frequency transducer is ideal for a short path length, while a high fre quency transducer is suitable for long path lengths. Level of stress; when the concrete being te sted has been subjected to loads of about 65% or more of its ultimate strength microc racks appear in the concrete that will serve to reduce the pulse velocity considerably. Applications Use of the ultrasonic pulse velocity method has been su ccessful in the laboratory and in the field to estimate concrete strength, to establish concrete homogeneity, and to determine dynamic modulus of elasticity, as we ll as many other applic ations not relevant to this research project. Estimation of concrete strength Although there is no physical relationship be tween pulse velocity and strength, the pulse velocity method may be used to estimat e the strength of bot h precast and in-situ concrete. In order to make an estimati on of strength, a pre-established graphical relationship between the two parameters is necessary. An example of one such relationship is shown in Figure 2.20. The re lationship between veloci ty and strength is unique to a particular concrete mix design, and is affected by the factors previously discussed, particularly the age and degree of hydration.

PAGE 60

41 Figure 2.20: Example strength versus velocity relationship for estimation of strength of concrete (Malhotra & Carino 2004). Estimation of concrete homogeneity The ultrasonic pulse velocity test me thod is a good tool for evaluating the homogeneity of concrete, thus making it a good tool for assessing the quality of the concrete. Heterogeneity has been described as deterioration of the concrete, internal voids, honeycombing, internal cracking, and vari ation in the proportions of the mixture. These anomalies will cause variations in the pulse velocity (ACI 2003). Typically, when used for quality control pur poses, a grid pattern is established and measurements are taken to assess the variation in elastic modulus. Tests of this nature are usually performed to calculate the density of the concrete, thereby evaluating the uniformity of consolidation, to locate ar eas of honeycombed concrete due to poor consolidation, or to lo cate internal cracks and voi ds (Malhotra & Carino 2004). Durability of concrete Past research has shown that the ultrasoni c pulse velocity method can be used to detect damage caused in aggres sive environments. Such dama ge can be caused by cycles

PAGE 61

42 of freezing and thawing, sulfat e attack, alkali-silica reactivity, or corrosion of items embedded in the concrete. All will cause a decr ease in the measured pulse velocity. As the deterioration grows worse due to prolonged exposure, the pulse ve locity will continue to decrease, thus allowing for monitoring of the concrete over time to assess deterioration by performing repeated tests at the same loca tions (Malhotra & Cari no 2004). It has been found that the sensitiv ity of ultrasound to degradation is improved when the wavelength of the pulse is comparable to the thickness of the damage. The effect of degradation on concrete acoustic parameters was evidenced for P-waves, S-waves, and R-waves; decreased wave velocity and attenuation of th e signal was observed for all three types of waves (Ould Naffa et al. 2002). Dynamic modulus of elasticity A compression waves velocity through an el astic material is defined by the elastic constants and density of the material in Equa tion (2.3), which was previously defined. Thus, when the pulse velocity has been measur ed, and when the values for Poissons ratio and density are known or assumed, it is po ssible to calculate the dynamic modulus of elasticity. The pulse velocity test has an advantage over other vibrational test methods used to calculate the dynamic m odulus of elasticity, such as res onant frequency, in that it is insensitive to size and shape restrictions. Much research has been conducted on th e capability of ultrasonic testing to determine the modulus of elasticity, and th e conclusions are that the method is not usually recommended for this pur pose. The reasons for this are that there is a large error associated with the estimation of Poissons ratio, and Equation (2.3) is suitable for homogenous materials only, which concrete is not. Typically when used to estimate the dynamic modulus, results garnered from ultras onic testing are highe r than those obtained

PAGE 62

43 from vibrational techniques, even when th e Poissons ratio is known (Malhotra & Carino 2004). Limitations of the test The ultrasonic pulse velocity is a very effective means for evaluating concrete for many properties. However, many research ers have recommended against using the method for estimation of ultimate strength in compression and/or flexure in the absence of a previously established correlation betw een pulse velocity and the ultimate strength value being estimated. Combined Methods The term combined method refers to the use of one nondestructive testing technique to improve the reliability and precision of another in evaluating a property of concrete. By combining results from multip le in-place test methods, a multi-variable correlation can be used to estimate concrete strength. The basic idea is that if the methods are influenced in different ways by th e same factor, their combined use results in a canceling effect that tends to improve th e accuracy of the estimation (ACI 2003). However, the use of combined methods is usua lly only justifiable if a reliable correlation for a particular type of concrete is devel oped prior to testing (M alhotra & Carino 2004). Of all the nondestructive testing tech niques that are used, the most common combination is that of the surface hardness me thod and the ultrasonic pulse velocity test. This combination has resulted in strength re lationships with lower coefficients of variance than when the methods are used on their own (ACI 2003). In the majority of cases, the difference between the estimated strength values and the values obtained from destructive testing was in the order of 5% (Malhotra & Carino 2004).

PAGE 63

44 The usual objective of combined testing is to evaluate the compressive strength of in-situ concrete. The general approach is to develop a correlation between pulse velocity, rebound hammer readings, and compressive stre ngth of standard laboratory specimens. When testing concrete of suspect composition in the field, it is advantageous to have such a prior relationship established. However, in many instances this is not possible and cores must be taken to establish the relationship (Malhotra & Carino 2004). Combined methods can also be used for pur poses other than strength evaluation. The most common are monitoring the rate of strength gain or eval uating variations in strength between concrete batches mixed to the same proportions. The only standardized test method for the us e of combined testing techniques is the SONREB method published by Runion Internati onale des Laboratoires et Experts des Matriaux (RILEM). RILEM Committee TC 43 suggested a general relationship between concrete compressive strength, rebound number, and ultrasonic pulse velocity in accordance with the recommendations for I n-situ concrete strength estimation by combined nondestructive methods in 1983, a nd this forms the basis of the technique (Malhotra & Carino 2004). The nomogram shown in Figure 2.21 is used to estimate the compressive strength of concrete when th e ultrasonic pulse velocity and rebound hammer number is known.

PAGE 64

45 Figure 2.21: Strength curves for reference concrete in the SONREB method (Malhotra & Carino 2004). A series of correction coefficients, devel oped for a specific concrete grade and type are then applied to improve the accuracy of the prediction made by the nomogram. The following coefficients are used: Cc = coefficient of influence of cement type Cd = coefficient of influence of cement content Ca = coefficient of influence of petrological aggregate type Cg = coefficient of influence of aggreg ate fine fraction (less than 0.1 mm) Co = coefficient of influence of maxi mum size of aggregate (Facaoaru 1984). The accuracy of the estimated strength is considered to be (Malhotra & Carino 2004) 10 to 14% when the correl ation relationship is developed with known strength values of cast specimens and when the composition is known. 15 to 20% when only the composition is known.

PAGE 65

46 Advantages and limitations Most of the limitations that are applicable to the rebound hammer test also apply to the ultrasonic pulse velocity test. Hence, these limitations are likely to affect the reliability, reproducibility, and sensitivity of the results obtained using a combined method. However, situations exist where the opposite is true and va riations in concrete properties have an opposite effect on the resu lts of each component te st, in which case the errors can be self-correcting. An example is the moisture content of concrete; when a concrete specimen has a high moisture cont ent, the rebound number is lower, while the pulse velocity is higher, and when the mois ture content is low, the rebound number is higher, and the pulse velocity is lower. Surface treatments such as hardeners and curing regimes tend to affect rebound hammer readings while liquid surface treatments have little effect. Pulse velocity results are for the most part unaffected by these fact ors. The strength of concretes containing superplasticizing admixtures, however, tend to be higher than those predicted by the combined method technique (Malhotra & Carino 2004). Applications When applying combined techniques to ev aluate in-situ concrete, the extent of strength variation between upper and lower parts of a structural element is of importance. Also of importance is the orientation in wh ich the cores are taken from the structure. Cores that are drilled horizontally, generally gi ve lower strength values than cores drilled vertically at the same location (Malhotra & Carino 2004). Once the cores have been destructively tested, and a co rrelation has been made, a large number of nondestructive tests can be performed at a re latively low cost, having no eff ect on the structural integrity of the concrete, and an estimation of the strength can be made.

PAGE 66

47 Prior research has shown that the primary influences on the accuracy and reliability of strength estimates are aggregate type and the form of the multiple regression equation. Non-linear correlation relationships have been shown to provide more accurate estimates (Malhotra & Carino 2004). When a reliable relationship has been estab lished for a particular concrete type, the use of combined nondestructive test tec hniques provides a valid alternative to conventional methods of dest ructive testing. Often it is possible to perform a representative number of tests at a reduced cost when compar ed with coring, while at the same time having no adverse effect on the stru ctural integrity of the concrete (Qasrawi 2000). Pressure Tension Test The pressure tension test is a relatively new application that is used to evaluate the tensile strength of concrete. Develo ped originally by the Building Research Establishment in the United Kingdom, prior re search has shown that the test method is capable of providing consistent results in a much easier fashion than other standardized tensile tests (Bremner et al. 1995). The pressure tension test is an alternative to the most commonly used procedure, the splitting tensil e test according to ASTM C496. However, it has yet to be recognized by any standardizing agency. The pressure tension test is performed on a standard concrete cylinder. A specimen is inserted into a specially designed pre ssure vessel, which allows for nitrogen gas pressure to be applied to its curved su rface. The concrete is subjected to an asymmetrically applied compressive stress us ing the nitrogen gas as a loading medium. Though not readily apparent through direct observation, the end re sult is that the concrete is subjected to a direct tensile pressure.

PAGE 67

48 The test was first discovered by accident by Bridgman in 1912. He struggled to form an explanation as to why, when the lo ad applied to the concrete appeared to be compressive in nature, the cylinder fails in a tensile manner. He formed an explanation as follows (Clayton & Grimer 1979). Application of axisymmetric pressure to a cylindrical specimen is equivalent to a hydrostatic pressure applied to the specimen pl us an applied axial te nsile stress of the same value. A graphical explanation of th is phenomenon is shown in Figure 2.22. There are two ways of looking at the figure. The fi rst is to consider the hydrostatic pressure shown as the atmospheric pressure, and thus constant. An increase in axisymmetric pressure is identically equal to an increase in axial tensile stress (this is the way in which the tensile stress is increased for a pressure te nsion test). The othe r way of looking at the figure is that if the axisymmetr ic pressure is held constant then a decrease in hydrostatic pressure results in an increase in axial tensile strength. A schematic diagram of the testing apparatus is shown in Figure 2.23. The internal pore pressure of the concrete counteracts the external gas pressure that is applied to the curved surface of the sample The success of the test is dependent on the ends of the sample. The ends protrude outsi de the pressure chamber as shown in Figure 2.23. Leakage is prevented from the chamber by using rubber O-rings. The induced pore pressure acts in all directions, while the nitrogen gas pressure onl y acts on the curved surface of the specimen. Because of this, the sp ecimen is subjected to uniaxial tension, as shown previously in Figure 2.22. The pressu re developed inside the chamber is recorded as the tensile strength of the concrete by a pressure transducer attached to a computer.

PAGE 68

49 Figure 2.22: Bridgmans explanation of th e diphase concept (Clayton & Grimer 1979) Figure 2.23: Pressure tension experime nt details (Clayton & Grimer 1979) Prior Research. Work has been done over the pa st decade by a small group of researchers to further advance the test method. It has been found that the tensile strength values yielded by the pressure tension met hod tend to be higher than results garnered

PAGE 69

50 from other test procedures (Bremner et al 1995). Reasons for this have yet to be explained, but will be addressed later. Research by Boyd and Mindess found that re sults for specimens exposed to sulfates showed a downward trend in tens ile strength. Ratios were calculated between the results yielded by the pressure tension test and the compression test. A negative trend in this ratio was indicative that the tensile strength was dropping fa ster than the compressive strength (Boyd & Mindess 2004). The tensile strength results yielded by the pressure tension test were shown to be more sensitive to early stages of deteriora tion caused by sulfate attack than compressive strength test results; the te nsile strength was shown to dr op at an early age, while the compressive strength was shown to stil l be increasing (Boyd & Mindess 2004). Specimens that were subjected to sulfat e attack showed a significant amount of variation when compared to the control spec imens (i.e. the variability increased as the damage grew worse). Observations were made that the failure planes in the specimens damaged by sulfates were almost exclusivel y immediately above the immersion line at earlier ages but following prolonged exposure, the concrete became weaker in the high sulfate exposure region below the i mmersion line (Boyd & Mindess 2004). The research concluded that the pressure tension test is more applicable to the detection and evaluation of damage inflic ted on concrete by sulfate attack than compressive strength testing. As such, the test procedure is a useful tool in the evaluation of damaged concrete at earlie r ages (Boyd & Mindess 2004). Other test procedures have been proposed for testing concrete in direct tension, such as the one by Zheng at the University of Hong Kong (Zheng et al. 2001). Most have

PAGE 70

51 involved a way of imposing tens ile stress on concrete specim ens by way of gripping the ends of the samples in one fashion or anothe r. In comparison to the pressure tension method, the procedure proposed is far more la bor intensive in that each specimen requires a lengthy preparation period and thus ma y not be as economically viable.

PAGE 71

52 CHAPTER 3 EXPERIMENTAL SETUP Test Specimens The original proposal called for a compre hensive laboratory-testing program that focused on appropriately conditioning conc rete materials to simulate damage mechanisms of interest and performing destru ctive testing to accelerate any load related damage mechanisms. One of the most se vere and widespread forms of chemical deterioration is sulfate attack, which was thus chosen for use in this project. It was decided that the best way to simulate sulfate attack on concrete footings was to cast concrete specimens replicating these footings and immerse them in a solution of 5% sodium sulfate. This would reproduce as closely as possible the sulfate attack mechanism that a concrete footing is exposed to in sulfate rich soil with a high water table. Concrete was destructively tested in th ree different modes; compressive strength according to ASTM C39, splitting tensile strength according to ASTM C496, and pressure tensile strength as previously described in Chapter 2 (ASTM 2001a, ASTM 2001f). The concrete blocks were fabricated, conditioned for a predetermined period of time, removed from their solution, and cored. Cores were centered at three levels: as close to the bottom of the block as possi ble (centered approximately 50 mm from the bottom face), at the immersion line (approxi mately 150 mm from the bottom), and close to the top of the block (approxi mately 435 mm from the bottom).

PAGE 72

53 For each test, three cores were required at each level, thus for each test specimen twenty-seven cores were necessary nine at each level. To obta in nine cores at each level, a block at least 1200 mm in length would have b een necessary. Blocks of this size would have been very large, heavy, and difficult to manage in a laboratory setting, so it was instead decided to cast two identical blocks and condition them in exactly the same manner. Blocks having dimensions of 900 mm (length) x 485 mm (height) x 240 mm (width) were cast. Minor differences in dimensions between blocks were noted and accounted for during experimentation. The blocks weighed approximately 240 kg each. Using blocks of this size also allowed for an extra set of three cores at each level to be obtained as spare samples. Figure 3.1 show s a diagram of core locations on a typical block. The gridlines shown on the block are for nondestructive tomography testing and will be explained in Chapter 6. Figure 3.1: Typical core locations on a block It was also decided to cast a set of ten 200 mm x 100 mm cylinders with each pair of blocks. These cylinders were completely immersed in the conditioning solution to

PAGE 73

54 determine whether the evaporation and crysta llization mechanism typically associated with sulfate attack was of mo re concern than the formation of gypsum and ettringite. The damage inflicted on concrete due to sulfate attack happens over a very long period of time. In order to assess the sensitiv ity of each test in de tecting damage due to sulfate attack, specimens were cast, and destru ctively tested at ages of 28 days, 91 days, 12 months, 18 months, and 24 months. Length change expansion prisms meas uring 25 mm x 25 mm x 250 mm and cubes measuring 50 mm x 50 mm x 50 mm were cast according to ASTM C1012. The expansion prisms were cast along with the twelve-month block specimens. Mixture Design Two different mixture proportions were used, with mixture design based on example designs from the book Design and Control of Concrete Mixtures published by the Portland Cement Association. Mixture A was designed to have a water-to-cement ratio of 0.45; mixture B was designed to ha ve a water-to-cement of 0.65 (Kosmatka & Panarese 1988). These particular mix designs were chosen, as they are typical of mix designs used for residential and commercia l construction. Exact mix proportions are presented in Table 3.1.

PAGE 74

55 Table 3.1: Concrete mixture proportions Mixture Design A B 0.45 W/CM 0.65 W/CM Cement Type I Portland Cement (kg/m3) 507.7 350.3 Water Water (kg/m3) 228.6 228.6 Aggregate Fine aggregate (kg/m3) 855.1 985.7 Coarse Aggregate (kg/m3) 733.4 626.5 Admixtures Adva 100 Superplasticizer (L/m3) 0.8 0 Total (kg/m3) 2324.8 2191.2 Materials used for mixing were cement, coar se aggregate, fine aggregate water, and superplasticizer. The cement was Type I Portland Cement, the coarse aggregate was Florida limestone from the Miami area, and th e fine aggregate was graded concrete sand, all provided by Rinker Materials. The superpla sticizer was Adva 100, provided by Grace Construction Products. Mixing of Concrete All mixing of concrete was performed at the State Materials Office of the Florida Department of Transportation, due to the ava ilability of a pan-type mixer of sufficient capacity to cast the large-scale spec imens needed for this research. In total, 40 concrete blocks were cast ove r a period of six months; 20 blocks were cast from Mixture A and 20 blocks were ca st from Mixture B. Blocks numbered 1 through 16 and 33-36 are from mixture A, while blocks 17 through 32 and 37-40 are from mixture B. Table 3.2 summarizes th e block-numbering scheme, exposure solution, casting date, and age of testing for each bl ock. Summaries of the exact mixture proportions used for each block are included in Appendix A.

PAGE 75

56 Table 3.2: Summary of block identification and conditioning Blocks Exposed to Sulfate Solution Bloc ks Exposed to Lime-Saturated Water Block # W/CM Ratio Date Cast Age at Testing Block # W/CM Ratio Date Cast Age at Testing 1 0.45 1/28/200312 months 3 0.45 1/28/2003 12 months 2 0.45 1/28/200312 months 4 0.45 1/28/2003 12 months 5 0.45 2/6/20033 months 7 0.45 2/6/2003 3 months 6 0.45 2/6/20033 months 8 0.45 2/6/2003 3 months 9 0.45 5/20/20031 month 11 0.45 5/20/2003 1 month 10 0.45 5/20/20031 month 12 0.45 5/20/2003 1 month 13 0.45 6/17/200318 months 15 0.45 6/17/2003 18 months 14 0.45 6/17/200318 months 16 0.45 6/17/2003 18 months 19 0.65 1/21/200312 months 17 0.65 1/21/2003 12 months 20 0.65 1/21/200312 months 18 0.65 1/21/2003 12 months 23 0.65 2/13/20033 months 21 0.65 2/13/2003 3 months 24 0.65 2/13/20033 months 22 0.65 2/13/2003 3 months 25 0.65 6/12/20031 month 27 0.65 6/12/2003 1 month 26 0.65 6/12/20031 month 28 0.65 6/12/2003 1 month 29 0.65 7/10/200318 months 31 0.65 7/10/2003 18 months 30 0.65 7/10/200318 months 32 0.65 7/10/2003 18 months 33 0.45 7/16/200324 months 35 0.45 7/16/2003 24 months 34 0.45 7/16/200324 months 36 0.45 7/16/2003 24 months 37 0.65 7/23/200324 months 39 0.65 7/23/2003 24 months 38 0.65 7/23/200324 months 40 0.65 7/23/2003 24 months For each concrete mix, four blocks were cast, resulting in a total of 10 separate days on which concrete was cast. For the first five mixes, extra concrete cylinder specimens were required for other ongoing test projects at the University of Florida and these cylinders were cast simultaneously with the blocks and companion cylinders. The extra volume required for these cylinders mean t that the volume of concrete needed was more than the capacity of the mixer, so concrete was mixed twice, with two blocks being made from each batch. On the remaining five days of mixing, all four blocks were cast from a single batch of concrete.

PAGE 76

57 The plastic properties of concrete that we re measured included air content, slump, temperature and plastic density, in accord ance with ASTM C231, ASTM C143, ASTM C1064, and ASTM C138 respectively (ASTM 2001e, ASTM 2001c, ASTM 2003, ASTM 2001b). Results of these tests ar e also included in Appendix A. In order to control the mois ture properties of the aggregate, the coarse aggregate was batched into water pervious bags and soak ed in water for a period of no less than one week to ensure full saturation. Before mi xing, the bags were removed and allowed to drain for a period of one hour be fore the aggregate was introd uced into the mixer. The fine aggregate was batched in fabric bags and dried in an oven at 150 degrees Celsius for a period of twenty-four hours. The bags were removed and allowed to cool for at least twenty-four hours before mixing. These a ggregate preparation techniques are the standard procedures used by the State Mate rials Office at the Fl orida Department of Transportation (FDOT) for batching aggregate. Moisture content of the coarse aggregat e was determined by weighing a sample of the material immediately upon removal from wa ter, and then oven drying the sample. This was done periodically betw een batches, and the variance in moisture content of the coarse aggregate was found to vary by no more than 0.1%. As the fine aggregate was oven-dried, the moisture content was nega tive, requiring an abso rption correction of 1.9%. During mixing, all of the coarse and fine aggregate were combined into the mixer and agitated. The portland cement was then added along with the wa ter. The materials were then mixed for a period of three minutes, allowed to sit for three minutes and then

PAGE 77

58 agitated for an additional two minutes. Phot ographs of the mixing process are shown in Figures 3.2 and 3.3. Figure 3.2: Coarse aggregate being added to the concrete mixer at the State Materials Office of the Florida Department of Transportation in Gainesville, FL. Figure 3.3: Mixing Concrete at the State Materials Office of the Florida Department of Transportation in Gainesville, FL.

PAGE 78

59 After mixing, the concrete was dumped th rough a trap door at the bottom of the mixer into a wheeled bin. The bin was reposi tioned close to the block forms, and casting of the specimens was performed. Concrete was placed in the forms in two lifts using shovels and consolidated using a poker vibrator at two lo cations after each lift. At the edge of each specimen, a metal hook was embedded in the concrete to fa cilitate movement of the specimens in the laboratory. A picture of a concrete block that has just been cast is shown in Figure 3.4. Figure 3.4: Concrete block that ha s just been cast into a form. Clamps were placed at the top of the forms to ensure that the sides of the forms did not bulge under the hydraulic pressure exerte d by the concrete. Pl astic was placed on the top surface of the concrete to prevent moisture loss. On the day after mixing, the blocks were loaded onto a flatbed truck and transported back to the materi als laboratory at the University of Florida. Upon arrival, the forms were stripped from the blocks. A layer of epoxy resin was applied to the ends

PAGE 79

60 of the blocks in an effort to prevent wate r ingress through the ends, thereby eliminating three-dimensional effects of chemical damage and thus simulate a finite section of a continuous footing. The epoxy resin was allowed to cure for a period of twenty-four hours before the blocks were immersed in the conditioning tanks The blocks were arbitrarily separated into pairs. One pair of blocks became the control specimens and was exposed to lime-saturated water, while the other pair was exposed to a solution of sodium sulfate at a concentration of 5% by mass. The sulfate solution was changed approximately once per month in an effort to keep the concentration as close to five percent as possible. The depth of immersion was 150 mm, designed to simu late a concrete footing partially buried in sulfate bearing soil. Originally the blocks were placed in individual plastic curing tanks. However, due to problems with leakage very early in the pr oject alternate curing ta nks were constructed out of plywood. The wood was then coated with a fiber reinforced polymer resin to seal the seams and protect the tanks from water in gress and subsequent rotting of the wood. Figure 3.5 shows one of the curing tanks in use.

PAGE 80

61 Figure 3.5: Concrete blocks immers ed in solution in a curing tank In order to remove the blocks from the curing tanks, a special lift was designed and custom built at the University of Florida. This lift is shown in Figure 3.6. Figure 3.6: Lift used for m oving concrete block specimens.

PAGE 81

62 CHAPTER 4 MONITORING OF CHEMICAL DETER IORATION VIA NON DESTRUCTIVE TESTING The objective of the experiment was to study the effects that the exposure of deleterious chemicals has on simulated concrete footings over time. Some of the most aggressive chemicals that attack concrete ar e sulfates salts. Damage caused by sulfates can include Volume expansion Cracking Loss of strength and cohesion Leaching of components of the hydrated cement paste Surface scaling The ultrasonic pulse velocity test was used to measure the speed of sound waves through the concrete according to ASTM C597, while the impact-echo method was used to measure the speed of a sound along the su rface of the concrete according to ASTM C1383. Prior Research A large volume of research has been perf ormed to develop relationships between pulse velocity and compressive strength. A lesser amount of research has been conducted to relate surface wave speed and compressive st rength. An exhaustive search of literature found no relevant research correlating pulse ve locity and surface wave speed. There also exists no research relating chemical damage to concrete with its effect on stress wave velocities in a laboratory setting. On the ot her hand, field studies have suggested that

PAGE 82

63 chemical attack on concrete tends to decrease stress wave velocities as damage worsens. The relationship has yet to be quantified due to a lack of control of the test samples. Methodology The concrete blocks described in Chapter 3 were split into two groups. Half were immersed in a 5% sodium sulfate solution while the other half were immersed in lime-saturated water to act as control specimen s. All of the blocks were immersed to a depth of 150 mm. This depth was held constant throughout the duration of the experiment. Approximately every two week s, the 3 month, 12 month, and 24 month blocks were removed from the conditioning solution and evaluated using the ultrasonic pulse velocity and impact-echo techniques. By partially immersing the blocks, sulfat e attack on concrete footings buried in sulfate rich soil with a high water table was si mulated as closely as possible. Leaving the top portion of the blocks exposed to air result ed in the induction of an evaporation cycle, drawing the sulfates from the solution up into the concrete and allowing it to evaporate out the sides. This is shown graphically in Figure 4.1. Figure 4.1: Sulfate transport mechan ism in footings (Boyd & Mindess 2004).

PAGE 83

64 Testing Procedure The testing regime consisted of regular nondestructive evaluati on of the concrete samples approximately every week until the specimens were six weeks old, and every two weeks thereafter. Blocks 5-8 and 21-24 we re removed from solution at an age of 13 weeks, while blocks 1-4 and 17-20 were remove d at an age of 52 weeks. Blocks 9-12 and 25-28 were removed at an age of 28 da ys but were not monitored using NDT. Nondestructive tests were performed usi ng a James Instruments V-Meter Mark II Ultrasonic pulse velo city meter, and a Germann Inst ruments Docter-1000 Impact-echo testing apparatus. Figures 4.2 and 4.3 ar e photographs of both tests being performed on the block specimens. Figure 4.2: An ultrasonic pulse velocity test being performed at the University of Florida

PAGE 84

65 Figure 4.3: An impact-echo test being pe rformed at the University of Florida Each block was tested at fifteen locati ons. Measurements were taken through the concrete blocks at heights of 75 mm (cen ter of the submerged concrete), 240 mm (slightly above the immersion line), and 405 mm (well above the immersion line). Five locations at each height were tested, four through the concrete widthwise, and one through the concrete lengthwise. Figure 4.4 in dicates the ultrasonic pul se velocity testing locations. Data from all monitoring is summarized in Appendix B. Thirty-seven weeks into the monitoring, salt crystallization and scaling was visually apparent on the specimens exposed to sulfate solution. It was decided then that the pulse velocity at this location was of interest as well. However, it was impossible to measure the pulse velocity in the scaled area due to an inability to form an effective couple between the concrete and the pulse velocity transducers. In an effort to measure the velocity through the concre te at this location, diagonal measurements were made by placing the transducers above and below the scaled area and taking diagonal readings through the section (see Figure 4.4). The average time from the two tests was then

PAGE 85

66 calculated and the width corrected for the ge ometry of the length measurements. From these results, the pulse velocity through the damaged area was estimated. Figure 4.4: Locations of ultrasonic pulse ve locity tests on concrete block specimens Impact-echo surface wave velocity tests were performed at the same heights as the pulse velocity tests. Six tests were performe d per block, two at each level. Only one face was tested per block. At the age of thirty-s even weeks, an additional line of testing was added to the testing regime right at the immersion line at a height of 150 mm. Results and Discussion Relationships were developed between pulse velocity and time, and surface wave speed and time. Graphical representations of the data obtained for the 3-month and 12-month control specimens from Mixture A are shown in Figures 4.5 and 4.6, respectively.

PAGE 86

67 3000 3200 3400 3600 3800 4000 4200 4400 4600 4800 5000 02468101214 Age (Weeks)Wave Speed (m/s) UPV Top UPV Middle UPV Bottom IE Top IE Middle IE Bottom 28 Days91 Days Figure 4.5: Wave speed over time for 3month control block from Mixture A. 3000 3200 3400 3600 3800 4000 4200 4400 4600 4800 5000 01020304050 Age (Weeks)Wave Speed (m/s) UPV Top UPV Middle UPV Bottom IE Top IE Middle IE Bottom 28 Days91 Days365 Days Figure 4.6: Wave speed over time for 12month control block from Mixture A. Figures 4.7 and 4.8 are graphical repres entations of the data obtained for the 3-month and 12-month control specimens from Mixture B, respectively.

PAGE 87

68 3000 3200 3400 3600 3800 4000 4200 4400 4600 4800 5000 02468101214 Age (Weeks)Wave Speed (m/s) UPV Top UPV Middle UPV Bottom IE Top IE Middle IE Bottom 28 Days91 Days Figure 4.7: Wave speed over time for 3month control block from Mixture B. 3000 3200 3400 3600 3800 4000 4200 4400 4600 4800 5000 01020304050 Age (Weeks)Wave Speed (m/s) UPV Top UPV Middle UPV Bottom IE Top IE Middle IE Bottom 28 Days91 Days365 Days Figure 4.8: Wave speed over time for 12month control block from Mixture B. As can be seen from Figures 4.5 through 4.8, wave speeds were lower at higher elevations in the blocks. This trend was evident in every concrete block cast for this experiment, and can be attributed to higher co ncrete densities in the lower parts of the block due to segregation of the coarse aggregate during casting. The coarse aggregate tends to migrate toward the bottom of the bl ock in the formwork while the concrete is

PAGE 88

69 still in a plastic state. This trend is even more evident in Mixture B, which had a higher water-to-cement ratio and was thus a more fluid mixture than Mixture A. All four figures show that the portions of the concrete blocks that were immersed in lime-saturated water had the highest rate of pulse velocity and surface wave-speed increase. This was expected due to th e continued hydration of the concrete and associated increase in strength. Pulse veloc ity and surface wave speeds, at levels above the immersion line, while still increasing, did not increase at the same rate. Up until approximately 13 weeks of age, the pulse velocities and surface wave speeds tended to increase. At that time, the lines tended to plateau and no definitive change was apparent thereafter. This can be attributed to cessation of the hydration process as the proportion of unhydrated cement dwindled. However, the sensitivity of the pulse velocity test as an indicator of change in concrete strength decreases with increasing strength (ACI 2003). Conceivably, the strength of the concrete could have still been increasing, while the pulse velocity test was unable to de tect the change, though this is unlikely at the strength le vels reached in this experiment. The surface wave speed from the impact-echo tests genera lly leveled off at about the same point in time as the pulse velocities did. However, there exists no literature indicating whether there is a si milar effect regarding the sensitivity of the impact-echo test for concretes of increasing strength. This will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 6. When comparing wave velocities and surface wave speeds for blocks from Mixtures A and B, it is evident that the c oncrete from Mixture A tended to have higher wave velocities and surface wave speeds than the concrete from Mixture B. Destructive

PAGE 89

70 tests showed that the concrete from Mixture A was stronger than that from Mixture B in all three modes of failure tested. It can be concluded from this that the concrete from Mixture A had a higher elastic modulus than did Mixture B, and thus had correspondingly higher pul se velocities. It can also be seen that the pulse veloc ity and surface wave speed from the lowest test locations on the blocks match relatively closely, whereas the pulse velocities and surface wave speeds from the middle and uppe r test locations do not. This may be attributed to the uniform curing of the concrete at this location. It is possible that the concrete above the immersion line had some cu ring effects imparted on it as well, due to movement of the conditioning solution upwar d through the concrete, but this is not thought to have had a large effect on either th e wave speeds or the concrete strength. When testing first commenced, pulse ve locities and surface wave speeds were increasing due to hydration effects, densifica tion and strengthening of the concrete. As the rate of hydration slowed down, changes in pulse velocity and surface wave speed followed suit. Changes in surface wave speed and pulse velocity after about 13 weeks of age were for the most part negligible. As expected, at no point in time did the pulse velocities or surface wave speeds show a dow nward trend for the control specimens. This indicated that there was no reason to anti cipate a loss in concrete strength with time. Figures 4.9 and 4.10 are graphical repres entations of pulse velocity and surface wave speed versus time for the 3 mont h and 12 month blocks from Mixture A, respectively.

PAGE 90

71 3000 3200 3400 3600 3800 4000 4200 4400 4600 4800 5000 02468101214 Age (Weeks)Wave Speed (m/s) UPV Top UPV Middle UPV Bottom IE Top IE Middle IE Bottom 28 Days 91 Days Figure 4.9: Wave speed over time for the 3-m onth sulfate-exposed bl ock from Mixture A. 3000 3200 3400 3600 3800 4000 4200 4400 4600 4800 5000 01020304050 Age (Weeks)Wave Speed (m/s) UPV Top UPV Middle UPV Bottom UPV Immersion IE Top IE Middle IE Bottom IE Immersion 28 Days91 Days365 Days Figure 4.10: Wave speed over time for th e 12-month sulfate-exposed block from Mixture A. Figures 4.11 and 4.12 show the relationship between pulse velocity and surface wave speed versus time for the 3 month and 12 month blocks from Mixture B that were exposed to sulfate solu tion, respectively.

PAGE 91

72 3000 3200 3400 3600 3800 4000 4200 4400 4600 4800 5000 02468101214 Age (Weeks)Wave Speed (m/s) UPV Top UPV Middle UPV Bottom IE Top IE Middle IE Bottom 28 Days 91 Days Figure 4.11: Wave speed over time for th e 3-month sulfate-exposed block from Mixture B. 3000 3200 3400 3600 3800 4000 4200 4400 4600 4800 5000 01020304050 Age (Weeks)Wave Speed (m/s) UPV Top UPV Middle UPV Bottom UPV Immersion IE Top IE Middle IE Bottom IE Immersion 28 Days91 Da y s 365 Days Figure 4.12: Wave speed over time for th e 12-month sulfate-exposed block from Mixture B.

PAGE 92

73 Initially, the blocks that were exposed to sulfate solution exhibited similar trends when compared to the blocks immersed in lime-saturated water. Pulse velocities and surface wave speeds increased, and the concrete gained strength. This can be attributed to continued hydration of the concrete. Howeve r, some of the initial strength gain and increase in pulse velocity and surface wave speed must also be attributed to the densification of concrete due to the formation of gyps um and ettringite, and the associated reduction in poros ity of the concrete. Early in the experiment, sulfate crystallizat ion was visible on the concrete blocks at the immersion line. Evidence of this is s hown in Figure 4.13. This crystallization eventually caused surface scaling of the c oncrete. Damage due to scaling was first visible at an age of approximat ely 37 weeks. Physical damage due to scaling can be seen in Figures 4.14 and 4.15. Figure 4.13: Efflorescence is noticeable at the immersion line on blocks exposed to sulfate solution. Sulfate crystals

PAGE 93

74 Figure 4.14: Surface scaling due to sulfate crystallization on Block 1 (0.45 W/C ratio) at age of 52 weeks. Figure 4.15: Surface scaling due to sulfate crystallization on Block 19 (0.65 W/C ratio) at age of 52 weeks.

PAGE 94

75 As seen in Figures 4.14 and 4.15, th e concrete blocks from the 0.65 W/C ratio-concrete (Mixture B) e xhibited much more scaling th an did the concrete blocks from the 0.45 W/C-ratio concrete (Mixture A). This is primarily due to the water-to-cement ratio of the mixtures. Mixture A had a much lower permeability than Mixture B, and thus did not permit as much ingress of the sulfate solution into the concrete. This is apparent in that there is almost no evidence of scaling on the concrete from Mixture A, even after one year of expos ure. Surface scaling is usually an indication of severe damage occurring within the concrete (Skalny et al. 2002). Data from the NDT monitoring of the bl ocks shows the beginning of downward trends in pulse velocity a nd surface wave speed for the concrete from Mixture B at around 9 months of age. The downward trend be gan at approximately the same time that surface scaling was first observed. This tre nd is not apparent in the concrete from Mixture A at the age of 9 months, although to ward the end of the one year monitoring period there appears to be signs that it may be starting, thoug h this cannot be definitively concluded at this point in time. The blocks exposed to sulf ate solution for only 91 days showed no downward trend in pulse velocities. However, the surface wave speeds seem to show the beginning of a downward trend. No such trend was apparent at 13 weeks of age for the 12-month blocks of Mixture B. The earlier downward trend in surface wave speed is perhaps indicative that the impact-echo method is more sensitive to detecting chemical damage than is the ultrasonic pulse velocity test. An explanat ion for impact-echo being more sensitive in detecting early-age damage is that sulfate att ack is an external attack mechanism, and will thus do greater amounts of damage near the su rface, with the extent of damage trailing

PAGE 95

76 off moving inward. Impact-echo P-wave speed measurements only test the surface material (the area that experienced the most damage) while the ultrasonic pulse velocity test averages the velocity over the entir e thickness of the concrete being tested. A higher rate of decay in the pulse veloci ties and surface wave speeds is evident for concrete below the immersion line when comp ared to the dry concrete. Most of the internal damage due to sulfate attack s hould occur at this location, while damage occurring above the immersion lin e is happening at a much slower rate, and is mainly due to salt crystallization rather than expansive re actions such as the formation of ettringite and gypsum. Downward trends in pulse velocity and surface wave speed are not enough to form a conclusion that damage to sulfate attack is occurring in the concrete so destructive tests were performed to support these conclusions. Re sults of these tests will be discussed in detail in Chapter 5. It can be concluded that both the ultrasoni c pulse velocity test and the impact-echo test are capable of detecting damage due to ch emical attack in concrete over a prolonged period of time. The earlier downward trend in impact-echo surface wave speeds may be indicative that the test is more sensitive in de tecting early age chemical attack in concrete than is the ultrasonic pulse velocity test.

PAGE 96

77 CHAPTER 5 DESTRUCTIVE TEST RESULTS Coring At the conclusion of the exposure cycles, the blocks and companion cylinders were removed from their respective conditioning solutions. Eightee n core samples were then taken from each block. Figure 5.1 shows th e coring operation, while Figure 5.2 shows a block with the cores removed. Figure 5.1: Coring of a block at The University of Florida.

PAGE 97

78 Figure 5.2: Photograph of a cored block. As can be seen in Figures 5.1 and 5.2, one set of cores was taken as close to the bottom of the block as possible, another was taken right at the immersion line, and the last set was taken as close as possible to the top of the block. The cores were approximately 240 mm in length; too long for st andard compressive strength test, which requires a length-to-diameter ra tio of 2.0. To compensate for this, approximately 20 mm was trimmed off of each end of the cores usi ng a diamond concrete saw. Doing this also removed any scaling damage, or damage localiz ed at the surface of the concrete. Both ends of the specimens that were to be tested in compression were then ground so that they were completely flat and normal to the longit udinal axis of the core, thus preventing any loading eccentricities. After preparation, the samples were immersed in lime-saturated water for a minimum of five days to ensure complete satu ration prior to testing. All destructive tests were performed within two hours of rem oval from the lime-saturated water.

PAGE 98

79 Compressive Strength Test Results All compressive strength te sting was performed using an MTS 810 Materials Test System load frame (shown in Figure 5.3) at th e University of Florida in compliance with ASTM C39. All specimens tested had th e nominal dimension of 101.6 mm x 203.2 mm. A constant load rate of 14.5 MPa per minute was used. Figure 5.4 shows a core subjected to a compressive load. Figure 5.3: MTS 810 Materials Test System load frame used at the University of Florida.

PAGE 99

80 Figure 5.4: A concrete core subj ected to compressive loading. Figures 5.5 and 5.6 show graphs of the av erage compressive strength results versus age for both control specimens and sulfate-e xposed specimens, respectively. Tables 5.1 and 5.2 summarize the numerical data for comp ressive strength testi ng that is presented graphically in Figures 5.5 and 5.6. Compressive strength da ta is presented in Appendix F.

PAGE 100

81 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0100200300400 Age (Days)Compressive Strength (MPa) 0.45 W/C Top 0.45 W/C Middle 0.45 W/C Bottom 0.45 W/C Cylinders 0.65 W/C Top 0.65 W/C Middle 0.65 W/C Bottom 0.65 W/C Cylinders 0.45 W/C Top 0.45 W/C Middle 0.45 W/C Bottom 0.45 W/C Cylinders 0.65 W/C Top 0.65 W/C Middle 0.65 W/C Bottom 0.65 W/C Cylinders Figure 5.5: Average compressive strength over time for specimens exposed to lime-saturated water. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0100200300400 Age (Days)Compressive Strength (MPa) 0.45 W/C Top 0.45 W/C Middle 0.45 W/C Bottom 0.45 W/C Cylinders 0.65 W/C Top 0.65 W/C Middle 0.65 W/C Bottom 0.65 W/C Cylinders 0.45 W/C Top 0.45 W/C Middle 0.45 W/C Bottom 0.45 W/C Cylinders 0.65 W/C Top 0.65 W/C Middle 0.65 W/C Bottom 0.65 W/C Cylinders Figure 5.6: Average compressive strength over time for specimens exposed to 5% sodium sulfate solution.

PAGE 101

82 Table 5.1: Compressive streng th (MPa) data for Mixture A Blocks Exposed to: Lime Sulfate Age 28 Days91 Days365 Days28 Days91 Days 365 Days Top 42.7 59.0 61.0 38.0 46.8 54.5 Middle 49.1 58.4 77.6 41.9 50.7 71.9 Bottom 52.8 63.4 81.1 49.6 63.5 77.6 Cylinders 53.0 56.3 74.9 49.3 60.4 74.9 Table 5.2: Compressive streng th (MPa) data for Mixture B Blocks Exposed to: Lime Sulfate Age 28 Days91 Days365 Days28 Days91 Days 365 Days Top 23.5 29.1 28.7 24.4 29.2 27.4 Middle 28.5 35.2 38.0 29.6 34.2 34.6 Bottom 36.4 36.3 40.6 35.2 40.6 36.4 Cylinders 30.8 34.0 37.0 28.1 33.2 35.2 When comparing the Figures 5.5 and 5.6, a few things are apparent. For similar specimens, the average compressive strength for the specimens from the lime-saturated blocks is higher than the sulf ate exposed blocks at all points in time. Over the course of one year, the average compressive strength of the 0.65 W/C ratio concrete decreased when compared to specimens tested at 91 da ys of age, while the average compressive strength of the 0.45 W/C ratio specimens actua lly increased. This is indicative that concrete with a higher water-to-cement ratio is more susceptible to damage due to sulfate attack than a concrete with a lower water-to-cement ratio. The strength of cores from the top of the block did not increase at as high a ra te as cores from the bottom of the blocks. This suggests that the hydration effects near the top of the block (and far from the curing solution) were not nearly as prominent as at the bottom of the block. The strength of cylinders that were subjected to complete submersion in sulfate solution increased for both mixtures. Howe ver, the sulfate exposed cores from all

PAGE 102

83 locations of the blocks for the 0.65 W/C ratio decreased in strength (though not apparent from the trend lines this is shown in Tables 5.1 and 5.2). The surface of the concrete blocks was quite rough whereas the surface of the cylinders was completely smooth with no consolidation voids. Thus, th e cylinders were not nearly as porous as the blocks. This indicates that a good surface finish may inhibit the ingress of sulfate solution and thereby aid in the prevention of sulfate attack. Specimens from the 0.65 W/C ratio mixtures showed another general trend. Cores and cylinders that were kept immersed in sulfate solution showed a more rapid strength loss than cores from above the immersion line. This implies that the formation of ettringite and gypsum is more damaging to the concrete than the evaporation, crystallization, and scaling damage that was noticed above the immersion line. Splitting Tensile Test Results All splitting tension test ing was performed using an MTS load frame at the University of Florida in compliance with ASTM C496. All specimens tested had the nominal dimension of 101.6 mm x 203.2 mm. A cons tant load rate of 33 kN per minute was used. A photograph of a typical splitti ng tension test is shown in Figure 5.7.

PAGE 103

84 Figure 5.7: A concrete core subjec ted to a splitting tensile load. Figures 5.8 and 5.9 show graphs of the average splitting tensile strength over time for both control specimens and sulfate-exposed specimens, respectively. Tables 5.3 and 5.4 summarize the numerical data for splitting tensile strength testing that is presented graphically in Figures 5.8 and 5.9. Split ting tensile strength data is presented in Appendix F.

PAGE 104

85 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 0100200300400 Age (Days)Splitting Tensile Strength (MPa) 0.45 W/C Top 0.45 W/C Middle 0.45 W/C Bottom 0.45 W/C Cylinders 0.65 W/C Top 0.65 W/C Middle 0.65 W/C Bottom 0.65 W/C Cylinders 0.45 W/C Top 0.45 W/C Middle 0.45 W/C Bottom 0.45 W/C Cylinders Figure 5.8: Average splitting tensile stre ngth over time for specimens exposed to lime-saturated water. 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 0100200300400 Age (Days)Splitting Tensile Strength (MPa) 0.45 W/C Top 0.45 W/C Middle 0.45 W/C Bottom 0.45 W/C Cylinders 0.65 W/C Top 0.65 W/C Middle 0.65 W/C Bottom 0.65 W/C Cylinders 0.45 W/C Top 0.45 W/C Middle 0.45 W/C Bottom 0.45 W/C Cylinders Figure 5.9: Average splitting tensile streng th over time for specimens exposed to 5% sodium sulfate solution.

PAGE 105

86 Table 5.3: Splitting tensile stre ngth (MPa) data for Mixture A Blocks Exposed to: Lime Sulfate Age 28 Days 91 Days 365 Days 28 Days 91 Days 365 Days Top 3.2 4.8 4.4 3.6 3.4 4.6 Middle 3.3 3.3 5.1 3.9 4.1 4.6 Bottom 4.1 4.9 5.5 4.7 4.7 4.9 Cylinders 3.7 4.9 5.9 4.2 4.9 5.9 Table 5.4: Splitting tensile stre ngth (MPa) data for Mixture B Blocks Exposed to: Lime Sulfate Age 28 Days91 Days365 Days28 Days91 Days 365 Days Top 1.7 3.0 2.9 2.1 2.7 2.5 Middle 2.4 3.5 3.3 2.8 2.9 3.1 Bottom 2.6 3.0 3.7 2.8 3.7 3.3 Cylinders 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.1 2.6 3.3 When comparing the two previous figures, a few things are again apparent. For similar specimens from the 0.45 W/C ratio mixt ure, the average splitting tensile strength from the blocks exposed to lime-saturated wate r is approximately equa l to the strength of cores from the sulfate exposed blocks at all points in time. For the 0.65 W/C ratio mixtures, the average splitting tensile strength is lower for the sulfate-exposed blocks than for the blocks immersed in lime-satu rated water, at all points in time. Over the course of one year, the average splitting tensile strength of the 0.65 W/C ratio-concrete decreased when compared to the specimens tested at 91 days of age. The average splitting tensile strength of specime ns from the 0.45 W/C ratio mixture actually increased, except for the cores from the bottom of the blocks, which showed very little change in strength over the one year period. Regardless, this is again indicative that concrete with a higher water-to-cement ratio is more susceptible to damage due to sulfate attack than a concrete with a lower water-to-cement ratio. The strength of cores from the

PAGE 106

87 top of the block also did not in crease at as high a rate as the cores from the bottom of the blocks. This again suggests that the hydration effects near the top of the block (and far from the curing solution) were not as prom inent as at the bottom of the block. Specimens from the 0.65 W/C ratio mixtures exhibit another gene ral trend. Cores taken from below the immersion line from the blocks exposed to sulfate solution showed a more rapid strength loss than cores from a bove the immersion line. Again, this implies that the formation of ettringite and gypsum is more damaging to the concrete than the evaporation, crystallization, and scaling damage that were evident above the immersion line. The rate of strength loss for the cores te sted in splitting tension was much higher than for the cores tested in compression. This is indicative that the sp litting tension test is a better test than the compressi on test for detecting concrete da mage due to sulfate attack. Examination of the core and cylinder sp ecimens did not reveal any appreciable difference. All failures were through the di ameter of the specimen where the load was applied. In all cases the fa ilure plane went through the aggregate. A photograph showing cores that have been failed in splitting tensil e load is shown in Figur e 5.10. A close-up of a core failed under a splitting tensile lo ad is shown in Figure 5.11.

PAGE 107

88 Figure 5.10: Photograph of cores fa iled under a splitting tensile load. Figure 5.11: Close-up photograph of a cylin der failed under a splitting tensile load.

PAGE 108

89 It should also be noted that although genera l trends are apparent, strength values for the test results are very close. Though great care was exercised duri ng testing to prevent any outside sources of error affecting the result s, and to limit those inherent with the test itself, in many cases the coefficients of variance are high enough that when accounted for, influence the trends both up and down. The data showed higher coefficients of vari ance for the splitting tensile test than for the compressive strength test. On averag e, the coefficients of variance for the compressive strength test were around 4.5% (with a maximum value of 9.3%) while the average coefficient of variance for the splitt ing tensile test was approximately 6.3% (with a maximum value of 23.6%). Pressure Tension Test Results All pressure tensile testing was performed using a custom-built load frame at the University of Florida. Though the test has ye t to be standardized, similar research has been conducted using this test in the past. Efforts were ma de to duplicate the procedure used in the past research projects. All sp ecimens tested had the nominal dimension of 101.6 mm x 203.2 mm. A constant load ra te of 8.25 MPa per minute was used. A photograph of a specimen being subjected to a pressure tensile load is shown in Figure 5.12.

PAGE 109

90 Figure 5.12: A concrete core subjec ted to pressure tensile loading. Schematic diagrams of the pressure vesse l and an explanatio n of the procedure were presented in Chapter 2, and will not be reiterated here. Figures 5.13 and 5.14 show graphs of specimen average pressure tens ile strength versus age for both control specimens and sulfate-exposed specimens, respectively. Tables 5.5 and 5.6 summarize the numerical data for splitting tensile strengt h testing that is pres ented graphically in Figures 5.13 and 5.14. Pressure tensile strength data is presented in Appendix F.

PAGE 110

91 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 0100200300400 Age (Days)Pressure Tensile Strength (MPa) 0.45 W/C Top 0.45 W/C Middle 0.45 W/C Bottom 0.45 W/C Cylinders 0.65 W/C Top 0.65 W/C Middle 0.65 W/C Bottom 0.65 W/C Cylinders 0.45 W/C Top 0.45 W/C Middle 0.45 W/C Bottom 0.45 W/C Cylinders 0.65 W/C Top 0.65 W/C Middle 0.65 W/C Bottom 0.65 W/C Cylinders Figure 5.13: Pressure tensile strength over time for specimens exposed to lime-saturated water. 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 0100200300400 Age (Days)Pressure Tensile Strength (MPa) 0.45 W/C Top 0.45 W/C Middle 0.45 W/C Bottom 0.45 W/C Cylinders 0.65 W/C Top 0.65 W/C Middle 0.65 W/C Bottom 0.65 W/C Cylinders 0.45 W/C Top 0.45 W/C Middle 0.45 W/C Bottom 0.45 W/C Cylinders 0.65 W/C Top 0.65 W/C Middle 0.65 W/C Bottom 0.65 W/C Cylinders Figure 5.14: Pressure tensile strength over time for specime ns exposed to 5% sodium sulfate solution.

PAGE 111

92 Table 5.5: Pressure tensile st rength (MPa) data for Mixture A Blocks Exposed to: Lime Sulfate Age 28 Days91 Days365 Days28 Days91 Days 365 Days Top 6.7 7.5 6.5 6.1 8.0 7.9 Middle 6.3 7.4 8.0 7.9 7.3 8.9 Bottom 6.0 9.5 8.5 7.9 8.6 8.5 Cylinders 6.7 8.3 8.3 6.1 8.5 10.0 Table 5.6: Pressure tensile st rength (MPa) data for Mixture B Blocks Exposed to: Lime Sulfate Age 28 Days91 Days365 Days28 Days91 Days 365 Days Top 3.6 5.0 3.7 3.8 3.8 3.6 Middle 4.4 6.3 5.1 5.5 4.0 4.7 Bottom 5.7 7.0 7.0 6.7 5.8 5.9 Cylinders 4.9 8.6 6.7 6.4 6.5 8.3 Trends from these plots followed patterns similar to those from the compressive strength test results and sp litting tension test results. All specimens immersed in lime-saturated water showed increasing trends. The data points at the age of one year showed values lower than those at 91 days, though inter-batch variab ility of the concrete is the most probable reason for this. Clos e-up photographs of the 12 month specimens exposed to lime-saturated water from the 0. 65 W/C ratio mixture show a large amount of consolidation voids in th e concrete compared to those expos ed to sulfate solution. It is believed that the higher air content of the one -year blocks was the primary reason for the reduced strength. An example of this is shown in Figure 5.15. Improper specimen preparation is the most likely cause.

PAGE 112

93 Figure 5.15: Close up photograph of core 181A showing a large amount of voids in the specimen due to inadequate consolidation. Cores from the 0.45 W/C ratio mixtures th at were immersed in sulfate solution show trends of increasing st rength, while specimens from the 0.65 W/C ratio mixtures show the opposite. This again provides evidence that a mixture with a higher water-to-cement ratio is more susceptible to damage caused by sulfate attack than a concrete with a lower water-to-cement ratio. Cylinders from both mixtures that were immersed in sulfate solution showed similar increasing trends. The cylinder spec imens had a much better surface finish than did the blocks; the exterior surfaces of the blocks we re quite porous, whereas the cylinders had very few voids present. This is again indicative that a good surface finish may help to prevent sulfate ingress and th ereby increase the sulfate resistance of the concrete. The pressure tensile strength of the cores e xposed to sulfates decreased over time. This contradicts the results from both the co mpressive strength and the splitting tensile strength tests, and suggests that the pressure tension test is the most sensitive of the three test procedures for detecting the damage inflicted on concrete due to sulfate attack.

PAGE 113

94 These conclusions call into question the standard procedure outlined in ASTM C1012. This procedure calls for specimens to remain continuously immersed in solution except when measurements are being made thereby preventing any evaporation from occurring and thus does not even consider what was found to be the most damaging mechanism of attack for tens ile loading conditions. For the most part, the results obtained from this test correlated well with those hypothesized. It should also be noted that although general trends are apparent, strength values for the test results are again very clos e in value. Great care was exercised during testing to prevent any outside sources of error from affecting the results, and to limit those inherent with the test itself. The fact remains that in most cases the coefficients of variance were high enough that, when accounted for, they influenced the trends both up and down. There was a high leve l of variability between the test results. The average coefficient of variance for the pressure tension test was 8.5% (the highe st of the three test methods); the highest coefficient of varian ce for the test was 24.4%. There are many possible explanations for this. When performing the test, the loading ra te was not constant. The person running the test controlled it manually. This alone ma y have played a large role. Creep loading (rate of loading increases too slowly, rendering lower strength results) and impact loading (rate of loading increases too quickly, rende ring higher strength results) are significant potential problems with this test. In an effort to load all specimens at a similar, constant rate, the author performed all of the pressure tensile testing, eliminating the possibility of variability between operators. However, variability between tests was essentially impossible to control from one day to the next.

PAGE 114

95 Other problems existed with the specimens being tested. When the specimens were not perfectly circular, problems were encountered while trying to seal the pressure vessel and prevent leaks. This represented a mi nor problem with the cylinder specimens, but was not a problem at all with the cores since th ey were perfectly circular in shape. This is not believed to have been a large contributing factor to th e variance of the results. All of the specimens were tested w ithin two hours of removal from the lime-saturated water used to saturate the specimens prior to testing. Hence all of the specimens were as close to saturated-surf ace-dry condition as possible when tested. Although it is known that moisture content of the specimens a ffects the test results, it is not thought to have had a larg e effect due to the very lo w variation between specimens. Another source of error that should be cons idered is the equipment that was used. For the 1-month and 3 month specimens, an Omegadyne pressure transducer (model number PX01K1-2KG1) was used to monitor th e gas pressure in th e chamber. Between the time that the 1 month and 3 month specimens were tested, the transducer malfunctioned and was repaired by the manufact urer. Between the time that the 3 month and 12 month specimens were tested, the equipment malfunctioned again, and was replaced by the manufacturer with a similar model transducer. Though both transducers were calibrated by the manufacturer, and installe d by competent staff at the University of Florida, there may have been enough differen ce in the data output to affect the test results. Failure Patterns. One trend was noticeable once all of the specimens from a set had been tested and could be compared. For the cores and cylinders that were immersed in lime-saturated water, the location of the failure plane showed no definitive trend.

PAGE 115

96 However, failure of the specimens immersed in 5% sulfate solution followed a distinct pattern. Cores taken from the top of the blocks tende d to have failure planes very close to the end of the specimens; typically failure o ccurred at an approximate maximum of 50 mm from the end of the cores. Cores taken from the immersion line had failure planes about one-third of the way through the specime n, and cores taken from the portion of the block that was completely immersed in the su lfate solution typically failed close to the center of the core. Cylinders also failed near the center of the specimen. Figures 5.16, 5.17, 5.18 and 5.19 show this trend. Fi gure 5.20 summarizes the failure patterns schematically. Figure 5.16: Cores from top of a block failed under a pressure tensile load.

PAGE 116

97 Figure 5.17: Cores from the immersion line of a block failed under a pressure tensile load. Figure 5.18: Cores from the bottom of a block failed under a pressure tensile load.

PAGE 117

98 Figure 5.19: Cylinders failed under a pressure tensile load. Figure 5.20: Pressure tension failure locations.

PAGE 118

99 The failures should have occurred at the weak est point in the conc rete matrix. This indicates that the further away from the delete rious solution the concrete is the closer to the evaporation surface the failure is. This suggests that the damage at the top of the block was close to the edge of the concrete, where evapora tion and crystallization would have occurred. There would have been very li ttle presence of sulfate near the interior portion at this location as they would have been drawn to th e edge through evaporation. For specimens taken at the immersion line, the weakest point in the matrix was deeper into the concrete, about one-third of the way through the block. Damage at this location can also be attributed to evaporat ion and crystallization damage. At this location, there would have been more sulfates present in the interi or portion of the block as there was very little evapor ation surface area present. For the cores from the bottom of the bloc k, no crystallizatio n occurred as the concrete was completely immersed in solution. The only damage mechanism present was the formation of gypsum and ettringite The formation of ettringite and gypsum reduces the permeability of the concrete, thus increasing the strength of the concrete. Since this process would have started at th e outside of the block and progressed inward, (as shown in Figure 2.1) it may not have ma de it all the way through the block, thus leaving a weaker concrete at the center. Summary From the destructive test results, it can be concluded that concrete with a higher water-to-cement ratio is more susceptible to sulfate attack than a concrete with a lower water-to-cement ratio (as hypothesized). For al l test procedures, concrete from the 0.45 water-to-cement ratio mixture was stronger th an concrete from the 0.65 water-to-cement ratio mixture. Additionally, the higher the lo cation of the core on the block, the weaker

PAGE 119

100 the concrete was. The main reason for this is that the density of the concrete at the bottom of the block is higher than at the t op of the block due to segregation of the concrete. Over time, concrete exposed to sulfates degrades, and this is confirmed by the test results. The pressure tensile test appears to be the most sensitive to detecting early-age damage caused by sulfate attack, followed by the splitting tensile test, and the compressive strength test. The mode of failure in compressive strengt h testing acts to close up any cracks that may form due to the expansion of ettri ngite and gypsum, whereas these cracks would propagate and cause failure in th e tensile test procedures. Due to this, it takes a longer period of exposure before the damage is det ectable with the compression test than with the splitting tension test or th e pressure tension test. This was confirmed during testing as well. Results for concrete exposed to sulf ates from the splitting tension test and the pressure tension test dropped at a higher rate, and started at an earlier age, than results from the compression tests. Test results from all tests show that the further the concrete is from the conditioning solution, the less of an effect the solution ha s on the concrete. For both mixtures, the strength of the concrete immersed in lime-satu rated water, increased at a higher rate for concrete below and at the imme rsion line than the concrete at the top of the blocks. For concrete exposed to 5% sodium sulfate solution, damage at the top of the block was not as severe as the dama ge below and at the immersion line. It is believed that little could be done to reduce the degree of variance among the test results from the compressive strength and sp litting tension tests. However, quite the

PAGE 120

101 opposite is true for the pressure tension test. Problems remain with the pressure tension test in its present state. E fforts should be made to automate the rate of loading. This would eliminate what is believed to be the ma in source of error inherent in the test. Special care should be taken wh en fabricating the specimens (as should always be the case) to ensure that the ends of the specimens are perfectly circular thus facilitating the prevention of leaks at the end of the pressure vessel.

PAGE 121

102 CHAPTER 6 RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN DESTRUCTIVE AND NONDESTRUCTIVE TEST RESULTS Nondestructive testing was performed on the blocks at the conclusion of the conditioning cycles, just prio r to coring, on the individual cores after coring, and on the companion cylinders. Relationships were developed between nondestructive and destructive test results and are presented herein. Nondestructive Tomography Testing On the first day of block monitoring, a front face and a back face were designated for each block. At the conclusion of each conditioning cycle, the blocks were removed from their solutions. Each block was then subjected to a comprehensive nondestructive testing evaluation. Rebound hammer, ultrasoni c pulse velocity, and impact-echo devices were used for this testing. A grid pattern was marked on all six faces of each block. A diagram of this pattern is shown in Figure 6. 1. Gridlines A-E were spaced 100 mm apart, starting 50 mm from the bottom of the block. Gridlines 1-9 were spaced 100 mm apart, starting at 50 mm from the si des of the block. Gridline Y was centered on the block, while gridlines X and Z were offset 100 mm in either direction from gridline Y. A photograph of the grid pattern marked on a block is shown in Figure 6.2.

PAGE 122

103 Figure 6.1: Tomography grid pattern At the conclusion of the nondestructive testi ng of the blocks, cores were taken from each specimen. The cores were approximately centered between gridlines A and B, between gridlines C and D, and along gridli ne E. A photograph of a cored block is shown in Figure 6.3 Figure 6.2: Tomography grid pattern on a block.

PAGE 123

104 Figure 6.3: Photograph of a bl ock that has been cored. Rebound Hammer Testing All rebound hammer testing was performed on the front face of each block. Tests were performed at one-inch intervals between gridlines 1-9 along gridlines A-E. A total of 33 tests were performed on each of gridlines A through E. An average value for each of the gridlines A through E was then calculated. A photograph of rebound hammer testing is shown in Figure 6.4. Figure 6.4: Rebound hammer testing.

PAGE 124

105 Since the cores from the top of the bloc k and at the immersion line were centered between gridlines, rebound hammer values for th e cores taken at the top of the block and at the immersion line of the blocks were take n as the average values for gridlines A and B, and gridlines C and D respectively. The cores from the bottom of the block were centered on gridline E, so the average rebound number value from gridline E was matched with these cores. All rebound hammer data is presented in Appendix C. Compressive strength versus rebound number After nondestructive testing of the cores was concluded, destructive tests were performed. Strength values were then comp ared to the rebound number values in an effort to form relationships between the parameters. Values for the 0.45 W/C ratio mixtures were compared separately from t hose for the 0.65 W/C ratio mixtures. It was noticed that differences between the regres sion values for the fit lines were almost non-existent. Thus, it was judged safe to comb ine the two mixtures, and instead compare rebound numbers for blocks subjected to su lfate solution and lim e-saturated water separately. The values for the two groups we re then combined, and again compared to see if any difference was noted. Essentially, all literature on the topic of relating surface hardness test results to concrete compressive strength s uggests that the best-fit for the relationship is linear, of the form Y = a + b.X. Hence, linear relationships were used to develop the trend lines and corresponding equations. A plot of comp ressive strength versus rebound number is shown in Figure 6.5. As can be seen from th is figure, the regression value for the sulfate samples is essentially the same as the lime treated samples. However, the coefficient of determination (R2) was considerably lower for the sulfate-exposed tests (R2 = 0.721 versus 0.834). Hence it can be concluded th at the damage inflicted on the concrete by

PAGE 125

106 sulfate attack tends to affect the test re sults for the rebound hammer test. This can be attributed to softening of the concrete near the surface. y = 2.8287x 84.353 R2 = 0.8344 y = 3.134x 97.452 R2 = 0.7214 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 354045505560 Rebound NumberCompressive Strength (MPa) Lime Sulfate Lime Trendline Sulfate Trendline Figure 6.5: Compressive strength versus re bound number from tom ography testing. Visual observations during testing revealed that the dimples left on the concrete surface by the rebound hammer were far more no ticeable on the sulfate-exposed blocks than on the limewater-exposed blocks. This wa s especially true for areas of the concrete that were submerged in sulfate solution, as the dimples were far more noticeable below the water line than above it. Differences we re also observed to be worse for the 0.65 W/C ratio mixtures than for the 0.45 W/C ratio mixtures. This indica tes that the sulfate solution caused surface softening of the conc rete, since no such dimples were observed on blocks exposed to lime-saturat ed water from either mixture. It is again indicative that a high W/C ratio concrete is more susceptibl e to damage caused by su lfate attack than a low W/C ratio concrete. An example of these dimples from below the waterline on a 0.65 W/C ratio block exposed to sulfates is highlighted by the oval in Figure 6.6.

PAGE 126

107 Figure 6.6: Photograph of dimple s induced by rebound hammer testing Pressure tensile strength versus rebound number Cores were taken from the blocks, centere d between gridlines A and B, gridlines C and D, and along gridline E. Average re bound numbers were calculated for along the centerline of each row of cores and then comp ared to destructive test results from the cores taken at these locations. Figure 6.7 shows the relationship between average rebound number and average pr essure tensile strength. y = 0.2631x 5.6193 R2 = 0.5604 y = 0.2854x 6.6111 R2 = 0.7224 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 30354045505560 Rebound Hammer NumberPressure Tensile Strength (MPa) Lime Sulfate LiTdli SlftTdli Figure 6.7: Pressure tensile strength ve rsus average rebound number for tomography testing.

PAGE 127

108 As can be seen from the Figure 6.7, a ge neral trend does exist for the results. However, the relationships developed are not nearly as good as those for compression testing (based on the comparison of regression va lues). This may be due to the fact that the rebound hammer test is a surf ace hardness test, and may not detect internal damage in the test specimens, whereas the pressure tension test is capable of detecting damage within the test specimens that are unseen from the exterior of the concrete. Tomography Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Testing A comprehensive three-dimensional pulse velocity tomography was performed on every block prior to coring. A pulse velocity test was performed at the intersection of every gridline shown in Figure 6.1. This wa s done in an attempt to assess the condition of the concrete, to compare the differences between the control specimens and the test specimens, and to identify areas of suspect concrete. A photograph of pulse velocity tomography testing is shown in Figure 6.8. Figure 6.8: Ultrasonic pulse velocity tomography testing.

PAGE 128

109 When reviewing the test results, a few tre nds became apparent. In all cases, the higher the gridline that was tested, the lower the pulse velocity. This was the case for both control and test specimens. The density of the block varied from the top (lowest) to the bottom (highest) due to se gregation of the concrete when it was cast. Differences were more noticeable for the 0.65 W/C ratio mixtures than for the 0.45 W/C ratio mixtures, indicating that segregation was worse in the higher W/C ratio blocks. Since the cores from the top of the bloc k and at the immersion line were centered between gridlines, pulse velocity values for th e cores taken at the top of the block and at the immersion line of the blocks were taken as the average values for grid lines A and B, and gridlines C and D respectively. The cores from the bottom of the block were centered on gridline E; accordingly, the averag e pulse velocity value from gridline E was matched with these cores. Efforts were made to remove cores from between gridlines 1-2, 2-3, 3-4, 6-7, 7-8, and 8-9. However, due to varying locations of steel hooks in the specimens, it was impossible to achieve this patte rn for all blocks. All efforts were made to avoid cutting through the hooks when coring so as they would not be a possible failure origin if embedded in the cores. Tables 6.1 and 6.2 show the average pulse velocities for blocks from Mixture A (0.45 W/C ratio) and Mixture B (0.65 W/C ratio) at the ages of 28, 91, and 365 days. All ultrasonic pulse velo city tomography test data is presented in Appendix D. Table 6.1: Average pulse velocities (m/s ) from tomography testing for Mixture A Blocks Exposed to: Lime Sulfate Age 28 Days91 Days365 Days28 Days91 Days 365 Days Grid Line A 4061 4254 4290 4023 4076 4250 Grid Line B 4253 4318 4387 4241 4174 4413 Grid Line C 4319 4323 4423 4307 4233 4452 Grid Line D 4398 4405 4512 4390 4311 4514 Grid Line E 4461 4475 4571 4502 4433 4567

PAGE 129

110 Table 6.2: Average pulse velocities (m/s ) from tomography testing for Mixture B Blocks Exposed to: Lime Sulfate Age 28 Days91 Days365 Days28 Days91 Days 365 Days Grid Line A 3655 3769 3841 3661 3647 3634 Grid Line B 3881 3911 4017 3888 3828 3785 Grid Line C 4012 4081 4101 4022 3962 3857 Grid Line D 4153 4163 4222 4185 4069 4028 Grid Line E 4269 4311 4376 4315 4241 4176 As can be seen from Tables 6.1 and 6.2, a ll of the pulse velocity readings increased with time when exposed to limesaturated water. For Mixture A, the pulse velocities from blocks exposed to sulfate solution showed a trend of dropping from 28 days to 91 days and increasing again at 365 days, except for tests from gridline A. It was expected that blocks exposed to sulfate solution would show a trend of decreasing pulse velocity with time, though such a drop has not yet occurred due to the limited exposure time for the blocks tested thus far. For Mixture B, th e pulse velocities from all blocks exposed to lime saturated water increased with time. However, for blocks exposed to sulfate solution, all pulse velociti es dropped with time. For blocks from both Mixtures A and B, areas of the block immersed in limesaturated water did not show a more appreciable gain in pulse velocity when compared to areas of the block that were exposed to air. For blocks from Mixture B exposed to sulfate solution, the areas of the block immersed in water, showed a much higher loss in pulse velocity than the areas of the block exposed to air.

PAGE 130

111 Compressive strength versus ultrasonic pulse velocity Prior research has found that for mature concrete, the modulus of elasticity of concrete, Ec, is proportional to the square root of compressive strength (Equation 6.1). c cf E (6.1) Further, it has been shown that the P-wave velocity (Cp) through elastic solids is proportional to the square root of th e elastic modulus, E (Equation 6.2). E Cp (6.2) Assuming that E and Ec can be taken as interchangeable variables, the anticipated relationship between wave speed and compressive strength would be along the lines of Equation 6.3 (Pessiki 1988). 4) ( 'p cC f (6.3) Thus, it was anticipated that a fourth order relationship would exist between compressive strength and pulse velocity testi ng. The same would also be true for surface wave speeds from impact-echo testing, as bot h tests measure the wave velocity through an elastic medium. Relationships between pulse velocity and compressive strength were developed in accordance with procedures suggested by Samarin and Meynink, and by Malhotra (Popovics 1998). Samarin and Meynink suggest ed a relationship of the form Y = a.X4 + b (the same relationship as anticipated). Se parate relationships were formed for blocks exposed to lime-saturated water, and blocks exposed to the sulfate solution. A plot of average core compressive strength versus aver age pulse velocity to the fourth power is shown in Figure 6.9.

PAGE 131

112 y = 0.1665x 8.1327 R2 = 0.7721 y = 0.2x 19.219 R2 = 0.7549 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0100200300400500 Average Pulse Velocity (km/s)4Average Compressive Strength (MPa) Sulfate Lime Sulfate Trendline Lime Trendline Figure 6.9: Relationship suggested by Sa marin & Meynink for compressive strength versus pulse velocity from tomography testing. Malhotra suggested an exponential relationship of the form Y = a.ebx. Separate relationships were again derived for speci mens exposed to sodium sulfate and limesaturated water. Figure 6.10 shows a pl ot of these suggested relationships. y = 0.5198e0.001xR2 = 0.7853 y = 0.1928e0.0013xR2 = 0.77730 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 3500370039004100430045004700 Average Pulse Velocity (m/s)Average Compressive Strength (MPa) Sulfate Lime Sulfate Trendline Lime Trendline Figure 6.10: Relationship suggested by Malhot ra for compressive strength versus pulse velocity from tomography testing.

PAGE 132

113 As can be seen from these plots, both methods are very good at predicting the compressive strength of concrete using pulse velocity testing. Based on the regression values, Malhotras relationship appears to be slightly better than the correlation suggested by Samarin and Meynink. However, the regr ession values are close, and when the number of specimens tested is considered, it would not be prudent to make a decision as to which method provides a better relations hip between pulse velocity and concrete compressive strength. Pressure tension strength versus ultrasonic pulse velocity Cores were taken centered between grid lines A and B, grid lines C and D, and along grid line E. Average pulse velociti es were calculated for gridlines A and B, gridlines C and D, and gridline E accordingly and then compared to destructive test results from the cores taken at these lo cations. Figure 6.11 shows the relationship between average ultrasonic pulse velocity and average pressure tensile strength. y = 0.0871e0.001xR2 = 0.7727 y = 0.0463e0.0012xR2 = 0.80360 2 4 6 8 10 12 3700380039004000410042004300440045004600 Pulse Velocity (m/s)Pressure Tensile Strength (MPa) Lime Sulfate Lime Trendline Sulfate Trendline Figure 6.11: Pressure tensile strength versus tomography ultr asonic pulse velocity from tomography testing.

PAGE 133

114 Curve fitting software was used to develop relationships between pressure tensile strength and pulse velocity. It was found that exponential relationshi ps gave the best fit for the data (as was the case with compre ssive strength testing as per Malhotras suggested relationships). It is worth noting that the pulse ve locity testing actually formed better relationships for prediction of pressu re tensile strength than for compressive strength. This statement is based on the regr ession values for the best-fit lines, and is indicative that the pulse velocity test is adep t at locating flaws within concrete that may propagate failure under tensile load, whereas the same flaws would possibly be closed up under a compressive load, and not become a source of failure. Attempts were also made to correlate low pul se velocity results to failure locations. As discussed previously, failu re locations for sulfate immersed specimens from the top row were almost always located within 50 mm of the end of the trimmed specimens, (approximately 75 mm from the block surface) the immersion line specimens usually failed approximately one-third of the way through the specimen from the end, and specimens below the water line almost always fa iled at the center of the specimen. It has been shown that lower pulse velocities are usually indicative of poorer quality concrete (Qasrawi 2000). Pulse velocities through th e length of the blocks showed that at the top of the block, pulse velocities at gridlines X and Z were hi gher than gridline Y. At the immersion line, the differences between pulse velocities along gridlines X, Y, and Z were often indistinguishable, and for areas of the blocks that were immersed in solution, the pulse velocities at the exterior (gridlines X and Z) were almost always higher than at the center of the block (gridline Y). This may be i ndicative that superior curing was experienced

PAGE 134

115 close to the outside of the bloc k than at the center for sectio ns of the block immersed in solution. When using three-dimensional tomography it is possible to determine the area of concrete where failure under lo ad is most likely to occur. This method to determine failure location would only be applicable to the pressure tensile test as the failure patterns from other tests, (such as the compressive stre ngth test and the splitting tensile test) do not locate regions of suspect concrete w ithin the specimens. If used properly, three-dimensional tomography can be a very va luable tool for locating regions of suspect concrete within structures. Impact-Echo Tomography Testing All impact-echo testing was performed on th e front face of each block. Tests were performed at two locations, each along gridline s A-E. An average value of P-wave speed for each of the gridlines A through E was then calculated according to the standard procedure described in ASTM C1383. A photograph of impact-echo testing is shown in Figure 6.12. Figure 6.12: Impact-echo testing at the University of Florida.

PAGE 135

116 Most of the prior research involving im pact-echo testing has been related to refining the method and its instrumentation. Al so studied in depth has been ways that the method can be used to detect internal flaws in concrete. There has been a very limited amount of research performed relating imp act-echo surface wave speed to concrete compressive strength. Of the research that has been performed, it has been shown that there is good agreement between results from different water-to-cement ratios, indicating that it is not necessary to separate results fr om different mix designs. It has also been shown that the predicted fourth-order relati onship shows good agreement with test results (Pessiki and Carino 1988). All impact-echo test data is presented in Appendix E. Compressive strength versus impact-echo P-wave speed Figure 6.13 shows compressive strength vers us pulse velocities from impact echo testing. y = 1.2365e0.0009xR2 = 0.5997 y = 1.033e0.001xR2 = 0.741 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 300032003400360038004000420044004600 Impact-Echo Wave Speed (m/s)Compressive Strength (MPa) Lime Sulfate Lime Trendline (4th order) SulfateTrendline(4thorder) y = (1.622e-013)x4 + 3.955 R2 = 0.5862 y = (1.929e-013)x4 + 0.333 R2 = 0.6963 Figure 6.13: Compressive strength versus P-wave speed from impact-echo testing.

PAGE 136

117 Also shown in Figure 6.13 are exponential trend lines. Both the fourth-order and exponential relationships correla te well with destructive test results, with the exponential equations relating slightly better than the f ourth order polynomial series. However, the regression values are far worse than those from pulse velocity testing, indicating that the pulse velocity test is a bette r test procedure for predicting concrete compressive strength. Reasons for this may be that the P-wave speeds measured using the impact-echo test were along the surface of the concrete. After the cores were taken from the blocks, approximately 20 mm from both ends of each core were trimmed from the specimens prior to testing; the area of the concrete that the P-wave passed through during testing was removed. Also, the values used for ma king these relationships were average values from along each gridline. Had individual tests been performed and data obtained for each specimen, perhaps the test results may have shown a better correlation with the predicted values. Pressure tensile strength versus impact-echo P-wave speed There has been no prior research perfor med relating P-wave speed to pressure tensile strength. Nevertheless, data was collected and attempts were made to relate surface wave speed to the tensile strength of concrete measured by the pressure tension method. The data was examined using curve-fi tting software, and again the best-fit lines were found to be exponential. Figure 6.14 show s a plot of the relationship developed for blocks immersed in lime-saturated water, a nd blocks exposed to sulfate solution. The data show a promising trend that P-wa ve speed from impact-echo testing is a very reliable test procedure for estimation of tensile strength of c oncrete. Also worth noting is the position of both trend lines. Bl ocks exposed to sulfate solution and blocks immersed in lime-saturated water show increasing P-wave speed with time, but there is a

PAGE 137

118 shift in the position of the trend line for th e conditioning solution. Control specimens on average tended to exhibit a faster P-wave speed for a given strength than did the specimens immersed in lime-saturated water. More research is necessary to validate the use of the impact-echo test as a reliable method of determining the tensile strength of concrete. y = 0.1325e0.0009xR2 = 0.8742 y = 0.2924e0.0008xR2 = 0.8793 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 3300350037003900410043004500 Impact-Echo Wave Speed (m/s)Pressure Tensile Strength (MPa) Lime Sulfate Lime Trendline Sulfate Trendline Figure 6.14: Pressure tensile strengt h versus impact-echo P-wave speed. Compressive Strength Predictions by Combined Tomography Methods Relationships have been formed relating concrete compressive strength to rebound number and to pulse velocities independently However, past research has shown that when the two tests are consid ered simultaneously, a better estimation of compressive

PAGE 138

119 strength can be formed. The mathematical ba sis is that the accuracy of an approximation using one variable can be improved by a suit able second independent variable (Popovics 1998). The SONREB method published by RI LEM outlines the methodology of making this correlation. Data from rebound hammer tests and pulse ve locity tests were combined using the relationships again suggested by Samarin and Meynink, and by Malhotra (Popovics 1998). Separate relationships were formed fo r the blocks immersed in lime-saturated water and blocks immersed in sulfate solution. Samarin and Meynink suggested a relationship of the form fc = a.R+b.UPV4+c. Malhotra suggested a relati onship of the form Log(fc) = a.Log(R)+b.UPV+c. For both relationships a, b, and c are constants, R is the average rebound number, UPV is the average pulse velocity, and fc is the concrete compressive strength. Three-dimensional plots were generated of these relationships fo r both control and test specimens. Plots for relationships suggested by Samarin and Meyni nk are shown in Figures 6.15 and 6.16. Malhotras relationships are show n in Figures 6.17 and 6.18. As can be seen in Figures 6.15 through 6.18, predictions made for sulfate treated specimens are not as accurate as specimens im mersed in lime-saturated water. This can be attributed to the effect on the rebound hammer test by the surface softening of the concrete due to sulfate exposur e. In all cases, the estima tions of concrete compressive strength improved using the multi-variable correlation when compared to rebound hammer test results and pulse veloc ities considered independently.

PAGE 139

120 Figure 6.15: Relationship suggested by Sa marin and Meynink for SONREB correlation for specimens immersed in lime-saturated water. Figure 6.16: Relationship suggested by Sa marin and Meynink for SONREB correlation for specimens immersed in sulfate solution.

PAGE 140

121 Figure 6.17: Relationship suggested by Malhotra for SONREB correlation for specimens immersed in lime-saturated water. Figure 6.18: Relationship suggested by Malhotra for SONREB correlation for specimens immersed in sulfate solution.

PAGE 141

122 Again, when comparing regressions values it would appear that the relationships suggested by Malhotra are more accurate th an those presented by Samarin and Meynink. Looking at the figures, the graphs for the blocks exposed to sulfate so lution appear to be less sensitive to rebound number than the bloc ks exposed to lime-saturated water. The slopes on the y-axes (rebound number) of the gr aphs are steeper for blocks exposed to lime-saturated water than for blocks immersed in sulfate solution. The opposite trend can be seen when looking at the pl ots for pulse velocity test re sults. The slopes on the x-axes (pulse velocity) of the graphs are steeper fo r blocks exposed to su lfate solution than the slopes for blocks immersed in lime-saturated water. These trends are indicative that the pulse velocity test is more sensitive for de tecting damage in conc rete than the rebound hammer test for concrete e xposed to sulfate solution. Plots showing predicted values versus act ual values for compressive strength were generated. Shown in Figure 6.19 is a co mparison for the relationship suggested by Samarin and Meynink, while Figure 6.20 is a comparison for the relationship suggested by Malhotra. Again, the regression values of both plots are too similar for it to be prudent to pass judgment as to wh ich suggested relations hip is the better of the two. It is also noticeable that both relationships show reasonably good estimations of compressive strength. It is believed that the predictions would be more accurate if the tests had been performed on individual cores, instead of the tomography results being averaged.

PAGE 142

123 y = 0.8045x + 7.8331 R2 = 0.8242 y = 0.8638x + 6.3663 R2 = 0.86380 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0102030405060708090Actual Compressive Strength (MPa)Predicted Compressive Strength (MPa) Sulfate Lime Sulfate Trendline Lime Trendline Figure 6.19: Predicted versus actual valu es of compressive strength for tomography data as per relationship sugge sted by Samarin and Meynink. y = 0.7184x + 11.717 R2 = 0.8022 y = 0.6338x + 15.17 R2 = 0.82550 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0102030405060708090 Actual Compressive Strength (MPa)Predicted Compressive Strength (MPa) Sulfate Lime Trendline Sulfate Trendline Lime Figure 6.20: Predicted versus actual valu es of compressive strength for tomography data as per relationshi p suggested by Malhotra.

PAGE 143

124 Nondestructive Core Testing In an effort to investigate how accurate the tomography testing was when compared to tests performed on the individual test sp ecimens, nondestructive testing was performed on cores from the one-year blocks and their companion cylinders. Core Rebound Hammer Testing According to the procedure recommended by Malhotra and Carino, each core was subjected to a compressive load of appr oximately 15% of its estimated ultimate compressive strength. Fifteen rebound hammer readings were taken, five on each of three vertical lines 120o apart around the curved surface, in the middle two-thirds of the each core. The core was then loaded to failure. Compressive Strength versus Rebound Number. Since the 12-month companion specimens were the only cores tested, the sample size was small. Nevertheless, relationships were developed. Again, linear relationships were used. Figure 6.21 shows these relationships on a plot of core compressive strength versus rebound number. y = 2.4778x 62.572 R2 = 0.9418 y = 3.0735x 85.711 R2 = 0.9181 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 3540455055 Rebound Hammer NumberCompressive Strength (MPa) Sulfate Lime Sulfate Trendline Lime Trendline Figure 6.21: Compressive strength ve rsus rebound number for cores.

PAGE 144

125 The regression values for the relationships from the cores were higher than the regression values from the tomography test ing (shown in Figure 6.5). This can be attributed to the testing being performed on each individual specimen, as opposed to average values being used for both compre ssive strength values and rebound number values, as was the case for the tomography testing. Core Pulse Velocity Testing An ultrasonic pulse velocity meter was used to measure the wave speeds through individual cores and cylinders according to the standard procedure described in ASTM C597-97. Figure 6.22 shows a typical ultrason ic pulse velocity te st being performed. Figure 6.22: Ultrasonic pulse ve locity experimental setup. Compressive strength versus pulse velocity Prior research by Samarin and Meynink a nd by Malhotra (Popovics 1998) is again referenced for forming relationships between pulse velocities and compressive strength. A fourth-order relationship and an exponen tial relationship were developed. These relationships are shown in a plot of compressive strength versus pulse velocity in Figure 6.23. Ultrasonic pulse velocity data for cores is presented in Appendix F.

PAGE 145

126 y = 0.0437e0.0016xR2 = 0.8652 y = 0.0383e0.0017xR2 = 0.8934 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 3700380039004000410042004300440045004600 Pulse Velocity (m/s)Compressive Strength (MPa) Sulfate Lime Sulfate Trendline (4th Order) Lime Trendline ( 4th Order ) y = (2.514e-013)x4 36.95 R2 = 0.8500 y = (2.615e-013)x4 38.43 R2 = 0.8780 Figure 6.23: Compressive strength versus pulse velocity for individual cores. As shown in Figure 6.23, both relationships show very good correlation between ultrasonic pulse velocity and compressive streng th. It is thus conc luded that ultrasonic pulse velocity testing is a reliable method of predicting core compressive strength. Again, Malhotras suggested relationship shows slightly better regression values than the fourth order relationship sugge sted by Samarin and Meynink. Pressure tension strength versus pulse velocity As previously discussed, to date there ha s been no prior resear ch performed relating NDT results to pressure tension test results. Curve fitting software was used to develop relationships between pressure tensile streng th and pulse velocity and a plot of this relationship is shown in Figur e 6.24. It was again found th at exponential relationships gave the best fit for the data (as was the case for the same relationship for tomography testing). Raw data for this relationship is presented in Appendix F. The regression

PAGE 146

127 values for this relationship show that there is more uncertainty with this relationship when compared to compressive strength versus pulse velocity. This could be a result of greater uncertainty inherent with the pressure tension test itself. The test is adept at locating internal flaws in concrete. Critical flaws that may propagate failure in pressure tension may otherwise be closed up under comp ressive loading. Since this was the first attempt to relate results from the two test procedures, more research is definitely necessary in this area. Attempts should be ma de to determine what va riability is inherent to the pressure tension test itself, and to what degree this affects any relationships made between pressure tension test and nondestructiv e test results. y = 0.0277e0.0013xR2 = 0.7493 y = 0.0566e0.0011xR2 = 0.63150 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 3700380039004000410042004300440045004600 Pulse Velocity (m/s)Pressure Tensile Strength (MPa) SO4 Lime Sulfate Trendline Lime Trendline Figure 6.24: Pressure tension strength versus pulse velocity for individual cores.

PAGE 147

128 Compressive strength versus ultrasonic pulse velocity and rebound number The relationships developed for core co mpressive strength versus rebound number and core compressive strength versus pulse velocity were combined according to the SONREB method in an effort to form a mu ltivariable relationship that would better predict compressive strength than a single variable relationship. Again, the relationships suggested by Sa marin and Meynink, and by Malhotra were used to form the three-dimensional relations hips, which are the same as those discussed for the tomography testing. Shown in Fi gures 6.25 and 6.26 are the relationships suggested by Samarin and Meynink for cores from blocks exposed to lime-saturated water and to sulfate solution, respectively. Figures 6.27 and 6.28 show the relationships suggested by Malhotra for cores from blocks exposed to lime-saturat ed water and sulfate solution, respectively. As indicated in these figures, both of the suggested relationships make accurate predictions of concrete compressive streng th using combined data from rebound hammer tests and pulse velocity tests. The relati onships suggested by Mal hotra have slightly better correlations than those suggested by Samarin and Meynink. However, it again must be realized that the sample size for these relationships is quite small, and thus it would be imprudent to pass judgment as to wh ich suggested relationshi p is better for the estimation of concrete compressive strength.

PAGE 148

129 Figure 6.25: Relationship suggested by Sa marin and Meynink for SONREB correlation for cores from blocks immersed in lime-saturated water. Figure 6.26: Relationship suggested by Sa marin and Meynink for SONREB correlation for cores from blocks immersed in sulfate solution.

PAGE 149

130 Figure 6.27: Relationship suggested by Malhotra for SONREB correlation for specimens immersed in lime-saturated water. Figure 6.28: Relationship suggested by Malhotra for SONREB correlation for specimens immersed in sulfate solution.

PAGE 150

131 Figure 6.29 shows a plot of predicted valu es versus actual values for compressive strength for core data for the relationsh ip suggested by Samarin and Meynink. Figure 6.30 shows the same plot for the relationship suggested by Malhotra. It can be seen from these plots that both relations hips provide very accurate estimations of compressive strength, and again the regressi on values are so near that passing judgment as to which is the better relationship would be unwise. Wh en compared to similar plots generated for data from tomography testing, it can be seen that the tests perfor med on individual cores are far more accurate for strength prediction purposes that tests performed on large scale specimens which are then averaged. y = 0.974x + 1.3023 R2 = 0.974 y = 0.9603x + 2.2071 R2 = 0.9603 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0102030405060708090 Actual Compressive Strength (MPa)Predicted Compressive Strength (MPa) Sulfate Lime Sulfate Trendline Lime Trendline Figure 6.29: Predicted versus actual values of compressive strength for core data as per relationship suggested by Samarin and Meynink.

PAGE 151

132 y = 0.9633x + 1.7461 R2 = 0.9859 y = 0.9448x + 2.9222 R2 = 0.9759 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0102030405060708090 Actual Compressive Strength (MPa)Predicted Compressive Strength (MPa) Sulfate Lime Sulfate Trendline LIme Trendline Figure 6.30: Predicted versus actual values of compressive strength for core data as per relationship suggested by Malhotra. Core Resonant Frequency Testing Resonant frequency testing of cores and companion cylinders was performed using a James Instruments E-Meter V-C-4959 Resona nt Frequency System. Each test was performed in accordance with the standard procedure recommended by ASTM C215-85. Resonant frequencies were measured only on individual cores and cylinders. Tests were attempted on block specimens, but the bl ocks exceeded the capacity of the driver, and resonance could not be achieved. Figure 6. 31 shows a typical res onant frequency test being performed.

PAGE 152

133 Figure 6.31: Typical resonant frequency test at the University of Florida. Unfortunately, the data obtained from the cores and cylinders showed a very wide scatter and no apparent rela tionships could be obtained be tween compressive strength and resonant frequency. The same held true for pressure tensile strength versus resonant frequency. While it has been shown that resona nt frequency testing ma y be a suitable test to monitor specimens for changes over time (Ferraro 2003), the data from this experiment shows that no apparent rela tionship can be formed to re late resonant frequency and destructive test results. It should also be c onsidered that moisture content of the samples was not determined. Literature has shown that moisture can have a significant effect on resonant frequency and this should be considered during later stages of this experiment. Figure 6.32 shows a plot of compressive strengt h versus resonant frequency. Figure 6.33 shows a plot of pressure tensile strength vers us resonant frequency. Resonant frequency data for cores is shown in Appendix F.

PAGE 153

134 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 17001900210023002500270029003100 Resonant Frequency (Hz)Compressive Strength (MPa) Sulfate Lime Figure 6.32: Core data for compressive strength versus resonant frequency 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 17001900210023002500270029003100 Resonant Frequency (Hz)Pressure Tensile Strength (MPa) Sulfate Lime Figure 6.33: Core data for pressure tens ile strength versus resonant frequency Summary A comprehensive nondestructive testing program was performed on the block specimens before coring, and on the indivi dual cores and cylinde rs after coring.

PAGE 154

135 Relationships were developed between destructiv e test results and all of the results from the nondestructive test results gathered. When comparing the relations hips developed for tomogra phy test results and those developed for core test results, the shape of the trend lines in all cases is very similar. The relationships for the core data have a be tter fit than the tom ography testing (based on the regression values). This was expect ed, since the tomography relationships used average values, and were not based on individu al tests as the core relationships were. When making a direct comparison between to mography pulse velocity and core pulse velocity, variations were found between aver age pulse velocities for tomography testing and average pulse velocities from cores, but fo r the most part it was found that they were essentially equal. It was found that for estimating compre ssive strength, rebound hammer testing, ultrasonic pulse velocity testing, and impact -echo testing were all reliable means of predicting ultimate strength results. Comb ining multiple test procedures to form multivariable correlations provided more accu rate predictions of ultimate strength. Resonant frequency testing was not found to be a reliable method of estimating concrete compressive strength. The pressure tension test is still in the development stages. As such, to date there has been no prior research to re late nondestructive te st results to pressure tensile strength test results. Relationships were developed to relate rebound number, ultrasonic pulse velocity, impact-echo P-wave speed, and resona nt frequencies to pr essure tension test results. It was concluded that ultrasonic pulse velocity, and impact-echo test results provide accurate means of estimating the tensile strength of concrete. The rebound

PAGE 155

136 number of the concrete was not as reliable for predicting tensile strength as it was for predicting compressive streng th. Resonant frequency testing was proven to be an unreliable method for prediction of tensile st rength. More research is needed on the pressure tensile strength test method. Res earch is needed in the area of refining and automating the test procedure itself, as we ll as relationships be tween nondestr uctive and destructive tensile test results provided by the method.

PAGE 156

137 CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSIONS Sulfate attack is one of the most damaging chemical attack mechanisms that concrete can be exposed to. Efforts were ma de to diagnose when the onset of chemical degradation initiated via mon itoring of simulated continuous footing samples exposed to 5% sodium sulfate solution to a depth of 150 mm. This replicated the evaporation mechanism present in actual exposure conditi ons for footings partially exposed to both sulfates (from the soil) and air. It was found that the concrete with a higher W/C ratio (and thus higher permeability) was much more susceptible to sulf ate attack than concrete with a low W/C ratio. Monitoring of sulfate exposed concrete blocks performed every two weeks found that both ultrasonic pulse velocity and impact echo wave speeds increased for approximately the first 13 weeks of exposure in both the control and exposure specimens. Very little change was then observed until a pproximately 37 weeks of exposure, when a decrease became evident. The initial incr ease was due to hydrati on and curing effects on the concrete. The eventual decrease in wave speed was attributed to the damage caused by sulfate attack. Impact-echo P-wave speeds showed a downward trend before those shown by the ultrasonic pulse velocity tests, indicating that the impact-echo method is a more sensitive test for detecting early age sulf ate attack. This relationship is due to the fact that sulfate attack is a surface attack mechanism and that the impact echo wave speeds were

PAGE 157

138 measured along the surface, as opposed to the ultrasonic pulse velocity measurements, which were through the block thic kness. It can be concluded fr om this that detection of sulfate attack through the use of nondestructive testing is possible. As a result of the higher inherent dens ity and higher ultimate strength, pulse velocity and surface wave speeds were higher for the 0.45 W/C ratio mixture than for the 0.65 W/C ratio mixture. Superior curing of the immersed portions of the blocks resu lted in higher wave speeds than for air-exposed areas. Density differences due to segregation re sulted in higher wave speeds at lower sections for all blocks at all ages. Core samples were taken from the blocks and tested under compressive strength, splitting tensile strength, and pressure tens ile strength loading conditions. Specimens from the 0.45 W/C ratio mixture showed increasi ng strength trends with time for all three of the test procedures. Sulfate exposed specimens from the 0.65 W/C ratio mixture exhibited decreasing strength tr ends over time. The pressure tension test showed this downward trend earliest, followed by the spli tting tension test, and by the compression test. The magnitude of this loss in strengt h was highest for the pr essure tension test, followed by the splitting tensi on test and by the compression te st. The pressure tension test also proved to be capable of locating the weakest area within the concrete specimens on a consistent basis. Regression values fr om best-fit lines showed that for concrete exposed to sulfates there was mo re scatter in the test results. Specimens taken from areas of the blocks exposed to air showed a more rapid loss in strength for the pressure tension test than areas of the blocks continuously immersed in

PAGE 158

139 solution. This is indicative that the damage caused by the sulfates that migrated through the specimens to areas of the blocks exposed to air was more severe than damage in the areas that were continuously exposed to sulfat e solution. At this point it is believed that this trend is due to the early age of the specimens, since the sulfate attack reaction in the submerged regions had not yet reached a critic al stage. Nevertheless, these results call into question the exposure procedure outlined in standard procedure ASTM C1012. Rebound numbers from lower areas of th e blocks exhibited higher values. However, due to surface softening of the conc rete blocks exposed to sulfates, areas below the water line showed lower re bound numbers. Linear relatio nships were developed for rebound number versus compressive strength and rebound number versus pressure tensile strength. Due to density differences caused by segr egation, lower pulse velocities were observed at higher levels on each block. Pu lse velocity was related to compressive strength using the fourth order and exponent ial relationships. Data from tomography testing was found to be less accurate for st rength prediction than tests performed on individual cores due to errors associated with averaging of pulse velocity and strength values. Pulse velocities from tomography te sting were compared to those from tests performed on individual cores and found to be essentially equal. Exponential functions were found to form the most accurate relationships for relating ultrasonic pulse velocity test results to pressure tension test values. It is recommended that future research focus on re lating NDT results to the pressure tension test results, as to date there has been no prior research perfor med on this subject.

PAGE 159

140 Impact-echo surface P-wave speeds were related to ultimate strength values, and the relationships were found to provide reason ably good estimations of concrete strength. Little research has focused on this area, thus it is suggested that relating surface P-wave speed to concrete strength be an area of focus for future research. Rebound hammer and ultrasonic pulse velocity test results were combined and used for the estimation of compressive strength according to RILEMs SONREB method. The multivariable relationships formed were able to predict the ultimate strength more accurately than either test independently. No trends were apparent in resonant fr equency test results, and it was concluded that this test procedure is not a valid te st for prediction of the ultimate strength of concrete.

PAGE 160

APPENDIX A MIXTURE PROPORTIONS AND PLASTI C PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE

PAGE 161

142 Table A.1: Mix proportions for Mixture A Mix Design Date Cast Jan. 28, 2003 Jan. 28, 2003 0.45 W/CM Ratio Age tested 1 year 1 year Sulfate Lime Water Material Quantity Blocks 1-2 Blocks 3-4 Batched Batched yd3 M3 yd3 m3 yd3 m3 Volume 1 1 0.41 0.31 0.41 0.31 lb/yd3Kg/m3lb kg lb kg Cement 855.0507.7348.33158.14348.33158.14 Water 385.0228.6156.6871.21156.8571.21 less M/C sand 0.00.0-11.15-5.06-11.15-5.06 less M/C aggregate 0.00.034.8311.6523.8911.65 Total 385.0228.6133.0064.62144.1064.62 Sand 1440.0855.1586.67266.35586.67266.35 p lus M/C san d 0.00.0-11.15-5.06-11.15-5.06 Total 1440.0855.1575.52261.29575.52261.29 Aggregate 1235.0733.4468.52228.43468.52228.43 p lus M/C aggregate 0.00.034.8311.6534.8311.65 Total 1235.0733.4503.35240.08503.35240.08 Admixtures Superplasticizer 0.8L/m3 0.25 L 0.25 L Total 3915.02324.81595.00724.131595.00724.13 Moisture Corrections Sand CoarseSand Coarse Moisture Content -1.90%5.10%-1.90%5.10% Plastic Properties Slump 180 mm 145 mm Air Content 3.4 % 3.6 % Plastic Density 2274 kg/m3 2268 kg/m3 Concrete Temperature 18 oC 18 oC Ambient Temperature 20 oC 20 oC Time Batched 13:55 15:20 Time Cast (Start) 14:10 15:40 Time Cast (End) 14:45 16:00 # of Cylinders Cast 25 15 Cubes (Y/N) Y N Prisms (Y/N) Y N

PAGE 162

143 Table A.1: Mix proportions for Mixture A continued Mix Design Date Cast Feb. 06, 2003 Feb. 06, 2003 0.45 W/CM Ratio Age tested 91 days 91 days Sulfate Lime Water Material Quantity Blocks 5-6 Blocks 7-8 Batched Batched yd3 m3 yd3 m3 yd3 m3 Volume 1 1 0.44 0.34 0.35 0.27 lb/yd3kg/m3lb kg lb kg Cement 855.0507.7380.00172.52300.83 136.58 Water 385.0228.6171.1177.68135.46 61.50 less M/C sand 0.00.0-12.16-5.52-9.63 -4.37 less M/C aggregate 0.00.027.9912.7122.16 10.06 Total 385.0228.6155.2870.50122.93 55.81 Sand 1440.0855.1640.00290.56506.67 230.03 plus M/C sand 0.00.0-12.16-5.52-9.63 -4.37 Total 1440.0855.1627.84285.04497.04 225.66 Aggregate 1235.0733.4548.89249.20434.54 197.28 plus M/C aggregate 0.00.027.9912.7122.16 10.06 Total 1235.0733.4576.88261.90456.70 207.34 Admixtures Superplasticizer 0.8L/m3 0.075 L 0.06 L Total 3915.02324.81740.00789.961377.50 625.39 Moisture Corrections Sand CoarseSand Coarse Moisture Content -1.90%5.10%-1.90% 5.10% Plastic Properties Slump 180 mm 160 mm Air Content 2.5 % 2.7 % Plastic Density 2264 kg/m3 2259 kg/m3 Concrete Temperature 16 oC 18 oC Ambient Temperature 19 oC 20 oC Time Batched 14:00 15:00 Time Cast (Start) 14:20 15:05 Time Cast (End) 14:35 15:20 # of Cylinders Cast 40 10 Cubes (Y/N) N N Prisms (Y/N) N N

PAGE 163

144 Table A.1: Mix proportions for Mixture A continued Mix Design Date Cast May 20, 2003 May 20, 2003 0.45 W/CM Ratio Age tested 28 days 28 days Sulfate Lime Water Material Quantity Blocks 9-10 Blocks 11-12 Batched Batched yd3 M3 yd3 m3 yd3 m3 Volume 1 1 0.34 0.26 0.34 0.26 lb/yd3kg/m3lb kg lb kg Cement 855.0507.7293.00132.98 293.00132.98 Water 385.0228.6131.9059.88 131.9059.88 less M/C sand 0.00.0-9.37-4.26 -9.37-4.26 less M/C aggregate 0.00.019.258.74 19.258.74 Total 385.0228.6122.0055.40 122.0055.40 Sand 1440.0855.1493.33223.97 493.33223.97 plus M/C sand 0.00.0-9.37-4.26 -9.37-4.26 Total 1440.0855.1483.00219.72 483.00219.72 Aggregate 1235.0733.4423.10192.09 423.10192.09 plus M/C aggregate 0.00.019.258.74 19.258.74 Total 1235.0733.4442.00200.83 442.00200.83 Admixtures Superplasticizer 0.8L/m3 0.05 L 0.05 Total 3915.02324.81341.25608.93 1341.25608.93 Moisture Corrections Sand Coarse Sand Coarse Moisture Content -1.90%4.55% -1.90%4.55% Plastic Properties Slump 125 mm 120 mm Air Content 2.9 % 2.5 % Plastic Density 2316 kg/m3 2312 kg/m3 Concrete Temperature 30 oC 33 oC Ambient Temperature 30 oC 30 oC Time Batched 14:00 15:00 Time Cast (Start) 14:25 15:25 Time Cast (End) 14:40 15:35 # of Cylinders Cast 10 10 Cubes (Y/N) N N Prisms (Y/N) N N

PAGE 164

145 Table A.2: Mix proportions for Mixture B Mix Design Date Cast Jan. 21, 2003 Jan. 21, 2003 0.65 W/CM Ratio Age tested 1 year 1 year Lime Water Sulfate Material Quantity Blocks 17-18 Blocks 19-20 Batched Batched yd3 m3 yd3 m3 yd3 m3 Volume 1 1 0.41 0.31 0.35 0.27 lb/yd3 kg/m3 lb kg lb Kg Cement 590.0350.3240.37109.13 207.5994.25 Water 385.0228.6157.2171.21 134.8861.50 less M/C sand 0.00.0-12.85-5.83 -11.10-5.04 less M/C aggregate 0.00.019.568.88 14.486.57 Total 385.0228.6150.5068.17 131.5059.97 Sand 1660.0985.7676.30307.04 584.07265.17 plus M/C sand 0.00.0-12.85-5.83 -11.10-5.04 Total 1660.0985.7663.50301.20 572.98260.13 Aggregate 1055.0626.5429.81195.14 371.20168.53 plus M/C aggregate 0.00.019.568.88 14.486.57 Total 1055.0626.5449.50204.01 389.00175.10 Admixtures Superplasticizer (Adva 1 00) 0L/m3 0 L 0 L Total 3690.02191.21503.33682.51 1298.33589.44 Moisture Corrections Sand Coarse Sand Coarse Moisture Content -1.90%4.55% -1.90%3.90% Plastic Properties Slump 225 mm 225 mm Air Content 2.3 % 2.1 % Plastic Density 2217 kg/m3 2221 kg/m3 Concrete Temperature 14 oC 16 oC Ambient Temperature 14 oC 19 oC Time Batched 10:25 13:25 Time Cast (Start) 11:00 14:00 Time Cast (End) 11:30 14:25 # of Cylinders Cast 18 10 Cubes (Y/N) Y N Prisms (Y/N) Y N

PAGE 165

146 Table A.2: Mix proportions for Mixture B continued Mix Design Date Cast Feb. 13, 2003 Feb. 13, 2003 0.65 W/CM Ratio Age tested 91 days 91 days Lime Water Sulfate Material Quantity Blocks 21-22 Blocks 23-24 Batched Batched yd3 m3 yd3 m3 yd3 m3 Volume 1 1 0.54 0.41 0.47 0.36 lb/yd3 kg/m3 lb kg lb kg Cement 590.0350.3316.85143.85 277.52125.99 Water 385.0228.6206.7693.87 181.0982.22 less M/C sand 0.00.0-16.94-7.69 -14.84-6.74 less M/C aggregate 0.00.025.7811.70 22.5810.25 Total 385.0228.6197.9289.85 173.3578.70 Sand 1660.0985.7891.48404.73 780.81354.49 plus M/C sand 0.00.0-16.94-7.69 -14.84-6.74 Total 1660.0985.7874.54397.04 765.98347.75 Aggregate 1055.0626.5566.57257.22 496.24225.29 plus M/C aggregate 0.00.025.7811.70 22.5810.25 Total 1055.0626.5592.35268.93 518.82235.54 Admixtures Superplasticizer (Adva 1 00) 0L/m3 0 L 0 L Total 3690.02191.21981.67899.68 1735.67787.99 Moisture Corrections Sand Coarse Sand Coarse Moisture Content -1.90%4.55% -1.90%4.55% Plastic Properties Slump 190mm 225mm Air Content 2.6% 2.5% Plastic Density 2238kg/m3 2232kg/m3 Concrete Temperature 18oC 18oC Ambient Temperature 21oC 21oC Time Batched 13:45 15:00 Time Cast (Start) 14:00 15:20 Time Cast (End) 14:30 15:45 # of Cylinders Cast 87 60 Cubes (Y/N) N N Prisms (Y/N) N N

PAGE 166

147 Table A.2: Mix proportions for Mixture B continued Mix Design Date Cast Jun. 12, 2003 0.65 W/CM Ratio Age tested 28 days Sulfate Lime Water Material Quantity Blocks 25-26 Blocks 27-28 Batched yd3 m3 yd3 m3 Volume 1 1 0.69 0.52 lb/yd3 kg/m3 lb kg Cement 590.0350.3 404.00 183.53 Water 385.0228.6 263.80 119.76 less M/C sand 0.00.0 -21.61 -9.81 less M/C aggregate 0.00.0 32.89 14.93 Total 385.0228.6 253.00 114.64 Sand 1660.0985.7 1137.41 516.38 plus M/C sand 0.00.0 -21.61 -9.81 Total 1660.0985.7 1116.00 506.57 Aggregate 1055.0626.5 722.87 328.18 plus M/C aggregate 0.00.0 32.89 14.93 Total 1055.0626.5 756.00 343.12 Admixtures Superplasticizer (Adva 1 00) 0L/m3 0 L Total 3690.02191.2 2528.33 1147.86 Moisture Corrections Sand Coarse Moisture Content -1.90% 4.55% Plastic Properties Slump 155 mm Air Content 3.3 % Plastic Density 2257 kg/m3 Concrete Temperature 33 oC Ambient Temperature 35 oC Time Batched 13:40 Time Cast (Start) 14:08 Time Cast (End) 14:25 # of Cylinders Cast 20 Cubes (Y/N) N Prisms (Y/N) N

PAGE 167

APPENDIX B NONDESTRUCTIVE TEST MONITORING DA TA FOR BLOCKS 1-8 AND 17-24

PAGE 168

149 Table B.1: Block monitoring data for Block 1 Block # 1 Cast on January 28, 2003 Length (mm) 900 Width (mm) 244 Height (mm) 485 Date: January 30, 2003 February 6, 2003 February 27, 2003 Operator: CF CF CF, XZ, EC Temperature (oF) 72 72 72 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 60.7 57.7 2 60.6 57.2 3 60.2 57.0 4 59.7 57.1 5 59.6 56.5 6 59.5 56.2 7 59.6 55.9 8 61.7 55.7 9 58.6 54.3 10 59.6 54.9 11 60.8 55.5 12 61.0 54.5 13 227.6 208.5 14 228.8 206.0 15 227.4 205.3 16 17 18 19 20 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wa ve Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3601 3710 3819 2 3673 3711 3749 3 3601 3935 4002 4 3601 3690 4185 5 3601 3991 4365 6 3674 3913 4162 7 8

PAGE 169

150 Table B.1: Block Monitoring Data for Block 1 continued Date: January 30, 2003 February 6, 2003 February 27, 2003 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 4020 4229 2 4026 4266 3 4053 4281 4 4087 4273 5 4094 4319 6 4101 4342 7 4094 4365 8 3955 4381 9 4164 4494 10 4094 4444 11 4013 4396 12 4000 4477 13 3954 4317 14 3934 4369 15 3958 4384 16 17 18 19 20 UPV Averages Top 402840894273 Middle 403541154355 Bottom 404641444439 Immersion Line Impact-Echo Averages Top 363737113784 Middle 360138134094 Bottom 363839524264 Immersion Line Age (weeks) 014

PAGE 170

151 Table B.1: Block Monitoring Data for Block 1 continued Block # 1 Cast on January 28, 2003 Length (mm) 900 Width (mm) 244 Height (mm) 485 Date: March 15, 2003 March 28, 2003 April 12, 2003 Operator: SC XZ, EC SC, XZ Temperature (oF) 69 72 71 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 57.8 58.0 2 57.3 58.2 3 57.4 56.8 4 57.0 56.9 5 56.6 56.0 6 56.3 56.0 7 56.4 56.1 8 56.3 55.3 9 57.1 56.0 10 56.3 56.6 11 58.0 57.7 12 56.1 56.2 13 208.3 206.3 14 203.8 203.8 15 202.4 203.3 16 17 18 19 20 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wa ve Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 4187 4186 2 4090 4185 3 4186 4285 4 3999 4092 5 4394 4287 6 4287 4188 7 8

PAGE 171

152 Table B.1: Block Monitoring Data for Block 1 continued Date: March 15, 2003 March 28, 2003 April 12, 2003 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 4221 4207 2 4258 4192 3 4251 4296 4 4281 4288 5 4311 4357 6 4334 4357 7 4326 4349 8 4334 4412 9 4273 4357 10 4334 4311 11 4207 4229 12 4349 4342 13 4321 4363 14 4416 4416 15 4447 4427 16 17 18 19 20 UPV Averages Top 426642694291 Middle 434443784392 Bottom 432243334340 Immersion Line Impact-Echo Averages Top 413941504186 Middle 409341174189 Bottom 434143034190 Immersion Line Age (weeks) 7811

PAGE 172

153 Table B.1: Block Monitoring Data for Block 1 continued Block # 1 Cast on January 28, 2003 Length (mm) 900 Width (mm) 244 Height (mm) 485 Date: May 10, 2003 May 28, 2003 June 18, 2003 Operator: SC XZ, EC XZ, EC Temperature (oF) 72 72 72 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 57.2 57.5 56.8 2 57.0 57.3 56.5 3 56.8 57.0 56.5 4 56.1 56.1 55.9 5 55.7 56.1 55.2 6 55.4 55.5 55.2 7 55.8 55.3 55.4 8 55.1 55.3 55.1 9 56.9 53.6 53.5 10 56.3 54.1 54.1 11 56.7 54.1 54.7 12 56.4 53.5 53.8 13 204.3 205.4 205.0 14 201.7 202.3 201.0 15 200.4 200.1 199.6 16 17 18 19 20 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wa ve Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3913 4185 2 4002 4090 3 4000 4090 4 4000 4092 5 4186 3150 6 4090 2769 7 8

PAGE 173

154 Table B.1: Block Monitoring Data for Block 1 continued Date: May 10, 2003 May 28, 2003 June 18, 2003 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 4266 4243 4296 2 4281 4258 4319 3 4296 4281 4319 4 4349 4349 4365 5 4381 4349 4420 6 4404 4396 4420 7 4373 4412 4404 8 4428 4412 4428 9 4288 4552 4561 10 4334 4510 4510 11 4303 4510 4461 12 4326 4561 4535 13 4405 4382 4390 14 4462 4449 4478 15 4491 4498 4509 16 17 18 19 20 UPV Averages Top 431943034338 Middle 441044044430 Bottom 434945264515 Immersion Line Impact-Echo Averages Top 395841384119 Middle 400040914092 Bottom 413841494165 Immersion Line Age (weeks) 151720

PAGE 174

155 Table B.1: Block Monitoring Data for Block 1 continued Block # 1 Cast on January 28, 2003 Length (mm) 900 Width (mm) 244 Height (mm) 485 Date: July 12, 2003 July 25, 2003 September 2, 2003 Operator: SC, XZ SC, EC SC Temperature (oF) 75 72 72 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 55.3 57.5 57.3 2 54.6 56.6 56.9 3 54.8 57.2 56.8 4 54.8 56.5 56.3 5 53.7 55.9 55.6 6 53.5 55.9 55.3 7 53.8 56.4 55.8 8 53.0 54.9 55.6 9 52.1 54.2 54.0 10 52.3 54.3 54.3 11 53.0 55.4 54.5 12 52.1 54.0 53.9 13 201.9 203.1 203.3 14 199.3 200.8 201.7 15 198.1 199.3 199.1 16 17 18 19 20 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wa ve Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 4002 4187 2 4187 4002 3 4187 4091 4 3999 4000 5 4390 3913 6 4392 3914 7 8

PAGE 175

156 Table B.1: Block Monitoring Data for Block 1 continued Date: July 12, 2003 July 25, 2003 September 2, 2003 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 4412 4243 4258 2 4469 4311 4288 3 4453 4266 4296 4 4453 4319 4334 5 4544 4365 4388 6 4561 4365 4412 7 4535 4326 4373 8 4604 4444 4388 9 4683 4502 4519 10 4665 4494 4494 11 4604 4404 4477 12 4683 4519 4527 13 4458 4431 4427 14 4516 4482 4462 15 4543 4516 4520 16 17 18 19 20 UPV Averages Top 431943144321 Middle 440343974405 Bottom 449244874507 Immersion Line Impact-Echo Averages Top 409540954095 Middle 409340864046 Bottom 418741874187 Immersion Line Age (weeks) 242531

PAGE 176

157 Table B.1: Block Monitoring Data for Block 1 continued Block # 1 Cast on January 28, 2003 Length (mm) 900 Width (mm) 244 Height (mm) 485 Date: October 3, 2003 Oct ober 17, 2003 October 31, 2003 Operator: SC,RC SC SC Temperature (oF) 72 72 72 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 57.1 57.3 57.6 2 56.5 57.1 56.9 3 56.8 57.1 57.2 4 56.5 56.9 57.0 5 55.3 55.4 55.8 6 55.3 55.4 55.7 7 55.3 55.5 55.3 8 55.2 55.1 55.4 9 54.2 54.1 56.4 10 54.4 54.7 55.5 11 54.7 54.6 55.8 12 54.1 54.1 55.0 13 203.4 204.4 203.5 14 200.3 200.8 201.1 15 199.1 200.4 199.3 16 54.7 58.6 17 54.9 58.7 18 54.7 59.1 19 55.1 57.8 20 200.6 201.6 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wa ve Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 4091 4091 4000 2 4092 4091 4000 3 4000 3999 3912 4 4090 4090 4000 5 4090 4002 3999 6 4090 4091 4000 7 4090 3998 8 4090 3999

PAGE 177

158 Table B.1: Block Monitoring Data for Block 1 continued Date: October 3, 2003 Oct ober 17, 2003 October 31, 2003 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 4273 4258 4236 2 4319 4273 4288 3 4296 4273 4266 4 4319 4288 4281 5 4412 4404 4373 6 4412 4404 4381 7 4412 4396 4412 8 4420 4428 4404 9 4502 4510 4326 10 4485 4461 4396 11 4461 4469 4373 12 4510 4510 4436 13 4425 4403 4423 14 4493 4482 4475 15 4520 4491 4516 16 4461 4432 17 4444 4425 18 4461 4395 19 4428 4494 20 4487 4487 UPV Averages Top 432642994299 Middle 443044234409 Bottom 449644884410 Immersion Line 44564446 Impact-Echo Averages Top 409240914000 Middle 404540453956 Bottom 409340474000 Immersion Line 40903999 Age (weeks) 353739

PAGE 178

159 Table B.1: Block Monitoring Data for Block 1 continued Block # 1 Cast on January 28, 2003 Length (mm) 900 Width (mm) 244 Height (mm) 485 Date: November 19, 2003 December 15, 2003 January 9, 2004 Operator: SC SC SC Temperature (oF) 72 72.0 72.0 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 57.6 59.6 57.8 2 57.2 57.9 56.6 3 57.4 57.3 56.5 4 57.2 56.9 57.0 5 55.7 56.2 55.8 6 55.7 56.0 55.6 7 55.3 56.3 55.4 8 55.0 55.2 55.2 9 56.1 57.4 56.0 10 56.3 58.3 56.2 11 55.9 58.7 56.7 12 56.4 56.6 56.4 13 204.4 204.1 204.7 14 200.6 205.5 201.0 15 199.7 198.9 199.0 16 57.9 60.5 58.9 17 57.6 60.0 58.2 18 57.8 59.0 57.9 19 57.5 59.0 58.7 20 202.0 201.0 201.7 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wa ve Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3911 3998 3914 2 3998 3913 3913 3 3911 3913 3912 4 4002 4002 4093 5 3913 4002 4090 6 4092 4000 4002 7 4002 3998 4000 8 3914 3915 3913

PAGE 179

160 Table B.1: Block Monitoring Data for Block 1 continued Date: November 19, 2003 December 15, 2003 January 9, 2004 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 4236 4094 4221 2 4266 4214 4311 3 4251 4258 4319 4 4266 4288 4281 5 4381 4342 4373 6 4381 4357 4388 7 4412 4334 4404 8 4436 4420 4420 9 4349 4251 4357 10 4334 4185 4342 11 4365 4157 4303 12 4326 4311 4326 13 4403 4410 4397 14 4487 4380 4478 15 4507 4525 4523 16 4490 4297 4413 17 4513 4332 4466 18 4497 4406 4486 19 4517 4402 4425 20 4478 4501 4485 UPV Averages Top 428442954306 Middle 441944164413 Bottom 437643734370 Immersion Line 449944774455 Impact-Echo Averages Top 395539563914 Middle 395739584003 Bottom 400340014046 Immersion Line 395839573957 Age (weeks) 424649

PAGE 180

161 Table B.1: Block Monitoring Data for Block 1 continued Block # 1 Cast on January 28, 2003 Length (mm) 900 Width (mm) 244 Height (mm) 485 Date: January 29, 2004 Operator: SC, BQ Temperature (oF) 72.0 Data Point UPV Time ( s) 1 57.6 2 57.0 3 57.2 4 57.3 5 55.9 6 55.9 7 55.4 8 55.4 9 56.2 10 56.1 11 56.6 12 56.5 13 202.7 14 198.9 15 198.4 16 58.5 17 59.2 18 58.6 19 57.8 20 200.6 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3914 2 3913 3 4090 4 3999 5 4090 6 3913 7 3999 8 3912

PAGE 181

162 Table B.1: Block Monitoring Data for Block 1 continued Date: January 29, 2004 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 4236 2 4281 3 4266 4 4258 5 4365 6 4365 7 4404 8 4404 9 4342 10 4349 11 4311 12 4319 13 4440 14 4525 15 4536 16 4440 17 4387 18 4432 19 4494 20 4508 UPV Averages Top 4296 Middle 4413 Bottom 4371 Immersion Line 4452 Impact-Echo Averages Top 3914 Middle 4045 Bottom 4002 Immersion Line 3956 Age (weeks) 52

PAGE 182

163 Figure B.1: Wave speed versus age for Block 1

PAGE 183

164 Table B.2: Block monitoring data for Block 2 Block # 2 Cast on January 28, 2003 Length (mm) 901 Width (mm) 242 Height (mm) 495 Date: January 30, 2003 February 6, 2003 February 13, 2003 Operator: CF, EC CF CF Temperature (oF) 72 72 72 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 61.9 60.6 2 60.2 57.3 3 59.4 60.0 4 59.8 57.3 5 59.4 56.9 6 59.5 60.8 7 60.7 57.6 8 59.3 57.1 9 59.6 54.3 10 60.7 57.2 11 60.7 57.3 12 60.0 57.1 13 232.6 207.9 14 229.8 206.1 15 229.7 204.9 16 17 18 19 20 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wa ve Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3530 4116 2 3818 4021 3 3829 4187 4 3829 4198 5 4000 4119 6 4000 4285 7 8

PAGE 184

165 Table B.2: Block Monitoring Data for Block 2 continued Date: January 30, 2003 February 6, 2003 February 13, 2003 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3910 3993 2 4020 4223 3 4074 4033 4 4047 4223 5 4074 4253 6 4067 3980 7 3987 4201 8 4081 4238 9 4060 4457 10 3987 4231 11 3987 4223 12 4033 4238 13 3874 4334 14 3921 4372 15 3923 4397 16 17 18 19 20 UPV averages Top 398540734161 Middle 402641174209 Bottom 399841544309 Immersion Line Impact-Echo averages Top 367438303890 Middle 382939133942 Bottom 400040924092 Immersion Line Age (Weeks) 012

PAGE 185

166 Table B.2: Block Monitoring Data for Block 2 continued Block # 2 Cast on January 28, 2003 Length (mm) 901 Width (mm) 242 Height (mm) 495 Date: February 27, 2003 March 15, 2003 March 28, 2003 Operator: CF, EC, XZ SC XZ, EC Temperature (oF) 72 69 72 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 60.8 56.8 56.6 2 60.4 57.2 56.7 3 57.3 56.3 56.8 4 57.2 56.7 56.7 5 56.3 57.4 55.6 6 56.7 56.5 56.8 7 56.6 57.2 56.3 8 57.0 57.8 56.6 9 55.5 59.3 57.3 10 56.3 59.3 57.4 11 56.0 59.3 57.6 12 55.9 58.2 56.8 13 206.7 204.6 204.3 14 205.2 203.1 202.6 15 206.4 201.2 200.8 16 17 18 19 20 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wa ve Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3921 3592 3977 2 4101 3674 3913 3 4000 3913 4187 4 4002 3911 4187 5 4162 4104 4000 6 4093 3998 4092 7 8

PAGE 186

167 Table B.2: Block Monitoring Data for Block 2 continued Date: February 27, 2003 March 15, 2003 March 28, 2003 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3980 4261 4276 2 4007 4231 4268 3 4223 4298 4261 4 4231 4268 4268 5 4298 4216 4353 6 4268 4283 4261 7 4276 4231 4298 8 4246 4187 4276 9 4360 4081 4223 10 4298 4081 4216 11 4321 4081 4201 12 4329 4158 4261 13 4359 4404 4410 14 4391 4436 4447 15 4365 4478 4487 16 17 18 19 20 UPV averages Top 416042924297 Middle 429642714327 Bottom 433542924278 Immersion Line Impact-Echo averages Top 401139503889 Middle 400140204039 Bottom 409341544215 Immersion Line Age (Weeks) 478

PAGE 187

168 Table B.2: Block Monitoring Data for Block 2 continued Block # 2 Cast on January 28, 2003 Length (mm) 901 Width (mm) 242 Height (mm) 495 Date: April 12, 2003 May 10, 2003 May 28, 2003 Operator: SC,XZ SC XZ, EC Temperature (oF) 71 72 72 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 56.4 56.1 2 56.4 56.0 3 56.3 56.2 4 56.9 56.1 5 55.6 55.2 6 56.4 55.9 7 56.6 55.9 8 55.9 55.5 9 58.5 58.8 10 58.5 57.3 11 57.2 55.7 12 56.9 55.8 13 202.9 202.3 14 201.3 200.3 15 199.9 199.0 16 17 18 19 20 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wa ve Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3827 3998 3998 2 3911 4089 3999 3 4090 4186 4090 4 4000 4092 4091 5 4285 4092 4175 6 4186 4114 3912 7 8

PAGE 188

169 Table B.2: Block Monitoring Data for Block 2 continued Date: April 12, 2003 May 10, 2003 May 28, 2003 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 4283 4291 4314 2 4279 4291 4321 3 4279 4298 4306 4 4261 4253 4314 5 4353 4353 4384 6 4276 4291 4329 7 4287 4276 4329 8 4302 4329 4360 9 4180 4137 4116 10 4176 4137 4223 11 4216 4231 4345 12 4257 4253 4337 13 4425 4441 4454 14 4462 4476 4498 15 4497 4507 4528 16 17 18 19 20 UPV averages Top 43064315 4342 Middle 43364345 4380 Bottom 42654253 4310 Immersion Line Impact-Echo averages Top 38694044 3999 Middle 40454103 4091 Bottom 42364139 4153 Immersion Line Age (Weeks) 1115 17

PAGE 189

170 Table B.2: Block Monitoring Data for Block 2 continued Block # 2 Cast on January 28, 2003 Length (mm) 901 Width (mm) 242 Height (mm) 495 Date: June 18, 2003 June 27, 2003 July 12, 2003 Operator: XZ XZ SC, XZ Temperature (oF) 72 72 75 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 55.9 54.4 2 55.7 54.4 3 55.6 53.9 4 55.9 54.4 5 55.1 53.4 6 55.5 54.2 7 55.7 54.6 8 55.6 54.0 9 55.0 53.3 10 55.7 54.0 11 55.5 53.7 12 54.7 53.3 13 202.3 200.5 14 200.5 198.5 15 198.9 197.5 16 17 18 19 20 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wa ve Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3914 4001 2 4000 3830 3 3947 4000 4 4021 4090 5 4175 4283 6 4187 3999 7 8

PAGE 190

171 Table B.2: Block Monitoring Data for Block 2 continued Date: June 18, 2003 June 27, 2003 July 12, 2003 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 4329 4389 4449 2 4345 4397 4449 3 4353 4421 4490 4 4329 4389 4449 5 4392 4462 4532 6 4360 4413 4465 7 4345 4388 4432 8 4353 4417 4481 9 4400 4470 4540 10 4345 4413 4481 11 4360 4433 4507 12 4424 4482 4540 13 4454 4474 4494 14 4494 4516 4539 15 4530 4546 4562 16 17 18 19 20 UPV averages Top 436244144394 Middle 438944394414 Bottom 441244694447 Immersion Line Impact-Echo averages Top 397139573916 Middle 401139844045 Bottom 417441814141 Immersion Line Age (Weeks) 202124

PAGE 191

172 Table B.2: Block Monitoring Data for Block 2 continued Block # 2 Cast on January 28, 2003 Length (mm) 901 Width (mm) 242 Height (mm) 495 Date: July 25, 2003 September 2, 2003 October 3, 2003 Operator: SC, EC SC SC, RC Temperature (oF) 72 72 72 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 56.1 56.0 56.4 2 56.1 56.0 56.3 3 55.9 55.9 56.2 4 56.1 56.2 56.5 5 55.7 55.4 55.4 6 56.2 56.0 56.0 7 56.3 56.3 56.2 8 56.1 56.1 55.7 9 55.3 55.3 55.9 10 55.9 55.8 56.4 11 55.8 55.6 56.2 12 55.1 55.0 55.5 13 201.7 202.8 202.5 14 199.7 199.4 199.4 15 198.4 197.2 197.5 16 17 18 19 20 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wa ve Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 4002 3911 2 3998 4090 3 4090 4091 4 4000 3998 5 4284 4287 6 4285 4285 7 8

PAGE 192

173 Table B.2: Block Monitoring Data for Block 2 continued Date: July 25, 2003 September 2, 2003 October 3, 2003 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 4314 4321 4291 2 4314 4321 4298 3 4329 4329 4306 4 4314 4306 4283 5 4345 4368 4368 6 4306 4321 4321 7 4298 4298 4306 8 4314 4314 4345 9 4376 4376 4329 10 4329 4337 4291 11 4337 4353 4306 12 4392 4400 4360 13 4467 4443 4449 14 4512 4519 4519 15 4541 4569 4562 16 17 18 19 20 UPV averages Top 434743444326 Middle 435543644372 Bottom 439544074400 Immersion Line Impact-Echo averages Top 392840004001 Middle 404540454045 Bottom 416242854286 Immersion Line Age (Weeks) 253135

PAGE 193

174 Table B.2: Block Monitoring Data for Block 2 continued Block # 2 Cast on January 28, 2003 Length (mm) 901 Width (mm) 242 Height (mm) 495 Date: October 17, 2003 October 31, 2003 November 19, 2003 Operator: SC SC SC Temperature (oF) 72 72 72 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 56.3 56.5 56.7 2 56.3 56.5 56.8 3 56.4 56.3 56.5 4 56.3 56.5 56.6 5 55.3 55.7 55.4 6 55.9 56.3 56.0 7 55.9 56.2 56.2 8 55.6 56.2 56.1 9 55.2 56.0 55.1 10 55.9 57.0 55.8 11 55.7 57.0 55.7 12 55.2 56.5 55.1 13 202.5 202.1 203.1 14 199.5 200.0 200.7 15 198.4 198.3 198.7 16 55.1 58.1 57.1 17 55.7 58.2 57.6 18 55.7 58.5 57.6 19 55.2 58.5 57.7 20 200.5 200.5 201.3 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wa ve Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3998 3998 4090 2 3998 3998 3914 3 4091 4090 3911 4 4092 4090 3999 5 4285 4185 4092 6 4092 4188 4000 7 4187 4285 4087 8 4188 4092 4185

PAGE 194

175 Table B.2: Block Monitoring Data for Block 2 continued Date: October 17, 2003 October 31, 2003 November 19, 2003 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 4298 4283 4268 2 4298 4283 4261 3 4291 4298 4283 4 4298 4283 4276 5 4376 4345 4368 6 4329 4298 4321 7 4329 4306 4306 8 4353 4306 4314 9 4384 4321 4392 10 4329 4246 4337 11 4345 4246 4345 12 4384 4283 4392 13 4449 4458 4436 14 4516 4505 4489 15 4541 4544 4534 16 4392 4438 4520 17 4345 4430 4477 18 4345 4408 4477 19 4384 4408 4469 20 4494 4516 4498 UPV averages Top 432743214305 Middle 438143524360 Bottom 439743984400 Immersion Line 439244404488 Impact-Echo averages Top 399839984002 Middle 409240903955 Bottom 423641874046 Immersion Line 418841894136 Age (Weeks) 373942

PAGE 195

176 Table B.2: Block Monitoring Data for Block 2 continued Block # 2 Cast on January 28, 2003 Length (mm) 901 Width (mm) 242 Height (mm) 495 Date: December 15, 2003 January 9, 2004 January 29, 2004 Operator: SC SC SC, BQ Temperature (oF) 72 72 72 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 57.3 56.6 57.0 2 57.4 56.7 57.1 3 57.4 56.5 56.9 4 56.7 56.6 57.0 5 56.7 55.7 56.0 6 57.7 56.8 57.7 7 56.7 56.3 57.3 8 56.4 56.3 57.3 9 58.5 55.2 56.3 10 58.7 56.0 57.0 11 59.0 56.0 57.0 12 58.9 55.8 57.0 13 200.8 202.3 203.0 14 199.5 200.0 201.0 15 197.7 199.2 200.0 16 60.7 58.1 59.0 17 60.4 59.1 60.0 18 63.6 59.8 60.0 19 60.0 59.0 60.0 20 200.7 200.5 201.0 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wa ve Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 4000 3914 3831 2 3914 4002 4002 3 4000 3913 3913 4 3913 3913 3914 5 4090 3914 3912 6 3913 4000 4002 7 4001 3913 4000 8 4092 3914 3829

PAGE 196

177 Table B.2: Block Monitoring Data for Block 2 continued Date: December 15, 2003 January 9, 2004 January 29, 2004 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 4223 4276 4246 2 4216 4268 4238 3 4216 4283 4253 4 4268 4276 4246 5 4268 4345 4321 6 4194 4261 4194 7 4268 4298 4223 8 4291 4298 4223 9 4137 4384 4298 10 4123 4321 4246 11 4102 4321 4246 12 4109 4337 4246 13 4487 4454 4438 14 4516 4505 4483 15 4557 4523 4505 16 4248 4438 4370 17 4269 4363 4297 18 4057 4315 4297 19 4301 4370 4297 20 4512 4517 4504 UPV averages Top 430843114284 Middle 435143414289 Bottom 438943774308 Immersion Line 444444014353 Impact-Echo averages Top 395739583917 Middle 395739133914 Bottom 400239573957 Immersion Line 404739143915 Age (Weeks) 464952

PAGE 197

178 Figure B.2: Wave speed versus age for Block 2

PAGE 198

179 Table B.3: Block monitoring data for Block 3 Block # 3 Cast on January 28, 2003 Length (mm) 900 Width (mm) 243 Height (mm) 495 Date: January 30, 2003 February 6, 2003 February 13, 2003 Operator: CF, EC CF CF Temperature (oF) 72 72 72 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 58.6 59.4 2 58.8 58.6 3 59.0 59.7 4 59.0 59.3 5 57.8 56.1 6 58.3 57.2 7 57.4 56.4 8 58.2 55.5 9 57.6 57.8 10 56.5 55.8 11 57.4 57.3 12 57.6 57.8 13 228.7 206.1 14 224.7 205.4 15 225.0 205.0 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wa ve Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3684 4273 4021 2 4185 4287 4001 3 3831 4186 3933 4 4198 4066 3997 5 3831 4116 4285 6 4000 4080 4092

PAGE 199

180 Table B.3: Block monitoring data for Block 3 continued Date: January 30, 2003 February 6, 2003 February 13, 2003 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 4147 4091 2 4133 4147 3 4119 4070 4 4119 4098 5 4204 4332 6 4168 4248 7 4233 4309 8 4175 4378 9 4219 4204 10 4301 4355 11 4233 4241 12 4219 4204 13 3935 4367 14 4005 4382 15 4000 4390 UPV Averages Top 409041224155 Middle 415742434330 Bottom 419442374279 Impact-Echo Averages Top 393539734011 Middle 401539903965 Bottom 391640524189 Age (Weeks) 012

PAGE 200

181 Table B.3: Block monitoring data for Block 3 continued Block # 3 Cast on January 28, 2003 Length (mm) 900 Width (mm) 243 Height (mm) 495 Date: February 20, 2003 March 25, 2003 April 5, 2003 Operator: CF, EC, XZ SC XZ, EC Temperature (oF) 72 77 72 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 59.6 55.1 55.9 2 60.8 55.3 56.3 3 60.5 56.3 56.5 4 56.7 54.8 55.8 5 55.8 54.8 55.5 6 56.0 54.9 55.6 7 56.0 53.9 55.3 8 55.9 53.3 54.7 9 55.7 54.6 54.4 10 55.3 54.2 54.5 11 55.2 54.5 55.1 12 54.5 54.1 54.8 13 204.8 200.1 201.7 14 204.6 199.6 200.9 15 204.4 198.4 200.5 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wa ve Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3894 3830 2 3892 3829 3 4285 3913 4 4175 3935 5 3998 4163 6 4390 4186

PAGE 201

182 Table B.3: Block monitoring data for Block 3 continued Date: February 20, 2003 March 25, 2003 April 5, 2003 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 4077 4410 4347 2 3997 4394 4316 3 4017 4316 4301 4 4286 4434 4355 5 4355 4434 4378 6 4339 4426 4371 7 4339 4508 4394 8 4347 4559 4442 9 4363 4451 4467 10 4394 4483 4459 11 4402 4459 4410 12 4459 4492 4434 13 4395 4498 4462 14 4399 4509 4480 15 4403 4536 4489 UPV Averages Top 415444114356 Middle 435644874413 Bottom 440444844452 Impact-Echo Averages Top 389338303863 Middle 395839243954 Bottom 419441754142 Age (Weeks) 3810

PAGE 202

183 Table B.3: Block monitoring data for Block 3 continued Block # 3 Cast on January 28, 2003 Length (mm) 900 Width (mm) 243 Height (mm) 495 Date: May 2, 2003 May 17, 2003 May 30, 2003 Operator: SC, XZ SC, EC XZ, EC Temperature (oF) 72 72 72 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 54.3 55.0 55.3 2 54.4 55.5 55.7 3 54.5 55.5 55.7 4 54.3 55.3 55.3 5 53.2 54.4 54.3 6 53.7 55.1 55.1 7 53.4 54.6 54.6 8 53.3 54.4 54.4 9 53.7 54.7 53.7 10 53.6 54.9 53.8 11 52.7 53.8 53.2 12 53.8 53.8 53.3 13 199.7 200.4 200.4 14 198.6 199.5 199.4 15 198.1 198.2 198.2 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wa ve Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3912 4092 3935 2 3914 4287 4104 3 3997 4091 4000 4 4000 4390 4176 5 4000 4284 4500 6 4000 4502 3830

PAGE 203

184 Table B.3: Block monitoring data for Block 3 continued Date: May 2, 2003 May 17, 2003 May 30, 2003 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 4475 4418 4394 2 4467 4378 4367 3 4459 4378 4363 4 4475 4394 4398 5 4568 4467 4475 6 4525 4410 4414 7 4551 4451 4455 8 4559 4467 4471 9 4525 4442 4525 10 4534 4426 4521 11 4611 4517 4568 12 4517 4517 4559 13 4507 4491 4491 14 4532 4511 4515 15 4543 4541 4542 UPV Averages Top 438444124403 Middle 443744614466 Bottom 447044894543 Impact-Echo Averages Top 391339934020 Middle 399940664088 Bottom 409441474165 Age (Weeks) 131617

PAGE 204

185 Table B.3: Block monitoring data for Block 3 continued Block # 3 Cast on January 28, 2003 Length (mm) 900 Width (mm) 243 Height (mm) 495 Date: June 18, 2003 June 27, 2003 July 7, 2003 Operator: XZ XZ SC, DL Temperature (oF) 72 72 72 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 55.6 55.2 2 55.8 55.7 3 55.9 55.8 4 55.2 55.4 5 54.2 54.7 6 55.0 55.2 7 54.5 54.6 8 54.3 54.3 9 52.7 52.8 10 52.6 52.8 11 52.6 52.9 12 52.8 52.8 13 200.4 199.7 14 199.2 199.5 15 198.1 198.1 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wa ve Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 4186 4092 2 3829 4002 3 4174 4091 4 4004 4285 5 4285 4287 6 4287 4499

PAGE 205

186 Table B.3: Block monitoring data for Block 3 continued Date: June 18, 2003 June 27, 2003 July 7, 2003 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 4371 4402 2 4355 4363 3 4347 4355 4 4402 4386 5 4483 4442 6 4418 4402 7 4459 4451 8 4475 4475 9 4611 4602 10 4620 4602 11 4620 4594 12 4602 4602 13 4491 4507 14 4518 4511 15 4543 4543 UPV Averages Top 439343964403 Middle 447144664456 Bottom 459945964589 Impact-Echo Averages Top 401140084047 Middle 408940894188 Bottom 425642864393 Age (Weeks) 202123

PAGE 206

187 Table B.3: Block monitoring data for Block 3 continued Block # 3 Cast on January 28, 2003 Length (mm) 900 Width (mm) 243 Height (mm) 495 Date: July 25, 2003 September 9, 2003 October 7, 2003 Operator: SC, EC SC, RC SC, RC Temperature (oF) 72 72 72 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 55.2 55.3 55.3 2 55.7 55.7 55.8 3 55.8 55.8 55.7 4 55.4 55.5 55.4 5 54.6 54.7 54.6 6 55.0 55.0 55.1 7 54.8 54.8 54.9 8 54.7 54.5 54.3 9 53.0 52.9 52.8 10 53.1 52.9 52.8 11 53.1 53.0 53.1 12 53.0 52.9 53.0 13 199.7 199.4 199.3 14 199.0 198.3 198.4 15 198.1 197.5 197.5 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wa ve Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 4000 4000 2 4090 4092 3 4187 4090 4 4186 4284 5 4388 4285 6 4392 4388

PAGE 207

188 Table B.3: Block monitoring data for Block 3 continued Date: July 25, 2003 September 9, 2003 October 7, 2003 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 4402 4394 4394 2 4363 4363 4355 3 4355 4355 4363 4 4386 4378 4386 5 4451 4442 4451 6 4418 4418 4410 7 4434 4434 4426 8 4442 4459 4475 9 4585 4594 4602 10 4576 4594 4602 11 4576 4585 4576 12 4585 4594 4585 13 4507 4514 4516 14 4523 4539 4536 15 4543 4557 4557 UPV Averages Top 440344014403 Middle 445444584460 Bottom 457345854585 Impact-Echo Averages Top 404740454046 Middle 418841874187 Bottom 439243904337 Age (Weeks) 253236

PAGE 208

189 Table B.3: Block monitoring data for Block 3 continued Block # 3 Cast on January 28, 2003 Length (mm) 900 Width (mm) 243 Height (mm) 495 Date: December 16, 2003 January 29, 2004 Operator: SC SC, BQ Temperature (oF) 72 72 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 55.4 54.6 2 55.8 55.8 3 55.7 55.6 4 55.4 55.0 5 54.5 53.9 6 55.0 54.6 7 54.8 54.5 8 54.5 54.0 9 52.9 52.5 10 53.0 52.5 11 53.2 52.3 12 53.0 52.3 13 199.6 199.0 14 198.0 197.5 15 197.8 196.9 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 4000 4091 2 4092 4002 3 4185 4185 4 4187 4187 5 4388 4391 6 4388 4388

PAGE 209

190 Table B.3: Block monitoring data for Block 3 continued Date: December 16, 2003 January 29, 2004 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 4386 4451 2 4355 4355 3 4363 4371 4 4386 4418 5 4459 4508 6 4418 4451 7 4434 4459 8 4459 4500 9 4594 4629 10 4585 4629 11 4568 4646 12 4585 4646 13 4509 4523 14 4545 4557 15 4550 4571 UPV Averages Top 44004423 Middle 44634495 Bottom 45764624 Impact-Echo Averages Top 40464047 Middle 41864186 Bottom 43884390 Age (Weeks) 4652

PAGE 210

191 Figure B.3: Wave speed versus age for Block 3

PAGE 211

192 Table B.4: Block monitoring data for Block 4 Block # 4 Cast on January 28, 2003 Length (mm) 900 Width (mm) 243 Height (mm) 501 Date: January 30, 2003 February 6, 2003 February 13, 2003 Operator: CF, EC CF CF, EC Temperature (oF) 72 72 72 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 60.6 58.0 2 60.9 59.6 3 61.9 60.8 4 61.3 59.5 5 59.6 58.0 6 60.2 59.2 7 61.6 60.0 8 60.5 58.5 9 58.7 56.9 10 59.2 58.1 11 60.8 57.9 12 59.7 56.9 13 230.8 207.0 14 228.3 206.6 15 226.6 205.1 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wa ve Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3529 4101 3831 2 4002 4091 4092 3 3913 4000 4185 4 4000 4092 4091 5 4092 4527 4092 6 3998 4287 4185

PAGE 212

193 Table B.4: Block monitoring data for Block 4 continued Date: January 30, 2003 February 6, 2003 February 13, 2003 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 4010 4190 2 3990 4077 3 3926 3997 4 3964 4084 5 4077 4190 6 4037 4105 7 3945 4050 8 4017 4154 9 4140 4271 10 4105 4182 11 3997 4197 12 4070 4271 13 3899 4348 14 3942 4356 15 3972 4388 UPV averages Top 395840484139 Middle 400340874171 Bottom 405741594262 Impact-Echo averages Top 376638393913 Middle 395740474138 Bottom 404540924139 Age (Weeks) 012

PAGE 213

194 Table B.4: Block monitoring data for Block 4 continued Block # 4 Cast on January 28, 2003 Length (mm) 900 Width (mm) 243 Height (mm) 501 Date: February 20, 2003 March 25, 2003 April 5, 2003 Operator: CF, EC, XZ SC XZ, EC Temperature (oF) 72 77 72 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 57.8 57.9 57.1 2 59.7 57.7 58.7 3 59.4 57.6 58.9 4 59.0 56.6 57.8 5 57.6 55.8 56.7 6 59.2 57.1 58.4 7 59.6 57.8 58.2 8 58.3 56.7 57.6 9 57.0 55.8 57.9 10 57.2 57.9 57.2 11 57.2 57.7 57.2 12 57.4 56.3 56.6 13 206.0 201.6 204.2 14 205.6 201.2 203.4 15 205.2 200.3 202.2 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wa ve Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3913 3902 2 3914 3894 3 4187 4092 4 4188 4092 5 4287 4285 6 4002 4284

PAGE 214

195 Table B.4: Block monitoring data for Block 4 continued Date: February 20, 2003 March 25, 2003 April 5, 2003 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 4204 4197 4256 2 4070 4211 4140 3 4091 4219 4126 4 4119 4293 4204 5 4219 4355 4286 6 4105 4256 4161 7 4077 4204 4175 8 4168 4286 4219 9 4263 4355 4197 10 4248 4197 4248 11 4248 4211 4248 12 4233 4316 4293 13 4369 4464 4407 14 4377 4473 4425 15 4386 4493 4451 UPV averages Top 417142774311 Middle 418943154334 Bottom 427643154342 Impact-Echo averages Top 391438983904 Middle 418840924055 Bottom 414542854245 Age (Weeks) 3810

PAGE 215

196 Table B.4: Block monitoring data for Block 4 continued Block # 4 Cast on January 28, 2003 Length (mm) 900 Width (mm) 243 Height (mm) 501 Date: May 2, 2003 May 17, 2003 May 30, 2003 Operator: SC,XZ SC,EC XZ, EC Temperature (oF) 72 72 72 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 55.4 56.8 56.5 2 57.0 57.7 57.7 3 56.7 57.8 57.7 4 56.2 57.3 57.1 5 55.2 56.4 56.0 6 56.3 57.5 57.4 7 56.9 57.9 57.5 8 55.9 56.8 56.6 9 55.1 55.7 54.4 10 56.9 57.2 55.2 11 57.1 56.9 55.8 12 56.2 55.2 54.9 13 201.3 201.2 201.4 14 200.4 200.8 201.3 15 199.3 199.1 199.9 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wa ve Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3914 3911 4000 2 3911 3911 3902 3 3998 4092 4001 4 4002 4092 4187 5 4187 4287 4092 6 4185 4285 4392

PAGE 216

197 Table B.4: Block monitoring data for Block 4 continued Date: May 2, 2003 May 17, 2003 May 30, 2003 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 4386 4278 4301 2 4263 4211 4211 3 4286 4204 4211 4 4324 4241 4256 5 4402 4309 4339 6 4316 4226 4233 7 4271 4197 4226 8 4347 4278 4293 9 4410 4363 4467 10 4271 4248 4402 11 4256 4271 4355 12 4324 4402 4426 13 4471 4473 4469 14 4491 4482 4471 15 4516 4520 4502 UPV averages Top 434643184290 Middle 435343334313 Bottom 436944004430 Impact-Echo averages Top 391339113951 Middle 400040924094 Bottom 418642214242 Age (Weeks) 131617

PAGE 217

198 Table B.4: Block monitoring data for Block 4 continued Block # 4 Cast on January 28, 2003 Length (mm) 900 Width (mm) 243 Height (mm) 501 Date: June 18, 2003 June 27, 2003 July 7, 2003 Operator: XZ XZ SC, DL Temperature (oF) 72 72 72 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 56.6 56.8 2 57.9 57.8 3 57.8 57.9 4 57.3 57.4 5 56.0 56.1 6 57.4 57.5 7 57.8 57.7 8 56.8 56.9 9 54.7 54.6 10 55.2 55.4 11 56.0 55.9 12 54.8 55.2 13 201.6 200.9 14 200.5 200.2 15 199.2 199.2 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wa ve Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 4002 4092 2 4002 4092 3 4114 4091 4 4162 4093 5 4390 4187 6 4187 4287

PAGE 218

199 Table B.4: Block monitoring data for Block 4 continued Date: June 18, 2003 June 27, 2003 July 7, 2003 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 4293 4278 2 4197 4204 3 4204 4197 4 4241 4233 5 4339 4332 6 4233 4226 7 4204 4211 8 4278 4271 9 4442 4451 10 4402 4386 11 4339 4347 12 4434 4402 13 4464 4480 14 4489 4496 15 4518 4518 UPV averages Top 428042794279 Middle 430943084307 Bottom 442744254421 Impact-Echo averages Top 398940024092 Middle 412741384092 Bottom 427742894237 Age (Weeks) 202123

PAGE 219

200 Table B.4: Block monitoring data for Block 4 continued Block # 4 Cast on January 28, 2003 Length (mm) 900 Width (mm) 243 Height (mm) 501 Date: July 25, 2003 September 9, 2003 October 7, 2003 Operator: SC, EC SC, RC SC, RC Temperature (oF) 72 72 72 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 56.9 57.0 57.0 2 58.2 58.1 58.0 3 58.1 58.1 58.0 4 57.6 57.6 57.7 5 56.6 56.6 56.6 6 57.6 57.5 57.4 7 57.8 57.9 58.0 8 56.8 57.1 57.0 9 54.8 54.8 54.8 10 55.6 55.6 55.6 11 56.1 56.1 56.0 12 55.1 55.1 55.1 13 200.9 200.6 200.6 14 200.3 199.7 199.7 15 199.5 198.4 198.3 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wa ve Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 4092 4092 2 4092 4090 3 4092 4092 4 4187 4187 5 4287 4284 6 4187 4285

PAGE 220

201 Table B.4: Block monitoring data for Block 4 continued Date: July 25, 2003 September 9, 2003 October 7, 2003 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 4271 4263 4263 2 4175 4182 4190 3 4182 4182 4190 4 4219 4219 4211 5 4293 4293 4293 6 4219 4226 4233 7 4204 4197 4190 8 4278 4256 4263 9 4434 4434 4434 10 4371 4371 4371 11 4332 4332 4339 12 4410 4410 4410 13 4480 4487 4487 14 4493 4507 4507 15 4511 4536 4539 UPV averages Top 426542674268 Middle 429842964297 Bottom 441244174419 Impact-Echo averages Top 409240924091 Middle 410341404140 Bottom 423742374285 Age (Weeks) 253236

PAGE 221

202 Table B.4: Block monitoring data for Block 4 continued Block # 4 Cast on January 28, 2003 Length (mm) 900 Width (mm) 243 Height (mm) 501 Date: December 16, 2003 January 29, 2004 Operator: SC SC Temperature (oF) 72 72 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 57.0 56.7 2 58.1 57.6 3 57.9 57.6 4 57.7 57.4 5 56.7 55.9 6 57.7 57.0 7 58.0 57.8 8 57.3 56.6 9 54.8 54.3 10 55.7 55.4 11 55.9 55.7 12 55.1 54.7 13 200.4 200.9 14 199.5 200.5 15 198.9 199.3 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 4090 4093 2 4091 4093 3 4092 4091 4 4185 4185 5 4390 4390 6 4287 4285

PAGE 222

203 Table B.4: Block monitoring data for Block 4 continued Date: December 16, 2003 January 29, 2004 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 4263 4286 2 4182 4219 3 4197 4219 4 4211 4233 5 4286 4347 6 4211 4263 7 4190 4204 8 4241 4293 9 4434 4475 10 4363 4386 11 4347 4363 12 4410 4442 13 4491 4480 14 4511 4489 15 4525 4516 UPV averages Top 42694287 Middle 42884319 Bottom 44164436 Impact-Echo averages Top 40914093 Middle 41394138 Bottom 43394338 Age (Weeks) 4652

PAGE 223

204 Figure B.4: Wave speed versus age for Block 4

PAGE 224

205 Table B.5: Block monitoring data for Block 5 Block # 5 Cast on: February 6, 2003 Length (mm) 902 Width (mm) 243 Height (mm) 487 Date: February 9, 2003 February 13, 2003 February 21, 2003 Operator: CF, EC CF, EC CF, EC Temperature (oF) 72 72 72 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 64.6 64.4 59.4 2 64.5 64.1 60.0 3 64.6 64.3 60.2 4 64.8 62.3 59.9 5 61.5 59.7 58.0 6 61.6 59.6 58.1 7 61.3 59.8 58.2 8 61.4 60.0 58.4 9 58.7 58.4 55.8 10 58.9 58.3 56.1 11 57.5 59.3 56.6 12 57.3 60.0 56.1 13 231.0 223.2 224.7 14 226.4 218.0 217.3 15 220.4 213.1 212.8 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wa ve Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3519 3672 3673 2 3831 3751 3751 3 3802 4091 4021 4 3808 4186 4000 5 3831 4285 4171 6 3945 4187 4287

PAGE 225

206 Table B.5: Block monitoring data for Block 5 continued Date: February 9, 2003 February 13, 2003 February 21, 2003 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3762 3773 4091 2 3767 3791 4050 3 3762 3779 4037 4 3750 3900 4057 5 3951 4070 4190 6 3945 4077 4182 7 3964 4064 4175 8 3958 4050 4161 9 4140 4161 4355 10 4126 4168 4332 11 4226 4098 4293 12 4241 4050 4332 13 3905 4041 4014 14 3984 4138 4151 15 4093 4233 4239 UPV Averages Top 378938574050 Middle 396040804172 Bottom 416541424310 Impact-Echo Averages Top 367537123712 Middle 380539034011 Bottom 388842364229 Age (Weeks) 012

PAGE 226

207 Table B.5: Block monitoring data for Block 5 continued Block # 5 Cast on: February 6, 2003 Length (mm) 902 Width (mm) 243 Height (mm) 487 Date: February 27, 2003 March 7, 2003 March 27, 2003 Operator: CF, EC CF, EC CF,EC Temperature (oF) 72 72 72 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 58.9 58.3 58.1 2 58.7 57.8 57.8 3 59.0 58.4 58.3 4 59.2 58.6 58.4 5 57.3 56.8 57.0 6 57.5 56.8 56.9 7 57.5 56.6 56.4 8 58.3 57.4 57.1 9 56.2 55.0 54.8 10 56.8 55.4 56.0 11 57.1 55.6 56.9 12 56.3 55.2 55.5 13 215.4 212.5 211.0 14 211.4 210.0 208.2 15 208.0 206.6 203.9 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wa ve Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3913 3977 3913 2 3831 4000 4285 3 4056 4388 4187 4 3914 4101 4301 5 3924 4287 4392 6 4187 4390 4388

PAGE 227

208 Table B.5: Block monitoring data for Block 5 continued Date: February 27, 2003 March 7, 2003 March 27, 2003 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 4126 4168 4182 2 4140 4204 4204 3 4119 4161 4168 4 4105 4147 4161 5 4241 4278 4263 6 4226 4278 4271 7 4226 4293 4309 8 4168 4233 4256 9 4324 4418 4434 10 4278 4386 4339 11 4256 4371 4271 12 4316 4402 4378 13 4188 4245 4275 14 4267 4295 4332 15 4337 4366 4424 UPV Averages Top 413541854198 Middle 422642764286 Bottom 430243894369 Impact-Echo Averages Top 387239893870 Middle 398540504244 Bottom 433943394390 Age (Weeks) 347

PAGE 228

209 Table B.5: Block monitoring data for Block 5 continued Block # 5 Cast on: February 6, 2003 Length (mm) 902 Width (mm) 243 Height (mm) 487 Date: April 17, 2003 May 1, 2003 May 10, 2003 Operator: CF, EC CF, EC CF, EC Temperature (oF) 72 72 72 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 58.1 57.8 2 57.9 57.7 3 58.2 58.5 4 58.4 58.2 5 57.1 56.6 6 56.7 56.3 7 56.4 56.2 8 56.7 56.8 9 55.0 54.7 10 55.2 55.5 11 55.9 55.6 12 54.6 54.8 13 210.7 210.4 14 207.6 207.5 15 200.4 202.7 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wa ve Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3983 3788 2 3741 3999 3 3914 4101 4 3977 4211 5 4175 4287 6 4163 4287

PAGE 229

210 Table B.5: Block monitoring data for Block 5 continued Date: April 17, 2003 May 1, 2003 May 10, 2003 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 4182 4204 2 4197 4211 3 4175 4154 4 4161 4175 5 4256 4293 6 4286 4316 7 4309 4324 8 4286 4278 9 4418 4442 10 4402 4378 11 4347 4371 12 4451 4434 13 4281 4287 14 4345 4347 15 4501 4450 UPV Averages Top 419942064197 Middle 429643124298 Bottom 442444154427 Impact-Echo Averages Top 386238833894 Middle 424441854156 Bottom 435043084287 Age (Weeks) 101213

PAGE 230

211 Figure B.5: Wave speed versus age for Block 5

PAGE 231

212 Table B.6: Block monitoring data for Block 6 Block # 6 Cast On: February 6, 2003 Length (mm) 901 Width (mm) 242 Height (mm) 484 Date: February 9, 2003 February 13, 2003 February 21, 2003 Operator: CF, EC CF, EC CF, EC Temperature (oF) 72 72 72 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 63.6 61.9 63.3 2 63.7 65.0 60.9 3 64.0 64.3 61.2 4 63.0 62.0 61.0 5 63.1 61.5 60.5 6 63.6 61.8 60.8 7 62.7 61.8 60.7 8 63.6 60.8 59.9 9 63.6 59.5 58.7 10 63.6 60.4 62.3 11 63.6 59.8 64.0 12 63.6 58.6 59.7 13 231.4 222.9 217.6 14 227.0 218.7 214.0 15 222.3 215.6 210.8 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wa ve Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3672 3396 3830 2 3674 3461 3913 3 3754 3462 3914 4 3755 3672 3821 5 3840 3828 4090 6 4092 4100 3913

PAGE 232

213 Table B.6: Block monitoring data for Block 6 continued Date: February 9, 2003 February 13, 2003 February 21, 2003 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3805 3910 3823 2 3799 3723 3974 3 3781 3764 3954 4 3841 3903 3967 5 3835 3935 4000 6 3805 3916 3980 7 3860 3916 3987 8 3805 3980 4040 9 3805 4067 4123 10 3805 4007 3884 11 3805 4047 3781 12 3805 4130 4054 13 3894 4042 4141 14 3969 4120 4210 15 4053 4179 4274 UPV Top 382438683972 Middle 385539734043 Bottom 385540864023 IE Top 340034293602 Middle 350135673868 Bottom 396639644002 Age (Weeks) 012

PAGE 233

214 Table B.6: Block monitoring data for Block 6 continued Block # 6 Cast On: February 6, 2003 Length (mm) 901 Width (mm) 242 Height (mm) 484 Date: February 27, 2003 March 7, 2003 March 27, 2003 Operator: CF, EC CF, EC CF, EC Temperature (oF) 72 72 72 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 59.3 58.6 59.0 2 59.9 58.7 58.8 3 59.4 59.2 59.2 4 59.9 58.6 58.7 5 58.6 58.7 58.9 6 59.3 58.8 58.6 7 59.6 58.7 58.7 8 59.6 57.8 57.9 9 57.0 56.6 57.6 10 58.2 57.3 58.3 11 58.4 57.0 58.3 12 57.6 56.0 56.5 13 215.3 213.3 210.5 14 212.0 211.4 209.0 15 209.6 207.0 206.3 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wa ve Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3998 3673 3841 2 4080 3751 3912 3 4021 3829 4009 4 3945 4092 4000 5 4187 4188 4114 6 4090 4186 4235

PAGE 234

215 Table B.6: Block monitoring data for Block 6 continued Date: February 27, 2003 March 7, 2003 March 27, 2003 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 4081 4130 4102 2 4040 4123 4116 3 4074 4088 4088 4 4040 4130 4123 5 4130 4123 4109 6 4081 4116 4130 7 4060 4123 4123 8 4060 4187 4180 9 4246 4276 4201 10 4158 4223 4151 11 4144 4246 4151 12 4201 4321 4283 13 4185 4224 4280 14 4250 4262 4311 15 4299 4353 4367 UPV Top 408441394142 Middle 411641624170 Bottom 421042844231 IE Top 365037123877 Middle 398339614005 Bottom 413941874175 Age (Weeks) 347

PAGE 235

216 Table B.6: Block monitoring data for Block 6 continued Block # 6 Cast On: February 6, 2003 Length (mm) 901 Width (mm) 242 Height (mm) 484 Date: April 17, 2003 May 1, 2003 May 10, 2003 Operator: CF, EC CF, EC CF, EC Temperature (oF) 72 72 72 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 58.4 58.8 2 58.7 58.6 3 58.9 59.3 4 58.6 58.7 5 58.9 58.9 6 58.7 58.6 7 58.5 58.3 8 57.8 57.6 9 56.4 56.7 10 57.1 58.3 11 56.7 56.9 12 55.9 56.0 13 210.8 210.1 14 207.8 207.3 15 204.9 204.6 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wa ve Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3989 4114 2 4001 4299 3 4211 3997 4 4090 4208 5 4186 4235 6 4175 4235

PAGE 236

217 Table B.6: Block monitoring data for Block 6 continued Date: April 17, 2003 May 1, 2003 May 10, 2003 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 4144 4116 2 4123 4130 3 4109 4081 4 4130 4123 5 4109 4109 6 4123 4130 7 4137 4151 8 4187 4201 9 4291 4268 10 4238 4151 11 4268 4253 12 4329 4321 13 4274 4288 14 4336 4346 15 4397 4404 UPV Top 4156 4118 4099 Middle 4178 4163 4156 Bottom 4305 4320 4327 IE Top 3995 4098 4150 Middle 4151 4163 4169 Bottom 4181 4217 4235 Age (Weeks) 10 12 13

PAGE 237

218 Figure B.6: Wave speed versus age for Block 6

PAGE 238

219 Table B.7: Block monitoring data for Block 7 Block # 7 Cast On: February 6, 2003 Length (mm) 905 Width (mm) 243 Height (mm) 492 Date: February 9, 2003 February 13, 2003 February 21, 2003 Operator: CF, EC CF, EC CF, EC Temperature (oF) 72 72 72 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 61.5 60.3 58.0 2 61.5 61.0 57.7 3 60.8 60.2 57.0 4 61.4 63.0 58.0 5 62.0 61.0 58.4 6 61.5 60.4 57.5 7 61.6 61.1 57.6 8 61.7 60.4 57.5 9 61.5 59.3 56.7 10 61.4 60.0 57.4 11 61.4 60.6 57.5 12 61.5 59.3 57.6 13 224.0 215.7 210.8 14 221.8 214.5 209.5 15 216.4 211.3 206.0 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wa ve Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3692 3673 3691 2 3645 3653 3684 3 3674 3680 3893 4 3840 3966 3924 5 3850 3900 4100 6 3674 4185 4285

PAGE 239

220 Table B.7: Block monitoring data for Block 7 continued Date: February 9, 2003 February 13, 2003 February 21, 2003 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3951 4030 4190 2 3951 3984 4211 3 3997 4037 4263 4 3958 3857 4190 5 3919 3984 4161 6 3951 4023 4226 7 3945 3977 4219 8 3938 4023 4226 9 3951 4098 4286 10 3958 4050 4233 11 3958 4010 4226 12 3951 4098 4219 13 4040 4196 4293 14 4080 4219 4320 15 4182 4283 4393 UPV averages Top 397940214229 Middle 396740454230 Bottom 400041084271 Impact-Echo Averages Top 366936633688 Middle 375738233909 Bottom 376240434193 Age (Weeks) 012

PAGE 240

221 Table B.7: Block monitoring data for Block 7 continued Block # 7 Cast On: February 6, 2003 Length (mm) 905 Width (mm) 243 Height (mm) 492 Date: February 28, 2003 March 6, 2003 March 20, 2003 Operator: CF, EC CF, EC CF, EC Temperature (oF) 72 72 72 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 57.8 57.3 57.1 2 57.8 57.1 56.7 3 57.6 57.1 56.5 4 57.6 57.2 56.7 5 58.0 57.4 57.5 6 57.8 57.3 57 7 57.8 57.5 57.3 8 57.4 57.4 57.2 9 57.0 56.5 57.4 10 57.3 57.3 57.1 11 57.7 57.3 57.4 12 56.8 57.3 57.9 13 209.3 207.8 206.4 14 208.4 207.1 205.6 15 204.9 202.4 200.9 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wa ve Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3600 3831 3770 2 3902 3749 3902 3 4090 4091 4101 4 3810 4090 4186 5 4393 4390 4357 6 4007 4187 4287

PAGE 241

222 Table B.7: Block monitoring data for Block 7 continued Date: February 28, 2003 March 6, 2003 March 20, 2003 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 4204 4241 4256 2 4204 4256 4286 3 4219 4256 4301 4 4219 4248 4286 5 4190 4233 4226 6 4204 4241 4263 7 4204 4226 4241 8 4233 4233 4248 9 4263 4301 4233 10 4241 4241 4256 11 4211 4241 4233 12 4278 4241 4197 13 4324 4355 4385 14 4343 4370 4402 15 4417 4471 4505 UPV averages Top 423442714303 Middle 423542614276 Bottom 428242994285 Impact-Echo Averages Top 375137903836 Middle 395040914144 Bottom 420042894322 Age (Weeks) 346

PAGE 242

223 Table B.7: Block monitoring data for Block 7 continued Block # 7 Cast On: February 6, 2003 Length (mm) 905 Width (mm) 243 Height (mm) 492 Date: March 27, 2003 April 10, 2003 April 24, 2003 Operator: CF, EC CF, EC CF, EC Temperature (oF) 72 72 72 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 57.3 57.2 57.2 2 57.1 57.4 57.2 3 57.1 57.2 57.2 4 57.0 57.2 57.2 5 57.6 57.6 57.8 6 57.2 57.4 57.4 7 57.5 57.6 57.7 8 57.5 57.5 57.5 9 56.3 56.7 57.5 10 57.3 57.7 58.5 11 57.4 59.0 58.0 12 57.7 58.3 58.3 13 206.0 206.2 208.2 14 205.1 204.6 204.7 15 202.1 202.5 202.4 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wa ve Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3900 3861 2 3800 3954 3 4104 4114 4 4116 4092 5 4272 4300 6 4429 4388

PAGE 243

224 Table B.7: Block monitoring data for Block 7 continued Date: March 27, 2003 April 10, 2003 April 24, 2003 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 4241 4248 4248 2 4256 4233 4248 3 4256 4248 4248 4 4263 4248 4248 5 4219 4219 4204 6 4248 4233 4233 7 4226 4219 4211 8 4226 4226 4226 9 4316 4286 4226 10 4241 4211 4154 11 4233 4119 4190 12 4211 4168 4168 13 4393 4389 4347 14 4412 4423 4421 15 4478 4469 4471 UPV averages Top 428242734268 Middle 426642644259 Bottom 429642514242 Impact-Echo Averages Top 384138503908 Middle 413241104103 Bottom 433243514344 Age (Weeks) 7911

PAGE 244

225 Table B.7: Block monitoring data for Block 7 continued Block # 7 Cast On: February 6, 2003 Length (mm) 905 Width (mm) 243 Height (mm) 492 Date: May 10, 2003 Operator: CF Temperature (oF) 72 Data Point UPV Time ( s) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 4091 2 4092 3 4186 4 4176 5 4187 6 4377

PAGE 245

226 Table B.7: Block monitoring data for Block 7 continued Date: May 10, 2003 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 UPV averages Top 4253 Middle 4295 Bottom 4240 Impact-Echo Averages Top 4092 Middle 4181 Bottom 4282 Age (Weeks) 13

PAGE 246

227 Figure B.7: Wave speed versus age for Block 7

PAGE 247

228 Table B.8: Block monitoring data for Block 8 Block # 8 Cast On: February 6, 2003 Length (mm) 903 Width (mm) 240 Height (mm) 494 Date: February 9, 2003 February 13, 2003 February 21, 2003 Operator: CF, EC CF, EC CF, EC Temperature (oF) 72 72 72 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 63.5 62.8 57.5 2 60.7 60.9 57.6 3 64.0 58.8 57.4 4 63.4 59.8 57.6 5 63.6 58.8 56.8 6 60.6 58.2 56 7 61.0 58.8 56.4 8 63.8 59.4 56.9 9 59.9 57.3 54.1 10 61.0 57.6 53.9 11 57.6 56.6 54.3 12 60.1 57.2 54.3 13 227.0 216 210.7 14 218.2 215.1 210.4 15 212.3 210.8 206.4 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wa ve Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3684 3645 2 3349 3682 3 3610 3849 4 3630 3789 5 3655 3913 6 3674 4093

PAGE 248

229 Table B.8: Block monitoring data for Block 8 continued Date: February 9, 2003 February 13, 2003 February 21, 2003 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3780 3822 4174 2 3954 3941 4167 3 3750 4082 4181 4 3785 4013 4167 5 3774 4082 4225 6 3960 4124 4286 7 3934 4082 4255 8 3762 4040 4218 9 4007 4188 4436 10 3934 4167 4453 11 4167 4240 4420 12 3993 4196 4420 13 3978 4181 4286 14 4138 4198 4292 15 4253 4284 4375 UPV Averages Top 384940084195 Middle 391441054255 Bottom 407142154421 Impact-Echo Averages Top 351735903664 Middle 362037203819 Bottom 366538344003 Age (Weeks) 012

PAGE 249

230 Table B.8: Block monitoring data for Block 8 continued Block # 8 Cast On: February 6, 2003 Length (mm) 903 Width (mm) 240 Height (mm) 494 Date: February 28, 2003 March 6, 2003 March 20, 2003 Operator: CF, EC CF, EC CF, EC Temperature (oF) 72 72 72 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 56.9 57.0 56.7 2 56.6 56.4 56.4 3 56.5 56.4 56.2 4 57.0 56.9 56.3 5 56.3 56.3 55.9 6 55.9 56.0 55.6 7 56.3 56.3 55.8 8 56.7 56.7 56.5 9 54.6 53.7 54.5 10 54.3 53.7 54.7 11 54.9 54.9 54.3 12 54.9 54.6 54.3 13 209.1 208.8 205.8 14 208.6 207.7 205.4 15 204.5 204.6 202.5 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wa ve Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3830 3674 3808 2 3828 3914 3749 3 3882 3914 3914 4 3918 3977 3829 5 4092 4401 4390 6 4186 4284 4300

PAGE 250

231 Table B.8: Block monitoring data for Block 8 continued Date: February 28, 2003 March 6, 2003 March 20, 2003 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 4218 4211 4233 2 4240 4255 4255 3 4248 4255 4270 4 4211 4218 4263 5 4263 4263 4293 6 4293 4286 4317 7 4263 4263 4301 8 4233 4233 4248 9 4396 4469 4404 10 4420 4469 4388 11 4372 4372 4420 12 4372 4396 4420 13 4319 4325 4388 14 4329 4348 4396 15 4416 4413 4459 UPV Averages Top 424742534282 Middle 427642784311 Bottom 439544244418 Impact-Echo Averages Top 382937943779 Middle 390039463872 Bottom 413943434345 Age (Weeks) 346

PAGE 251

232 Table B.8: Block monitoring data for Block 8 continued Block # 8 Cast On: February 6, 2003 Length (mm) 903 Width (mm) 240 Height (mm) 494 Date: March 27, 2003 April 10, 2003 April 24, 2003 Operator: CF, EC CF, EC CF, EC Temperature (oF) 72 72 72 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 56.6 56.8 56.9 2 56.4 56.6 56.7 3 56.4 56.3 56.7 4 56.5 56.3 56.6 5 56.2 56.2 56.9 6 56.1 55.6 55.7 7 56.4 56.0 56.4 8 56.7 56.5 56.8 9 54.8 54.9 55.0 10 55.2 54.6 55.0 11 55.3 55.7 55.6 12 54.6 54.6 55.5 13 206.6 206.8 206.6 14 205.0 204.9 204.0 15 201.9 201.5 200.4 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wa ve Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3933 4033 2 4114 3967 3 4012 4100 4 4080 4100 5 4285 4285 6 4365 4315

PAGE 252

233 Table B.8: Block monitoring data for Block 8 continued Date: March 27, 2003 April 10, 2003 April 24, 2003 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 4240 4225 4218 2 4255 4240 4233 3 4255 4263 4233 4 4248 4263 4240 5 4270 4270 4218 6 4278 4317 4309 7 4255 4286 4255 8 4233 4248 4225 9 4380 4372 4364 10 4348 4396 4364 11 4340 4309 4317 12 4396 4396 4324 13 4371 4367 4371 14 4405 4407 4426 15 4473 4481 4506 UPV Averages Top 427442724259 Middle 428843064287 Bottom 438743914375 Impact-Echo Averages Top 386040244000 Middle 393040464100 Bottom 433843254300 Age (Weeks) 7911

PAGE 253

234 Table B.8: Block monitoring data for Block 8 continued Block # 8 Cast On: February 6, 2003 Length (mm) 903 Width (mm) 240 Height (mm) 494 Date: May 12, 2003 Operator: CF Temperature (oF) 72 Data Point UPV Time ( s) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 4021 2 4104 3 3904 4 4364 5 4309 6 4429

PAGE 254

235 Table B.8: Block monitoring data for Block 8 continued Date: May 12, 2003 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 UPV Averages Top 4257 Middle 4275 Bottom 4402 Impact-Echo Averages Top 4063 Middle 4134 Bottom 4369 Age (Weeks) 14

PAGE 255

236 Figure B.8: Wave speed versus age for Block 8

PAGE 256

237 Table B.9: Block monitoring data for Block 17 Block # 17 Cast on January 21, 2003 Length (mm) 900 Width (mm) 238 Height (mm) 495 Date: January 23, 2003 January 30, 2003 February 6, 2003 Operator: CF CF, EC CF Temperature (oF) 55 72 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 75.0 67.0 2 74.3 66.3 3 73.2 65.6 4 74.8 66.5 5 71.8 63.0 6 72.2 64.5 7 73.5 64.8 8 72.6 64.0 9 71.6 60.9 10 71.6 61.7 11 70.6 61.6 12 71.5 61.6 13 283.2 243.9 14 276.7 239.4 15 255.0 229.0 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wa ve Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3158 3332 3396 2 3273 3654 3599 3 3103 3273 3528 4 3462 3396 3600 5 3334 3461 3529 6 3674 3850 3935

PAGE 257

238 Table B.9: Block monitoring data for Block 17 continued Date: January 23, 2003 January 30, 2003 February 6, 2003 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3173 3552 2 3203 3590 3 3251 3628 4 3182 3579 5 3315 3778 6 3296 3690 7 3238 3673 8 3278 3719 9 3324 3908 10 3324 3857 11 3371 3864 12 3329 3864 13 3178 3690 14 3253 3759 15 3529 3930 UPV Averages Top 319836083671 Middle 327637243809 Bottom 337538853978 Impact-Echo Averages Top 321634933498 Middle 328333353564 Bottom 350436563732 Age (Weeks) 012

PAGE 258

239 Table B.9: Block monitoring data for Block 17 continued Block # 17 Cast on January 21, 2003 Length (mm) 900 Width (mm) 238 Height (mm) 495 Date: February 13, 2003 March 25, 2003 April 5, 2003 Operator: CF, EC SC XZ, EC Temperature (oF) 72 76 72 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 63.7 61.4 62.2 2 64.0 61.5 62.7 3 62.8 61.1 62.1 4 66.3 62.1 62.7 5 60.6 57.9 59.9 6 61.5 58.2 59.8 7 61.7 58.4 60.3 8 61.5 59.1 60.3 9 58.5 55.7 56.9 10 58.8 55.9 57.5 11 58.7 56.6 57.8 12 58.6 56.5 57.8 13 234.3 227.4 228.4 14 227.8 220.8 223.4 15 218.1 211.7 213.5 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wa ve Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3428 3462 2 3514 3463 3 3602 3462 4 3732 3617 5 3590 3840 6 3751 3832

PAGE 259

240 Table B.9: Block monitoring data for Block 17 continued Date: February 13, 2003 March 25, 2003 April 5, 2003 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3736 3876 3826 2 3719 3870 3796 3 3790 3895 3833 4 3590 3833 3796 5 3927 4111 3973 6 3870 4089 3980 7 3857 4075 3947 8 3870 4027 3947 9 4068 4273 4183 10 4048 4258 4139 11 4055 4205 4118 12 4061 4212 4118 13 3841 3958 3940 14 3951 4076 4029 15 4127 4251 4215 UPV Averages Top 373538863909 Middle 389540764079 Bottom 407242404251 Impact-Echo Averages Top 347134633566 Middle 366735403605 Bottom 367138363896 Age (Weeks) 3911

PAGE 260

241 Table B.9: Block monitoring data for Block 17 continued Block # 17 Cast on January 21, 2003 Length (mm) 900 Width (mm) 238 Height (mm) 495 Date: May 2, 2003 May 17, 2003 May 28, 2003 Operator: SC, XZ SC, EC XZ, EC Temperature (oF) 72 72 72 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 61.0 62.2 62.3 2 60.7 61.9 62.4 3 59.9 61.4 61.7 4 60.9 61.9 62.1 5 57.8 58.9 59.1 6 57.9 59.0 59.3 7 59.1 59.9 60.9 8 58.5 59.8 59.8 9 55.6 56.9 57.0 10 55.9 57.2 57.9 11 56.1 56.7 57.7 12 55.9 57.2 57.5 13 227.4 226.5 226.9 14 219.9 221.7 221.5 15 210.4 210.4 211.1 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wa ve Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3674 3912 3751 2 3664 3998 3758 3 3599 4287 3673 4 3741 4002 3684 5 4000 4388 4021 6 3913 4186 4114

PAGE 261

242 Table B.9: Block monitoring data for Block 17 continued Date: May 2, 2003 May 17, 2003 May 28, 2003 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3902 3826 3820 2 3921 3845 3814 3 3973 3876 3857 4 3908 3845 3833 5 4118 4041 4027 6 4111 4034 4013 7 4027 3973 3908 8 4068 3980 3980 9 4281 4183 4175 10 4258 4161 4111 11 4242 4198 4125 12 4258 4161 4139 13 3958 3974 3967 14 4093 4060 4063 15 4278 4278 4263 UPV Averages Top 393238733858 Middle 408340173998 Bottom 426341964163 Impact-Echo Averages Top 366936723673 Middle 367036763679 Bottom 395740404068 Age (Weeks) 141718

PAGE 262

243 Table B.9: Block monitoring data for Block 17 continued Block # 17 Cast on January 21, 2003 Length (mm) 900 Width (mm) 238 Height (mm) 495 Date: June 18, 2003 June 27, 2003 July 7, 2003 Operator: XZ XZ SC, DL Temperature (oF) 72 72 72 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 61.9 62.3 2 62.0 62.0 3 61.2 61.3 4 61.8 61.9 5 59.5 59.4 6 59.0 59.2 7 59.9 59.9 8 59.5 60.0 9 56.7 56.7 10 56.9 56.9 11 56.5 56.6 12 57.1 57.1 13 227.0 226.7 14 221.7 220.2 15 210.3 209.3 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wa ve Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 2401 3531 2 2465 3531 3 2534 3600 4 2950 3672 5 3104 3998 6 3273 4186

PAGE 263

244 Table B.9: Block monitoring data for Block 17 continued Date: June 18, 2003 June 27, 2003 July 7, 2003 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3845 3820 2 3839 3839 3 3889 3883 4 3851 3845 5 4000 4007 6 4034 4020 7 3973 3973 8 4000 3967 9 4198 4198 10 4183 4183 11 4212 4205 12 4168 4168 13 3965 3970 14 4060 4087 15 4280 4300 UPV Averages Top 387838743871 Middle 401340124011 Bottom 420842094211 Impact-Echo Averages Top 360235783531 Middle 365736503636 Bottom 408040844092 Age (Weeks) 212224

PAGE 264

245 Table B.9: Block monitoring data for Block 17 continued Block # 17 Cast on January 21, 2003 Length (mm) 900 Width (mm) 238 Height (mm) 495 Date: July 25, 2003 September 9, 2003 October 7, 2003 Operator: SC, EC SC, RC SC, RC Temperature (oF) 72 72 72 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 62.7 62.7 62.5 2 62.1 62.1 62.2 3 61.7 61.7 61.7 4 62.7 62.6 62.4 5 59.1 58.9 59.2 6 59.6 59.0 59.3 7 60.0 60.0 60.2 8 60.0 59.9 59.9 9 56.8 56.9 57.0 10 57.4 57.1 57.1 11 56.9 56.8 57.2 12 57.2 57.2 57.3 13 227.0 226.7 227.0 14 220.7 219.9 219.1 15 209.9 209.4 209.7 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wa ve Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3528 3463 2 3528 3530 3 3600 3529 4 3600 3600 5 3998 4000 6 4000 4000

PAGE 265

246 Table B.9: Block monitoring data for Block 17 continued Date: July 25, 2003 September 9, 2003 October 7, 2003 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3796 3796 3808 2 3833 3833 3826 3 3857 3857 3857 4 3796 3802 3814 5 4027 4041 4020 6 3993 4034 4013 7 3967 3967 3953 8 3967 3973 3973 9 4190 4183 4175 10 4146 4168 4168 11 4183 4190 4161 12 4161 4161 4154 13 3965 3970 3965 14 4078 4093 4108 15 4288 4298 4292 UPV Averages Top 384938523854 Middle 400640214014 Bottom 419442004190 Impact-Echo Averages Top 353035283497 Middle 362836003565 Bottom 407139994000 Age (Weeks) 263337

PAGE 266

247 Table B.9: Block monitoring data for Block 17 continued Block # 17 Cast on January 21, 2003 Length (mm) 900 Width (mm) 238 Height (mm) 495 Date: December 16, 2003 January 21, 2004 Operator: SC SC, BQ Temperature (oF) 72 72 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 63.0 61.5 2 63.2 61.8 3 62.7 61.2 4 61.5 61.7 5 60.3 58.0 6 59.8 58.5 7 60.7 59.1 8 60.4 58.9 9 57.5 56.3 10 57.6 56.1 11 57.9 56.2 12 57.8 56.9 13 227.3 226.3 14 220.5 219.8 15 210.2 210.0 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3463 3462 2 3674 3672 3 3530 3600 4 3674 3673 5 4090 3998 6 4091 4187

PAGE 267

248 Table B.9: Block monitoring data for Block 17 continued Date: December 16, 2003 January 21, 2004 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3778 3870 2 3766 3851 3 3796 3889 4 3870 3857 5 3947 4103 6 3980 4068 7 3921 4027 8 3940 4041 9 4139 4227 10 4132 4242 11 4111 4235 12 4118 4183 13 3960 3977 14 4082 4095 15 4282 4286 UPV Averages Top 38343889 Middle 39744067 Bottom 41564235 Impact-Echo Averages Top 35693567 Middle 36023637 Bottom 40914093 Age (Weeks) 4752

PAGE 268

249 Figure B.9: Wave speed versus age for Block 17

PAGE 269

250 Table B.10: Block monitoring data for Block 18 Block # 18 Cast on January 21, 2003 Length (mm) 903 Width (mm) 243 Height (mm) 500 Date: January 23, 2003 January 30, 2003 February 6, 2003 Operator: CF CF, EC CF Temperature (oF) 55 72 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 79.2 69.2 2 80.0 70.0 3 79.4 69.6 4 79.4 71.6 5 78.2 68.5 6 78.4 69.0 7 77.5 68.0 8 75.6 66.4 9 77.7 65.7 10 76.6 64.7 11 75.3 64.4 12 75.6 65.2 13 288.6 250.0 14 281.6 245.7 15 264.7 234.4 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wa ve Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3158 3273 3529 2 3050 3273 3529 3 3105 3396 3529 4 3274 3674 3609 5 3104 3597 3664 6 3389 3396 3808

PAGE 270

251 Table B.10: Block monitoring data for Block 18 continued Date: January 23, 2003 January 30, 2003 February 6, 2003 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3068 3512 2 3038 3471 3 3060 3491 4 3060 3394 5 3107 3547 6 3099 3522 7 3135 3574 8 3214 3660 9 3127 3699 10 3172 3756 11 3227 3773 12 3214 3727 13 3129 3612 14 3207 3675 15 3411 3852 UPV Averages Top 307134963541 Middle 315335963647 Bottom 323137613831 Impact-Echo Averages Top 310432733529 Middle 319035353569 Bottom 324734973736 Age (Weeks) 012

PAGE 271

252 Table B.10: Block monitoring data for Block 18 continued Block # 18 Cast on January 21, 2003 Length (mm) 903 Width (mm) 243 Height (mm) 500 Date: February 13, 2003 March 25, 2003 April 5, 2003 Operator: CF, EC SC XZ, EC Temperature (oF) 72 76 72 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 69.3 65.0 66.9 2 68.7 63.9 67.6 3 69.1 65.4 68.2 4 67.6 65.9 68.3 5 65.6 63.0 64.2 6 66.3 63.1 65.4 7 68.6 63.4 64.9 8 66.3 63.8 63.3 9 62.7 60.8 62.4 10 62.3 60.4 61.6 11 63.4 60.4 61.9 12 63.6 60.9 61.5 13 239.2 231.4 233.3 14 230.6 223.9 226.7 15 221.9 212.2 218.7 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wa ve Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3655 3583 2 3530 3647 3 3751 3673 4 3749 3673 5 3830 3751 6 3911 3829

PAGE 272

253 Table B.10: Block monitoring data for Block 18 continued Date: February 13, 2003 March 25, 2003 April 5, 2003 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3506 3738 3632 2 3537 3803 3595 3 3517 3716 3563 4 3595 3687 3558 5 3704 3857 3785 6 3665 3851 3716 7 3542 3833 3744 8 3665 3809 3839 9 3876 3997 3894 10 3900 4023 3945 11 3833 4023 3926 12 3821 3990 3951 13 3775 3902 3871 14 3916 4033 3983 15 4069 4255 4129 UPV Averages Top 358637693774 Middle 369938773904 Bottom 390040584059 Impact-Echo Averages Top 359336153581 Middle 375036733703 Bottom 387137903839 Age (Weeks) 3911

PAGE 273

254 Table B.10: Block monitoring data for Block 18 continued Block # 18 Cast on January 21, 2003 Length (mm) 903 Width (mm) 243 Height (mm) 500 Date: May 2, 2003 May 17, 2003 May 28, 2003 Operator: SC, XZ SC, EC XZ, EC Temperature (oF) 72 72 72 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 64.1 65.5 66.4 2 65.0 66.1 66.2 3 65.2 66.5 66.4 4 64.9 65.7 66.2 5 62.5 63.9 64.2 6 62.9 63.7 63.8 7 62.3 63.6 63.8 8 61.1 62.0 62.0 9 60.7 61.1 63.0 10 60.5 61.9 63.1 11 60.4 60.6 63.4 12 60.3 60.2 62.6 13 231.7 231.7 231.6 14 223.9 225.3 224.2 15 213.8 214.5 214.4 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wa ve Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3530 3829 3600 2 3529 3674 3600 3 3749 3829 4001 4 3749 3831 3582 5 3913 4287 3990 6 3912 4093 3829

PAGE 274

255 Table B.10: Block monitoring data for Block 18 continued Date: May 2, 2003 May 17, 2003 May 28, 2003 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3791 3710 3660 2 3738 3676 3671 3 3727 3654 3660 4 3744 3699 3671 5 3888 3803 3785 6 3863 3815 3809 7 3900 3821 3809 8 3977 3919 3919 9 4003 3977 3857 10 4017 3926 3851 11 4023 4010 3833 12 4030 4037 3882 13 3897 3897 3899 14 4033 4008 4028 15 4224 4210 4212 UPV Averages Top 378037273712 Middle 393238733870 Bottom 405940324076 Impact-Echo Averages Top 353035823600 Middle 374937813792 Bottom 391339103910 Age (Weeks) 141718

PAGE 275

256 Table B.10: Block monitoring data for Block 18 continued Block # 18 Cast on January 21, 2003 Length (mm) 903 Width (mm) 243 Height (mm) 500 Date: June 18, 2003 June 27, 2003 July 7, 2003 Operator: XZ XZ SC, DL Temperature (oF) 72 72 72 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 65.7 65.3 2 65.0 65.0 3 66.1 65.9 4 65.5 65.7 5 63.6 63.2 6 63.9 63.1 7 63.9 63.0 8 62.0 61.7 9 59.8 59.9 10 59.5 59.5 11 59.1 59.4 12 58.8 59.0 13 231.2 231.3 14 224.6 223.6 15 214.6 213.5 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wa ve Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3349 3396 2 2474 3461 3 3736 3601 4 3673 3672 5 3894 3913 6 3914 4002

PAGE 276

257 Table B.10: Block monitoring data for Block 18 continued Date: June 18, 2003 June 27, 2003 July 7, 2003 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3699 3721 2 3738 3738 3 3676 3687 4 3710 3699 5 3821 3845 6 3803 3851 7 3803 3857 8 3919 3938 9 4064 4057 10 4084 4084 11 4112 4091 12 4133 4119 13 3906 3904 14 4020 4038 15 4208 4230 UPV Averages Top 374637483750 Middle 387338903906 Bottom 412041184116 Impact-Echo Averages Top 351434863429 Middle 372637053637 Bottom 390539043958 Age (Weeks) 212224

PAGE 277

258 Table B.10: Block monitoring data for Block 18 continued Block # 18 Cast on January 21, 2003 Length (mm) 903 Width (mm) 243 Height (mm) 500 Date: July 25, 2003 September 9, 2003 October 7, 2003 Operator: SC, EC SC, RC SC, RC Temperature (oF) 72 72 72 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 65.7 65.7 65.7 2 65.4 65.5 65.5 3 66.2 66.5 66.4 4 65.4 65.4 65.5 5 63.7 63.7 63.4 6 63.8 63.5 63.9 7 63.1 63.2 63.4 8 61.7 61.7 61.8 9 59.9 59.6 60.3 10 59.7 60.1 60.3 11 59.6 59.5 59.8 12 59.3 59.2 59.5 13 231.3 230.9 231.1 14 224.3 222.9 223.3 15 214.4 213.9 212.7 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wa ve Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3335 3273 2 3333 3396 3 3600 3598 4 3600 3601 5 4090 4090 6 4000 3912

PAGE 278

259 Table B.10: Block monitoring data for Block 18 continued Date: July 25, 2003 September 9, 2003 October 7, 2003 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3699 3699 3699 2 3716 3710 3710 3 3671 3654 3660 4 3716 3716 3710 5 3815 3815 3833 6 3809 3827 3803 7 3851 3845 3833 8 3938 3938 3932 9 4057 4077 4030 10 4070 4043 4030 11 4077 4084 4064 12 4098 4105 4084 13 3904 3911 3907 14 4026 4051 4044 15 4212 4222 4245 UPV Averages Top 374137383737 Middle 388838953889 Bottom 410341064091 Impact-Echo Averages Top 340833343335 Middle 362836003600 Bottom 397740454001 Age (Weeks) 263337

PAGE 279

260 Table B.10: Block monitoring data for Block 18 continued Block # 18 Cast on January 21, 2003 Length (mm) 903 Width (mm) 243 Height (mm) 500 Date: December 16, 2003 January 21, 2004 Operator: SC SC, BQ Temperature (oF) 72 72 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 65.7 64.6 2 65.5 64.4 3 66.4 65.0 4 65.5 64.0 5 63.4 62.8 6 63.9 63.1 7 63.4 62.7 8 61.8 61.5 9 60.3 60.5 10 60.3 60.3 11 59.8 60.5 12 59.5 60.5 13 231.5 231.0 14 223.5 223.2 15 213.2 211.3 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3528 3529 2 3396 3396 3 3528 3529 4 3599 3674 5 3914 4002 6 4092 4091

PAGE 280

261 Table B.10: Block monitoring data for Block 18 continued Date: December 16, 2003 January 21, 2004 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3699 3762 2 3710 3773 3 3660 3738 4 3710 3797 5 3833 3869 6 3803 3851 7 3833 3876 8 3932 3951 9 4030 4017 10 4030 4030 11 4064 4017 12 4084 4017 13 3901 3909 14 4040 4046 15 4235 4274 UPV Averages Top 37363796 Middle 38883919 Bottom 40894071 Impact-Echo Averages Top 34623463 Middle 35643602 Bottom 40034047 Age (Weeks) 4752

PAGE 281

262 Figure B.10: Wave speed versus age for Block 18

PAGE 282

263 Table B.11: Block monitoring data for Block 19 Block # 19 Cast on January 21, 2003 Length (mm) 900 Width (mm) 243 Height (mm) 489 Date: January 23, 2003 January 30, 2003 February 6, 2003 Operator: CF CF, EC CF Temperature (oF) 55 72 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 78.2 72.8 70.4 2 80.4 76.0 71.0 3 81.2 73.4 71.8 4 80.8 73.1 71.6 5 78.8 71.3 69.4 6 79.4 73.4 63.6 7 80.4 72.0 67.0 8 77.0 69.5 63.0 9 79.3 63.8 57.4 10 77.5 65.4 58.0 11 78.0 65.6 58.0 12 74.2 65.5 58.3 13 288.4 253.0 237.6 14 284.3 248.4 230.6 15 269.0 240.5 222.7 16 17 18 19 20 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wa ve Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3380 3332 3453 2 3396 3398 3349 3 3529 3287 3673 4 3158 3528 3674 5 3396 3684 3742 6 3349 3395 3759 7 8

PAGE 283

264 Table B.11: Block monitoring data for Block 19 continued Date: January 23, 2003 January 30, 2003 February 6, 2003 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3107 3338 3452 2 3022 3197 3423 3 2993 3311 3384 4 3007 3324 3394 5 3084 3408 3501 6 3060 3311 3821 7 3022 3375 3627 8 3156 3496 3857 9 3064 3809 4233 10 3135 3716 4190 11 3115 3704 4190 12 3275 3710 4168 13 3121 3557 3788 14 3166 3623 3903 15 3346 3742 4041 16 17 18 19 20 UPV Averages Top 305033453440 Middle 309834433550 Bottom 318737363821 Immersion Line Impact-Echo Averages Top 338833653401 Middle 334434083674 Bottom 337335403751 Immersion Line Age (Weeks) 012

PAGE 284

265 Table B.11: Block monitoring data for Block 19 continued Block # 19 Cast on January 21, 2003 Length (mm) 900 Width (mm) 243 Height (mm) 489 Date: February 13, 2003 February 27, 2003 March 15, 2003 Operator: CF, EC CF, EC, XZ SC Temperature (oF) 72 72 69 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 69.4 65.6 65.5 2 69.0 67.0 66.4 3 70.7 67.6 66.9 4 69.4 70.0 66.5 5 66.6 65.2 65.0 6 67.7 65.3 65.0 7 68.4 66.0 66.2 8 66.3 65.2 64.6 9 62.4 60.4 62.9 10 63.1 61.2 66.0 11 63.4 61.3 64.2 12 61.5 59.7 63.5 13 242.3 237.8 235.8 14 235.2 232.3 229.1 15 225.0 222.0 219.5 16 17 18 19 20 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wa ve Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3396 3463 3462 2 3389 3750 3461 3 3751 3512 3529 4 3750 3672 3529 5 4390 3831 3584 6 4616 3990 3530 7 8

PAGE 285

266 Table B.11: Block monitoring data for Block 19 continued Date: February 13, 2003 February 27, 2003 March 15, 2003 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3501 3704 3710 2 3522 3627 3660 3 3437 3595 3632 4 3501 3471 3654 5 3649 3727 3738 6 3589 3721 3738 7 3553 3682 3671 8 3665 3727 3762 9 3894 4023 3863 10 3851 3971 3682 11 3833 3964 3785 12 3951 4070 3827 13 3714 3785 3817 14 3827 3874 3928 15 4000 4054 4100 16 17 18 19 20 UPV Averages Top 353536363695 Middle 365637463768 Bottom 390640163954 Immersion Line Impact-Echo Averages Top 347036073462 Middle 364635923529 Bottom 380439113557 Immersion Line Age (Weeks) 358

PAGE 286

267 Table B.11: Block monitoring data for Block 19 continued Block # 19 Cast on January 21, 2003 Length (mm) 900 Width (mm) 243 Height (mm) 489 Date: March 28, 2003 April 12, 2003 May 10, 2003 Operator: XZ, EC SC SC Temperature (oF) 72 71 72 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 65.9 64.5 65.3 2 66.8 64.1 66.6 3 67.1 65.5 67.0 4 67.1 65.1 66.1 5 64.6 63.4 64.4 6 65.2 64.5 65.8 7 67.1 63.4 65.4 8 64.7 63.3 65.2 9 61.4 59.7 61.2 10 64.5 60.6 62.8 11 62.8 60.8 62.3 12 61.1 58.4 61.3 13 235.6 232.9 233.5 14 229.8 228.4 228.1 15 219.7 218.2 216.5 16 17 18 19 20 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wa ve Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3332 3463 2 3461 3333 3 3531 3528 4 3530 3528 5 3672 3672 6 3673 3600 7 8

PAGE 287

268 Table B.11: Block monitoring data for Block 19 continued Date: March 28, 2003 April 12, 2003 May 10, 2003 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3687 3767 3721 2 3638 3791 3649 3 3621 3710 3627 4 3621 3733 3676 5 3762 3833 3773 6 3727 3767 3693 7 3621 3833 3716 8 3756 3839 3727 9 3958 4070 3971 10 3767 4010 3869 11 3869 3997 3900 12 3977 4161 3964 13 3820 3864 3854 14 3916 3940 3946 15 4096 4125 4157 16 17 18 19 20 UPV Averages Top 367837733705 Middle 375638423771 Bottom 393440733972 Immersion Line Impact-Echo Averages Top 344533973398 Middle 352935313528 Bottom 358636733636 Immersion Line Age (Weeks) 91216

PAGE 288

269 Table B.11: Block monitoring data for Block 19 continued Block # 19 Cast on January 21, 2003 Length (mm) 900 Width (mm) 243 Height (mm) 489 Date: May 30, 2003 June 18, 2003 June 27, 2003 Operator: XZ, EC XZ XZ Temperature (oF) 72 72 72 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 65.7 65.3 2 66.8 66.5 3 67.4 66.7 4 67.0 66.4 5 64.4 64.2 6 65.4 65.0 7 65.0 64.7 8 64.2 63.8 9 62.4 59.8 10 62.7 60.3 11 61.9 60.7 12 60.8 59.6 13 233.7 233.5 14 227.1 228.8 15 216.7 219.1 16 17 18 19 20 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wa ve Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 2770 2409 2 2215 2572 3 2275 2466 4 2338 3103 5 2391 3693 6 3050 3749 7 8

PAGE 289

270 Table B.11: Block monitoring data for Block 19 continued Date: May 30, 2003 June 18, 2003 June 27, 2003 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3699 3721 2 3638 3654 3 3605 3643 4 3627 3660 5 3773 3785 6 3716 3738 7 3738 3756 8 3785 3809 9 3894 4064 10 3876 4030 11 3926 4003 12 3997 4077 13 3851 3854 14 3963 3934 15 4153 4108 16 17 18 19 20 UPV Averages Top 368437073703 Middle 379538043798 Bottom 396940564059 Immersion Line Impact-Echo Averages Top 341234343441 Middle 352935293530 Bottom 366437073721 Immersion Line Age (Weeks) 182122

PAGE 290

271 Table B.11: Block monitoring data for Block 19 continued Block # 19 Cast on January 21, 2003 Length (mm) 900 Width (mm) 243 Height (mm) 489 Date: July 12, 2003 July 25, 2003 September 9, 2003 Operator: SC, XZ SC, EC SC, RC Temperature (oF) 75 72 72 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 63.6 65.8 65.4 2 65.2 66.6 66.9 3 65.3 67.1 67.5 4 64.9 66.4 66.5 5 62.6 64.6 64.3 6 63.4 65.5 65.5 7 63.2 65.0 65.2 8 62.1 63.8 63.8 9 58.0 59.8 59.9 10 58.8 60.6 60.7 11 59.2 60.9 60.9 12 57.5 59.3 59.5 13 233.6 232.9 232.9 14 230.4 229.4 227.2 15 219.9 216.5 215.3 16 17 18 19 20 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wa ve Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3461 3461 2 3463 3396 3 3461 3461 4 3600 3600 5 3751 3750 6 3673 3674 7 8

PAGE 291

272 Table B.11: Block monitoring data for Block 19 continued Date: July 12, 2003 July 25, 2003 September 9, 2003 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3821 3693 3716 2 3727 3649 3632 3 3721 3621 3600 4 3744 3660 3654 5 3882 3762 3779 6 3833 3710 3710 7 3845 3738 3727 8 3913 3809 3809 9 4190 4064 4057 10 4133 4010 4003 11 4105 3990 3990 12 4226 4098 4084 13 3853 3864 3864 14 3906 3923 3961 15 4093 4157 4180 16 17 18 19 20 UPV Averages Top 369936973693 Middle 379237883797 Bottom 406240644063 Immersion Line Impact-Echo Averages Top 346234583429 Middle 353135313531 Bottom 371237123712 Immersion Line Age (Weeks) 252633

PAGE 292

273 Table B.11: Block monitoring data for Block 19 continued Block # 19 Cast on January 21, 2003 Length (mm) 900 Width (mm) 243 Height (mm) 489 Date: October 3, 2003 Oct ober 17, 2003 October 31, 2003 Operator: SC, RC SC SC Temperature (oF) 72 72 72 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 65.4 65.6 65.5 2 66.9 66.9 66.9 3 67.2 66.9 67.0 4 66.6 66.6 66.5 5 64.5 64.3 64.2 6 64.9 64.6 64.5 7 65.3 65.5 65.5 8 63.8 64.1 64.1 9 60.2 60.1 62.5 10 60.7 60.8 62.6 11 60.9 61.1 62.2 12 59.5 59.7 60.7 13 232.9 234.3 234.8 14 227.4 228.6 227.7 15 215.2 217.0 216.4 16 61.0 68.1 17 61.6 67.6 18 61.8 68.2 19 60.8 67.3 20 222.3 227.5 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wa ve Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3396 3273 3273 2 3531 3213 3333 3 3529 3531 3463 4 3529 3461 3529 5 3914 3750 3829 6 3751 3751 3673 7 3831 3914 8 3830 3749

PAGE 293

274 Table B.11: Block monitoring data for Block 19 continued Date: October 3, 2003 Oct ober 17, 2003 October 31, 2003 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3716 3704 3710 2 3632 3632 3632 3 3616 3632 3627 4 3649 3649 3654 5 3767 3779 3785 6 3744 3762 3767 7 3721 3710 3710 8 3809 3791 3791 9 4037 4043 3888 10 4003 3997 3882 11 3990 3977 3907 12 4084 4070 4003 13 3864 3841 3833 14 3958 3937 3953 15 4182 4147 4159 16 3984 3803 17 3945 3831 18 3932 3795 19 3997 3848 20 4049 3975 UPV Averages Top 369536923691 Middle 380037963801 Bottom 405940473968 Immersion Line 38303850 Impact-Echo Averages Top 346433833303 Middle 352934963496 Bottom 373537503719 Immersion Line 38313832 Age (Weeks) 363840

PAGE 294

275 Table B.11: Block monitoring data for Block 19 continued Block # 19 Cast on January 21, 2003 Length (mm) 900 Width (mm) 243 Height (mm) 489 Date: November 19, 2003 December 15, 2003 January 9, 2004 Operator: SC SC SC Temperature (oF) 72 72 72 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 65.4 65.7 65.9 2 66.8 67.3 67.4 3 67.2 67.3 67.5 4 66.6 66.7 66.9 5 64.8 64.6 64.7 6 64.8 65.5 65.4 7 65.5 65.4 65.5 8 64.8 64.3 64.5 9 61.5 63.8 63.8 10 62.5 64.3 64.0 11 62.3 63.9 63.9 12 60.7 63.9 63.9 13 235.4 235.1 236.6 14 230.1 230.6 230.4 15 215.9 216.3 215.0 16 67.9 69.3 69.1 17 68.5 68.7 69.0 18 69.0 68.8 68.5 19 67.7 68.5 66.5 20 227.6 226.5 226.1 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wa ve Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3397 3396 3332 2 3214 3332 3333 3 3529 3529 3396 4 3530 3530 3463 5 3672 3672 3829 6 3830 3830 3673 7 3751 3675 3674 8 3750 3831 3601

PAGE 295

276 Table B.11: Block monitoring data for Block 19 continued Date: November 19, 2003 December 15, 2003 January 9, 2004 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3716 3699 3687 2 3638 3611 3605 3 3616 3611 3600 4 3649 3643 3632 5 3750 3762 3756 6 3750 3710 3716 7 3710 3716 3710 8 3750 3779 3767 9 3951 3809 3809 10 3888 3779 3797 11 3900 3803 3803 12 4003 3803 3803 13 3823 3828 3804 14 3911 3903 3906 15 4169 4161 4186 16 3811 3737 3748 17 3781 3767 3753 18 3753 3761 3781 19 3823 3778 3892 20 3974 3993 4001 UPV Averages Top 368836783666 Middle 377437743771 Bottom 398238713879 Immersion Line 382838073835 Impact-Echo Averages Top 330633643333 Middle 353035303430 Bottom 367236723829 Immersion Line 375137533638 Age (Weeks) 434750

PAGE 296

277 Table B.11: Block monitoring data for Block 19 continued Block # 19 Cast on January 21, 2003 Length (mm) 900 Width (mm) 243 Height (mm) 489 Date: January 21, 2004 Operator: SC, BQ Temperature (oF) 72 Data Point UPV Time ( s) 1 66.1 2 67.6 3 67.7 4 67.1 5 64.9 6 65.6 7 65.7 8 64.7 9 64.0 10 64.2 11 64.1 12 64.1 13 236.9 14 230.8 15 216.3 16 70.1 17 69.3 18 68.8 19 66.8 20 226.5 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3159 2 3396 3 3529 4 3600 5 3831 6 3600 7 3600 8 3599

PAGE 297

278 Table B.11: Block monitoring data for Block 19 continued Date: January 21, 2004 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3676 2 3595 3 3589 4 3621 5 3744 6 3704 7 3699 8 3756 9 3797 10 3785 11 3791 12 3791 13 3799 14 3899 15 4161 16 3692 17 3734 18 3761 19 3874 20 3993 UPV Averages Top 3656 Middle 3760 Bottom 3865 Immersion Line 3830 Impact-Echo Averages Top 3278 Middle 3565 Bottom 3831 Immersion Line 3600 Age (Weeks) 52

PAGE 298

279 Figure B.11: Wave speed versus age for Block 19

PAGE 299

280 Table B.12: Block monitoring data for Block 20 Block # 20 Cast on January 21, 2003 Length (mm) 900 Width (mm) 243 Height (mm) 490 Date: January 23, 2003 January 30, 2003 February 6, 2003 Operator: CF CF, EC CF Temperature (oF) 62 72 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 77.2 69.6 2 77.3 71.6 3 77.7 71.8 4 77.7 71.6 5 76.6 68.0 6 76.3 70.0 7 76.0 68.8 8 76.2 68.4 9 73.8 62.5 10 73.8 68.8 11 71.8 64.6 12 75.6 64.7 13 287.0 254.6 14 284.0 249.3 15 269.0 234.8 16 17 18 19 20 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wa ve Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3397 3601 3444 2 3102 3208 3673 3 3395 3598 3675 4 3212 3335 3530 5 4068 3600 4187 6 3600 3530 4101 7 8

PAGE 300

281 Table B.12: Block monitoring data for Block 20 continued Date: January 23, 2003 January 30, 2003 February 6, 2003 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3148 3491 2 3144 3394 3 3127 3384 4 3127 3394 5 3172 3574 6 3185 3471 7 3197 3532 8 3189 3553 9 3293 3888 10 3293 3532 11 3384 3762 12 3214 3756 13 3136 3535 14 3169 3610 15 3346 3833 16 17 18 19 20 UPV Averages Top 313634403507 Middle 318235483653 Bottom 330637543910 Immersion Line Impact-Echo Averages Top 325034053559 Middle 330434673603 Bottom 340035653750 Immersion Line Age (Weeks) 012

PAGE 301

282 Table B.12: Block monitoring data for Block 20 continued Block # 20 Cast on January 21, 2003 Length (mm) 900 Width (mm) 243 Height (mm) 490 Date: February 27, 2003 March 15, 2003 March 28, 2003 Operator: CF, EC SC XZ, EC Temperature (oF) 72 69 72 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 67.5 65.3 66.5 2 68.7 65.7 65.8 3 68.8 65.6 66.3 4 66.0 65.5 65.7 5 66.7 64.4 64.3 6 64.6 64.0 64.8 7 64.2 63.9 64.1 8 64.2 63.7 63.7 9 58.7 60.9 60.4 10 59.8 63.4 61.7 11 59.6 64.2 61.2 12 60.0 62.6 60.5 13 255.6 233.4 253.6 14 235.7 230.8 232.3 15 225.2 224.1 225.5 16 17 18 19 20 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wa ve Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3531 3342 2 3600 3335 3 3750 3529 4 3673 3395 5 3601 3528 6 4021 3599 7 8

PAGE 302

283 Table B.12: Block monitoring data for Block 20 continued Date: February 27, 2003 March 15, 2003 March 28, 2003 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3600 3721 3654 2 3537 3699 3693 3 3532 3704 3665 4 3682 3710 3699 5 3643 3773 3779 6 3762 3797 3750 7 3785 3803 3791 8 3785 3815 3815 9 4140 3990 4023 10 4064 3833 3938 11 4077 3785 3971 12 4050 3882 4017 13 3521 3856 3549 14 3818 3899 3874 15 3996 4016 3991 16 17 18 19 20 UPV Averages Top 357436003652 Middle 375938173802 Bottom 406539993988 Immersion Line Impact-Echo Averages Top 356633393336 Middle 371234623487 Bottom 381135643618 Immersion Line Age (Weeks) 589

PAGE 303

284 Table B.12: Block monitoring data for Block 20 continued Block # 20 Cast on January 21, 2003 Length (mm) 900 Width (mm) 243 Height (mm) 490 Date: April 12, 2003 May 10, 2003 May 30, 2003 Operator: SC, XZ SC XZ, EC Temperature (oF) 70 72 72 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 64.2 65.0 65.0 2 64.8 65.4 65.7 3 64.8 65.4 65.4 4 63.9 65.1 65.2 5 62.4 63.3 63.1 6 62.5 63.4 63.6 7 62.6 63.2 63.4 8 62.0 63.2 63.6 9 58.9 59.1 58.8 10 58.4 61.4 61.2 11 58.7 60.5 60.6 12 58.8 60.1 59.9 13 233.5 233.2 231.7 14 230.1 228.5 228.4 15 220.8 219.9 218.6 16 17 18 19 20 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wa ve Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3396 3331 2222 2 3273 3462 2697 3 3462 3531 2573 4 3528 3531 2433 5 3600 3599 2400 6 3672 3600 3529 7 8

PAGE 304

285 Table B.12: Block monitoring data for Block 20 continued Date: April 12, 2003 May 10, 2003 May 30, 2003 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3785 3738 3738 2 3750 3716 3699 3 3750 3716 3716 4 3803 3733 3727 5 3894 3839 3851 6 3888 3833 3821 7 3882 3845 3833 8 3919 3845 3821 9 4126 4112 4133 10 4161 3958 3971 11 4140 4017 4010 12 4133 4043 4057 13 3854 3859 3884 14 3911 3939 3940 15 4076 4093 4117 16 17 18 19 20 UPV Averages Top 378837523753 Middle 389938603853 Bottom 412740444057 Immersion Line Impact-Echo Averages Top 333533973386 Middle 349535313542 Bottom 363636003600 Immersion Line Age (Weeks) 121618

PAGE 305

286 Table B.12: Block monitoring data for Block 20 continued Block # 20 Cast on January 21, 2003 Length (mm) 900 Width (mm) 243 Height (mm) 490 Date: June 18, 2003 June 27, 2003 July 12, 2003 Operator: XZ, EC SC SC, XZ Temperature (oF) 72 72 75 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 64.9 63.5 2 65.0 63.7 3 65.2 63.5 4 65.1 63.5 5 62.8 60.7 6 63.2 61.6 7 62.8 61.3 8 63.2 61.2 9 57.7 56.1 10 59.4 57.2 11 59.5 57.0 12 58.8 57.1 13 231.9 230.4 14 229.7 226.8 15 218.4 216.9 16 17 18 19 20 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wa ve Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3332 3528 2 3395 3461 3 3600 3528 4 3529 3750 5 3672 3751 6 3530 3600 7 8

PAGE 306

287 Table B.12: Block monitoring data for Block 20 continued Date: June 18, 2003 June 27, 2003 July 12, 2003 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3744 3827 2 3738 3815 3 3727 3827 4 3733 3827 5 3869 4003 6 3845 3945 7 3869 3964 8 3845 3971 9 4211 4332 10 4091 4248 11 4084 4263 12 4133 4256 13 3881 3906 14 3918 3968 15 4121 4149 16 17 18 19 20 UPV Averages Top 376537623752 Middle 386938703871 Bottom 412841304137 Immersion Line Impact-Echo Averages Top 336933643495 Middle 355935653639 Bottom 360136013676 Immersion Line Age (Weeks) 212225

PAGE 307

288 Table B.12: Block monitoring data for Block 20 continued Block # 20 Cast on January 21, 2003 Length (mm) 900 Width (mm) 243 Height (mm) 490 Date: July 25, 2003 September 2, 2003 October 3, 2003 Operator: SC, RC SC SC, RC Temperature (oF) 72 72 72 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 65.1 64.9 65.2 2 65.3 65.5 65.2 3 65.6 65.4 65.5 4 65.4 65.3 65.7 5 62.9 62.9 63.2 6 63.2 63.0 63.2 7 63.3 63.3 63.2 8 62.8 63.1 63.3 9 57.9 58.6 58.7 10 59.1 59.8 58.9 11 58.9 59.6 58.6 12 59.1 59.1 59.1 13 232.4 232.5 231.8 14 228.4 227.6 227.5 15 217.0 218.3 218.1 16 17 18 19 20 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wa ve Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3600 3599 2 3601 3529 3 3673 3674 4 3673 3529 5 3673 3749 6 3751 3751 7 8

PAGE 308

289 Table B.12: Block monitoring data for Block 20 continued Date: July 25, 2003 September 2, 2003 October 3, 2003 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3733 3744 3727 2 3721 3710 3727 3 3704 3716 3710 4 3716 3721 3699 5 3863 3863 3845 6 3845 3857 3845 7 3839 3839 3845 8 3869 3851 3839 9 4197 4147 4140 10 4112 4064 4126 11 4126 4077 4147 12 4112 4112 4112 13 3873 3871 3883 14 3940 3954 3956 15 4147 4123 4127 16 17 18 19 20 UPV Averages Top 374937523749 Middle 387138733866 Bottom 413941044130 Immersion Line Impact-Echo Averages Top 351036013564 Middle 364436733602 Bottom 368137123750 Immersion Line Age (Weeks) 263236

PAGE 309

290 Table B.12: Block monitoring data for Block 20 continued Block # 20 Cast on January 21, 2003 Length (mm) 900 Width (mm) 243 Height (mm) 490 Date: October 17, 2003 October 31, 2003 November 19, 2003 Operator: SC SC SC Temperature (oF) 72 72 72 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 65.3 65.4 65.5 2 65.9 66.3 66.4 3 65.7 66.0 66.6 4 65.7 65.9 66.3 5 63.0 63.4 64.6 6 63.7 63.6 64.1 7 63.5 63.8 63.9 8 63.2 63.4 63.7 9 58.3 59.2 61.2 10 58.9 60.1 61.5 11 58.9 60.3 61.4 12 59.1 60.0 62.5 13 233.9 233.3 233.2 14 228.2 230.0 229.2 15 219.1 219.2 219.8 16 59.3 65.9 66.3 17 60.5 66.0 66.8 18 60.6 65.6 67.4 19 59.6 66.3 66.3 20 225.9 228.0 228.1 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wa ve Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3463 3274 3334 2 3396 3461 3396 3 3463 3599 3463 4 3599 3397 3462 5 3675 3600 3600 6 3599 3828 3601 7 3529 3598 3530 8 3600 3601 3675

PAGE 310

291 Table B.12: Block monitoring data for Block 20 continued Date: October 17, 2003 October 31, 2003 November 19, 2003 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3721 3716 3710 2 3687 3665 3660 3 3699 3682 3649 4 3699 3687 3665 5 3857 3833 3762 6 3815 3821 3791 7 3827 3809 3803 8 3845 3833 3815 9 4168 4105 3971 10 4126 4043 3951 11 4126 4030 3958 12 4112 4050 3888 13 3848 3858 3859 14 3944 3913 3927 15 4108 4106 4095 16 4098 3930 3903 17 4017 3924 3877 18 4010 3945 3840 19 4077 3903 3903 20 3984 3967 3965 UPV Averages Top 373137223709 Middle 385838423819 Bottom 412840673972 Immersion Line 403739343898 Impact-Echo Averages Top 343033683365 Middle 353134983463 Bottom 373237143601 Immersion Line 356536003603 Age (Weeks) 384043

PAGE 311

292 Table B.12: Block monitoring data for Block 20 continued Block # 20 Cast on January 21, 2003 Length (mm) 900 Width (mm) 243 Height (mm) 490 Date: December 15, 2003 January 9, 2004 January 21, 2004 Operator: SC SC SC, BQ Temperature (oF) 72 72 72 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 65.9 65.6 66.0 2 66.1 66.3 66.8 3 66.5 66.9 67.1 4 66.2 66.3 66.9 5 63.6 64.5 64.9 6 63.8 63.9 64.4 7 64.0 63.8 64.2 8 63.4 64.3 64.8 9 60.9 59.2 60.0 10 63.1 62.0 62.6 11 61.9 61.6 62.0 12 61.4 60.5 62.0 13 234.1 234.7 234.9 14 232.4 229.0 229.5 15 218.9 220.2 220.6 16 67.6 67.1 67.4 17 66.9 67.6 67.7 18 68.4 68.0 68.3 19 67.0 67.3 67.6 20 228.8 228.2 228.5 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wa ve Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3396 3333 3396 2 3333 3333 3333 3 3461 3463 3462 4 3461 3530 3396 5 3531 3462 3529 6 3674 3598 3531 7 3600 3674 3529 8 3601 3672 3672

PAGE 312

293 Table B.12: Block monitoring data for Block 20 continued Date: December 15, 2003 January 9, 2004 January 21, 2004 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3687 3704 3682 2 3676 3665 3638 3 3654 3632 3621 4 3671 3665 3632 5 3821 3767 3744 6 3809 3803 3773 7 3797 3809 3785 8 3833 3779 3750 9 3990 4105 4050 10 3851 3919 3882 11 3926 3945 3919 12 3958 4017 3919 13 3845 3835 3831 14 3873 3930 3922 15 4111 4087 4080 16 3828 3860 3840 17 3871 3828 3823 18 3786 3806 3789 19 3862 3848 3828 20 3953 3963 3958 UPV Averages Top 370737003681 Middle 382638183795 Bottom 396740153970 Immersion Line 386038613861 Impact-Echo Averages Top 336533333365 Middle 346134973429 Bottom 360335303530 Immersion Line 360136003601 Age (Weeks) 475052

PAGE 313

294 Figure B.12: Wave speed versus age for Block 20

PAGE 314

295 Table B.13: Block monitoring data for Block 21 Block # 21 Cast On: February 13, 2003 Length (mm) 905 Width (mm) 246 Height (mm) 490 Date: February 16, 2003 February 21, 2003 February 27, 2003 Operator: CF, EC CF, EC CF, EC Temperature (oF) 72 72 72 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 67.8 66.8 2 69.3 70.4 3 69.2 67.0 4 68.4 66.8 5 65.6 64.6 6 66.6 65.1 7 67.0 64.4 8 67.0 65.2 9 62.4 61.3 10 63.5 63.5 11 64.3 64.2 12 61.2 61.1 13 240.4 234.7 14 233.6 229.0 15 226.9 221.6 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wa ve Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3273 3404 3500 2 3213 3600 3506 3 3389 3600 3660 4 3333 3530 3533 5 3462 3601 3799 6 3528 3850 3799

PAGE 315

296 Table B.13: Block monitoring data for Block 21 continued Date: February 16, 2003 February 21, 2003 February 27, 2003 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3628 3683 2 3550 3494 3 3555 3672 4 3596 3683 5 3750 3808 6 3694 3779 7 3672 3820 8 3672 3773 9 3942 4013 10 3874 3874 11 3826 3832 12 4020 4026 13 3765 3856 14 3874 3952 15 3989 4084 UPV Averages Top 36193677 Middle 37323826 Bottom 39303966 Impact-Echo Averages Top 324335023503 Middle 336135653597 Bottom 349537263799 Age (Weeks) 012

PAGE 316

297 Table B.13: Block monitoring data for Block 21 continued Block # 21 Cast On: February 13, 2003 Length (mm) 905 Width (mm) 246 Height (mm) 490 Date: March 6, 2003 March 13, 2003 March 27, 2003 Operator: CF, EC CF, EC CF, EC Temperature (oF) 72 72 72 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 65.0 63.7 65.1 2 66.0 64.2 65.9 3 65.7 64.8 65.7 4 65.3 63.5 64.5 5 67.0 62.0 63.2 6 63.8 62.5 64.4 7 63.6 62.7 64.1 8 63.3 62.2 63.2 9 60.0 58.6 59.5 10 60.6 59.8 60.0 11 62.4 59.8 61.0 12 59.4 58.1 59.6 13 232.6 228.0 228.8 14 225.6 223.1 222.7 15 218.2 216.7 216.6 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wa ve Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3396 3529 3611 2 3529 3600 3461 3 3529 3752 3752 4 3670 3433 3598 5 4001 3913 4005 6 3915 3913 3996

PAGE 317

298 Table B.13: Block monitoring data for Block 21 continued Date: March 6, 2003 March 13, 2003 March 27, 2003 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3785 3862 3779 2 3727 3832 3733 3 3744 3796 3744 4 3767 3874 3814 5 3672 3968 3892 6 3856 3936 3820 7 3868 3923 3838 8 3886 3955 3892 9 4100 4198 4134 10 4059 4114 4100 11 3942 4114 4033 12 4141 4234 4128 13 3891 3969 3955 14 4012 4056 4064 15 4148 4176 4178 UPV Averages Top 378338673805 Middle 385939683901 Bottom 407841674115 Impact-Echo Averages Top 346335653536 Middle 360035933675 Bottom 395839134001 Age (Weeks) 346

PAGE 318

299 Table B.13: Block monitoring data for Block 21 continued Block # 21 Cast On: February 13, 2003 Length (mm) 905 Width (mm) 246 Height (mm) 490 Date: April 17, 2003 May 1, 2003 May 15, 2003 Operator: CF, EC CF, EC CF, EC Temperature (oF) 72 72 72 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 65.0 64.5 2 66.9 65.3 3 65.9 65.3 4 64.9 65.0 5 62.9 61.9 6 63.6 62.2 7 63.3 62.5 8 63.2 63.3 9 59.5 59.1 10 60.1 60.4 11 61.0 61.9 12 58.8 59.2 13 228.5 228.7 14 221.6 222.1 15 216.2 216.5 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wa ve Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3600 3512 2 3529 3396 3 3789 3741 4 3749 3738 5 4002 3693 6 3996 3998

PAGE 319

300 Table B.13: Block monitoring data for Block 21 continued Date: April 17, 2003 May 1, 2003 May 15, 2003 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3785 3814 2 3677 3767 3 3733 3767 4 3790 3785 5 3911 3974 6 3868 3955 7 3886 3936 8 3892 3886 9 4134 4162 10 4093 4073 11 4033 3974 12 4184 4155 13 3961 3957 14 4084 4075 15 4186 4180 UPV Averages Top 378938183814 Middle 392839653937 Bottom 412641094113 Impact-Echo Averages Top 356535093454 Middle 376937543740 Bottom 399939223846 Age (Weeks) 91113

PAGE 320

301 Figure B.13: Wave speed versus age for Block 21

PAGE 321

302 Table B.14: Block monitoring data for Block 22 Block # 22 Cast On: February 13, 2003 Length (mm) 903 Width (mm) 244 Height (mm) 475 Date: February 16, 2003 February 20, 2003 February 27, 2003 Operator: CF CF, EC, XZ CF, EC Temperature (oF) 72 72 72 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 70.0 64.6 2 67.3 64.8 3 68.3 65.0 4 69.7 65.0 5 65.1 62.1 6 66.3 62.1 7 63.8 61.6 8 63.6 61.6 9 63.0 61.2 10 62.8 61.6 11 62.3 60.4 12 60.5 58.8 13 240.8 232.3 14 233.7 226.7 15 228.7 220.5 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wa ve Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3396 3335 3662 2 3348 3404 3893 3 3529 3554 3798 4 3272 3830 4104 5 3461 3840 3894 6 3528 3914 4285

PAGE 322

303 Table B.14: Block monitoring data for Block 22 continued Date: February 16, 2003 February 20, 2003 February 27, 2003 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3486 3777 2 3626 3765 3 3572 3754 4 3501 3754 5 3748 3929 6 3680 3929 7 3824 3961 8 3836 3961 9 3873 3987 10 3885 3961 11 3917 4040 12 4033 4150 13 3750 3887 14 3864 3983 15 3948 4095 UPV Averages Top 35873787 Middle 37913953 Bottom 39314047 Impact-Echo Averages Top 337233703522 Middle 340136923951 Bottom 349538774090 Age (Weeks) 012

PAGE 323

304 Table B.14: Block monitoring data for Block 22 continued Block # 22 Cast On: February 13, 2003 Length (mm) 903 Width (mm) 244 Height (mm) 475 Date: March 6, 2003 March 12, 2003 March 27, 2003 Operator: CF, EC, SC CF CF, EC Temperature (oF) 72 72 72 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 64.3 63.9 2 64.7 63.7 3 64.3 63.7 4 67.0 63.7 5 64.6 60.6 6 64.6 60.4 7 60.7 60.6 8 60.2 60.6 9 61.1 58.9 10 60.9 59.1 11 58.8 57.6 12 58.4 57.0 13 230.8 227.4 14 225.3 220.6 15 218.7 215.4 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wa ve Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3600 3396 3600 2 3600 3672 3463 3 4092 3913 3751 4 3674 3935 3749 5 4114 4090 4091 6 3902 3998 3913

PAGE 324

305 Table B.14: Block monitoring data for Block 22 continued Date: March 6, 2003 March 12, 2003 March 27, 2003 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3795 3818 2 3771 3830 3 3795 3830 4 3642 3830 5 3777 4026 6 3777 4040 7 4020 4026 8 4053 4026 9 3993 4143 10 4007 4129 11 4150 4236 12 4178 4281 13 3912 3971 14 4008 4093 15 4129 4192 UPV Averages Top 378338073856 Middle 392739664042 Bottom 409141264196 Impact-Echo Averages Top 360035343532 Middle 388339243750 Bottom 400840444002 Age (Weeks) 346

PAGE 325

306 Table B.14: Block monitoring data for Block 22 continued Block # 22 Cast On: February 13, 2003 Length (mm) 903 Width (mm) 244 Height (mm) 475 Date: April 17, 2003 May 1, 2003 May 15, 2003 Operator: CF, EC CF, EC CF, EC Temperature (oF) 72 72 72 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 63.4 64.0 2 64.1 64.4 3 63.3 63.2 4 63.6 64.0 5 60.9 60.4 6 60.4 59.6 7 60.3 59.7 8 60.1 59.2 9 58.5 61.8 10 59.2 59.9 11 57.3 57.9 12 56.9 58.1 13 227.3 225.6 14 219.5 219.3 15 214.3 215.2 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wa ve Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3600 3389 2 3601 3397 3 3841 3788 4 3828 3839 5 3913 3852 6 4068 3831

PAGE 326

307 Table B.14: Block monitoring data for Block 22 continued Date: April 17, 2003 May 1, 2003 May 15, 2003 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3849 3813 2 3807 3789 3 3855 3861 4 3836 3813 5 4007 4040 6 4040 4094 7 4046 4087 8 4060 4122 9 4171 3948 10 4122 4073 11 4258 4214 12 4288 4200 13 3973 4003 14 4114 4118 15 4214 4196 UPV Averages Top 386438553853 Middle 405340924066 Bottom 421141264128 Impact-Echo Averages Top 360134973393 Middle 383538243814 Bottom 399139163842 Age (Weeks) 91113

PAGE 327

308 Figure B.14: Wave speed versus age for Block 22

PAGE 328

309 Table B.15: Block monitoring data for Block 23 Block # 23 Cast On: February 13, 2003 Length (mm) 903 Width (mm) 242 Height (mm) 480 Date: February 16, 2003 February 20, 2003 February 28, 2003 Operator: CF, EC CF CF, EC Temperature (oF) 72 72 72 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 68.7 66.5 2 70.0 66.7 3 68.6 67.7 4 67.5 65.1 5 65.3 64.3 6 65.7 63.2 7 65.6 63.6 8 65.1 62.2 9 61.5 60.0 10 64.4 62.0 11 64.5 62.6 12 63.7 61.7 13 245.6 234.8 14 235.8 226.7 15 224.8 218.5 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wa ve Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3287 3272 3462 2 3272 3328 3601 3 3470 3653 4000 4 3430 3768 3830 5 3674 4090 4002 6 3600 3789 4090

PAGE 329

310 Table B.15: Block monitoring data for Block 23 continued Date: February 16, 2003 February 20, 2003 February 28, 2003 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3523 3639 2 3457 3628 3 3528 3575 4 3585 3717 5 3706 3764 6 3683 3829 7 3689 3805 8 3717 3891 9 3935 4033 10 3758 3903 11 3752 3866 12 3799 3922 13 3677 3846 14 3830 3983 15 4017 4133 UPV Averages Top 35543681 Middle 37253854 Bottom 38523971 Impact-Echo Averages Top 328033003532 Middle 345037113915 Bottom 363739404046 Age (Weeks) 012

PAGE 330

311 Table B.15: Block monitoring data for Block 23 continued Block # 23 Cast On: February 13, 2003 Length (mm) 903 Width (mm) 242 Height (mm) 480 Date: March 6, 2003 March 20, 2003 March 27, 2003 Operator: CF, EC, XZ CF, EC CF, EC Temperature (oF) 72 72 72 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 65.4 63.7 64.8 2 65.6 63.6 64.8 3 64.7 63.3 64.8 4 63.4 62.6 63.9 5 62.4 60.8 62.2 6 62.4 60.6 61.6 7 63.3 60.5 61.9 8 62.0 59.6 60.8 9 58.3 57.4 58.7 10 61.5 59.7 60.9 11 61.2 59.9 61.6 12 60.8 59.5 61.0 13 232.1 228.2 228.6 14 224.6 219.6 220.5 15 216.3 212.0 211.9 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wa ve Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3397 3513 2 3670 3751 3 3752 3831 4 3751 3749 5 4009 4176 6 4001 4185

PAGE 331

312 Table B.15: Block monitoring data for Block 23 continued Date: March 6, 2003 March 20, 2003 March 27, 2003 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3700 3799 3735 2 3689 3805 3735 3 3740 3823 3735 4 3817 3866 3787 5 3878 3980 3891 6 3878 3993 3929 7 3823 4000 3910 8 3903 4060 3980 9 4151 4216 4123 10 3935 4054 3974 11 3954 4040 3929 12 3980 4067 3967 13 3891 3957 3950 14 4020 4112 4095 15 4175 4259 4261 UPV Averages Top 376738503788 Middle 390140293961 Bottom 403941274051 Impact-Echo Averages Top 353436323621 Middle 375237903755 Bottom 400541814218 Age (Weeks) 356

PAGE 332

313 Table B.15: Block monitoring data for Block 23 continued Block # 23 Cast On: February 13, 2003 Length (mm) 903 Width (mm) 242 Height (mm) 480 Date: April 10, 2003 April 24, 2003 May 15, 2003 Operator: CF, EC CF, EC CF, EC Temperature (oF) 72 72 72 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 65.6 65.8 2 65.6 65.8 3 65.6 65.1 4 64.2 64.1 5 62.1 61.7 6 61.9 62.5 7 63.1 63.7 8 62.1 61.3 9 60.0 60.0 10 62.4 61.0 11 61.9 62.3 12 61.0 62.4 13 227.0 227.3 14 220.2 220.6 15 214.3 213.5 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wa ve Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3598 3618 3601 2 3599 3581 3601 3 3693 3693 3469 4 3674 3680 3829 5 4298 4050 4000 6 4287 4150 3999

PAGE 333

314 Table B.15: Block monitoring data for Block 23 continued Date: April 10, 2003 April 24, 2003 May 15, 2003 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3689 3678 2 3689 3678 3 3689 3717 4 3769 3775 5 3897 3922 6 3910 3872 7 3835 3799 8 3897 3948 9 4033 4033 10 3878 3967 11 3910 3884 12 3967 3878 13 3978 3973 14 4101 4093 15 4214 4230 UPV Averages Top 376337643725 Middle 392839273923 Bottom 400039994015 Impact-Echo Averages Top 359936003601 Middle 368436873649 Bottom 429341004000 Age (Weeks) 81013

PAGE 334

315 Figure B.15: Wave speed versus age for Block 23

PAGE 335

316 Table B.16: Block monitoring data for Block 24 Block # 24 Cast On: February 13, 2003 Length (mm) 902 Width (mm) 244 Height (mm) 486 Date: February 16, 2003 February 21, 2003 February 28, 2003 Operator: CF, EC CF, EC CF, EC Temperature (oF) 72 72 72 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 67 65.8 2 67.8 65.4 3 70.9 65.7 4 68.2 65.3 5 66.5 62.5 6 66.3 62.2 7 67.4 61.0 8 65.1 61.6 9 60.2 59.1 10 61.5 59.6 11 62.2 59.6 12 61 58.0 13 244.3 235.6 14 232.2 227.6 15 225.4 219.7 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wa ve Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3348 3599 3601 2 3332 3530 3600 3 3531 3944 3731 4 3547 3555 3675 5 3692 4000 4000 6 3674 3617 4009

PAGE 336

317 Table B.16: Block monitoring data for Block 24 continued Date: February 16, 2003 February 21, 2003 February 28, 2003 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3642 3708 2 3599 3731 3 3441 3714 4 3578 3737 5 3669 3904 6 3680 3923 7 3620 4000 8 3748 3961 9 4053 4129 10 3967 4094 11 3923 4094 12 4000 4207 13 3692 3829 14 3885 3963 15 4002 4106 UPV Averages Top 35903744 Middle 37203950 Bottom 39894126 Impact-Echo Averages Top 334035653601 Middle 353937503703 Bottom 368338094005 Age (Weeks) 012

PAGE 337

318 Table B.16: Block monitoring data for Block 24 continued Block # 24 Cast On: February 13, 2003 Length (mm) 902 Width (mm) 244 Height (mm) 486 Date: March 6, 2003 March 20, 2003 March 27, 2003 Operator: CF, EC CF, EC CF, EC Temperature (oF) 72 72 72 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 64.0 62.2 63.3 2 64.3 62.5 63.3 3 64.7 63.3 63.8 4 65.0 63.7 64.8 5 61.1 59.0 60.0 6 61.1 59.1 59.9 7 62.0 60.6 60.9 8 62.3 60.9 61.6 9 57.9 57.5 60.0 10 58.8 59.2 59.4 11 58.7 58.5 59.2 12 57.7 57.8 58.8 13 234.5 229.9 230.4 14 224.5 220.4 221.5 15 219.4 214.7 214.0 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wa ve Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3599 3601 2 3529 3601 3 3752 3758 4 3672 3735 5 4080 4135 6 4090 4138

PAGE 338

319 Table B.16: Block monitoring data for Block 24 continued Date: March 6, 2003 March 20, 2003 March 27, 2003 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3813 3923 3855 2 3795 3904 3855 3 3771 3855 3824 4 3754 3830 3765 5 3993 4136 4067 6 3993 4129 4073 7 3935 4026 4007 8 3917 4007 3961 9 4214 4243 4067 10 4150 4122 4108 11 4157 4171 4122 12 4229 4221 4150 13 3846 3923 3915 14 4018 4093 4072 15 4111 4201 4215 UPV Averages Top 379638873843 Middle 397140784036 Bottom 417241924132 Impact-Echo Averages Top 356436013601 Middle 371237473692 Bottom 408541374012 Age (Weeks) 356

PAGE 339

320 Table B.16: Block monitoring data for Block 24 continued Block # 24 Cast On: February 13, 2003 Length (mm) 902 Width (mm) 244 Height (mm) 486 Date: April 10, 2003 April 24, 2003 May 16, 2003 Operator: CF, EC CF, EC CF, EC Temperature (oF) 72 72 72 Data Point UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) UPV Time ( s) 1 63.8 63.8 2 63.8 63.4 3 64.0 64.6 4 65.0 65.3 5 60.5 59.9 6 60.5 60.4 7 60.5 60.9 8 61.0 62.0 9 59.8 58.9 10 60.3 62.7 11 60.0 60.1 12 59.2 60.9 13 229.5 229.8 14 221.6 219.1 15 215.3 215.1 Data Point IE Wave Speed (m/s) IE Wa ve Speed (m/s) IE Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3770 3557 3396 2 3581 3581 3663 3 3600 3693 3461 4 3674 3691 3759 5 3829 3830 3829 6 3947 3891 3819

PAGE 340

321 Table B.16: Block monitoring data for Block 24 continued Date: April 10, 2003 April 24, 2003 May 16, 2003 Data Point UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s)UPV Wave Speed (m/s) 1 3824 3824 2 3824 3849 3 3813 3777 4 3754 3737 5 4033 4073 6 4033 4040 7 4033 4007 8 4000 3935 9 4080 4143 10 4046 3892 11 4067 4060 12 4122 4007 13 3930 3925 14 4070 4117 15 4190 4193 UPV Averages Top 382938223813 Middle 403440343967 Bottom 410140594050 Impact-Echo Averages Top 360035693530 Middle 363736243610 Bottom 388838613824 Age (Weeks) 81013

PAGE 341

322 Figure B.16: Wave speed versus age for Block 24

PAGE 342

APPENDIX C REBOUND HAMMER TEST RESULTS

PAGE 343

324Table C.1: Rebound hammer test results for Block 1 Rebound Hammer Testing Performed by: SC, BQ Date: 1/29/2004 Block #: 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 A 47 46 48 45 49 47 48 46 47 44 46 B 46 52 51 54 49 52 48 54 53 54 54 C 54 54 50 56 48 54 54 56 49 49 46 D 52 52 52 52 52 58 51 52 58 58 44 E 52 52 52 52 53 48 52 50 56 52 54 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 A 45 48 50 47 49 48 48 53 54 49 48 B 53 54 53 47 51 56 53 52 48 50 51 C 51 50 48 49 56 56 49 56 55 56 48 D 46 46 49 49 54 50 55 55 55 54 48 E 54 45 54 50 48 48 46 48 55 53 52 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 A 50 48 49 49 50 50 47 42 45 48 45 B 54 50 53 48 51 48 51 53 54 48 58 C 49 50 56 53 57 51 48 54 49 50 54 D 56 56 56 48 52 46 56 54 54 57 53 E 53 48 46 46 50 43 44 52 46 44 48

PAGE 344

325Table C.2: Rebound hammer test results for Block 2 Rebound Hammer Testing Performed by: SC Date: 1/29/2004 Block #: 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 A 52 53 52 53 46 46 48 50 54 54 54 B 52 55 55 55 56 54 54 50 54 49 50 C 56 56 58 57 52 51 53 56 55 54 54 D 56 57 58 58 54 54 55 57 54 53 58 E 54 54 57 53 54 55 56 55 50 54 53 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 A 55 49 50 56 54 55 51 50 50 53 48 B 49 50 54 52 56 57 54 50 58 57 51 C 53 53 59 56 56 52 57 57 54 54 57 D 51 47 53 56 59 56 56 56 54 56 49 E 54 54 52 55 55 57 56 52 56 47 46 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 A 47 52 57 56 50 53 54 50 50 50 49 B 57 57 58 49 49 53 53 56 53 49 52 C 56 57 54 50 53 55 53 54 54 56 57 D 50 58 57 54 57 53 57 58 56 55 56 E 54 53 54 47 53 47 53 52 51 48 51

PAGE 345

326Table C.3: Rebound hammer test results for Block 3 Rebound Hammer Testing Performed by: SC, BQ Date: 1/29/2004 Block #: 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 A 51 52 50 49 50 54 51 48 54 52 54 B 51 48 49 50 50 53 48 49 54 48 54 C 54 54 55 52 47 50 56 50 56 56 56 D 51 52 57 56 55 53 55 52 55 56 56 E 55 57 57 54 58 57 55 52 56 58 58 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 A 56 53 54 54 50 52 48 52 55 52 54 B 53 53 56 50 52 51 48 54 54 55 52 C 53 51 53 50 53 49 55 50 52 52 52 D 56 56 58 52 55 56 59 59 54 58 56 E 58 58 60 59 57 60 59 58 60 58 60 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 A 55 48 53 53 52 53 55 52 49 54 54 B 54 52 54 52 50 54 52 54 56 54 52 C 50 53 48 48 48 54 54 53 55 54 54 D 53 54 56 56 55 56 57 52 56 54 52 E 58 57 62 59 56 56 56 58 54 55 56

PAGE 346

327Table C.4: Rebound hammer test results for Block 4 Rebound Hammer Testing Performed by: SC, BQ Date: 1/29/2004 Block #: 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 A 54 48 48 52 48 49 50 48 50 50 52 B 44 48 48 47 49 50 46 49 54 50 46 C 52 54 54 50 48 53 54 52 51 53 51 D 52 55 54 51 54 55 54 54 54 49 53 E 55 56 53 58 56 56 57 56 61 54 54 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 A 48 42 48 46 50 52 54 48 46 52 49 B 50 52 56 53 50 56 50 56 54 54 50 C 52 53 58 53 48 55 48 51 49 52 54 D 54 54 52 54 53 54 55 57 56 59 54 E 54 52 52 54 54 53 56 56 57 56 55 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 A 46 48 48 54 49 54 50 50 48 46 49 B 48 54 50 46 50 52 50 48 48 52 53 C 48 54 50 46 50 52 50 48 48 52 53 D 54 53 53 51 57 55 54 52 53 52 53 E 58 59 55 57 54 55 54 54 54 53 44

PAGE 347

328Table C.5: Rebound hammer test results for Block 5 Rebound Hammer Testing Performed by: XZ, EC Date: 5/16/2003 Block #: 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 A 43 47 42 44 39 41 44 41 41 40 44 B 44 44 43 43 45 42 43 44 43 42 45 C 44 46 46 51 43 40 43 43 50 48 45 D 48 42 50 52 52 51 53 50 48 44 47 E 52 56 52 49 52 50 50 43 50 53 44 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 A 44 44 39 45 45 39 46 44 46 42 44 B 44 44 45 45 46 44 43 45 47 46 46 C 43 47 45 48 44 45 47 46 45 46 45 D 50 54 50 52 46 48 52 46 46 50 51 E 50 48 48 45 45 44 53 52 54 48 56 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 A 47 44 42 45 44 46 39 43 42 40 42 B 43 45 44 46 40 48 41 40 46 43 48 C 45 40 47 48 45 46 46 44 44 40 44 D 47 46 47 54 44 45 53 50 51 44 52 E 54 46 54 54 50 50 47 49 55 56 52

PAGE 348

329Table C.6: Rebound hammer test results for Block 6 Rebound Hammer Testing Performed by: XZ, EC Date: 5/16/2003 Block #: 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 A 44 47 48 45 42 44 43 42 41 43 42 B 44 45 50 50 46 43 44 48 48 48 46 C 48 46 49 46 46 44 49 50 50 54 49 D 50 44 45 52 53 55 55 50 55 50 52 E 50 48 52 52 54 55 57 45 52 51 56 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 A 42 42 42 43 42 44 46 48 42 42 44 B 46 36 46 49 47 41 44 46 44 42 44 C 47 47 46 46 50 49 44 44 50 48 48 D 53 53 52 52 51 50 53 53 55 54 53 E 59 59 52 54 55 56 55 58 50 52 52 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 A 40 46 42 46 48 45 47 46 42 42 43 B 43 44 48 50 49 46 49 48 46 48 45 C 45 48 48 48 50 43 54 46 46 47 41 D 52 50 52 51 51 53 50 50 51 48 52 E 55 47 53 55 53 47 51 54 57 52 52

PAGE 349

330Table C.7: Rebound hammer test results for Block 7 Rebound Hammer Testing Performed by: XZ, EC Date: 5/16/2003 Block #: 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 A 46 44 44 43 43 44 43 44 41 46 48 B 45 49 44 44 44 48 45 47 40 50 43 C 44 52 47 49 46 46 46 44 46 45 48 D 54 54 53 46 51 53 54 56 54 52 52 E 55 52 54 51 56 57 58 52 54 56 50 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 A 45 41 43 47 44 43 42 46 44 42 44 B 48 48 49 46 46 42 50 46 46 48 44 C 53 46 45 53 42 50 49 44 42 40 50 D 51 55 49 53 54 52 54 48 51 52 54 E 56 51 53 48 55 52 51 53 58 52 55 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 A 40 43 42 44 44 46 44 43 44 44 40 B 51 45 48 45 47 43 42 50 42 46 47 C 48 50 51 45 49 42 46 50 51 47 43 D 54 52 45 55 53 49 52 52 52 50 50 E 44 54 54 48 58 50 55 53 53 52 50

PAGE 350

331Table C.8: Rebound hammer test results for Block 8 Rebound Hammer Testing Performed by: XZ, EC Date: 5/16/2003 Block #: 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 A 44 36 41 42 42 41 43 42 44 45 46 B 44 42 45 43 41 42 42 44 44 44 42 C 49 47 47 45 43 49 40 42 44 43 48 D 44 46 44 48 44 50 46 46 44 45 44 E 52 50 52 53 44 46 50 49 44 49 50 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 A 45 43 42 43 46 42 43 45 42 43 44 B 40 44 41 46 51 51 46 46 44 45 46 C 42 43 49 50 51 45 46 44 49 46 44 D 47 50 37 51 42 50 53 50 49 53 52 E 47 52 52 46 50 46 46 52 52 52 45 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 A 45 45 44 42 46 40 45 40 45 46 38 B 43 47 42 42 46 52 46 51 47 43 52 C 46 45 50 40 42 43 41 50 43 46 46 D 53 53 52 46 51 51 54 52 48 55 46 E 49 49 54 53 53 52 51 53 54 52 52

PAGE 351

332Table C.9: Rebound hammer test results for Block 9 Rebound Hammer Testing Performed by: SC, XZ Date: 6/27/2003 Block #: 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 A 38 35 39 39 39 40 40 41 39 39 41 B 44 42 46 47 47 46 41 43 48 48 46 C 45 47 49 46 46 46 44 46 48 48 48 D 43 46 44 44 44 50 48 50 46 46 48 E 43 47 45 42 42 49 48 43 47 47 52 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 A 39 41 41 41 41 41 42 34 38 40 42 B 46 44 47 44 44 46 44 44 44 42 42 C 48 48 46 48 48 46 46 43 45 45 45 D 50 52 52 52 52 44 47 48 52 53 50 E 51 48 49 51 51 50 50 48 51 51 41 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 A 42 42 42 41 41 37 41 39 42 42 40 B 44 43 44 42 42 48 46 46 45 44 48 C 43 47 45 47 47 48 48 48 45 44 48 D 51 52 51 53 53 50 54 44 44 42 44 E 50 53 48 48 48 52 52 46 46 46 46

PAGE 352

333Table C.10: Rebound hammer test results for Block 10 Rebound Hammer Testing Performed by: SC, XZ Date: 6/27/2003 Block #: 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 A 41 38 42 41 40 41 41 43 41 42 42 B 42 46 46 44 42 46 45 45 49 43 44 C 48 49 50 42 44 44 42 43 46 45 44 D 46 50 51 50 48 49 48 53 48 53 53 E 46 47 45 45 48 52 53 51 51 53 51 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 A 44 42 42 41 42 40 41 40 41 42 42 B 43 44 44 44 44 44 42 43 42 44 44 C 48 44 48 44 44 42 42 42 46 44 44 D 53 49 48 50 50 48 50 53 51 50 48 E 50 46 44 51 48 48 50 50 48 47 47 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 A 42 42 41 40 40 41 40 42 42 43 40 B 44 45 40 42 42 42 41 44 43 44 46 C 42 42 42 44 44 42 44 43 43 43 41 D 46 46 46 48 47 50 49 46 44 50 44 E 52 48 46 50 46 45 45 47 47 46 50

PAGE 353

334Table C.11: Rebound hammer test results for Block 11 Rebound Hammer Testing Performed by: SC, XZ Date: 6/27/2003 Block #: 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 A 41 38 42 40 40 42 42 41 41 41 44 B 42 43 42 40 40 45 44 42 40 45 47 C 49 46 47 42 44 44 50 46 44 47 50 D 44 46 48 52 48 50 49 48 46 48 51 E 47 46 48 50 48 52 53 51 50 52 50 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 A 40 42 42 43 42 42 42 44 39 41 40 B 47 45 44 44 44 48 48 48 46 45 48 C 44 48 49 52 48 48 50 49 47 47 48 D 50 46 52 47 47 45 53 53 54 50 50 E 48 51 54 54 52 53 54 56 57 53 51 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 A 42 42 44 42 40 40 40 40 38 38 40 B 47 46 46 46 50 46 42 49 47 48 48 C 46 48 51 46 49 46 48 52 52 48 46 D 49 52 52 48 50 51 48 52 51 48 50 E 55 52 52 50 54 50 48 52 54 46 46

PAGE 354

335Table C.12: Rebound hammer test results for Block 12 Rebound Hammer Testing Performed by: SC, XZ Date: 6/27/2003 Block #: 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 A 38 40 41 40 40 42 42 41 41 42 41 B 39 41 45 40 49 46 47 49 42 41 42 C 41 44 47 44 42 45 48 42 42 43 44 D 50 47 50 46 50 50 49 45 48 44 47 E 44 42 46 50 46 52 53 50 45 49 45 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 A 41 40 42 42 41 38 41 37 38 42 40 B 44 43 50 48 42 44 45 40 46 49 47 C 44 46 46 44 44 49 42 41 41 42 42 D 47 46 44 46 44 50 48 49 44 46 44 E 50 52 52 52 51 49 52 51 49 49 52 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 A 41 42 41 40 42 40 40 40 40 41 41 B 45 43 43 43 45 43 42 42 42 44 43 C 44 47 44 47 49 45 44 46 44 42 43 D 48 50 50 53 49 51 49 50 46 48 47 E 50 46 48 47 51 51 48 46 51 50 50

PAGE 355

336Table C.13: Rebound hammer test results for Block 17 Rebound Hammer Testing Performed by: SC Date: 1/24/2004 Block #: 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 A 43 43 40 40 40 43 39 40 38 38 40 B 42 44 46 43 48 49 44 48 45 54 51 C 48 49 52 47 42 38 44 50 53 48 52 D 44 42 40 48 44 40 49 44 49 44 46 E 44 44 46 43 46 42 39 45 40 43 44 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 A 40 38 36 39 42 40 42 40 43 41 44 B 48 54 51 49 44 43 48 46 46 46 46 C 38 42 45 52 54 55 55 38 43 45 47 D 46 46 48 43 42 48 41 45 46 46 45 E 47 47 50 50 50 47 53 46 50 50 48 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 A 39 44 40 41 40 40 42 42 40 44 42 B 46 41 43 42 48 50 46 52 52 50 50 C 46 50 39 34 38 47 47 48 47 53 48 D 45 47 47 40 46 42 46 50 50 44 48 E 52 50 48 50 49 43 53 51 53 44 38

PAGE 356

337Table C.14: Rebound hammer test results for Block 18 Rebound Hammer Testing Performed by: SC Date: 1/24/2004 Block #: 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 A 26 42 40 37 41 42 43 43 42 40 39 B 46 46 46 46 44 46 49 47 47 46 40 C 48 46 49 48 44 47 45 49 47 42 47 D 42 44 50 48 42 44 50 44 48 45 51 E 44 48 45 44 48 54 50 52 47 44 46 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 A 42 44 43 43 42 43 44 40 43 41 43 B 47 48 32 47 45 43 45 45 45 45 46 C 46 44 44 48 49 47 50 46 42 38 44 D 47 49 49 43 41 48 45 48 48 48 45 E 49 50 50 46 47 48 50 50 48 50 49 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 A 45 40 37 45 40 38 37 40 42 42 43 B 45 45 42 40 45 45 42 45 44 43 44 C 48 47 47 50 42 44 46 44 46 46 48 D 41 47 47 45 42 48 44 46 45 44 44 E 43 48 38 43 47 46 50 49 52 43 42

PAGE 357

338Table C.15: Rebound hammer test results for Block 19 Rebound Hammer Testing Performed by: SC Date: 1/24/2004 Block #: 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 A 39 38 37 42 40 44 45 37 38 38 38 B 37 41 42 44 40 45 40 43 39 38 38 C 47 47 46 46 38 38 44 46 46 47 47 D 43 46 48 44 43 45 43 43 41 42 44 E 51 51 46 48 46 46 42 42 42 46 43 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 A 32 38 38 38 42 38 34 38 38 36 37 B 37 42 42 40 39 38 38 40 37 44 38 C 42 40 44 44 45 44 46 38 38 44 46 D 42 44 42 42 41 42 40 45 42 45 45 E 41 38 43 45 42 43 50 46 48 40 48 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 A 38 40 34 43 38 38 35 36 34 32 30 B 42 43 39 39 42 39 42 43 39 42 47 C 48 47 42 43 40 42 47 48 48 46 51 D 43 45 44 43 44 45 37 38 40 46 48 E 40 46 48 49 52 45 48 44 46 44 45

PAGE 358

339Table C.16: Rebound hammer test results for Block 20 Rebound Hammer Testing Performed by: SC Date: 1/24/2004 Block #: 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 A 34 37 36 38 38 38 42 38 38 42 40 B 42 38 39 39 36 40 42 40 34 38 40 C 44 46 46 46 41 37 46 48 48 48 44 D 42 44 50 48 44 44 53 42 40 49 40 E 47 42 50 43 52 50 47 45 39 36 43 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 A 38 36 34 35 34 33 35 34 33 37 38 B 43 40 42 42 38 34 38 40 39 44 38 C 38 38 42 44 43 45 47 44 35 40 44 D 40 41 38 44 41 42 42 45 49 46 44 E 53 44 50 44 49 48 48 46 48 47 52 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 A 35 37 40 37 36 38 36 40 33 33 38 B 42 40 43 46 48 48 41 42 41 40 44 C 46 43 46 42 40 42 43 44 46 48 48 D 44 44 37 42 37 40 46 40 48 46 46 E 46 46 44 40 48 45 46 43 42 42 45

PAGE 359

340Table C.17: Rebound hammer test results for Block 21 Rebound Hammer Testing Performed by: XZ, EC Date: 5/16/2003 Block #: 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 A 44 38 41 42 42 43 40 38 44 39 41 B 40 43 42 41 35 37 40 36 36 36 38 C 40 44 42 44 42 40 40 39 44 42 44 D 41 46 43 42 44 42 45 39 45 41 41 E 42 40 43 40 48 49 44 44 42 44 44 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 A 39 45 37 39 39 41 40 40 37 36 36 B 38 42 39 44 41 39 37 38 41 41 40 C 42 39 42 42 42 37 42 45 42 39 44 D 41 46 44 48 48 48 45 45 41 46 42 E 39 40 46 41 42 44 40 41 44 45 42 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 A 39 41 36 40 35 35 40 37 38 40 40 B 39 40 40 41 39 38 40 43 42 44 38 C 44 42 41 41 38 40 38 44 44 43 44 D 50 43 41 48 45 39 42 39 41 40 42 E 41 38 43 46 40 44 42 42 47 38 36

PAGE 360

341Table C.18: Rebound hammer test results for Block 22 Rebound Hammer Testing Performed by: SC, EC Date: 5/15/2003 Block #: 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 A 35 39 41 38 40 37 38 39 38 41 42 B 42 46 43 41 43 44 46 40 43 44 46 C 43 41 44 42 42 38 39 38 41 40 46 D 43 42 42 46 40 45 48 48 40 42 44 E 44 42 42 42 44 43 41 46 45 46 46 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 A 42 39 37 42 40 36 38 40 38 35 38 B 42 42 42 44 41 42 43 43 42 40 43 C 44 40 40 40 40 42 42 41 43 42 39 D 40 40 42 43 44 46 44 44 45 42 44 E 46 42 44 43 40 44 43 46 45 44 44 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 A 38 38 36 38 39 38 40 38 36 38 38 B 42 41 42 44 41 42 43 44 44 41 43 C 43 44 45 44 42 41 40 38 44 44 44 D 41 43 44 40 47 46 45 43 42 40 42 E 41 41 43 43 47 45 42 43 46 42 42

PAGE 361

342Table C.19: Rebound hammer test results for Block 23 Rebound Hammer Testing Performed by: XZ, EC Date: 5/16/2003 Block #: 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 A 40 32 39 36 36 39 39 38 35 42 36 B 41 42 42 42 36 41 43 43 40 40 43 C 40 43 43 41 40 38 38 36 39 41 43 D 45 42 44 44 45 42 42 40 41 40 42 E 40 46 39 40 39 49 43 42 36 48 40 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 A 34 36 32 38 43 36 37 36 36 36 41 B 42 38 37 44 42 40 44 44 38 38 39 C 40 40 39 38 40 39 42 43 42 46 39 D 42 39 42 42 46 37 42 44 42 42 45 E 45 45 46 42 43 39 40 41 41 41 40 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 A 40 38 36 37 39 37 36 35 36 38 39 B 37 42 36 42 41 41 36 41 42 40 42 C 44 42 37 42 38 40 40 43 44 42 42 D 42 44 42 36 40 41 46 41 42 43 42 E 40 36 43 36 41 38 43 46 38 42 40

PAGE 362

343Table C.20: Rebound hammer test results for Block 24 Rebound Hammer Testing Performed by: XZ, EC Date: 5/16/2003 Block #: 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 A 44 41 38 46 42 38 41 43 46 40 46 B 46 43 43 43 42 43 41 44 41 42 48 C 53 43 45 43 40 40 41 43 39 40 48 D 44 45 40 42 44 42 42 44 40 41 40 E 44 47 42 48 48 45 42 47 41 44 46 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 A 46 46 39 49 42 41 39 40 38 40 42 B 42 42 39 40 40 40 45 40 39 38 42 C 45 44 39 47 46 56 43 42 42 38 43 D 40 42 43 44 42 43 42 42 51 45 41 E 46 41 42 43 46 42 40 42 40 44 47 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 A 41 40 39 46 39 40 40 38 39 40 42 B 41 40 40 43 40 42 42 42 43 42 41 C 44 44 44 44 46 46 46 53 44 46 47 D 42 42 38 43 44 46 43 39 44 42 39 E 44 52 44 48 47 43 40 46 40 40 40

PAGE 363

344Table C.21: Rebound hammer test results for Block 25 Rebound Hammer Testing Performed by: SC, DL Date: 7/11/2003 Block #: 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 A 40 39 40 39 39 40 39 38 39 37 37 B 40 42 40 40 41 41 40 43 38 39 42 C 42 48 42 41 44 41 40 41 42 41 42 D 40 44 50 47 49 50 50 46 47 46 47 E 42 44 41 44 45 49 47 49 48 46 49 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 A 40 36 36 39 41 40 40 41 40 41 39 B 37 37 40 37 37 36 39 38 39 36 42 C 42 42 40 40 40 41 42 42 45 44 42 D 49 47 47 46 47 48 48 49 47 47 46 E 48 50 48 47 46 47 48 49 47 50 49 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 A 40 38 39 41 39 39 38 42 38 38 37 B 38 38 40 38 36 38 39 41 41 38 39 C 42 44 42 45 45 44 44 40 42 41 40 D 46 50 48 48 46 48 46 48 47 42 48 E 50 49 44 44 49 48 45 47 42 42 42

PAGE 364

345Table C.22: Rebound hammer test results for Block 26 Rebound Hammer Testing Performed by: SC, DL Date: 7/11/2003 Block #: 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 A 36 36 32 34 33 34 32 33 31 33 32 B 44 41 40 35 35 34 36 36 35 36 36 C 40 42 35 35 40 38 38 38 42 41 42 D 42 39 39 39 41 41 46 43 42 45 44 E 41 41 41 40 38 42 42 41 41 41 44 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 A 30 35 32 34 31 31 32 30 35 31 32 B 37 36 34 34 33 31 33 38 37 35 36 C 40 37 40 41 39 37 42 38 37 35 37 D 44 44 44 41 41 40 42 40 40 41 43 E 43 42 40 41 38 40 40 41 40 40 43 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 A 33 34 36 38 33 32 34 34 32 33 28 B 36 39 37 38 41 39 35 38 37 37 36 C 42 39 42 39 42 39 42 39 41 41 38 D 42 42 42 42 42 43 44 42 42 39 41 E 44 44 40 40 45 46 46 43 42 44 42

PAGE 365

346Table C.23: Rebound hammer test results for Block 27 Rebound Hammer Testing Performed by: SC, DL Date: 7/11/2003 Block #: 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 A 32 31 30 26 33 29 36 39 37 38 34 B 41 39 34 41 39 42 42 42 39 39 42 C 42 42 42 42 41 42 42 40 44 42 40 D 40 39 40 40 40 40 38 38 40 43 40 E 37 37 37 40 40 39 40 40 40 40 40 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 A 32 38 42 39 35 37 38 35 32 36 38 B 44 44 42 40 42 42 40 44 39 38 42 C 42 42 42 40 44 42 44 42 41 42 42 D 42 41 41 44 42 41 41 44 44 48 44 E 39 39 40 40 40 40 42 42 40 41 41 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 A 37 37 39 36 36 36 36 37 37 39 36 B 42 42 40 38 41 40 40 40 38 41 41 C 44 41 42 41 39 41 41 42 40 44 45 D 48 44 42 45 43 39 41 40 42 39 40 E 41 40 44 42 41 41 39 41 39 40 42

PAGE 366

347Table C.24: Rebound hammer test results for Block 28 Rebound Hammer Testing Performed by: SC, DL Date: 7/11/2003 Block #: 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 A 39 36 38 38 36 38 39 38 37 38 36 B 36 41 38 41 40 40 39 41 36 37 37 C 41 41 39 40 39 41 42 39 40 39 41 D 38 38 38 38 40 40 42 42 44 40 38 E 39 41 40 39 39 39 41 45 40 44 41 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 A 36 38 38 38 36 38 40 38 38 36 37 B 38 38 38 41 39 42 42 38 40 40 38 C 41 41 42 41 41 42 38 40 39 39 41 D 39 37 39 42 42 46 46 48 40 41 43 E 46 41 43 44 42 46 45 46 46 45 48 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 A 37 38 38 35 36 37 36 35 35 38 36 B 36 38 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 37 C 39 39 39 40 38 38 38 38 41 42 43 D 42 41 40 40 39 40 38 39 38 40 39 E 44 43 43 44 44 42 40 44 44 43 40

PAGE 367

APPENDIX D ULTRASONIC PULSE VELOCITY TOMOGRAPHY TEST RESULTS

PAGE 368

349Table D.1: Ultrasonic puls e velocity data for Block 1 Tomography Data Sheet for Test blocks. Block #1 Tested By: SC, BQ Date 1/29/2004 Temp 72F Point # Time ( s) Point # Time ( s) Point # Time ( s) WavespeedsA WavespeedsB WavespeedsC A1 58.2 B1 55.8 C1 55.1 4209.62 4408.60 4464.61 A2 58.5 B2 55.9 C2 55.1 4188.03 4400.72 4464.61 A3 57.5 B3 55.2 C3 55.4 4260.87 4456.52 4440.43 A4 57.7 B4 55.5 C4 55.1 4246.10 4432.43 4464.61 A5 59.4 B5 55.4 C5 55.4 4124.58 4440.43 4440.43 A6 57.6 B6 55.2 C6 55.0 4253.47 4456.52 4472.73 A7 58.0 B7 55.1 C7 54.6 4224.14 4464.61 4505.49 A8 58.8 B8 55.3 C8 54.6 4166.67 4448.46 4505.49 A9 57.9 B9 55.7 C9 54.8 4231.43 4416.52 4489.05 Avg 4211.66 4436.09 4471.94 D1 54.0 E1 52.7 D2 54.0 E2 53.0 WavespeedsD WavespeedsE D3 53.9 E3 53.7 4555.56 4667.93 D4 53.6 E4 53.7 4555.56 4641.51 D5 53.9 E5 53.1 4564.01 4581.01 D6 53.6 E6 53.6 4589.55 4581.01 D7 53.5 E7 53.3 4564.01 4632.77 D8 54.6 E8 53.1 4589.55 4589.55 D9 54.0 E9 53.6 4598.13 4615.38 4505.49 4632.77 X1 109.4 Y1 108.8 Z1 108.6 4555.56 4589.55 X2 109.4 Y2 107.9 Z2 107.6 Avg 4564.16 4614.61 X3 108.6 Y3 106.3 Z3 106.6 X4 108.4 Y4 107.3 Z4 107.2 Wavespeed Averages X5 108.6 Y5 108.2 Z5 107.8 A&B 4323.87 X6 107.5 Y6 106.8 Z6 107.2 C&D 4518.05 X7 106.6 Y7 105.9 Z7 106.1 E 4614.61 X8 107.5 Y8 105.7 Z8 105.9 X9 108.4 Y9 107.5 Z9 105.9 WavespeedsB WavespeedsD WavespeedsE XA 207.4 YA 206.6 ZA 207.2 4462.07 4520.34 4608.29 XB 201.7 YB 200.4 ZB 202.6 4491.02 4513.54 4545.45 XC 201.7 YC 198.9 ZC 200.3 4442.25 4577.82 4632.01 XD 199.1 YD 199.4 ZD 196.6 Avg 4465.1 4537.2 4595.3 XE 195.3 YE 198.0 ZE 194.3

PAGE 369

350Table D.2: Ultrasonic pulse velocity data for Block 2 Tomography Data Sheet for Test blocks. Block #2 Tested By: SC, BQ Date 1/29/2004 Temp 72F Point # Time ( s) Point # Time ( s) Point # Time ( s) WavespeedsA WavespeedsB WavespeedsC A1 56.9 B1 55.3 C1 54.4 4253.08 4376.13 4466.91 A2 56.4 B2 55.3 C2 55.2 4290.78 4376.13 4402.17 A3 56.8 B3 54.8 C3 54.5 4260.56 4416.06 4458.72 A4 56.7 B4 55.4 C4 55.4 4268.08 4368.23 4386.28 A5 56.0 B5 55.1 C5 55.0 4321.43 4392.01 4418.18 A6 55.9 B6 54.8 C6 54.9 4329.16 4416.06 4426.23 A7 56.1 B7 55.1 C7 55.3 4313.73 4392.01 4394.21 A8 56.6 B8 55.2 C8 54.6 4275.62 4384.06 4450.55 A9 56.5 B9 55.2 C9 54.2 4283.19 4384.06 4483.39 Avg 4288.40 4389.42 4431.85 D1 53.9 E1 52.8 D2 54.2 E2 54.1 WavespeedsD WavespeedsE D3 54.5 E3 55.3 4508.35 4640.15 D4 55.1 E4 55.1 4483.39 4528.65 D5 55.3 E5 54.6 4458.72 4430.38 D6 55.1 E6 55.0 4410.16 4446.46 D7 54.9 E7 54.7 4394.21 4487.18 D8 54.4 E8 53.9 4410.16 4454.55 D9 52.6 E9 52.6 4426.23 4478.98 4466.91 4545.45 X1 110.4 Y1 109.5 Z1 110.4 4619.77 4657.79 X2 109.6 Y2 108.6 Z2 109.5 Avg 4464.21 4518.84 X3 109.3 Y3 108.5 Z3 109.7 X4 110.1 Y4 110.1 Z4 109.8 Wavespeed Averages X5 110.8 Y5 109.7 Z5 110.1 A&B 4338.91 X6 110.6 Y6 109.5 Z6 110.1 C&D 4448.03 X7 110.2 Y7 108.2 Z7 109.6 E 4518.84 X8 112.0 Y8 109.3 Z8 110.3 X9 111.0 Y9 111.0 Z9 110.3 WavespeedsB WavespeedsD WavespeedsE XA 207.4 YA 205.7 ZA 206.4 4419.86 4575.50 4625.26 XB 203.4 YB 200.9 ZB 202.7 4474.86 4543.16 4589.91 XC 200.4 YC 198.9 ZC 200.2 4435.13 4577.82 4641.94 XD 196.7 YD 198.1 ZD 196.6 Avg 4443.3 4565.5 4619.0 XE 194.8 YE 196.3 ZE 194.1

PAGE 370

351Table D.3: Ultrasonic pulse velocity data for Block 3 Tomography Data Sheet for Test blocks. Block #3 Tested By: SC, BQ Date 1/29/2004 Temp 72F Point # Time ( s) Point # Time ( s) Point # Time ( s) WavespeedsA WavespeedsB WavespeedsC A1 55.5 B1 54.1 C1 53.6 4378.38 4491.68 4514.93 A2 55.6 B2 55.2 C2 54.0 4370.50 4402.17 4481.48 A3 56.3 B3 54.6 C3 53.7 4316.16 4450.55 4506.52 A4 56.7 B4 54.7 C4 54.5 4285.71 4442.41 4440.37 A5 56.1 B5 54.5 C5 53.9 4331.55 4458.72 4489.80 A6 56.3 B6 54.3 C6 53.9 4316.16 4475.14 4489.80 A7 56.1 B7 54.5 C7 54.0 4331.55 4458.72 4481.48 A8 56.1 B8 55.0 C8 53.7 4331.55 4418.18 4506.52 A9 56.6 B9 54.6 C9 54.0 4293.29 4450.55 4481.48 Avg 4328.32 4449.79 4488.04 D1 53.0 E1 51.8 D2 53.0 E2 52.0 WavespeedsD WavespeedsE D3 52.9 E3 52.0 4566.04 4671.81 D4 53.2 E4 52.0 4566.04 4653.85 D5 53.0 E5 52.2 4574.67 4653.85 D6 52.8 E6 52.2 4548.87 4653.85 D7 52.9 E7 52.2 4566.04 4636.02 D8 52.6 E8 51.9 4583.33 4636.02 D9 52.8 E9 52.4 4574.67 4636.02 4600.76 4662.81 X1 112.6 Y1 110.2 Z1 108.9 4583.33 4618.32 X2 109.6 Y2 107.1 Z2 108.0 Avg 4573.75 4646.95 X3 109.6 Y3 108.5 Z3 108.5 X4 109.9 Y4 110.0 Z4 109.8 Wavespeed Averages X5 110.7 Y5 109.7 Z5 109.4 A&B 4389.05 X6 110.4 Y6 109.8 Z6 109.8 C&D 4530.90 X7 109.3 Y7 107.6 Z7 108.9 E 4646.95 X8 109.8 Y8 109.1 Z8 109.2 X9 111.8 Y9 114.0 Z9 111.1 WavespeedsB WavespeedsD WavespeedsE XA 203.7 YA 201.3 ZA 204.7 4492.75 4573.17 4611.05 XB 200.1 YB 198.8 ZB 200.4 4522.13 4570.85 4592.25 XC 199.7 YC 197.5 ZC 198.9 4486.03 4613.02 4627.63 XD 196.8 YD 196.9 ZD 195.1 Avg 4500.3 4585.7 4610.3 XE 195.4 YE 196.2 ZE 194.7

PAGE 371

352Table D.4: Ultrasonic pulse velocity data for Block 4 Tomography Data Sheet for Test blocks. Block #4 Tested By: SC, BQ Date 1/29/2004 Temp 72F Point # Time ( s) Point # Time ( s) Point # Time ( s) WavespeedsA WavespeedsB WavespeedsC A1 56.9 B1 55.3 C1 55.1 4288.22 4412.30 4446.46 A2 57.3 B2 56.0 C2 56.1 4258.29 4357.14 4367.20 A3 57.0 B3 56.6 C3 56.3 4280.70 4310.95 4351.69 A4 57.9 B4 56.9 C4 57.0 4214.16 4288.22 4298.25 A5 57.9 B5 57.4 C5 56.9 4214.16 4250.87 4305.80 A6 57.6 B6 57.1 C6 57.4 4236.11 4273.20 4268.29 A7 57.4 B7 56.6 C7 56.2 4250.87 4310.95 4359.43 A8 57.1 B8 56.2 C8 55.9 4273.20 4341.64 4382.83 A9 57.3 B9 55.9 C9 55.1 4258.29 4364.94 4446.46 Avg 4252.67 4323.36 4358.49 D1 54.1 E1 53.1 D2 54.9 E2 54.1 WavespeedsD WavespeedsE D3 55.1 E3 54.8 4528.65 4595.10 D4 55.8 E4 54.8 4462.66 4510.17 D5 55.9 E5 54.5 4446.46 4452.55 D6 56.0 E6 55.2 4390.68 4452.55 D7 55.5 E7 54.9 4382.83 4477.06 D8 55.0 E8 53.8 4375.00 4420.29 D9 53.4 E9 53.5 4414.41 4444.44 4454.55 4535.32 X1 112.4 Y1 112.6 Z1 111.0 4588.01 4560.75 X2 110.6 Y2 109.3 Z2 111.2 Avg 4449.25 4494.25 X3 110.0 Y3 109.9 Z3 111.5 X4 111.9 Y4 111.6 Z4 112.0 Wavespeed Averages X5 112.6 Y5 111.3 Z5 112.1 A&B 4288.01 X6 112.3 Y6 109.7 Z6 111.9 C&D 4403.87 X7 110.9 Y7 110.1 Z7 111.7 E 4494.25 X8 111.0 Y8 110.0 Z8 111.8 X9 112.9 Y9 112.1 Z9 111.5 WavespeedsB WavespeedsD WavespeedsE XA 205.6 YA 203.6 ZA 207.0 4462.61 4546.37 4564.78 XB 201.9 YB 200.4 ZB 203.0 4496.01 4525.84 4539.51 XC 201.1 YC 200.5 ZC 201.8 4438.42 4564.78 4604.39 XD 198.4 YD 199.3 ZD 197.6 Avg 4465.7 4545.7 4569.6 XE 197.6 YE 198.7 ZE 195.9

PAGE 372

353Table D.5: Ultrasonic pulse velocity data for Block 5 Tomography Data Sheet for Test blocks. Block #5 Tested By: CF, SC Date 5/8/2003 Temp 72F Point # Time ( s) Point # Time ( s) Point # Time ( s) WavespeedsA WavespeedsB WavespeedsC A1 61.0 B1 58.4 C1 57.0 3950.82 4160.96 4263.16 A2 60.0 B2 58.1 C2 57.1 4016.67 4182.44 4255.69 A3 58.1 B3 57.6 C3 56.8 4148.02 4218.75 4278.17 A4 59.6 B4 57.5 C4 56.8 4043.62 4226.09 4278.17 A5 60.6 B5 57.6 C5 56.7 3976.90 4218.75 4285.71 A6 59.9 B6 57.8 C6 56.7 4023.37 4204.15 4285.71 A7 58.6 B7 57.5 C7 56.8 4112.63 4226.09 4278.17 A8 59.5 B8 58.1 C8 57.0 4050.42 4182.44 4263.16 A9 60.1 B9 58.3 C9 56.5 4009.98 4168.10 4300.88 Avg 4036.94 4198.64 4276.54 D1 55.6 E1 55.2 D2 57.0 E2 53.5 WavespeedsD WavespeedsE D3 55.6 E3 54.5 4388.49 4438.41 D4 56.3 E4 55.1 4280.70 4579.44 D5 55.4 E5 55.3 4388.49 4495.41 D6 55.6 E6 54.9 4333.93 4446.46 D7 56.1 E7 54.9 4404.33 4430.38 D8 56.6 E8 53.7 4388.49 4462.66 D9 55.1 E9 54.6 4349.38 4462.66 4310.95 4562.38 X1 111.4 Y1 113.1 Z1 111.0 4428.31 4487.18 X2 112.6 Y2 111.9 Z2 111.6 Avg 4363.67 4485.00 X3 111.2 Y3 110.8 Z3 111.3 X4 113.0 Y4 111.5 Z4 111.4 Wavespeed Averages X5 112.9 Y5 112.3 Z5 112.6 A&B 4117.79 X6 112.6 Y6 111.9 Z6 113.5 C&D 4320.11 X7 113.5 Y7 110.6 Z7 110.9 E 4485.00 X8 112.2 Y8 112.1 Z8 112.8 X9 110.9 Y9 110.1 Z9 108.4 WavespeedsB WavespeedsD WavespeedsE XA 214.6 YA 214.6 ZA 215.5 4287.07 4369.26 4617.74 XB 210.4 YB 211.1 ZB 211.5 4272.86 4352.43 4478.50 XC 210.6 YC 208.7 ZC 208.9 4264.78 4396.89 4494.05 XD 206.9 YD 207.7 ZD 205.6 Avg 4274.9 4372.9 4530.1 XE 196.2 YE 202.3 ZE 201.6

PAGE 373

354Table D.6: Ultrasonic pulse velocity data for Block 6 Tomography Data Sheet for Test blocks. Block #6 Tested By: CF Date 5/9/2003 Temp 72F Point # Time ( s) Point # Time ( s) Point # Time ( s) WavespeedsA WavespeedsB WavespeedsC A1 59.6 B1 58.4 C1 57.9 4077.18 4160.96 4214.16 A2 59.3 B2 58.1 C2 58.6 4097.81 4182.44 4163.82 A3 58.3 B3 58.4 C3 58.6 4168.10 4160.96 4163.82 A4 59.1 B4 59.4 C4 58.5 4111.68 4090.91 4170.94 A5 58.9 B5 58.9 C5 58.5 4125.64 4125.64 4170.94 A6 58.5 B6 59.0 C6 58.5 4153.85 4118.64 4170.94 A7 59.0 B7 58.6 C7 58.0 4118.64 4146.76 4206.90 A8 58.9 B8 58.2 C8 57.9 4125.64 4175.26 4214.16 A9 59.8 B9 58.0 C9 57.6 4063.55 4189.66 4236.11 Avg 4115.79 4150.14 4190.20 D1 55.8 E1 55.5 D2 57.6 E2 55.6 WavespeedsD WavespeedsE D3 57.8 E3 57.2 4372.76 4414.41 D4 57.9 E4 56.7 4236.11 4406.47 D5 57.8 E5 56.5 4221.45 4283.22 D6 58.4 E6 56.4 4214.16 4320.99 D7 57.3 E7 56.1 4221.45 4336.28 D8 57.2 E8 55.1 4178.08 4343.97 D9 55.9 E9 54.4 4258.29 4367.20 4265.73 4446.46 X1 108.2 Y1 109.8 Z1 110.1 4364.94 4503.68 X2 111.7 Y2 111.6 Z2 111.3 Avg 4259.22 4380.30 X3 111.9 Y3 110.9 Z3 110.9 X4 113.5 Y4 112.8 Z4 113.7 Wavespeed Averages X5 114.5 Y5 113.5 Z5 114.9 A&B 4132.96 X6 112.8 Y6 113.0 Z6 115.2 C&D 4224.71 X7 112.5 Y7 112.4 Z7 111.2 E 4380.30 X8 111.2 Y8 113.3 Z8 111.8 X9 112.2 Y9 111.3 Z9 112.4 WavespeedsB WavespeedsD WavespeedsE XA 214.7 YA 214.5 ZA 214.5 4264.78 4415.20 4580.81 XB 211.5 YB 209.3 ZB 212.0 4309.60 4419.51 4479.01 XC 208.9 YC 207.9 ZC 209.4 4254.72 4402.33 4507.95 XD 205.2 YD 205.0 ZD 205.8 Avg 4276.4 4412.3 4522.6 XE 198.0 YE 202.5 ZE 201.2

PAGE 374

355Table D.7: Ultrasonic pulse velocity data for Block 7 Tomography Data Sheet for Test blocks. Block #7 Tested By: SC Date 5/7/2003 Temp 72F Point # Time ( s) Point # Time ( s) Point # Time ( s) WavespeedsA WavespeedsB WavespeedsC A1 57.7 B1 56.0 C1 55.5 4228.77 4357.14 4396.40 A2 57.1 B2 56.5 C2 56.9 4273.20 4318.58 4288.22 A3 56.7 B3 56.4 C3 56.5 4303.35 4326.24 4318.58 A4 56.4 B4 56.6 C4 56.5 4326.24 4310.95 4318.58 A5 57.2 B5 56.8 C5 56.8 4265.73 4295.77 4295.77 A6 56.4 B6 56.2 C6 56.8 4326.24 4341.64 4295.77 A7 56.9 B7 56.6 C7 57.0 4288.22 4310.95 4280.70 A8 56.9 B8 56.3 C8 56.8 4288.22 4333.93 4295.77 A9 56.8 B9 56.3 C9 55.9 4295.77 4333.93 4364.94 Avg 4288.42 4325.46 4317.19 D1 54.5 E1 53.7 D2 56.2 E2 54.8 WavespeedsD WavespeedsE D3 56.5 E3 55.7 4477.06 4543.76 D4 57.1 E4 55.8 4341.64 4452.55 D5 56.4 E5 55.8 4318.58 4380.61 D6 56.6 E6 56.2 4273.20 4372.76 D7 56.5 E7 56.1 4326.24 4372.76 D8 56.5 E8 54.3 4310.95 4341.64 D9 54.4 E9 52.6 4318.58 4349.38 4318.58 4493.55 X1 113.0 Y1 110.7 Z1 113.7 4485.29 4638.78 X2 114.7 Y2 114.7 Z2 115.3 Avg 4352.24 4438.42 X3 114.1 Y3 113.2 Z3 114.7 X4 114.8 Y4 113.0 Z4 113.8 Wavespeed Averages X5 115.7 Y5 113.4 Z5 115.2 A&B 4306.94 X6 114.9 Y6 113.1 Z6 114.2 C&D 4334.72 X7 114.2 Y7 113.3 Z7 114.7 E 4438.42 X8 112.9 Y8 112.6 Z8 113.1 X9 113.2 Y9 112.6 Z9 113.3 WavespeedsB WavespeedsD WavespeedsE XA 208.5 YA 206.8 ZA 208.3 4376.52 4488.58 4631.53 XB 206.1 YB 203.6 ZB 205.4 4430.26 4444.44 4568.40 XC 205.8 YC 202.8 ZC 204.2 4391.43 4466.40 4584.60 XD 201.4 YD 203.4 ZD 202.4 Avg 4399.4 4466.5 4594.8 XE 195.4 YE 198.1 ZE 197.4

PAGE 375

356Table D.8: Ultrasonic pulse velocity data for Block 8 Tomography Data Sheet for Test blocks. Block #8 Tested By: CF, SC Date 5/8/2003 Temp 72F Point # Time ( s) Point # Time ( s) Point # Time ( s) WavespeedsA WavespeedsB WavespeedsC A1 58.2 B1 56.9 C1 55.8 4175.26 4270.65 4354.84 A2 57.2 B2 56.7 C2 56.8 4248.25 4285.71 4278.17 A3 57.3 B3 56.2 C3 56.0 4240.84 4323.84 4339.29 A4 57.7 B4 56.1 C4 55.8 4211.44 4331.55 4354.84 A5 57.4 B5 56.2 C5 56.4 4233.45 4323.84 4308.51 A6 57.4 B6 56.2 C6 56.2 4233.45 4323.84 4323.84 A7 57.4 B7 56.5 C7 56.5 4233.45 4300.88 4300.88 A8 57.3 B8 56.7 C8 56.6 4240.84 4285.71 4293.29 A9 58.3 B9 55.8 C9 55.1 4168.10 4354.84 4410.16 Avg 4220.56 4311.21 4329.31 D1 55.0 E1 53.2 D2 55.2 E2 53.6 WavespeedsD WavespeedsE D3 55.1 E3 54.5 4418.18 4567.67 D4 55.2 E4 53.9 4402.17 4533.58 D5 55.5 E5 54.2 4410.16 4458.72 D6 55.1 E6 54.3 4402.17 4508.35 D7 56.1 E7 54.6 4378.38 4483.39 D8 55.2 E8 53.6 4410.16 4475.14 D9 54.1 E9 53.0 4331.55 4450.55 4402.17 4533.58 X1 113.3 Y1 113.7 Z1 113.6 4491.68 4584.91 X2 112.7 Y2 112.7 Z2 113.6 Avg 4405.18 4510.65 X3 112.8 Y3 112.9 Z3 114.2 X4 113.4 Y4 113.8 Z4 113.4 Wavespeed Averages X5 113.9 Y5 113.3 Z5 114.1 A&B 4265.89 X6 113.7 Y6 112.7 Z6 113.7 C&D 4367.25 X7 112.6 Y7 112.6 Z7 113.6 E 4510.65 X8 112.7 Y8 111.7 Z8 112.7 X9 110.8 Y9 113.5 Z9 110.0 WavespeedsB WavespeedsD WavespeedsE XA 213.1 YA 211.3 ZA 210.8 4279.60 4479.84 4506.76 XB 210.3 YB 207.5 ZB 208.1 4337.35 4392.39 4440.06 XC 206.7 YC 206.9 ZC 208.3 4324.84 4400.98 4504.50 XD 200.9 YD 204.9 ZD 204.5 Avg 4313.9 4424.4 4483.8 XE 199.7 YE 202.7 ZE 199.8

PAGE 376

357Table D.9: Ultrasonic pulse velocity data for Block 9 Tomography Data Sheet for Test blocks. Block #9 Tested By: SC, XZ Date 6/26/2003 Temp 72F Point # Time ( s) Point # Time ( s) Point # Time ( s) WavespeedsA WavespeedsB WavespeedsC A1 58.9 B1 56.2 C1 55.0 4057.72 4252.67 4345.45 A2 59.9 B2 56.2 C2 55.4 3989.98 4252.67 4314.08 A3 60.0 B3 55.3 C3 55.5 3983.33 4321.88 4306.31 A4 59.1 B4 56.7 C4 55.9 4043.99 4215.17 4275.49 A5 59.0 B5 56.2 C5 55.1 4050.85 4252.67 4337.57 A6 59.2 B6 55.8 C6 55.1 4037.16 4283.15 4337.57 A7 59.2 B7 55.5 C7 55.1 4037.16 4306.31 4337.57 A8 58.5 B8 57.2 C8 55.5 4085.47 4178.32 4306.31 A9 59.9 B9 57.3 C9 55.9 3989.98 4171.03 4275.49 Avg 4030.63 4248.21 4315.09 D1 53.9 E1 52.7 D2 54.6 E2 53.0 WavespeedsD WavespeedsE D3 54.6 E3 52.8 4434.14 4535.10 D4 54.4 E4 52.6 4377.29 4509.43 D5 53.9 E5 52.9 4377.29 4526.52 D6 54.4 E6 53.8 4393.38 4543.73 D7 54.6 E7 53.5 4434.14 4517.96 D8 55.3 E8 53.6 4393.38 4442.38 D9 53.8 E9 52.6 4377.29 4467.29 4321.88 4458.96 X1 113.1 Y1 112.9 Z1 114.5 4442.38 4543.73 X2 111.4 Y2 112.7 Z2 114.7 Avg 4394.57 4505.01 X3 112.2 Y3 112.8 Z3 112.8 X4 112.7 Y4 111.2 Z4 114.6 Wavespeed Averages X5 112.4 Y5 111.5 Z5 115.5 A&B 4139.42 X6 111.8 Y6 111.4 Z6 113.5 C&D 4354.83 X7 111.8 Y7 111.5 Z7 113.5 E 4505.01 X8 112.4 Y8 112.3 Z8 114.1 X9 114.6 Y9 116.8 Z9 114.5 WavespeedsB WavespeedsD WavespeedsE XA 223.0 YA 218.2 ZA 219.5 4195.05 4293.22 4454.91 XB 214.3 YB 213.3 ZB 214.5 4214.72 4266.73 4368.32 XC 210.8 YC 211.1 ZC 214.0 4191.14 4266.73 4450.50 XD 209.4 YD 210.7 ZD 210.7 Avg 4200.3 4275.6 4424.6 XE 201.8 YE 205.8 ZE 202.0

PAGE 377

358Table D.10: Ultrasonic pulse velocity data for Block 10 Tomography Data Sheet for Test blocks. Block #10 Tested By: SC, XZ Date 6/26/2003 Temp 72F Point # Time ( s) Point # Time ( s) Point # Time ( s) WavespeedsA WavespeedsB WavespeedsC A1 60.2 B1 57.1 C1 56.6 3986.71 4203.15 4240.28 A2 59.3 B2 56.8 C2 56.1 4047.22 4225.35 4278.07 A3 59.4 B3 57.1 C3 56.2 4040.40 4203.15 4270.46 A4 58.9 B4 56.6 C4 55.3 4074.70 4240.28 4339.96 A5 59.3 B5 56.1 C5 55.1 4047.22 4278.07 4355.72 A6 59.6 B6 56.2 C6 55.3 4026.85 4270.46 4339.96 A7 60.1 B7 56.8 C7 55.2 3993.34 4225.35 4347.83 A8 60.7 B8 57.3 C8 57.3 3953.87 4188.48 4188.48 A9 60.4 B9 56.2 C9 55.5 3973.51 4270.46 4324.32 Avg 4015.98 4233.86 4298.34 D1 55.1 E1 53.1 D2 54.8 E2 53.2 WavespeedsD WavespeedsE D3 54.4 E3 53.2 4355.72 4519.77 D4 54.2 E4 52.9 4379.56 4511.28 D5 54.1 E5 53.1 4411.76 4511.28 D6 54.5 E6 53.4 4428.04 4536.86 D7 55.0 E7 53.9 4436.23 4519.77 D8 55.4 E8 53.9 4403.67 4494.38 D9 55.0 E9 53.5 4363.64 4452.69 4332.13 4452.69 X1 112.2 Y1 114.0 Z1 109.6 4363.64 4485.98 X2 112.7 Y2 112.7 Z2 113.1 Avg 4386.04 4498.30 X3 112.1 Y3 111.1 Z3 112.4 X4 113.2 Y4 112.7 Z4 113.0 Wavespeed Averages X5 113.2 Y5 111.4 Z5 112.3 A&B 4124.92 X6 112.5 Y6 111.5 Z6 112.5 C&D 4342.19 X7 113.4 Y7 113.0 Z7 112.4 E 4498.30 X8 114.2 Y8 114.8 Z8 113.1 X9 112.7 Y9 115.8 Z9 112.7 WavespeedsB WavespeedsD WavespeedsE XA 220.4 YA 219.6 ZA 224.1 4174.03 4277.54 4348.04 XB 214.9 YB 212.9 ZB 213.5 4213.25 4267.36 4331.24 XC 213.2 YC 211.8 ZC 213.3 4201.41 4257.24 4333.33 XD 209.7 YD 210.2 ZD 210.7 Avg 4196.2 4267.4 4337.5 XE 206.3 YE 207.1 ZE 207.0

PAGE 378

359Table D.11: Ultrasonic pulse velocity data for Block 11 Tomography Data Sheet for Test blocks. Block #11 Tested By: SC, XZ Date 6/26/2003 Temp 72F Point # Time ( s) Point # Time ( s) Point # Time ( s) WavespeedsA WavespeedsB WavespeedsC A1 58.3 B1 56.6 C1 55.8 4116.64 4240.28 4301.08 A2 58.1 B2 55.7 C2 55.3 4130.81 4308.80 4339.96 A3 59.2 B3 56.0 C3 55.7 4054.05 4285.71 4308.80 A4 58.7 B4 55.7 C4 55.0 4088.59 4308.80 4363.64 A5 58.4 B5 56.0 C5 54.9 4109.59 4285.71 4371.58 A6 58.5 B6 56.3 C6 55.1 4102.56 4262.88 4355.72 A7 58.8 B7 56.4 C7 55.6 4081.63 4255.32 4316.55 A8 58.3 B8 57.3 C8 55.8 4116.64 4188.48 4301.08 A9 58.5 B9 56.4 C9 55.9 4102.56 4255.32 4293.38 Avg 4100.34 4265.70 4327.98 D1 54.9 E1 54.3 D2 55.0 E2 53.8 WavespeedsD WavespeedsE D3 54.6 E3 53.9 4371.58 4419.89 D4 54.4 E4 53.8 4363.64 4460.97 D5 54.2 E5 53.7 4395.60 4452.69 D6 54.0 E6 53.4 4411.76 4460.97 D7 54.7 E7 53.5 4428.04 4469.27 D8 54.6 E8 52.5 4444.44 4494.38 D9 54.0 E9 52.6 4387.57 4485.98 4395.60 4571.43 X1 111.6 Y1 110.7 Z1 113.2 4444.44 4562.74 X2 111.4 Y2 111.1 Z2 111.2 Avg 4404.74 4486.48 X3 111.8 Y3 113.9 Z3 112.4 X4 111.6 Y4 113.1 Z4 112.0 Wavespeed Averages X5 111.4 Y5 112.9 Z5 112.3 A&B 4183.02 X6 111.9 Y6 111.5 Z6 113.9 C&D 4366.36 X7 111.6 Y7 112.8 Z7 113.1 E 4486.48 X8 111.3 Y8 111.6 Z8 112.6 X9 110.6 Y9 111.0 Z9 111.3 WavespeedsB WavespeedsD WavespeedsE XA 220.3 YA 219.3 ZA 221.4 4189.94 4314.48 4390.24 XB 214.8 YB 214.4 ZB 217.3 4197.76 4253.31 4300.05 XC 212.4 YC 213.1 ZC 212.4 4141.74 4339.44 4347.83 XD 208.6 YD 211.6 ZD 207.4 Avg 4176.5 4302.4 4346.0 XE 205.0 YE 209.3 ZE 207.0

PAGE 379

360Table D.12: Ultrasonic pulse velocity data for Block 12 Tomography Data Sheet for Test blocks. Block #12 Tested By: SC, XZ Date 6/26/2003 Temp 72F Point # Time ( s) Point # Time ( s) Point # Time ( s) WavespeedsA WavespeedsB WavespeedsC A1 60.2 B1 57.0 C1 56.4 3986.71 4210.53 4255.32 A2 59.0 B2 56.3 C2 55.4 4067.80 4262.88 4332.13 A3 59.8 B3 55.8 C3 55.5 4013.38 4301.08 4324.32 A4 59.1 B4 55.5 C4 55.0 4060.91 4324.32 4363.64 A5 60.4 B5 56.0 C5 55.2 3973.51 4285.71 4347.83 A6 60.7 B6 56.2 C6 55.2 3953.87 4270.46 4347.83 A7 59.8 B7 57.4 C7 55.8 4013.38 4181.18 4301.08 A8 59.0 B8 57.4 C8 57.0 4067.80 4181.18 4210.53 A9 59.2 B9 57.8 C9 55.6 4054.05 4152.25 4316.55 Avg 4021.27 4241.07 4311.02 D1 55.9 E1 53.9 D2 54.3 E2 53.5 WavespeedsD WavespeedsE D3 54.3 E3 53.6 4293.38 4452.69 D4 53.6 E4 53.3 4419.89 4485.98 D5 54.3 E5 53.4 4419.89 4477.61 D6 54.6 E6 53.3 4477.61 4502.81 D7 55.2 E7 54.7 4419.89 4494.38 D8 55.2 E8 54.5 4395.60 4502.81 D9 54.5 E9 54.0 4347.83 4387.57 4347.83 4403.67 X1 111.2 Y1 112.7 Z1 108.6 4403.67 4444.44 X2 110.5 Y2 110.3 Z2 110.1 Avg 4391.73 4461.33 X3 109.9 Y3 110.0 Z3 110.3 X4 111.1 Y4 109.8 Z4 109.4 Wavespeed Averages X5 112.4 Y5 111.4 Z5 110.4 A&B 4131.17 X6 110.9 Y6 109.3 Z6 109.8 C&D 4351.38 X7 111.3 Y7 110.7 Z7 109.8 E 4461.33 X8 111.6 Y8 112.1 Z8 111.7 X9 114.9 Y9 111.7 Z9 111.7 WavespeedsB WavespeedsD WavespeedsE XA 220.1 YA 217.0 ZA 219.2 4203.64 4306.22 4403.13 XB 214.1 YB 213.5 ZB 214.4 4215.46 4281.64 4335.26 XC 213.2 YC 211.7 ZC 212.2 4197.76 4310.34 4398.83 XD 209.0 YD 210.2 ZD 208.8 Avg 4205.6 4299.4 4379.1 XE 204.4 YE 207.6 ZE 204.6

PAGE 380

361Table D.13: Ultrasonic pulse velocity data for Block 17 Tomography Data Sheet for Test blocks. Block #17 Tested By: SC, BQ Date 1/22/2004 Temp 72F Point # Time ( s) Point # Time ( s) Point # Time ( s) WavespeedsA WavespeedsB WavespeedsC A1 63.9 B1 61.6 C1 58.5 3787.17 3944.81 4136.75 A2 63.0 B2 60.4 C2 59.1 3841.27 4023.18 4094.75 A3 63.2 B3 59.5 C3 58.9 3829.11 4084.03 4108.66 A4 63.2 B4 59.5 C4 58.7 3829.11 4084.03 4122.66 A5 62.0 B5 59.3 C5 59.5 3903.23 4097.81 4067.23 A6 62.0 B6 61.5 C6 59.3 3903.23 3951.22 4080.94 A7 62.8 B7 60.2 C7 58.8 3853.50 4036.54 4115.65 A8 63.4 B8 61.4 C8 59.5 3817.03 3957.65 4067.23 A9 63.6 B9 61.2 C9 58.8 3805.03 3970.59 4115.65 Avg 3840.97 4016.65 4101.06 D1 56.7 E1 53.7 D2 56.8 E2 55.4 WavespeedsD WavespeedsE D3 57.3 E3 55.7 4250.44 4487.90 D4 57.4 E4 55.7 4242.96 4350.18 D5 56.8 E5 55.3 4205.93 4326.75 D6 57.1 E6 55.7 4198.61 4326.75 D7 57.4 E7 55.4 4242.96 4358.05 D8 57.5 E8 54.6 4220.67 4326.75 D9 56.8 E9 54.2 4198.61 4350.18 4191.30 4413.92 X1 120.9 Y1 121.2 Z1 121.1 4242.96 4446.49 X2 119.0 Y2 117.8 Z2 121.2 Avg 4221.60 4376.33 X3 119.4 Y3 119.3 Z3 121.8 X4 119.8 Y4 119.5 Z4 121.8 Wavespeed Averages X5 118.0 Y5 118.4 Z5 121.2 A&B 3928.81 X6 119.0 Y6 118.3 Z6 121.5 C&D 4161.33 X7 119.9 Y7 119.6 Z7 121.2 E 4376.33 X8 119.8 Y8 119.1 Z8 120.6 X9 119.6 Y9 124.2 Z9 120.5 WavespeedsB WavespeedsD WavespeedsE XA 233.5 YA 231.0 ZA 236.4 3921.40 4170.92 4331.09 XB 229.0 YB 225.1 ZB 229.5 3989.34 4151.64 4314.48 XC 222.1 YC 221.7 ZC 222.4 3912.85 4172.86 4411.76 XD 215.3 YD 216.3 ZD 215.2 Avg 3941.2 4165.1 4352.4 XE 207.8 YE 208.6 ZE 204.0

PAGE 381

362Table D.14: Ultrasonic pulse velocity data for Block 18 Tomography Data Sheet for Test blocks. Block #18 Tested By: SC, BQ Date 1/22/2004 Temp 72F Point # Time ( s) Point # Time ( s) Point # Time ( s) WavespeedsA WavespeedsB WavespeedsC A1 65.0 B1 62.3 C1 60.8 3692.31 3884.43 3980.26 A2 65.8 B2 63.1 C2 62.0 3647.42 3835.18 3903.23 A3 65.0 B3 63.0 C3 62.2 3692.31 3841.27 3890.68 A4 65.0 B4 63.8 C4 62.6 3692.31 3793.10 3865.81 A5 64.6 B5 64.3 C5 62.4 3715.17 3763.61 3878.21 A6 65.3 B6 64.0 C6 61.9 3675.34 3781.25 3909.53 A7 65.7 B7 62.4 C7 61.2 3652.97 3878.21 3954.25 A8 65.3 B8 62.5 C8 61.2 3675.34 3872.00 3954.25 A9 65.8 B9 61.8 C9 59.6 3647.42 3915.86 4060.40 Avg 3676.73 3840.55 3932.96 D1 58.7 E1 56.8 D2 60.4 E2 58.9 WavespeedsD WavespeedsE D3 60.5 E3 58.9 4122.66 4260.56 D4 60.7 E4 59.1 4006.62 4108.66 D5 60.5 E5 57.7 4000.00 4108.66 D6 59.6 E6 58.8 3986.82 4094.75 D7 59.4 E7 58.9 4000.00 4194.11 D8 59.8 E8 57.3 4060.40 4115.65 D9 57.4 E9 55.6 4074.07 4108.66 4046.82 4223.39 X1 121.0 Y1 119.3 Z1 122.6 4216.03 4352.52 X2 122.2 Y2 120.5 Z2 121.0 Avg 4057.05 4174.11 X3 122.4 Y3 121.0 Z3 122.0 X4 121.7 Y4 120.7 Z4 122.4 Wavespeed Averages X5 122.5 Y5 121.7 Z5 123.2 A&B 3758.64 X6 123.4 Y6 122.3 Z6 123.9 C&D 3995.00 X7 123.2 Y7 121.1 Z7 123.5 E 4174.11 X8 122.9 Y8 121.7 Z8 124.5 X9 125.0 Y9 125.2 Z9 125.5 WavespeedsB WavespeedsD WavespeedsE XA 240.4 YA 238.1 ZA 242.8 3901.38 4161.66 4415.08 XB 231.2 YB 229.7 ZB 233.6 3926.86 4136.82 4295.24 XC 225.5 YC 223.3 ZC 225.4 3861.30 4157.82 4374.39 XD 216.5 YD 217.8 ZD 216.7 Avg 3896.5 4152.1 4361.6 XE 204.3 YE 210.0 ZE 206.2

PAGE 382

363Table D.15: Ultrasonic pulse velocity data for Block 19 Tomography Data Sheet for Test blocks. Block #19 Tested By: SC, BQ Date 1/22/2004 Temp 72F Point # Time ( s) Point # Time ( s) Point # Time ( s) WavespeedsA WavespeedsB WavespeedsC A1 66.2 B1 63.1 C1 61.1 3640.48 3866.88 3960.72 A2 65.6 B2 64.4 C2 63.0 3673.78 3788.82 3841.27 A3 66.4 B3 64.4 C3 62.6 3629.52 3788.82 3865.81 A4 66.8 B4 65.8 C4 64.0 3607.78 3708.21 3781.25 A5 65.9 B5 64.3 C5 64.0 3657.06 3794.71 3781.25 A6 67.9 B6 65.1 C6 63.5 3549.34 3748.08 3811.02 A7 66.6 B7 64.9 C7 63.7 3618.62 3759.63 3799.06 A8 67.1 B8 64.4 C8 62.1 3591.65 3788.82 3896.94 A9 70.0 B9 63.9 C9 60.9 3442.86 3818.47 3973.73 Avg 3601.23 3784.71 3856.78 D1 57.9 E1 55.7 D2 60.0 E2 58.6 WavespeedsD WavespeedsE D3 60.5 E3 58.8 4162.35 4344.70 D4 60.6 E4 58.6 4016.67 4129.69 D5 61.4 E5 58.0 3983.47 4115.65 D6 61.2 E6 60.3 3976.90 4129.69 D7 60.3 E7 59.2 3925.08 4172.41 D8 59.6 E8 57.6 3937.91 4013.27 D9 57.3 E9 55.1 3996.68 4087.84 4043.62 4201.39 X1 118.3 Y1 120.5 Z1 119.3 4205.93 4392.01 X2 121.6 Y2 120.1 Z2 120.9 Avg 4027.62 4176.30 X3 120.4 Y3 118.6 Z3 120.8 X4 119.8 Y4 119.3 Z4 119.9 Wavespeed Averages X5 119.7 Y5 118.9 Z5 118.9 A&B 3692.97 X6 119.4 Y6 119.1 Z6 119.3 C&D 3942.20 X7 119.6 Y7 116.9 Z7 119.3 E 4176.30 X8 118.6 Y8 118.2 Z8 120.6 X9 118.8 Y9 121.3 Z9 118.5 WavespeedsB WavespeedsD WavespeedsE XA 241.9 YA 237.1 ZA 241.3 3837.31 4213.72 4409.76 XB 234.8 YB 230.9 ZB 234.1 3902.12 4115.77 4298.62 XC 224.6 YC 228.2 ZC 222.6 3848.78 4190.26 4435.72 XD 214.3 YD 219.4 ZD 215.5 Avg 3862.7 4173.2 4381.4 XE 205.0 YE 210.3 ZE 203.8

PAGE 383

364Table D.16: Ultrasonic pulse velocity data for Block 20 Tomography Data Sheet for Test blocks. Block #20 Tested By: SC, BQ Date 1/22/2004 Temp 72F Point # Time ( s) Point # Time ( s) Point # Time ( s) WavespeedsA WavespeedsB WavespeedsC A1 66.2 B1 63.2 C1 60.4 3670.69 3876.58 4039.74 A2 65.5 B2 64.3 C2 61.6 3709.92 3810.26 3961.04 A3 65.3 B3 64.1 C3 61.5 3721.29 3822.15 3967.48 A4 65.9 B4 64.0 C4 61.7 3687.41 3828.13 3954.62 A5 65.2 B5 63.5 C5 61.8 3726.99 3858.27 3948.22 A6 67.1 B6 63.6 C6 61.3 3621.46 3852.20 3980.42 A7 65.9 B7 63.6 C7 61.1 3687.41 3852.20 3993.45 A8 66.2 B8 63.0 C8 60.9 3670.69 3888.89 4006.57 A9 69.3 B9 62.8 C9 58.6 3506.49 3901.27 4163.82 Avg 3666.93 3854.44 4001.71 D1 58.0 E1 56.3 D2 58.4 E2 56.5 WavespeedsD WavespeedsE D3 58.6 E3 57.1 4206.90 4351.69 D4 59.3 E4 57.3 4178.08 4336.28 D5 58.5 E5 57.3 4163.82 4290.72 D6 58.7 E6 57.1 4114.67 4275.74 D7 59.0 E7 57.6 4170.94 4275.74 D8 59.2 E8 56.8 4156.73 4290.72 D9 55.9 E9 55.0 4135.59 4253.47 4121.62 4313.38 X1 117.3 Y1 115.3 Z1 116.4 4364.94 4454.55 X2 118.6 Y2 116.4 Z2 118.7 Avg 4179.25 4315.81 X3 117.7 Y3 116.8 Z3 117.7 X4 116.7 Y4 116.8 Z4 117.5 Wavespeed Averages X5 116.9 Y5 116.4 Z5 117.8 A&B 3760.68 X6 119.4 Y6 119.1 Z6 119.0 C&D 4090.48 X7 119.1 Y7 118.4 Z7 118.8 E 4315.81 X8 120.2 Y8 117.8 Z8 118.2 X9 115.4 Y9 116.3 Z9 117.4 WavespeedsB WavespeedsD WavespeedsE XA 246.9 YA 239.9 ZA 250.5 3841.23 4205.61 4270.83 XB 234.3 YB 234.5 ZB 237.5 3837.95 4054.05 4191.45 XC 230.8 YC 227.9 ZC 227.1 3789.47 4195.80 4400.00 XD 214.0 YD 222.0 ZD 214.5 Avg 3822.9 4151.8 4287.4 XE 211.2 YE 215.2 ZE 205.0

PAGE 384

365Table D.17: Ultrasonic pulse velocity data for Block 21 Tomography Data Sheet for Test blocks. Block #21 Tested By: CF, EC Date 5/13/2003 Temp 72F Point # Time ( s) Point # Time ( s) Point # Time ( s) WavespeedsA WavespeedsB WavespeedsC A1 64.8 B1 62.5 C1 60.2 3796.30 3936.00 4086.38 A2 64.6 B2 63.6 C2 62.5 3808.05 3867.92 3936.00 A3 65.5 B3 64.2 C3 62.9 3755.73 3831.78 3910.97 A4 66.5 B4 64.2 C4 63.3 3699.25 3831.78 3886.26 A5 65.8 B5 65.0 C5 63.5 3738.60 3784.62 3874.02 A6 65.9 B6 64.9 C6 63.4 3732.93 3790.45 3880.13 A7 65.5 B7 64.8 C7 63.6 3755.73 3796.30 3867.92 A8 65.4 B8 64.5 C8 62.8 3761.47 3813.95 3917.20 A9 66.4 B9 63.5 C9 62.5 3704.82 3874.02 3936.00 Avg 3750.32 3836.31 3921.65 D1 60.3 E1 56.7 D2 60.7 E2 58.6 WavespeedsD WavespeedsE D3 61.2 E3 60.6 4079.60 4338.62 D4 61.6 E4 59.8 4052.72 4197.95 D5 62.4 E5 61.0 4019.61 4059.41 D6 62.6 E6 60.1 3993.51 4113.71 D7 62.1 E7 58.6 3942.31 4032.79 D8 60.9 E8 58.6 3929.71 4093.18 D9 59.5 E9 58.4 3961.35 4197.95 4039.41 4197.95 X1 117.2 Y1 118.2 Z1 116.4 4134.45 4212.33 X2 119.6 Y2 118.8 Z2 118.6 Avg 4016.96 4160.43 X3 120.4 Y3 119.1 Z3 120.2 X4 120.9 Y4 121.0 Z4 120.7 Wavespeed Averages X5 122.7 Y5 120.8 Z5 121.6 A&B 3793.31 X6 120.6 Y6 121.9 Z6 122.1 C&D 3969.31 X7 119.0 Y7 117.9 Z7 119.4 E 4160.43 X8 118.9 Y8 118.3 Z8 118.3 X9 116.5 Y9 118.7 Z9 116.6 WavespeedsB WavespeedsD WavespeedsE XA 237.5 YA 231.1 ZA 235.4 3950.24 4159.01 4326.00 XB 229.1 YB 225.5 ZB 227.8 4013.30 4147.57 4248.83 XC 223.5 YC 221.3 ZC 222.0 3972.78 4223.05 4319.81 XD 217.6 YD 218.2 ZD 214.3 Avg 3978.8 4176.5 4298.2 XE 209.2 YE 213.0 ZE 209.5

PAGE 385

366Table D.18: Ultrasonic pulse velocity data for Block 22 Tomography Data Sheet for Test blocks. Block #22 Tested By: CF, EC Date 5/13/2003 Temp 72F Point # Time ( s) Point # Time ( s) Point # Time ( s) WavespeedsA WavespeedsB WavespeedsC A1 64.1 B1 61.2 C1 59.4 3837.8 4019.6 4141.4 A2 64.4 B2 61.7 C2 60.7 3819.9 3987.0 4052.7 A3 64.9 B3 62.0 C3 60.5 3790.4 3967.7 4066.1 A4 65.1 B4 61.6 C4 60.4 3778.8 3993.5 4072.8 A5 65.3 B5 61.5 C5 60.2 3767.2 4000.0 4086.4 A6 65.7 B6 61.4 C6 60.4 3744.3 4006.5 4072.8 A7 65.2 B7 62.3 C7 60.6 3773.0 3948.6 4059.4 A8 64.4 B8 61.7 C8 60.4 3819.9 3987.0 4072.8 A9 65.4 B9 62.1 C9 60.0 3761.5 3961.4 4100.0 Avg 3788.1 3985.7 4080.5 D1 58.5 E1 55.9 D2 59.5 E2 56.9 WavespeedsD WavespeedsE D3 59.8 E3 56.9 4205.1 4400.7 D4 59.7 E4 58.2 4134.5 4323.4 D5 59.3 E5 58.6 4113.7 4323.4 D6 59.1 E6 57.4 4120.6 4226.8 D7 59.0 E7 57.6 4148.4 4198.0 D8 58.4 E8 56.8 4162.4 4285.7 D9 58.6 E9 55.4 4169.5 4270.8 4212.3 4331.0 X1 112.1 Y1 115.0 Z1 112.4 4198.0 4440.4 X2 115.9 Y2 115.7 Z2 115.0 Avg 4162.7 4311.1 X3 117.3 Y3 117.0 Z3 117.0 X4 118.3 Y4 118.7 Z4 118.1 Wavespeed Averages X5 117.6 Y5 117.8 Z5 117.5 A&B 3886.90 X6 116.8 Y6 118.0 Z6 117.9 C&D 4121.62 X7 117.1 Y7 115.9 Z7 116.4 E 4311.13 X8 116.7 Y8 115.7 Z8 116.5 X9 116.5 Y9 117.3 Z9 116.8 WavespeedsB WavespeedsD WavespeedsE XA 235.2 YA 232.0 ZA 236.5 3996.9 4209.4 4330.6 XB 225.8 YB 223.8 ZB 226.7 4032.6 4155.2 4271.2 XC 219.1 YC 219.1 ZC 220.5 3981.0 4203.5 4338.9 XD 214.4 YD 217.2 ZD 214.7 Avg 4003.5 4189.4 4313.6 XE 208.4 YE 211.3 ZE 208.0

PAGE 386

367Table D.19: Ultrasonic pulse velocity data for Block 23 Tomography Data Sheet for Test blocks. Block #23 Tested By: CF, EC Date 5/13/2003 Temp 72F Point # Time ( s) Point # Time ( s) Point # Time ( s) WavespeedsA WavespeedsB WavespeedsC A1 67.0 B1 61.7 C1 60.4 3611.94 3922.20 4006.62 A2 66.9 B2 63.2 C2 61.9 3617.34 3829.11 3909.53 A3 67.0 B3 64.3 C3 62.5 3611.94 3763.61 3872.00 A4 67.6 B4 64.5 C4 62.0 3579.88 3751.94 3903.23 A5 66.5 B5 63.3 C5 62.3 3639.10 3823.06 3884.43 A6 65.9 B6 63.9 C6 62.1 3672.23 3787.17 3896.94 A7 65.4 B7 63.3 C7 62.4 3700.31 3823.06 3878.21 A8 65.4 B8 63.2 C8 60.8 3700.31 3829.11 3980.26 A9 66.7 B9 64.3 C9 60.8 3628.19 3763.61 3980.26 Avg 3640.14 3810.32 3923.50 D1 58.1 E1 56.4 D2 59.6 E2 57.8 WavespeedsD WavespeedsE D3 60.7 E3 59.0 4165.23 4290.78 D4 61.3 E4 60.9 4060.40 4186.85 D5 61.3 E5 60.9 3986.82 4101.69 D6 61.1 E6 61.1 3947.80 3973.73 D7 61.2 E7 61.2 3947.80 3973.73 D8 60.6 E8 59.5 3960.72 3960.72 D9 58.7 E9 57.2 3954.25 3954.25 3993.40 4067.23 X1 115.7 Y1 116.2 Z1 117.0 4122.66 4230.77 X2 117.4 Y2 116.6 Z2 118.8 Avg 4015.45 4082.19 X3 118.4 Y3 116.8 Z3 118.1 X4 119.5 Y4 119.2 Z4 119.3 Wavespeed Averages X5 119.3 Y5 118.5 Z5 118.6 A&B 3725.23 X6 118.5 Y6 117.7 Z6 118.5 C&D 3969.48 X7 117.6 Y7 116.4 Z7 118.5 E 4082.19 X8 118.4 Y8 116.2 Z8 117.3 X9 115.9 Y9 116.5 Z9 116.0 WavespeedsB WavespeedsD WavespeedsE XA 237.9 YA 233.5 ZA 239.5 3783.10 4043.13 4316.55 XB 28.4 YB 225.6 ZB 226.8 3854.39 4087.19 4265.40 XC 222.6 YC 220.2 ZC 220.4 3757.83 4083.48 4339.44 XD 214.7 YD 216.4 ZD 214.9 Avg 3798.4 4071.3 4307.1 XE 208.5 YE 211.0 ZE 207.4

PAGE 387

368Table D.20: Ultrasonic pulse velocity data for Block 24 Side Tomography Data Sheet for Test blocks. Block #24 Tested By: CF, EC Date 5/13/2003 Temp 72F Point # Time ( s) Point # Time ( s) Point # Time ( s) WavespeedsA WavespeedsB WavespeedsC A1 68.7 B1 63.9 C1 60.3 3551.67 3818.47 4046.43 A2 66.3 B2 63.5 C2 61.4 3680.24 3842.52 3973.94 A3 66.5 B3 63.9 C3 61.6 3669.17 3818.47 3961.04 A4 66.3 B4 64.1 C4 61.0 3680.24 3806.55 4000.00 A5 66.1 B5 62.7 C5 61.5 3691.38 3891.55 3967.48 A6 66.4 B6 63.3 C6 60.7 3674.70 3854.66 4019.77 A7 65.4 B7 63.1 C7 60.5 3730.89 3866.88 4033.06 A8 66.6 B8 63.0 C8 60.9 3663.66 3873.02 4006.57 A9 69.0 B9 63.7 C9 61.1 3536.23 3830.46 3993.45 Avg 3653.13 3844.73 4000.19 D1 58.3 E1 56.7 D2 59.2 E2 56.5 WavespeedsD WavespeedsE D3 59.0 E3 57.9 4185.25 4303.35 D4 59.7 E4 58.5 4121.62 4318.58 D5 59.5 E5 59.0 4135.59 4214.16 D6 59.4 E6 58.3 4087.10 4170.94 D7 58.9 E7 56.9 4100.84 4135.59 D8 59.7 E8 56.1 4107.74 4185.25 D9 59.0 E9 58.1 4142.61 4288.22 4087.10 4349.38 X1 116.1 Y1 117.9 Z1 116.3 4135.59 4199.66 X2 117.8 Y2 117.0 Z2 118.3 Avg 4122.61 4240.57 X3 118.8 Y3 117.4 Z3 119.1 X4 118.0 Y4 118.7 Z4 120.1 Wavespeed Averages X5 118.2 Y5 118.0 Z5 119.4 A&B 3748.93 X6 117.9 Y6 118.8 Z6 120.0 C&D 4061.40 X7 118.4 Y7 117.4 Z7 118.0 E 4240.57 X8 118.2 Y8 117.5 Z8 117.9 X9 118.1 Y9 118.7 Z9 118.1 WavespeedsB WavespeedsD WavespeedsE XA 238.1 YA 234.3 ZA 238.7 3934.96 4185.24 4307.21 XB 229.1 YB 226.2 ZB 229.3 3985.41 4173.61 4246.35 XC 223.0 YC 220.2 ZC 222.1 3931.53 4220.51 4355.07 XD 215.4 YD 216.0 ZD 213.6 Avg 3950.6 4193.1 4302.9 XE 209.3 YE 212.3 ZE 207.0

PAGE 388

369Table D.21: Ultrasonic pulse velocity data for Block 25 Tomography Data Sheet for Test blocks. Block #25 Tested By: SC, XZ Date 7/12/2003 Temp 77F Point # Time ( s) Point # Time ( s) Point # Time ( s) WavespeedsA WavespeedsB WavespeedsC A1 63.6 B1 61.8 C1 58.7 3742.14 3851.13 4054.51 A2 63.2 B2 61.6 C2 59.8 3765.82 3863.64 3979.93 A3 63.7 B3 60.7 C3 59.5 3736.26 3920.92 4000.00 A4 64.4 B4 61.2 C4 59.4 3695.65 3888.89 4006.73 A5 65.3 B5 62.1 C5 59.9 3644.72 3832.53 3973.29 A6 65.0 B6 61.2 C6 59.6 3661.54 3888.89 3993.29 A7 66.2 B7 62.8 C7 60.4 3595.17 3789.81 3940.40 A8 67.0 B8 61.6 C8 59.3 3552.24 3863.64 4013.49 A9 66.9 B9 59.6 C9 56.7 3557.55 3993.29 4197.53 Avg 3661.23 3876.97 4017.69 D1 55.1 E1 54.2 D2 57.6 E2 54.3 WavespeedsD WavespeedsE D3 58.0 E3 54.9 4319.42 4391.14 D4 57.9 E4 56.7 4131.94 4383.06 D5 58.4 E5 55.8 4103.45 4335.15 D6 57.6 E6 56.0 4110.54 4197.53 D7 57.3 E7 57.0 4075.34 4265.23 D8 56.9 E8 54.9 4131.94 4250.00 D9 54.7 E9 54.4 4153.58 4175.44 4182.78 4335.15 X1 114.2 Y1 115.3 Z1 111.4 4351.01 4375.00 X2 116.2 Y2 116.4 Z2 116.0 Avg 4173.33 4300.86 X3 116.6 Y3 115.5 Z3 115.0 X4 116.4 Y4 116.8 Z4 115.0 Wavespeed Averages X5 117.9 Y5 116.4 Z5 116.1 A&B 3769.10 X6 115.7 Y6 116.0 Z6 114.1 C&D 4095.51 X7 115.6 Y7 117.3 Z7 114.2 E 4300.86 X8 114.4 Y8 114.4 Z8 113.7 X9 112.9 Y9 113.2 Z9 114.1 WavespeedsB WavespeedsD WavespeedsE XA 246.3 YA 239.6 ZA 242.0 3776.75 4182.16 4347.83 XB 238.3 YB 236.2 ZB 233.5 3810.33 4023.25 4223.37 XC 226.5 YC 230.5 ZC 224.4 3854.39 4191.90 4285.71 XD 215.2 YD 223.7 ZD 214.7 Avg 3813.8 4132.4 4285.6 XE 207.0 YE 213.1 ZE 210.0

PAGE 389

370Table D.22: Ultrasonic pulse velocity data for Block 26 Tomography Data Sheet for Test blocks. Block #26 Tested By: SC, XZ Date 7/12/2003 Temp 77F Point # Time ( s) Point # Time ( s) Point # Time ( s) WavespeedsA WavespeedsB WavespeedsC A1 66.0 B1 62.0 C1 60.0 3621.21 3854.84 3983.33 A2 65.8 B2 62.3 C2 59.0 3632.22 3836.28 4050.85 A3 66.8 B3 62.3 C3 60.3 3577.84 3836.28 3963.52 A4 65.2 B4 61.4 C4 59.9 3665.64 3892.51 3989.98 A5 65.7 B5 61.4 C5 59.6 3637.75 3892.51 4010.07 A6 66.1 B6 61.3 C6 58.4 3615.73 3898.86 4092.47 A7 65.5 B7 61.1 C7 59.1 3648.85 3911.62 4043.99 A8 66.2 B8 60.0 C8 59.1 3610.27 3983.33 4043.99 A9 67.6 B9 60.1 C9 58.9 3535.50 3976.71 4057.72 Avg 3616.11 3898.10 4026.21 D1 56.8 E1 54.3 D2 56.5 E2 55.8 WavespeedsD WavespeedsE D3 57.6 E3 55.4 4207.75 4401.47 D4 56.5 E4 55.4 4230.09 4283.15 D5 56.7 E5 54.6 4149.31 4314.08 D6 56.8 E6 55.4 4230.09 4314.08 D7 57.7 E7 55.8 4215.17 4377.29 D8 57.4 E8 55.7 4207.75 4314.08 D9 56.5 E9 54.6 4142.11 4283.15 4163.76 4290.84 X1 116.2 Y1 116.0 Z1 113.7 4230.09 4377.29 X2 115.1 Y2 114.8 Z2 117.8 Avg 4197.35 4328.38 X3 115.8 Y3 115.3 Z3 117.6 X4 115.5 Y4 115.2 Z4 117.3 Wavespeed Averages X5 114.4 Y5 114.7 Z5 114.4 A&B 3757.11 X6 113.8 Y6 115.0 Z6 114.8 C&D 4111.78 X7 115.1 Y7 114.8 Z7 116.3 E 4328.38 X8 113.3 Y8 114.2 Z8 114.6 X9 114.7 Y9 111.1 Z9 113.5 WavespeedsB WavespeedsD WavespeedsE XA 246.9 YA 241.3 ZA 247.9 3887.45 4117.38 4215.96 XB 231.0 YB 232.5 ZB 239.5 3866.24 4067.03 4198.22 XC 225.1 YC 227.9 ZC 228.2 3749.48 4102.33 4233.85 XD 218.1 YD 220.8 ZD 218.9 Avg 3834.4 4095.6 4216.0 XE 213.0 YE 213.9 ZE 212.1

PAGE 390

371Table D.23: Ultrasonic pulse velocity data for Block 27 Tomography Data Sheet for Test blocks. Block #27 Tested By: SC, XZ Date 7/12/2003 Temp 77F Point # Time ( s) Point # Time ( s) Point # Time ( s) WavespeedsA WavespeedsB WavespeedsC A1 64.7 B1 62.1 C1 59.7 3709.43 3864.73 4020.10 A2 65.3 B2 62.5 C2 60.9 3675.34 3840.00 3940.89 A3 64.1 B3 62.0 C3 60.8 3744.15 3870.97 3947.37 A4 64.9 B4 61.6 C4 59.7 3698.00 3896.10 4020.10 A5 66.4 B5 61.9 C5 59.9 3614.46 3877.22 4006.68 A6 67.6 B6 62.0 C6 59.1 3550.30 3870.97 4060.91 A7 65.4 B7 62.6 C7 60.0 3669.72 3833.87 4000.00 A8 65.4 B8 62.4 C8 59.9 3669.72 3846.15 4006.68 A9 65.5 B9 60.1 C9 58.3 3664.12 3993.34 4116.64 Avg 3666.14 3877.04 4013.26 D1 57.1 E1 56.9 D2 57.2 E2 54.5 WavespeedsD WavespeedsE D3 57.2 E3 54.7 4203.15 4217.93 D4 56.7 E4 54.4 4195.80 4403.67 D5 56.6 E5 54.4 4195.80 4387.57 D6 57.1 E6 54.5 4232.80 4411.76 D7 57.0 E7 54.8 4240.28 4411.76 D8 57.4 E8 54.4 4203.15 4403.67 D9 55.5 E9 54.7 4210.53 4379.56 4181.18 4411.76 X1 112.1 Y1 113.8 Z1 116.3 4324.32 4387.57 X2 116.9 Y2 114.8 Z2 117.1 Avg 4220.78 4379.47 X3 116.7 Y3 114.9 Z3 115.3 X4 117.7 Y4 115.3 Z4 114.9 Wavespeed Averages X5 116.2 Y5 117.1 Z5 116.6 A&B 3771.59 X6 117.4 Y6 115.9 Z6 117.8 C&D 4117.02 X7 116.3 Y7 115.5 Z7 118.8 E 4379.47 X8 115.5 Y8 115.7 Z8 115.4 X9 115.8 Y9 118.9 Z9 117.7 WavespeedsB WavespeedsD WavespeedsE XA 247.8 YA 244.2 ZA 248.0 3773.66 4069.87 4251.18 XB 237.7 YB 236.0 ZB 236.8 3800.85 4027.84 4191.59 XC 230.6 YC 228.9 ZC 226.3 3788.01 4137.45 4261.28 XD 220.4 YD 222.7 ZD 216.8 Avg 3787.5 4078.4 4234.7 XE 211.0 YE 214.0 ZE 210.5

PAGE 391

372Table D.24: Ultrasonic pulse velocity data for Block 28 Tomography Data Sheet for Test blocks. Block #28 Tested By: SC, XZ Date 7/12/2003 Temp 77F Point # Time ( s) Point # Time ( s) Point # Time ( s) WavespeedsA WavespeedsB WavespeedsC A1 65.9 B1 61.2 C1 59.5 3641.88 3921.57 4033.61 A2 65.4 B2 62.3 C2 59.9 3669.72 3852.33 4006.68 A3 65.9 B3 61.5 C3 60.1 3641.88 3902.44 3993.34 A4 66.6 B4 62.3 C4 60.0 3603.60 3852.33 4000.00 A5 65.0 B5 62.3 C5 60.5 3692.31 3852.33 3966.94 A6 65.0 B6 61.8 C6 59.7 3692.31 3883.50 4020.10 A7 65.7 B7 62.3 C7 60.6 3652.97 3852.33 3960.40 A8 66.4 B8 63.0 C8 60.4 3614.46 3809.52 3973.51 A9 66.8 B9 59.3 C9 57.9 3592.81 4047.22 4145.08 Avg 3644.66 3885.95 4011.07 D1 58.3 E1 56.4 D2 58.3 E2 56.9 WavespeedsD WavespeedsE D3 57.9 E3 57.2 4116.64 4255.32 D4 58.2 E4 56.4 4116.64 4217.93 D5 58.4 E5 56.0 4145.08 4195.80 D6 57.6 E6 56.0 4123.71 4255.32 D7 57.5 E7 55.8 4109.59 4285.71 D8 57.4 E8 55.4 4166.67 4285.71 D9 56.6 E9 55.9 4173.91 4301.08 4181.18 4332.13 X1 118.3 Y1 117.8 Z1 117.9 4240.28 4293.38 X2 120.8 Y2 118.4 Z2 119.6 Avg 4152.63 4269.15 X3 120.4 Y3 118.9 Z3 119.0 X4 120.6 Y4 119.5 Z4 119.6 Wavespeed Averages X5 120.6 Y5 120.5 Z5 121.4 A&B 3765.31 X6 118.8 Y6 118.8 Z6 121.1 C&D 4081.85 X7 119.7 Y7 117.8 Z7 120.6 E 4269.15 X8 121.0 Y8 117.8 Z8 121.6 X9 119.2 Y9 119.3 Z9 120.4 WavespeedsB WavespeedsD WavespeedsE XA 246.2 YA 240.6 ZA 245.2 3814.17 4069.71 4165.89 XB 235.7 YB 233.7 ZB 237.5 3846.81 3986.70 4114.42 XC 230.8 YC 231.0 ZC 233.0 3785.26 4058.69 4222.64 XD 220.9 YD 225.5 ZD 221.5 Avg 3815.4 4038.4 4167.7 XE 215.8 YE 218.5 ZE 212.9

PAGE 392

APPENDIX E IMPACT-ECHO TEST DATA

PAGE 393

374 Table E.1: Impact-echo test results for Blocks 1-9 Block # 1 Block #2 Block #3 Location Wave Speed (m/s) LocationWave Speed (m/s)LocationWave Speed (m/s) 1 3914 1 4185 1 3999 2 3913 2 4000 2 3831 3 4002 3 4287 3 4091 4 4000 4 3914 4 4091 5 4090 5 4186 5 4090 6 3999 6 4090 6 4187 7 4390 7 4090 7 4498 8 4285 8 4001 8 4187 9 4090 9 4187 9 4285 10 3913 10 4500 10 4390 Block # 4 Block #5 Block #6 Location Wave Speed (m/s) LocationWave Speed (m/s)LocationWave Speed (m/s) 1 4093 1 3788 1 4114 2 4093 2 3999 2 4299 3 4091 3 4101 3 3997 4 4000 4 4211 4 4208 5 4002 5 4392 5 4235 6 4002 6 4298 6 4235 7 4500 7 4298 7 4302 8 4499 8 4287 8 4285 9 4388 9 4189 9 4502 10 4498 10 4287 10 4398 Block # 7 Block #8 Block #9 Location Wave Speed (m/s) LocationWave Speed (m/s)LocationWave Speed (m/s) 1 4185 1 4021 1 3598 2 4186 2 4104 2 3334 3 4186 3 4274 3 3674 4 4176 4 4364 4 3829 5 4187 5 4416 5 3789 6 4377 6 4429 6 3947 7 4285 7 4498 7 4001 8 4349 8 4429 8 4002 9 4429 9 4498 9 4091 10 4365 10 4500 10 4285

PAGE 394

375 Table E.2: Impact-echo test resu lts for Blocks 10-12 and 17-22 Block # 10 Block #11 Block #12 Location Wave Speed (m/s) LocationWav e Speed (m/s)LocationWave Speed (m/s) 1 3674 1 3528 1 3530 2 3749 2 3530 2 3462 3 3914 3 3672 3 3674 4 3913 4 4002 4 3751 5 3914 5 3831 5 3674 6 3912 6 4000 6 3852 7 4001 7 4000 7 3913 8 4093 8 3912 8 4187 9 4498 9 4501 9 4388 10 4287 10 4392 10 4000 Block # 17 Block #18 Block #19 Location Wave Speed (m/s) LocationWav e Speed (m/s)LocationWave Speed (m/s) 1 3462 1 3529 1 3333 2 3672 2 3396 2 3396 3 3529 3 3601 3 3273 4 3675 4 3600 4 3528 5 3600 5 3529 5 3529 6 3673 6 3674 6 3600 7 4000 7 3829 7 3600 8 4000 8 4000 8 3599 9 3998 9 4002 9 4000 10 4187 10 4091 10 4091 Block # 20 Block #21 Block #22 Location Wave Speed (m/s) LocationWav e Speed (m/s)LocationWave Speed (m/s) 1 3396 1 3512 1 3389 2 3333 2 3396 2 3397 3 3214 3 3741 3 3788 4 3332 4 3738 4 3839 5 3462 5 3693 5 3852 6 3396 6 3998 6 3831 7 3529 7 3947 7 3999 8 3598 8 3998 8 4002 9 3749 9 4002 9 4104 10 3749 10 3914 10 4176

PAGE 395

376 Table E.3: Impact-echo test results for Blocks 23-28 IMPACT ECHO TEST RESULTS Block # 23 Block #24 Block #25 Location Wave Speed (m/s) LocationWave Speed (m/s)LocationWave Speed (m/s) 1 3601 1 3273 1 3396 2 3601 2 3265 2 3213 3 3839 3 3461 3 3396 4 3829 4 3759 4 3273 5 4000 5 3529 5 3529 6 4186 6 3514 6 3531 7 4001 7 3781 7 3675 8 4093 8 3999 8 3673 9 4092 9 4092 9 3831 10 4091 10 4080 10 4000 Block # 26 Block #27 Block #28 Location Wave Speed (m/s) LocationWave Speed (m/s)LocationWave Speed (m/s) 1 3333 1 3396 1 3599 2 3461 2 3397 2 3529 3 3529 3 3528 3 3528 4 3463 4 3601 4 3599 5 3531 5 3673 5 3751 6 3529 6 3674 6 3751 7 3831 7 3912 7 3749 8 3749 8 3675 8 3830 9 4002 9 4000 9 3914 10 4002 10 3999 10 3945

PAGE 396

APPENDIX F CORE TEST RESULTS

PAGE 397

378 Table F.1: Core data for Blocks 1 and 2 Block 1 & 2 Specimens Age at removal NDT BQ, SC f'c SC 365days Date 2/3/2004 Date 2/10/2004 f'st SC f'p SC Concrete Exposed to: Date 2/11/2004 Date 2/28/2004 SO4 2Core Name Length cut (mm) UPV Time dry(s) Pulse Velocity (m/s) Resonant Frequency (Hz) Ultimate Load (kN) Ultimate Load (MPa) Test Performed 1 1A 200.00 46.8 4273.5 2213 412.8 50.9 f'c 1 1B 201.50 46.2 4361.5 2598 458.9 56.6 f'c 1 1C 199.50 45.6 4375.0 2478 454.7 56.1 f'c 1 1D 209.00 46.7 4475.4 2548 150.5 4.5 f'st 1 1E spare 1 1F spare 1 2A 199.00 44.7 4451.9 2527 530.5 65.4 f'c 1 2B 200.00 45.0 4444.4 2546 613.2 75.6 f'c 1 2C 201.00 44.7 4496.6 2522 605.8 74.7 f'c 1 2D spare 1 2E spare 1 2F 208.00 45.6 4561.4 3061 504.5 62.2 f'c 1 3A 201.00 44.3 4537.2 2441 613.2 75.6 f'c 1 3B 200.00 44.1 4535.1 2399 643.7 79.4 f'c 1 3C 202.00 44.7 4519.0 2514 630.5 77.8 f'c 1 3D spare 1 3E spare 1 3F 207.00 45.3 4569.5 2997 159.1 4.8 f'st 2 1A 199.00 46.2 4307.4 2917 143.1 4.5 f'st 2 1B 204.50 46.5 4397.8 2995 154.6 4.7 f'st 2 1C 203.50 46.3 4395.2 2178 128.4 4.0 f'st 2 1D 203.50 46.0 4423.9 2691 7.6 f'p 2 1E 204.00 46.3 4406.0 2813 8.5 f'p 2 1F 204.50 46.8 4369.7 2477 7.6 f'p 2 2A 198.00 44.0 4500.0 2903 108.0 3.4 f'st 2 2B 200.00 44.5 4494.4 2957 175.9 5.5 f'st 2 2C 202.50 45.0 4500.0 2653 162.3 5.0 f'st 2 2D 201.50 44.7 4507.8 2997 9.5 f'p 2 2E 200.50 45.0 4455.6 2809 8.5 f'p 2 2F 200.00 44.2 4524.9 3384 8.7 f'p 2 3A 205.00 45.4 4515.4 2968 122.7 3.8 f'st 2 3B 208.00 45.9 4531.6 3045 179.1 5.4 f'st 2 3C 210.00 46.4 4525.9 2762 152.5 4.6 f'st 2 3D 207.50 45.8 4530.6 2984 8.8 f'p 2 3E 205.00 45.0 4555.6 2634 8.0 f'p 2 3F 203.00 44.5 4561.8 2651 8.7 f'p

PAGE 398

379 Table F.1: Core data for Blocks 1 and 2 continued Cylinder Name Length cut (mm) UPV Time dry(s) Pulse Velocity (m/s) Resonant Frequency (Hz) Ultimate Load (kN) Ultimate Load (MPa) Test Performed 1 & 2 1 199.00 44.2 4502.3 2791 616.5 76.0 f'c 1 & 2 2 197.00 43.9 4487.5 2703 610.1 75.3 f'c 1 & 2 3 197.00 43.8 4497.7 2702 595.8 73.5 f'c 1 & 2 4 195.50 43.9 4453.3 2644 10.2 f'p 1 & 2 5 196.50 44.0 4465.9 3037 8.5 f'p 1 & 2 6 193.00 42.8 4509.3 2849 9.9 f'p 1 & 2 7 195.50 43.2 4525.5 2550 190.7 6.1 f'st 1 & 2 8 199.50 44.0 4534.1 2904 187.9 5.9 f'st 1 & 2 9 194.00 43.5 4459.8 2657 180.5 5.8 f'st 1 & 2 10 199.50 44.4 4493.2 2982 10.0 f'p Test Location Mean Standard Deviation Coefficient of Variance f'c Top 54.5 3.1 5.8 Middle 71.9 5.6 7.8 Bottom 77.6 1.9 2.4 Cylinders 74.9 1.3 1.7 f'st Top 4.6 0.1 2.9 Middle 4.6 1.1 23.6 Bottom 4.9 0.4 8.8 Cylinders 5.9 0.1 2.4 f'p Top 7.9 0.5 6.6 Middle 8.9 0.5 5.9 Bottom 8.5 0.4 5.2 Cylinders 10.0 0.2 1.7

PAGE 399

380 Table F.2: Core data for Blocks 3 and 4 Block 3 & 4 Specimens Age at removal: NDT BQ, SC f'c SC 365days Date 2/3/2004 Date 2/10/2004 f'st SC f'p SC Concrete exposed to: Date 2/11/2004 Date 3/1/2004 Ca(OH)2 Core Name Length cut (mm) UPV Time dry(s) Pulse Velocity (m/s) Resonant Frequency (Hz) Ultimate Load (kN) Ultimate Load (MPa) Test Performed 3 1A 196.50 44.1 4455.8 2893 516.6 63.7 f'c 3 1B 196.00 44.9 4365.3 2455 503.9 62.2 f'c 3 1C 195.00 44.4 4391.9 2890 462.1 57.0 f'c 3 1D spare 3 1E spare 3 1F spare 3 2A 195.00 43.0 4534.9 2191 621.4 76.6 f'c 3 2B 195.50 43.1 4536.0 2205 671.1 82.8 f'c 3 2C 196.00 43.3 4526.6 2276 594.9 73.4 f'c 3 2D spare 3 2E spare 3 2F 202.50 43.6 4644.5 2905 203.2 6.3 f'st 3 3A 120.00 26.8 4477.6 2254 701.6 86.5 f'c 3 3B 194.50 43.0 4523.3 2476 672.3 82.9 f'c 3 3C 195.50 42.8 4567.8 2477 640.9 79.1 f'c 3 3D 201.00 43.6 4610.1 2494 179.1 5.6 f'st 3 3E spare 3 3F 193.00 42.2 4573.5 2593 659.5 81.4 f'c 4 1A 208.00 47.3 4397.5 2618 142.5 4.3 f'st 4 1B 209.50 47.5 4410.5 2894 149.2 4.5 f'st 4 1C 210.00 48.2 4356.8 2420 148.9 4.4 f'st 4 1D 210.50 48.0 4385.4 2166 7.9 f'p 4 1E 210.50 48.0 4385.4 2882 5.5 f'p 4 1F 208.00 47.5 4378.9 2999 6.3 f'p 4 2A 209.00 46.3 4514.0 3058 164.3 4.9 f'st 4 2B 212.50 47.0 4521.3 2731 172.1 5.1 f'st 4 2C 214.00 47.6 4495.8 2678 181.1 5.3 f'st 4 2D 214.00 48.0 4458.3 2755 8.5 f'p 4 2E 213.00 47.0 4531.9 2803 7.7 f'p 4 2F 209.00 46.1 4533.6 2868 7.9 f'p 4 3A 207.00 45.6 4539.5 2496 177.7 5.4 f'st 4 3B 211.00 46.5 4537.6 2632 188.7 5.6 f'st 4 3C 213.00 46.8 4551.3 2769 222.8 6.6 f'st 4 3D 214.00 47.5 4505.3 2597 8.5 f'p 4 3E 212.00 46.7 4539.6 2412 8.5 f'p 4 3F 209.00 46.3 4514.0 3513 8.6 f'p

PAGE 400

381 Table F.2: Core data for Blocks 3 and 4 continued Cylinder Name Length cut (mm) UPV Time dry(s) Pulse Velocity (m/s) Resonant Frequency (Hz) Ultimate Load (kN) Ultimate Load (MPa) Test Performed 3 & 4 1 200.50 44.4 4515.8 3085 610.9 75.3 f'c 3 & 4 2 199.50 44.4 4493.2 2556 611.2 75.4 f'c 3 & 4 3 199.50 44.0 4534.1 2647 599.4 73.9 f'c 3 & 4 4 198.50 44.2 4491.0 2956 7.6 f'p 3 & 4 5 196.00 43.5 4505.7 2755 8.4 f'p 3 & 4 6 199.00 44.5 4471.9 2741 8.0 f'p 3 & 4 7 199.00 44.1 4512.5 2889 184.2 5.8 f'st 3 & 4 8 199.00 44.2 4502.3 2524 197.6 6.2 f'st 3 & 4 9 199.00 44.4 4482.0 3004 184.1 5.8 f'st 3 & 4 10 199.50 44.1 4523.8 2912 8.5 f'p Test Location Mean Standard Deviation Coefficient of Variance f'c Top 61.0 3.5 5.8 Middle 77.6 4.8 6.2 Bottom 81.1 1.9 2.4 Cylinders 74.9 0.8 1.1 f'st Top 4.4 0.1 2.1 Middle 5.1 0.2 3.7 Bottom 5.5 0.1 2.2 Cylinders 5.9 0.2 4.1 f'p Top 6.5 1.2 18.7 Middle 8.0 0.4 5.5 Bottom 8.5 0.0 0.4 Cylinders 8.3 0.3 3.2

PAGE 401

382 Table F.3: Core data for Blocks 5 and 6 Block 5 & 6 Specimens Age at removal NDT EC f'c SC 91Days Date 5/27/2003 Date 6/24/2003 f'st SC f'p SC Concrete Exposed to: Date 6/17/2003 Date 1/24/2004 SO4 2Core Name Length uncut (mm) Length cut (mm) UPV Time dry(s) Pulse Velocity (m/s) Resonant Frequency (Hz) Ultimate Load (kN) Ultimate Load (MPa) Test Performed 5 1A 205.0 47.1 4352.4 2998 469.3 57.9 f'c 5 1B 206.5 47.4 4356.5 2498 373.1 46.0 f'c 5 1C 205.0 46.8 4380.3 2584 371.1 45.8 f'c 5 1D 245.00 205.5 58.1 4216.9 2905 108.7 3.3 F'st 5 1E 246.00 57.7 4263.4 2289 5.2 f'p 5 1F 245.50 200.0 58.6 4189.4 2905 395.2 48.7 f'c 5 2A 245.00 198.0 57.1 4290.7 2580 387.0 47.7 f'c 5 2B 245.00 204.5 57.0 4298.2 2633 440.1 54.3 f'c 5 2C 245.00 205.0 56.5 4336.3 2480 405.3 49.9 f'c 5 2D 244.50 56.8 4304.6 spare 5 2E 244.50 56.4 4335.1 2879 7.1 f'p 5 2F 244.50 57.1 4282.0 spare 5 3A 241.50 208.0 55.4 4359.2 2603 503.0 62.0 f'c 5 3B 242.75 206.0 54.6 4446.0 2894 523.3 64.5 f'c 5 3C 242.00 205.0 53.9 4489.8 2453 519.3 64.1 f'c 5 3D 242.00 55.2 4384.1 spare 5 3E 242.00 55.3 4376.1 spare 5 3F 242.00 55.9 4329.2 spare 6 1A 208 47.7 4360.6 2806 122.1 3.7 f'st 6 1B 209 48.6 4300.4 2566 107.9 3.2 f'st 6 1C 206 47.6 4327.7 2704 94.2 2.9 f'st 6 1D 205.5 48.2 4263.5 2595 6.4 f'p 6 1E 207 48.7 4250.5 2299 8.1 f'p 6 1F 206.5 48.0 4302.1 2682 9.5 f'p 6 2A 205 47.0 4361.7 2876 120.6 3.7 f'st 6 2B 206 47.4 4346.0 2725 146.9 4.5 f'st 6 2C 209 47.5 4400.0 2880 137.9 4.1 f'st 6 2D 206.5 47.9 4311.1 2687 7.8 f'p 6 2E 207.3 47.2 4390.9 2685 8.8 f'p 6 2F 207 47.2 4385.6 2805 7.0 f'p 6 3A 209 47.0 4446.8 2101 149.0 4.5 f'st 6 3B 203.3 45.6 4457.2 2154 155.9 4.8 f'st 6 3C 207 46.3 4470.8 2732 161.6 4.9 f'st 6 3D 204.5 45.8 4465.1 2492 8.4 f'p 6 3E 208 46.6 4463.5 2702 8.6 f'p 6 3F 206.5 45.9 4498.9 2942 8.6 f'p

PAGE 402

383 Table F.3: Core data for Blocks 5 and 6 continued Cylinder Name Length (mm) UPV Time dry(s) Pulse Velocity (m/s) Resonant Frequency (Hz) Ultimate Load (kN) Ultimate Load (MPa) Test Performed 5 & 6 1S 206.00 46.0 4478.3 2160 133.3 4.1 f'st 5 & 6 2S 206.00 45.9 4488.0 2840 170.2 5.2 f'st 5 & 6 3S 206.00 46.3 4449.2 3000 182.7 5.6 f'st 5 & 6 4S 205.50 45.9 4477.1 2475 10.2 f'p 5 & 6 5S 205.25 46.1 4452.3 2670 11.3 f'p 5 & 6 6S 205.75 45.9 4482.6 2535 12.6 f'p 5 & 6 7S 201.00 45.8 4388.6 2203 473.7 58.4 f'c 5 & 6 8S 201.00 45.8 4388.6 2221 484.1 59.7 f'c 5 & 6 9S 198.50 45.4 4372.2 2696 510.3 62.9 f'c 5 & 6 10S 195.00 45.4 4295.2 2697 8.7 f'p Test Location Mean Standard Deviation Coefficient of Variance f'c Top 46.8 1.6 3.5 Middle 50.7 3.3 6.6 Bottom 63.5 1.3 2.1 Cylinders 60.4 2.3 3.9 f'st Top 3.4 0.2 6.9 Middle 4.1 0.4 9.6 Bottom 4.6 0.2 5.2 Cylinders 4.9 0.8 15.9 f'p Top 8.0 1.5 19.0 Middle 7.3 0.5 6.2 Bottom 8.6 0.1 1.3 Cylinders 11.4 1.2 10.6

PAGE 403

384 Table F.4: Core data for Blocks 7 and 8 Block 7 & 8 Specimens Age at removal NDT EC F'c SC 91 days Date 5/27/2003Date 6/24/2003 f'st SC f'p SC Concrete Exposed to: Date 6/17/2003Date 1/24/2004 Ca(OH)2 Core Name Length uncut (mm) Length cut (mm) UPV Time dry(s) Pulse Velocity (m/s) Resonant Frequency (Hz) Ultimate Load (kN) Ultimate Load (MPa) Test Performed 7 1A 246.50 200.00 57.1 4317.0 2678 445.8 55.0 f'c 7 1B 247.50 204.00 57.0 4342.1 2735 500.6 61.7 f'c 7 1C 247.00 204.50 57.0 4333.3 2415 398.0 49.1 f'c 7 1D 247.50 57.5 4304.3 5.5 f'p 7 1E 247.50 200.00 57.8 4282.0 2490 488.0 60.2 f'c 7 1F 246.25 57.4 4290.1 spare 7 2A 248.50 205.00 58.4 4255.1 2865 426.9 52.7 f'c 7 2B 250.00 204.00 58.1 4302.9 2630 506.9 62.5 f'c 7 2C 251.00 204.00 57.8 4342.6 1830 409.6 50.5 f'c 7 2D 250.50 57.9 4326.4 spare 7 2E 249.75 197.00 57.7 4328.4 2530 487.0 60.1 f'c 7 2F 247.00 57.8 4273.4 spare 7 3A 248.75 207.00 56.2 4426.2 2890 514.2 63.4 f'c 7 3B 252.00 205.00 57.4 4390.2 2591 398.5 49.2 f'c 7 3C 253.00 207.00 57.6 4392.4 2597 500.6 61.7 f'c 7 3D 253.50 57.4 4416.4 spare 7 3E 254.00 200.00 57.0 4456.1 2492 526.7 65.0 f'c 7 3F 250.75 207.00 56.2 4461.7 2924 152.7 4.6 f'st 8 1A 244.00 206.75 56.2 4341.6 2801 147.2 4.5 f'st 8 1B 243.00 206.75 56.3 4316.2 2944 168.1 5.1 f'st 8 1C 243.50 206.50 55.5 4387.4 2948 155.2 4.7 f'st 8 1D 244.00 207.25 56.1 4349.4 2752 8.4 f'p 8 1E 244.00 205.25 56.6 4311.0 2665 8.1 f'p 8 1F 243.00 205.00 56.4 4308.5 2873 6.0 f'p 8 2A 244.00 207.25 56.5 4318.6 2582 107.9 3.3 f'st 8 2B 244.00 205.00 55.7 4380.6 2991 111.4 3.4 f'st 8 2C 243.00 205.00 57.1 4255.7 2740 107.8 3.3 f'st 8 2D 244.00 207.75 56.3 4333.9 2606 7.6 f'p 8 2E 244.00 196.50 56.1 4349.4 2692 6.9 f'p 8 2F 243.50 205.50 56.4 4317.4 2898 7.6 f'p 8 3A 241.50 208.00 53.9 4480.5 2765 132.2 4.0 f'st 8 3B 241.50 206.00 53.9 4480.5 2844 161.1 4.9 f'st 8 3C 242.00 205.00 53.7 4506.5 2677 172.4 5.3 f'st 8 3D 241.50 207.50 54.0 4472.2 2889 10.4 f'p 8 3E 242.50 204.00 53.9 4499.1 2980 8.7 f'p 8 3F 242.00 208.50 54.4 4448.5 2996 9.4 f'p

PAGE 404

385 Table F.4: Core data for Blocks 7 and 8 continued Cylinder Name Length (mm) UPV Time dry(s) Pulse Velocity (m/s) Resonant Frequency (Hz) Ultimate Load (kN) Ultimate Load (MPa) Test Performed 7 & 8 1C 206.00 45.8 4497.8 2770 146.2 4.4 f'st 7 & 8 2C 206.00 45.7 4507.7 2350 94.4 2.9 f'st 7 & 8 3C 205.25 45.6 4501.1 2684 163.3 5.0 f'st 7 & 8 4C 205.50 45.7 4496.7 2520 174.0 5.3 f'st 7 & 8 5C 205.75 45.8 4492.4 2785 7.9 f'p 7 & 8 6C 205.00 45.9 4466.2 2484 9.2 f'p 7 & 8 7C 202.00 45.4 4449.3 2490 463.7 57.2 f'c 7 & 8 8C 201.00 45.2 4446.9 2590 441.8 54.5 f'c 7 & 8 9C 197.00 44.8 4397.3 2646 463.5 57.2 f'c 7 & 8 10C 200.00 45.2 4424.8 2619 7.8 f'p Test Location Mean Standard Deviation Coefficient of Variance f'c Top 59.0 3.5 6.0 Middle 58.4 5.1 8.8 Bottom 63.4 1.6 2.5 Cylinders56.3 1.6 2.8 f'st Top 4.8 0.3 6.7 Middle 3.3 0.1 2.2 Bottom 4.9 0.3 6.6 Cylinders4.9 0.4 8.8 f'p Top 7.5 1.3 17.7 Middle 7.4 0.4 5.6 Bottom 9.5 0.8 8.6 Cylinders8.3 0.8 9.9

PAGE 405

386 Table F.5: Core data for Blocks 9 and 10 Block 9 & 10 Specimens Age at removal NDT XZ f'c SC 28days Date 6/30/2003Date 7/7/2003 f'st SC f'p SC Concrete Exposed to: Date 7/17/2003Date 2/3/2004 SO4 2Core Name Length cut (mm) UPV Time dry(s) Pulse Velocity (m/s) Resonant Frequency (Hz) Ultimate Load (kN) Ultimate Load (MPa) Test Performed 9 1A 204.00 48.3 4223.6 2768 285.8 35.2 f'c 9 1B 203.00 48.4 4194.2 2498 308.3 38.0 f'c 9 1C 203.00 48.0 4229.2 2656 331.0 40.8 f'c 9 1D 204.00 47.9 4258.9 2510 118.9 3.7 f'st 9 1E 203.50 47.8 4257.3 2685 4.6 f'p 9 1F 201.50 47.8 4215.5 2106 spare 9 2A 205.50 47.4 4335.4 2140 f'c 9 2B 204.00 48.2 4232.4 2247 342.6 42.3 f'c 9 2C 204.50 48.7 4199.2 2410 335.6 41.4 f'c 9 2D 205.00 47.9 4279.7 2628 spare 9 2E 202.00 46.8 4316.2 2809 444.8 54.9 f'c 9 2F 202.50 47.1 4299.4 2905 446.8 55.1 f'c 9 3A 206.50 46.4 4450.4 2903 482.7 59.5 f'c 9 3B 204.00 47.1 4331.2 2365 404.0 49.8 f'c 9 3C 202.50 46.5 4354.8 2502 400.4 49.4 f'c 9 3D 204.00 46.4 4396.6 2456 145.7 4.5 f'st 9 3E 204.00 46.5 4387.1 2771 154.0 4.7 f'st 9 3F 204.00 47.2 4322.0 2607 402.6 49.7 f'c 10 1A 202.50 48.2 4201.2 2360 114.2 3.5 f'st 10 1B 205.00 48.5 4226.8 2256 120.5 3.7 f'st 10 1C 203.00 47.6 4264.7 2080 98.4 3.0 f'st 10 1D 204.50 48.2 4242.7 2392 6.8 f'p 10 1E 205.50 48.1 4272.3 2701 5.4 f'p 10 1F 206.00 48.5 4247.4 2731 6.0 f'p 10 2A 205.50 48.2 4263.5 2335 129.5 3.9 f'st 10 2B 203.00 47.7 4255.8 2588 120.1 3.7 f'st 10 2C 205.00 47.6 4306.7 2607 128.9 3.9 f'st 10 2D 204.00 47.1 4331.2 2606 7.8 f'p 10 2E 201.00 46.7 4304.1 9.1 f'p 10 2F 205.00 48.0 4270.8 2485 6.7 f'p 10 3A 205.00 46.4 4418.1 2306 109.1 3.3 f'st 10 3B 202.00 48.3 4182.2 2060 155.8 4.8 f'st 10 3C 203.00 46.7 4346.9 2305 121.9 3.8 f'st 10 3D 202.00 45.8 4410.5 2258 8.2 f'p 10 3E 204.00 47.0 4340.4 2668 7.7 f'p 10 3F 204.50 47.0 4351.1 2560 7.7 f'p

PAGE 406

387 Table F.5: Core data for Blocks 9 and 10 Cylinder Name Length (mm) UPV Time dry(s) Pulse Velocity (m/s) Resonant Frequency (Hz) Ultimate Load (kN) Ultimate Load (MPa) Test Performed 9 & 10 1 202.00 46.4 4353.4 2557 395.8 48.8 f'c 9 & 10 2 203.00 46.8 4337.6 2521 377.6 46.6 f'c 9 & 10 3 201.00 46.2 4350.6 2380 425.5 52.5 f'c 9 & 10 4 205.00 46.7 4389.7 2139 142.7 4.4 f'st 9 & 10 5 204.00 46.8 4359.0 2601 123.9 3.8 f'st 9 & 10 6 205.00 47.1 4352.4 2199 142.0 4.3 f'st 9 & 10 7 205.00 47.5 4315.8 2110 6.8 f'p 9 & 10 8 205.00 47.6 4306.7 1969 6.0 f'p 9 & 10 9 204.00 46.8 4359.0 2230 8.2 f'p 9 & 10 10 205.00 46.7 4389.7 2696 5.4 f'p Test Location Mean Standard Deviation Coefficient of Variance f'c Top 38.0 2.8 7.3 Middle 41.8 0.6 1.4 Bottom 49.6 0.2 0.5 Cylinder 49.3 3.0 6.0 f'st Top 3.6 0.1 2.2 Middle 3.9 0.1 3.5 Bottom 4.7 0.2 4.0 Cylinder 4.2 0.3 7.5 f'p Top 6.1 0.7 11.4 Middle 7.9 1.2 15.3 Bottom 7.9 0.3 3.8 Cylinder 6.1 0.7 11.2

PAGE 407

388 Table F.6: Core data for Blocks 11 and 12 Block 11 & 12 Specimens Age at removal NDT XZ f'c SC 28days Date 6/30/2003Date 7/7/2003 f'st SC f'p SC Concrete Exposed to: Date 7/17/2003Date 2/2/2004 Ca(OH)2 Core Name Length cut (mm) UPV Time dry(s) Pulse Velocity (m/s) Resonant Frequency (Hz) Ultimate Load (kN) Ultimate Load (MPa) Test Performed 11 1A 202.00 47.9 4217.1 2096 369.2 45.5 f'c 11 1B 202.50 47.9 4227.6 2646 340.8 42.0 f'c 11 1C 204.00 48.3 4223.6 2619 329.3 40.6 f'c 11 1D 203.00 47.4 4282.7 2640 106.9 3.3 f'st 11 1E 202.50 47.5 4263.2 2641 spare 11 1F 203.00 47.7 4255.8 2525 3.9 f'p 11 2A 203.00 47.1 4310.0 2630 406.4 50.1 f'c 11 2B 202.00 46.9 4307.0 2597 392.4 48.4 f'c 11 2C 203.00 47.3 4291.8 2706 394.8 48.7 f'c 11 2D 201.00 47.0 4276.6 2684 spare 11 2E 203.00 47.4 4282.7 2525 5.7 f'p 11 2F 204.00 47.7 4276.7 2475 spare 11 3A 203.00 46.8 4337.6 2590 412.9 50.9 f'c 11 3B 203.00 46.6 4356.2 2475 442.0 54.5 f'c 11 3C 203.00 46.3 4384.4 2532 430.1 53.1 f'c 11 3D 206.00 47.5 4336.8 2334 spare 11 3E 204.00 47.5 4294.7 2569 5.8 f'p 11 3F 204.00 46.1 4425.2 2401 spare 12 1A 204.00 48.0 4250.0 2535 105.5 3.2 f'st 12 1B 204.00 48.2 4232.4 2372 99.5 3.1 f'st 12 1C 203.00 48.2 4211.6 2274 129.2 4.0 f'st 12 1D 203.00 48.1 4220.4 2298 7.0 f'p 12 1E 203.00 48.3 4202.9 2509 6.5 f'p 12 1F 204.00 48.5 4206.2 2519 4.3 f'p 12 2A 203.00 47.7 4255.8 2341 107.8 3.3 f'st 12 2B 201.00 46.5 4322.6 2548 106.0 3.3 f'st 12 2C 205.00 47.0 4361.7 2511 105.2 3.2 f'st 12 2D 205.50 47.9 4290.2 2274 4.9 f'p 12 2E 204.00 47.4 4303.8 2342 6.7 f'p 12 2F 203.00 47.8 4246.9 2285 6.5 f'p 12 3A 203.00 46.5 4365.6 2182 136.5 4.2 f'st 12 3B 203.00 46.4 4375.0 2151 126.0 3.9 f'st 12 3C 203.00 46.8 4337.6 2569 137.1 4.2 f'st 12 3D 203.00 45.4 4471.4 2379 6.5 f'p 12 3E 202.00 46.6 4334.8 2493 8.7 f'p 12 3F 203.00 46.7 4346.9 2531 5.7 f'p

PAGE 408

389 Table F.6: Core data fo r Blocks 11 and 12 continued Cylinder Name Length (mm) UPV Time dry(s) Pulse Velocity (m/s) Resonant Frequency (Hz) Ultimate Load (kN) Ultimate Load (MPa) Test Performed 11 & 12 1 204.00 46.7 4368.3 2566 411.5 50.8 f'c 11 & 12 2 203.50 46.8 4348.3 2261 428.8 52.9 f'c 11 & 12 3 205.00 47.1 4352.4 2389 352.4 43.5 f'c 11 & 12 4 205.00 46.4 4418.1 2450 124.2 3.8 f'st 11 & 12 5 205.00 47.4 4324.9 2729 147.8 4.5 f'st 11 & 12 6 205.00 47.0 4361.7 2442 104.5 3.2 f'st 11 & 12 7 205.00 47.6 4306.7 2269 6.6 f'p 11 & 12 8 204.50 47.0 4351.1 2264 6.7 f'p 11 & 12 9 205.00 46.4 4418.1 2655 113.8 3.5 f'st 11 & 12 10 205.00 47.3 4334.0 2704 448.9 55.4 f'c Test Location Mean Standard Deviation Coefficient of Variance f'c Top 42.7 2.5 5.9 Middle 49.1 0.9 1.9 Bottom 52.8 1.8 3.4 Cylinders53.0 2.3 4.4 f'st Top 3.2 0.1 4.0 Middle 3.3 0.1 1.8 Bottom 4.1 0.2 4.7 Cylinders3.5 0.3 8.6 f'p Top 5.9 1.4 24.4 Middle 6.3 0.5 8.7 Bottom 6.0 0.4 7.2 Cylinders6.7 0.1 1.8

PAGE 409

390 Table F.7: Core data for Blocks 17 and 18 Block 17 & 18 Specimens Age at removal NDT SC, BQ f'c SC 365days Date 1/27/2004Date 2/9/2004 f'st SC f'p SC Concrete Exposed to: Date 2/2/2004 Date 2/27/2004 Ca(OH)2 Core Name Length cut (mm) UPV Time dry(s) Pulse Velocity (m/s) Resonant Frequency (Hz) Ultimate Load (kN) Ultimate Load (MPa) Test Performed 17 1A 184.50 47.4 3892.4 2019 226.0 27.9 f'c 17 1B 185.50 47.5 3905.3 1805 237.1 29.2 f'c 17 1C 182.00 47.3 3847.8 1846 235.3 29.0 f'c 17 1D 190.50 48.0 3968.8 2691 85.7 2.8 f'st 17 1E spare 17 1F spare 17 2A 186.50 44.7 4172.3 2296 327.8 40.4 f'c 17 2B 187.50 45.2 4148.2 2277 294.6 36.3 f'c 17 2C 186.00 45.2 4115.0 2378 300.8 37.1 f'c 17 2D spare 17 2E spare 17 2F spare 17 3A 186.00 44.1 4217.7 2428 343.9 42.4 f'c 17 3B 184.50 44.1 4183.7 2385 322.1 39.7 f'c 17 3C 185.00 44.1 4195.0 1846 322.1 39.7 f'c 17 3D spare 17 3E spare 17 3F spare 18 1A 197.00 50.9 3870.3 2673 91.0 2.9 f'st 18 1B 198.00 51.2 3867.2 2291 96.6 3.1 f'st 18 1C 199.00 50.7 3925.0 2255 73.7 2.3 f'st 18 1D 199.50 52.0 3836.5 2160 3.3 f'p 18 1E 198.50 51.6 3846.9 2079 4.0 f'p 18 1F 198.00 51.2 3867.2 2566 3.8 f'p 18 2A 198.50 48.3 4109.7 2350 111.8 3.5 f'st 18 2B 201.50 49.8 4046.2 2319 107.4 3.3 f'st 18 2C 202.00 49.9 4048.1 2249 99.7 3.1 f'st 18 2D 202.00 49.0 4122.4 2143 4.6 f'p 18 2E 201.00 48.5 4144.3 2614 5.4 f'p 18 2F 199.50 48.7 4096.5 2554 5.2 f'p 18 3A 201.75 48.3 4177.0 2366 124.2 3.9 f'st 18 3B 199.00 48.3 4120.1 2450 117.5 3.7 f'st 18 3C 205.00 48.6 4218.1 2286 112.9 3.5 f'st 18 3D 204.50 48.1 4251.6 2440 6.8 f'p 18 3E 205.00 48.2 4253.1 2298 7.1 f'p 18 3F 200.00 47.1 4246.3 2303 7.2 f'p

PAGE 410

391 Table F.7: Core data fo r Blocks 17 and 18 continued Cylinder Name Length (mm) UPV Time dry(s) Pulse Velocity (m/s) Resonant Frequency (Hz) Ultimate Load (kN) Ultimate Load (MPa) Test Performed 17 & 18 1 197.00 47.7 4130.0 2659 291.2 35.9 f'c 17 & 18 2 195.50 46.8 4177.4 2548 303.5 37.4 f'c 17 & 18 3 194.50 46.7 4164.9 2145 305.3 37.7 f'c 17 & 18 4 196.00 47.2 4152.5 2631 6.8 f'p 17 & 18 5 196.00 47.1 4161.4 2271 6.8 f'p 17 & 18 6 196.50 47.2 4163.1 2268 6.5 f'p 17 & 18 7 196.00 46.6 4206.0 2180 127.9 4.1 f'st 17 & 18 8 195.50 46.7 4186.3 1979 107.3 3.4 f'st 17 & 18 9 196.00 47.3 4143.8 2054 109.1 3.5 f'st 17 & 18 10 195.50 46.9 4168.4 2085 106.3 3.4 f'st Test Location Mean Standard Deviation Coefficient of Variance f'c Top 28.7 0.7 2.6 Middle 38.0 2.2 5.7 Bottom 40.6 1.5 3.8 Cylinders37.0 0.9 2.6 f'st Top 2.9 0.1 4.2 Middle 3.3 0.2 6.6 Bottom 3.7 0.2 5.6 Cylinders 3.4 0.0 1.2 f'p Top 3.7 0.3 9.0 Middle 5.1 0.4 7.8 Bottom 7.0 0.2 3.1 Cylinders 6.7 0.2 2.9

PAGE 411

392 Table F.8: Core data for Blocks 19 and 20 Block 19 & 20 Specimens Age at removal NDT SC, BQ f'c SC 365 days Date 1/27/2004Date 2/9/2004 f'st SC, XZ f'p SC Concrete Exposed to: Date 2/2/2004 Date 2/25/2004 SO4 2Core Name Length cut (mm) UPV Time dry(s) Pulse Velocity (m/s) Resonant Frequency (Hz) Ultimate Load (kN) Ultimate Load (MPa) Test Performed 19 1A 191.00 50.7 3767.3 2181 213.7 26.4 f'c 19 1B 192.00 49.9 3847.7 2235 231.6 28.6 f'c 19 1C 194.00 51.0 3803.9 1940 220.8 27.2 f'c 19 1D 203.00 52.8 3844.7 2588 81.0 2.5 f'st 19 1E spare 19 1F spare 19 2A 194.00 48.4 4008.3 2036 265.7 32.8 f'c 19 2B 196.00 48.4 4049.6 2117 291.4 35.9 f'c 19 2C 197.50 48.5 4072.2 2362 283.6 35.0 f'c 19 2D spare 19 2E spare 19 2F spare 19 3A 195.00 47.1 4140.1 2452 304.1 37.5 f'c 19 3B 201.00 48.8 4118.9 2359 287.3 35.4 f'c 19 3C 203.00 48.8 4159.8 2274 294.6 36.3 f'c 19 3D spare 19 3E spare 19 3F spare 20 1A 202.00 52.9 3818.5 2273 92.9 2.9 f'st 20 1B 198.50 51.1 3884.5 2047 83.2 2.6 f'st 20 1C 199.50 51.5 3873.8 2348 73.5 2.3 f'st 20 1D 202.50 52.8 3835.2 2200 4.1 f'p 20 1E 201.00 52.3 3843.2 2155 3.6 f'p 20 1F 203.50 52.4 3883.6 2195 3.0 f'p 20 2A 202.00 49.8 4056.2 2051 107.8 3.3 f'st 20 2B 202.00 50.0 4040.0 2265 90.5 2.8 f'st 20 2C 203.00 50.2 4043.8 2726 102.5 3.2 f'st 20 2D 201.50 49.7 4054.3 2295 5.0 f'p 20 2E 201.00 49.8 4036.1 2292 5.1 f'p 20 2F 202.00 49.1 4114.1 2396 3.9 f'p 20 3A 202.00 48.4 4173.6 2310 108.3 3.4 f'st 20 3B 202.00 48.5 4164.9 2062 116.8 3.6 f'st 20 3C 203.00 49.1 4134.4 2112 98.6 3.0 f'st 20 3D 207.00 49.6 4173.4 2519 6.1 f'p 20 3E 192.50 46.5 4139.8 2322 5.8 f'p 20 3F 196.50 46.7 4207.7 2221 5.7 f'p

PAGE 412

393 Table F.8: Core data fo r Blocks 19 and 20 continued Cylinder Name Length (mm) UPV Time dry(s) Pulse Velocity (m/s) Resonant Frequency (Hz) Ultimate Load (kN) Ultimate Load (MPa) Test Performed 19 & 20 1 194.50 46.7 4164.9 2070 287.2 35.4 f'c 19 & 20 2 196.00 46.4 4224.1 2077 298.2 36.8 f'c 19 & 20 3 194.50 46.3 4200.9 2134 270.0 33.3 f'c 19 & 20 4 195.00 46.5 4193.5 2047 7.2 f'p 19 & 20 5 195.00 46.9 4157.8 2305 8.8 f'p 19 & 20 6 196.00 46.9 4179.1 2520 8.5 f'p 19 & 20 7 194.50 45.7 4256.0 2270 110.9 3.6 f'st 19 & 20 8 196.00 46.5 4215.1 2009 100.1 3.2 f'st 19 & 20 9 195.00 47.3 4122.6 2260 101.4 3.3 f'st 19 & 20 10 194.50 46.3 4200.9 2566 7.7 f'p Test Location Mean Standard Deviation Coefficient of Variance f'c Top 27.4 1.1 4.1 Middle 34.6 1.6 4.7 Bottom 36.4 1.0 2.8 Cylinders35.2 1.8 5.0 f'st Top 2.5 0.2 6.5 Middle 3.1 0.3 8.8 Bottom 3.3 0.3 8.7 Cylinders3.3 0.2 6.0 f'p Top 3.6 0.6 15.5 Middle 4.7 0.7 15.1 Bottom 5.9 0.2 3.3 Cylinders8.3 0.6 6.9

PAGE 413

394 Table F.9: Core data for Blocks 21 and 22 Block 21 & 22 Specimens Age at removal NDT EC f'c SC 91days Date 6/11/2003Date 6/23/2003 f'st SC f'p SC Concrete Exposed to: Date 6/16/2003Date 1/20/2004 Ca(OH)2 Core Name Length cut (mm) UPV Time dry(s) Pulse Velocity (m/s) Resonant Frequency (Hz) Ultimate Load (kN) Ultimate Load (MPa) Test Performed 21 1A 208.50 52.5 3971.4 2214 244.7 30.2 f'c 21 1B 204.25 50.9 4012.8 2879 233.2 28.8 f'c 21 1C 208.75 52.8 3953.6 2401 230.2 28.4 f'c 21 1D spare 21 1E 207.00 53.0 3905.7 2578 3.4 f'p 21 1F spare 21 2A 206.00 49.5 4161.6 2940.0 292.7 36.1 f'c 21 2B 206.50 50.1 4121.8 2478.0 287.8 35.5 f'c 21 2C 207.00 50.2 4123.5 2702.0 275.9 34.0 f'c 21 2D spare 21 2E spare 21 2F spare 21 3A 209.00 49.3 4239.4 2504 301.8 37.2 f'c 21 3B 205.25 48.6 4223.3 2670 285.1 35.2 f'c 21 3C 204.75 49.0 4178.6 2680 296.8 36.6 f'c 21 3D spare 21 3E spare 21 3F spare 22 1A 206.00 51.3 4015.6 2690 105.0 3.2 f'st 22 1B 204.25 51.0 4004.9 2864 89.9 2.8 f'st 22 1C 206.50 52.6 3925.9 2486 99.5 3.0 f'st 22 1D 205.25 51.8 3962.4 2819 4.6 f'p 22 1E 206.00 52.1 3953.9 2990 5.8 f'p 22 1F 207.00 51.9 3988.4 2619 4.5 f'p 22 2A 203.25 49.4 4114.4 2636 117.3 3.6 f'st 22 2B 202.50 50.4 4017.9 2477 104.4 3.2 f'st 22 2C 207.00 49.8 4156.6 2318 116.4 3.5 f'st 22 2D 203.00 48.5 4185.6 2504 6.5 f'p 22 2E 204.50 49.4 4139.7 2581 6.2 f'p 22 2F 205.50 49.5 4151.5 2303 6.1 f'p 22 3A 204.50 49.0 4173.5 2977 90.8 2.8 f'st 22 3B 205.50 49.1 4185.3 3006 102.7 3.1 f'st 22 3C 205.00 49.7 4124.7 2563 104.2 3.2 f'st 22 3D 206.50 49.5 4171.7 2560 6.6 f'p 22 3E 206.00 48.1 4282.7 2957 7.4 f'p 22 3F 205.00 48.0 4270.8 2710 7.0 f'p

PAGE 414

395 Table F.9: Core data fo r Blocks 21 and 22 continued Cylinder Name Length (mm) UPV Time dry(s) Pulse Velocity (m/s) Resonant Frequency (Hz) Ultimate Load (kN) Ultimate Load (MPa) Test Performed 21 & 22 1 203.75 49.6 4107.9 2750 91.0 2.8 f'st 21 & 22 2 204.00 49.3 4137.9 2604 104.2 3.2 f'st 21 & 22 3 204.75 49.0 4178.6 2450 112.8 3.5 f'st 21 & 22 4 204.50 49.6 4123.0 2930 8.9 f'p 21 & 22 5 203.50 50.1 4061.9 2480 8.1 f'p 21 & 22 6 204.50 49.5 4131.3 2504 spare 21 & 22 7 199.00 48.0 4145.8 2702 274.5 33.9 f'c 21 & 22 8 198.00 47.8 4142.3 2600 278.3 34.3 f'c 21 & 22 9 198.00 48.2 4107.9 2645 274.6 33.9 f'c 21 & 22 10 199.00 48.6 4094.7 2536 8.9 f'p Test Location Mean Standard Deviation Coefficient of Variance f'c Top 29.1 0.9 3.2 Middle 35.2 1.1 3.0 Bottom 36.3 1.1 2.9 Cylinders34.0 0.3 0.8 f'st Top 3.0 0.2 7.4 Middle 3.5 0.2 5.8 Bottom 3.0 0.2 7.2 Cylinders3.2 0.3 10.5 f'p Top 5.0 0.7 14.5 Middle 6.3 0.2 3.4 Bottom 7.0 0.4 5.9 Cylinders8.6 0.4 5.0

PAGE 415

396 Table F.10: Core data for Blocks 23 and 24 Block 23 & 24 Specimens Age at removal NDT EC f'c SC 91days Date 6/11/2003Date 6/23/2003 f'st SC f'p SC Concrete Exposed to: Date 6/18/2003Date 1/20/2004 SO4 2Core Name Length uncut (mm) Length cut (mm) UPV Time dry(s) Pulse Velocity (m/s) Resonant Frequency (Hz) Ultimate Load (kN) Ultimate Load (MPa) Test Performed 23 1A 206.50 52.5 3933.3 2473 239.8 29.6 f'c 23 1B 207.50 52.3 3967.5 2491 230.4 28.4 f'c 23 1C 207.50 51.6 4021.3 2405 239.1 29.5 f'c 23 1D 206.00 52.7 3908.9 2518 89.1 2.7 f'st 23 1E spare 23 1F 207.00 51.8 3996.1 2049 2.3 f'p 23 2A 206.00 49.3 4178.5 2800 258.6 31.9 f'c 23 2B 208.00 49.9 4168.3 2670 281.9 34.8 f'c 23 2C 204.50 49.4 4139.7 2555 290.1 35.8 f'c 23 2D 207.00 50.1 4131.7 2613 3.8 f'p 23 2E spare 23 2F spare 23 3A 206.00 48.1 4282.7 2514 337.3 41.6 f'c 23 3B 205.00 47.7 4297.7 2620 345.3 42.6 f'c 23 3C 209.00 49.9 4188.4 2580 304.0 37.5 f'c 23 3D 206.00 50.1 4111.8 2384 3.6 f'p 23 3E spare 23 3F spare 24 1A 245.00 207.50 63.9 3834.1 2341 87.5 2.6 f'st 24 1B 244.00 203.00 62.7 3891.5 2359 93.5 2.9 f'st 24 1C 243.50 204.00 62.9 3871.2 2636 74.1 2.3 f'st 24 1D 243.50 205.00 62.7 3883.6 2228 3.8 f'p 24 1E 245.00 207.00 63.5 3858.3 2576 4.2 f'p 24 1F 245.25 207.00 63.8 3844.0 2260 3.4 f'p 24 2A 244.00 204.00 60.3 4046.4 2850 103.2 3.2 f'st 24 2B 244.00 205.50 60.7 4019.8 2622 96.1 2.9 f'st 24 2C 243.25 204.50 59.8 4067.7 2466 87.5 2.7 f'st 24 2D 243.50 207.00 60.7 4011.5 2437 4.9 f'p 24 2E 244.00 207.50 61.2 3986.9 2463 4.1 f'p 24 2F 244.25 205.00 61.2 3991.0 2622 4.2 f'p 24 3A 243.50 205.00 57.6 4227.4 2414 128.6 3.9 f'st 24 3B 243.00 209.00 57.4 4233.4 2915 128.3 3.8 f'st 24 3C 243.25 206.50 58.4 4165.2 2778 114.4 3.5 f'st 24 3D 243.00 205.00 59.2 4104.7 2777 6.5 f'p 24 3E 243.00 207.00 59.1 4111.7 2686 5.6 f'p 24 3F 244.00 205.00 58.6 4163.8 2595 5.4 f'p

PAGE 416

397 Table F.10: Core data fo r Blocks 23 and 24 continued Cylinder Name Length (mm) UPV Time dry(s) Pulse Velocity (m/s) Resonant Frequency (Hz) Ultimate Load (kN) Ultimate Load (MPa) Test Performed 23 & 24 1 205.50 49.7 4134.8 2560 85.5 2.6 f'st 23 & 24 2 204.50 49.0 4173.5 2290 103.5 3.2 f'st 23 & 24 3 204.75 49.3 4153.1 2580 87.3 2.7 f'st 23 & 24 4 204.25 49.0 4168.4 2460 6.5 f'p 23 & 24 5 205.00 50.3 4075.5 2600 6.2 f'p 23 & 24 6 205.00 49.6 4133.1 2436 6.8 f'p 23 & 24 7 199.00 48.6 4094.7 2761 273.9 33.8 f'c 23 & 24 8 198.50 48.3 4109.7 2500 249.7 30.8 f'c 23 & 24 9 199.00 48.3 4120.1 2580 285.0 35.2 f'c 23 & 24 10 198.00 48.3 4099.4 2415 79.2 2.5 f'st Test LocationMean Standard Deviation Coefficient of Variance f'c Top 29.2 0.6 2.2 Middle 34.2 2.0 5.9 Bottom 40.6 2.7 6.7 Cylinders33.2 2.2 6.7 f'st Top 2.7 0.1 4.6 Middle 2.9 0.2 8.3 Bottom 3.7 0.2 6.5 Cylinders2.6 0.1 3.2 f'p Top 3.8 0.4 9.9 Middle 4.0 0.2 4.7 Bottom 5.8 0.6 9.8 Cylinders6.5 0.3 5.2

PAGE 417

398 Table F.11: Core data for Blocks 25 and 26 Block 25 & 26 Specimens Age at removal NDT XZ, EC f'c SC 28days Date 7/18/2003Date 7/27/2003 f'st SC f'p SC Concrete Exposed to: Date 7/28/2003Date 1/14/2004 SO4 2Core Name Length cut (mm) UPV Time dry(s) Pulse Velocity (m/s) Resonant Frequency (Hz) Ultimate Load (kN) Ultimate Load (MPa) Test Performed 25 1A 196.00 50.7 3865.9 2292 158.1 19.5 f'c 25 1B 198.00 50.7 3905.3 2357 206.5 25.5 f'c 25 1C 197.00 51.0 3862.7 2737 186.9 23.1 f'c 25 1D 204.00 53.2 3834.6 2490 spare 25 1E 200.00 53.0 3773.6 2528 spare 25 1F 202.00 52.4 3855.0 2293 200.4 24.7 f'c 25 2A 198.00 50.2 3944.2 2422 223.6 27.6 f'c 25 2B 191.00 47.5 4021.1 2477 248.8 30.7 f'c 25 2C 193.00 48.4 3987.6 2070 247.5 30.5 f'c 25 2D 202.00 51.4 3930.0 2863 92.8 2.9 f'st 25 2E 204.00 51.4 3968.9 2447 spare 25 2F 203.00 51.7 3926.5 2354 spare 25 3A 195.00 45.9 4248.4 2776 279.1 34.4 f'c 25 3B 197.00 46.3 4254.9 2175 310.9 38.3 f'c 25 3C 196.00 47.7 4109.0 2764 266.8 32.9 f'c 25 3D 205.00 48.5 4226.8 2279 91.7 2.8 f'st 25 3E 204.00 48.6 4197.5 2588 spare 25 3F 202.00 47.7 4234.8 2988 spare 26 1A 204.00 52.2 3908.0 2789 73.4 2.3 f'st 26 1B 203.00 53.0 3830.2 2836 67.0 2.1 f'st 26 1C 200.00 51.4 3891.1 2230 64.2 2.0 f'st 26 1D 203.00 51.9 3911.4 2730 3.8 f'p 26 1E 199.00 52.9 3761.8 2557 3.7 f'p 26 1F 204.00 51.6 3953.5 2722 3.8 f'p 26 2A 203.00 50.0 4060.0 2472 93.5 2.9 f'st 26 2B 203.00 51.4 3949.4 2707 87.6 2.7 f'st 26 2C 203.00 50.1 4051.9 2484 72.9 2.2 f'st 26 2D 204.00 50.1 4071.9 2646 5.6 f'p 26 2E 205.00 50.3 4075.5 2506 5.0 f'p 26 2F 203.00 50.1 4051.9 2679 5.8 f'p 26 3A 202.00 48.1 4199.6 2468 97.9 3.0 f'st 26 3B 203.00 48.2 4211.6 2317 82.2 2.5 f'st 26 3C 203.00 48.3 4202.9 2374 75.1 2.3 f'st 26 3D 203.00 47.8 4246.9 2521 6.4 f'p 26 3E 205.00 49.0 4183.7 2615 7.0 f'p 26 3F 203.00 48.8 4159.8 2516 6.8 f'p

PAGE 418

399 Table F.11: Core data fo r Blocks 25 and 26 continued Cylinder Name Length (mm) UPV Time dry(s) Pulse Velocity (m/s) Resonant Frequency (Hz) Ultimate Load (kN) Ultimate Load (MPa) Test Performed 25 & 26 1 203.00 49.4 4109.3 2451 208.3 25.7 f'c 25 & 26 2 204.50 49.4 4139.7 2459 230.8 28.5 f'c 25 & 26 3 203.00 49.5 4101.0 2570 245.5 30.3 f'c 25 & 26 4 204.00 49.6 4112.9 2255 111.4 3.4 f'st 25 & 26 5 203.00 49.4 4109.3 2286 81.5 2.5 f'st 25 & 26 6 203.50 49.3 4127.8 2216 93.6 2.9 f'st 25 & 26 7 196.00 47.6 4117.6 2236 spare 25 & 26 8 196.00 47.8 4100.4 2169 6.4 f'p 25 & 26 9 198.00 47.7 4150.9 2360 105.8 2.2 f'st 25 & 26 10 200.00 48.7 4106.8 2236 97.5 3.1 f'st Test Location Mean Standard Deviation Coefficient of Variance f'c Top 24.4 1.2 5.1 Middle 29.6 1.8 5.9 Bottom 35.2 2.8 8.0 Cylinders28.1 2.3 8.2 f'st Top 2.1 0.1 6.0 Middle 2.8 0.1 3.7 Bottom 2.8 0.2 9.0 Cylinders3.1 0.3 8.8 f'p Top 3.8 0.1 1.9 Middle 5.5 0.4 7.6 Bottom 6.7 0.3 4.3 Cylinders6.4 0.0 0.0

PAGE 419

400 Table F.12: Core data for Blocks 27 and 28 Block 27 & 28 Specimens Age at removal NDT XZ, EC f'c SC 28days Date 7/18/2003Date 7/27/2003 f'st SC f'p SC Concrete Exposed to: Date 7/28/2003Date 1/15/2004 Ca(OH)2 Core Name Length cut (mm) UPV Time dry(s) Pulse Velocity (m/s) Resonant Frequency (Hz) Ultimate Load (kN) Ultimate Load (MPa) Test Performed 27 1A 203.00 52.7 3852.0 2604 176.2 21.7 f'c 27 1B 197.00 52.1 3781.2 2513 206.8 25.5 f'c 27 1C 193.00 51.3 3762.2 2292 187.7 23.2 f'c 27 1D 207.00 54.6 3791.2 2952 2.7 f'p 27 1E 202.00 53.6 3768.7 2976 56.6 1.8 f'st 27 1F 206.00 53.7 3836.1 2880 spare 27 2A 199.00 49.9 3988.0 2805 208.6 25.7 f'c 27 2B 196.00 49.6 3951.6 2855 251.5 31.0 f'c 27 2C 197.00 49.8 3955.8 2568 233.4 28.8 f'c 27 2D 204.00 51.5 3961.2 2489 spare 27 2E 203.00 51.4 3949.4 2926 76.4 2.4 f'st 27 2F 207.00 51.6 4011.6 2983 2.7 f'p 27 3A 191.00 45.2 4225.7 2406 313.8 38.7 f'c 27 3B 201.00 47.2 4258.5 2145 272.6 33.6 f'c 27 3C 200.00 47.1 4246.3 2551 298.6 36.8 f'c 27 3D 203.00 49.1 4134.4 2939 spare 27 3E 206.00 48.4 4256.2 2545 4.5 f'p 27 3F 201.00 46.5 4322.6 2414 87.5 2.7 f'st 28 1A 205.00 53.2 3853.4 2489 56.9 1.7 f'st 28 1B 205.00 52.5 3904.8 2836 75.0 2.3 f'st 28 1C 205.00 53.2 3853.4 2697 50.8 1.6 f'st 28 1D 204.00 52.4 3893.1 2550 2.2 f'p 28 1E 205.00 52.9 3875.2 2672 4.3 f'p 28 1F 204.00 52.8 3863.6 2430 3.8 f'p 28 2A 208.00 51.4 4046.7 2392 79.4 2.4 f'st 28 2B 207.00 51.9 3988.4 2615 67.7 2.0 f'st 28 2C 204.00 50.7 4023.7 2755 82.4 2.5 f'st 28 2D 204.00 51.1 3992.2 2805 4.8 f'p 28 2E 205.00 51.4 3988.3 2536 5.0 f'p 28 2F 208.00 50.1 4151.7 2912 3.5 f'p 28 3A 208.00 49.2 4227.6 2597 128.3 3.9 f'st 28 3B 205.00 49.7 4124.7 2766 88.4 2.7 f'st 28 3C 203.00 49.1 4134.4 2950 76.8 2.4 f'st 28 3D 207.00 49.8 4156.6 2738 5.2 f'p 28 3E 205.00 47.8 4288.7 2772 6.4 f'p 28 3F 202.00 48.3 4182.2 2779 5.6 f'p

PAGE 420

401 Table F.12: Core data fo r Blocks 27 and 28 continued Cylinder Name Length (mm) UPV Time dry(s) Pulse Velocity (m/s) Resonant Frequency (Hz) Ultimate Load (kN) Ultimate Load (MPa) Test Performed 27 & 28 1 202.00 49.1 4114.1 2364 251.3 31.0 f'c 27 & 28 2 201.50 48.3 4171.8 2238 255.6 31.5 f'c 27 & 28 3 204.00 49.4 4129.6 2310 242.0 29.8 f'c 27 & 28 4 205.00 49.5 4141.4 2165 83.2 2.5 f'st 27 & 28 5 204.00 49.0 4163.3 2347 97.4 3.0 f'st 27 & 28 6 204.00 49.5 4121.2 2020 70.2 2.2 f'st 27 & 28 7 205.00 49.6 4133.1 2830 105.9 3.2 f'st 27 & 28 8 205.00 48.7 4209.4 2620 5.5 f'p 27 & 28 9 204.00 49.5 4121.2 2274 4.7 f'p 27 & 28 10 205.50 49.6 4143.1 2430 90.9 2.8 f'st Test Location Mean Standard Deviation Coefficient of Variance f'c Top 23.5 1.9 8.1 Middle 28.5 2.7 9.3 Bottom 36.4 2.6 7.1 Cylinders30.8 0.9 2.8 f'st Top 1.7 0.1 6.7 Middle 2.4 0.1 3.8 Bottom 2.6 0.2 7.7 Cylinders3.0 0.2 7.7 f'p Top 3.6 0.8 22.0 Middle 4.4 0.8 17.9 Bottom 5.7 0.6 10.3 Cylinders5.1 0.6 11.1

PAGE 421

402 LIST OF REFERENCES American Concrete Institut e (ACI). Committee 228. (2003). In-Place Methods to Estimate Concrete Strength. Detroit, Michigan: American Concrete Institute. American Concrete Institut e (ACI). Committee 201. (1992). Guide to Durable Concrete. Detroit, Michigan: American Concrete Institute. Boyd, A. and Mindess, S. (2004). The use of te nsion testing to invest igate the effects of W/C ratio and cement type on the resist ance of concrete to sulfate attack Cement and Concrete Research 34 (3), 373-377. Bremner, T.W., Boyd, A.J., Holm, T.A., a nd Boyd, S.R., (1995). Tensile testing to evaluate the effect of alkali-aggreg ate reaction in concrete. Proceedings, International Workshop on Alkali-A ggregate Reactions in Concrete. CANMET/ACI Dartmouth, Canada, 311-326. Brown, P.W. (1981). An evaluation of the su lfate resistance of cements in a controlled environment, Cement and Concrete Research 11, 719-727. ASTM (2001a). Standard Test for the Compressive Stre ngth of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens, C39-01. West Conshohocken, Penns ylvania: American Society for Testing and Materials. ASTM (2001b). Standard Test Method for Density (Un it Weight), Yield, and Air Content (Gravimetric)of Concrete, C138-01. West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania: American Society for Testing and Materials. ASTM (2001c). Standard Practice for Sampling Freshly Mixed Concrete, C143-99. West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania: American Society for Testing and Materials. ASTM (2001d). Standard Test for the Fundamenta l Transverse, Longitudinal and Torsional Resonant Frequencie s of Concrete Specimens, C215-97. West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania: American Society for Testing and Materials. ASTM (2001e). Standard Test for Air Content of Freshly Mixed Concrete by the Pressure Method, C231-89a. West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania: American Society for Testing and Materials. ASTM (2001f). Standard Test Method for Splitting Te nsile Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens C496-96. West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania: American Society for Testing and Materials.

PAGE 422

403 ASTM (2001g). Standard Test for the Pulse Velocity Through Concrete C597-97. West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania: American Society for Testing and Materials. ASTM (2002). Standard Test Method for Rebound Number of Hardened Concrete C80502. West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania: American Society for Testing and Materials. ASTM (2001h). Standard Test Method for Length Change of Hydraulic-Cement Mortars Exposed to a Sulfate Solution, C1012-95a. West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania: American Society for Testing and Materials. ASTM (2003). Standard Test Method for Temperat ure of Freshly Mixed Portland Cement Concrete, C1064-03. West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania: American Society for Testing and Materials. ASTM (2001i). Standard Test Method for Measur ing the P-Wave Speed and the Thickness of Concrete Plates Using the Impact-Echo Method, C1383-98. West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania: American Society for Testing and Materials. Carino N.J. (2001). The Impact-Echo Met hod: An Overview Buildings and Fire Research Laboratory, NIST Gaithersburg, MD. Reprinted from the Proceedings of the 2001 Structures Congress and Exposition, ASCE, May 21-23 Washington D.C. Chang P.C. Editor. Clayton, N. and Grimer, F.J. (1979). The diphase concept, with particular reference to concrete Building Research Establishment, Bu ilding Research Station, Warford, UK. Facaoaru, I. (1984). Romanian achievement s in nondestructive strength testing of concrete, ACI SP-82, Detroit, 35. Ferarro, C. (2003). Advanced Nondestructive Monitori ng and Evaluation of Damage in Concrete Materials Thesis (M.E.) University of Florida, Gainesville. Haynes, H., ONeill, R. and Mehta, P.K. (1996). Concrete deterioration from physical attack by salts. Concrete International, 18 (1), 63-68. Impact-Echo Consultants, Inc. (1998). Impact-Echo Tutorial Ithaca, New York: ImpactEcho Instruments, LLC. Ju, J.W., Weng, L.S., Mindess, S., and Boyd, A.J. (1999). Damage assessment and service-life prediction of concrete subject to sulfate attack, Material Science of Concrete Special Volume: Sulfate Attack Mechanisms The American Ceramic Society, Westerville, OH. Kosmatka, S.H., and Panarese, W.C. (1988). Design and Control of Concrete Mixtures (13th edition). Skokie, Illinois, Portland Cement Association.

PAGE 423

404 Lagerbald, B. (1999). Long-term test of c oncrete resistance against sulfate attack. Material Science of Concrete Speci al Volume: Sulfate Attack Mechanisms The American Ceramic Society, Westerville, OH. Malhotra, V. M., and Carino, N. J. (2004). Handbook on Nondestructive Testing of Concrete Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Mindess, S., Young, J. F., and Darwin, D. (2003). Concrete (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Neville, A. M. (1996). Properties of Concrete (4th and final ed.). New York: J. Wiley. Ohdaira, E., and Masuzawa, N. (2000). Wa ter content and its effect on ultrasound propagation in concrete the possibility of NDE. Ultrasonics, 38 (1-8), 546-552. Ould Naffa, S., Gouyegou, M., Piwakowski, B., and Buyle-Bodin, F. (2002). Detection of chemical damage in concrete using ultrasound. Ultrasonics, 40 (1-8), 247-251. Ouyang, C. (1989). A damage model for su lfate attack of concrete mortars, Cement, Concrete and Aggregates, CCAGDP, 11 (2), 92-99 Ouyang, C., Naani, A. and Chang, W.F. (1988) Internal and external sources of sulfate ions in Portland cement mortar: two types of chemical attack, Cement and Concrete Research 18, 699-709. Pessiki, S. P., and Carino, N. J. (1988). Sett ing time and strength of concrete using the impact-echo method. ACI Materials Journal, 85 (5), 389-399. Popovics, S. (1998). Strength and Related Properties of Concrete A Quantitative Approach. New York: Wiley. Qasrawi, H. Y. (2000). Concrete strength by combined nondestructive methods simply and reliably predicted. Cement and Concrete Research, 30 (5), 739-746. Qasrawi, H.Y. and Marie, I.A. (2003). The us e of USPV to anticipat e failure in concrete under compression. Cement and Concrete Research, 33 (12), 2017-2021. Sansalone, M., and Carino, N.J. (1986). Impact-Echo: A Method for Flaw Detection in Concrete Using Transient Stress Waves. Gaithersburg, MD: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards. Sansalone, M., and Streett, W. B. (1997). Impact-Echo: Nondestructive Evaluation of Concrete and Masonry Ithaca, New York: Bullbrier Press. Skalny, J., Marchand, J., and Odler, I. (2002). Sulfate Attack on Concrete London, England: Spon Press.

PAGE 424

405 Thorvaldson, T., Vigfusson, V.A., and Larm our, R.K. (1927). The action of sulfates on the components of Portland cement, Trans. Royal Soc. Canada 3rd Series 21, Section III. Zheng, W., Kwan, A.K.H., and Lee, P.K.K. (2001). Direct tension of concrete. ACI Materials Journal, 98 (1), 63-71.

PAGE 425

406 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Scott Russell Cumming was born on Decem ber 4, 1978, in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada to Neil Al exander Cumming and Elizabet h Loraine Cumming. Raised primarily in Richmond, British Columbia he attended high school at Steveston Secondary School. He began his post-second ary career at Kwantlen University College in Richmond, in 1996. He transferred to the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, in 1998, and graduated w ith a Bachelor of Applied Science degree with a Minor in Commerce in May 2002. During the summers of his undergraduate degree, Scott worked full time as a materials testing technician for Levelton Engineering Ltd., a multidisciplinary consulting engin eering firm in Richmond, Surrey, and Abbotsford, British Columbia. He also worked part-time from 1996 through 2002 as a waiter and bartender at the Richmond Country Club. He moved to Gainesville, Florida, in August 2002, to pursue a Master of Engineering degree with the Materials Group of the Department of Civil and Coastal Engineering, at the University of Florida. While working toward the degree, he worked as a research assistant under the supervision of Dr. Andrew J. Boyd. Upon graduation, Scott plans to pursue a career in civil e ngineering condition assessment and design.


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0004740/00001

Material Information

Title: Nondestructive Testing to Monitor Concrete Deterioration Caused by Sulfate Attack
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0004740:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0004740/00001

Material Information

Title: Nondestructive Testing to Monitor Concrete Deterioration Caused by Sulfate Attack
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0004740:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text











NONDESTRUCTIVE TESTING TO MONITOR CONCRETE DETERIORATION
CAUSED BY SULFATE ATTACK
















By

SCOTT RUSSELL CUMMING


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ENGINEERING

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2004
































Copyright 2004

by

Scott Russell Cumming





























This thesis is dedicated to my family: my parents, Neil Alexander Cumming and
Elizabeth Loraine Cumming; my sister, Lisa Janice Cumming; my grandfather, William
Beveridge Moyes; and my late grandmother, Christina Swan Moyes. It has been with the
support of all of my family and friends over the course of my life that I have been able to
achieve my aspirations.
















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank all of the members of my supervisory committee for their help

and input throughout this effort. Dr. Andrew Boyd, the committee chair, provided

valuable time, and knowledge of the subject matter. He also provided financial support,

making this research, and my pursuit of a graduate degree, successful.

I would also like to thank Dr. Byron Ruth and Dr. Bj orn Birgisson for their

contribution of time and knowledge, which proved to be tremendously helpful during the

preparation of this thesis.

Gratitude is also expressed to Chris Ferraro and George Lopp for their time and

assistance provided during the research. Assistance of the members of the materials

group at the University of Florida (Xiaoyan Zheng, Betty Quintana, Eileen Czarnecki,

Ningfeng Liang, and Dominic Langelier) is also gratefully appreciated.

A large debt of gratitude is owed to the Florida Department of Transportation State

Materials Office in Gainesville, Florida (including Charles Ishee, David Cerlanek, Mitch

Langley, Beth Tuller, Mario Paredes, Toby Dillow and Richard DeLorenzo) for their

time and assistance with preparation of the samples used for this experiment.

I would also like to express tremendous thanks and appreciation to my best friend,

Rachel Conn for her support, patience, and understanding offered to me during the

research and writing of this thesis.





















TABLE OF CONTENTS


page


ACKNOWLEDGMENT S .............. .................... iv


LI ST OF T ABLE S ............ .......__. .............. viii..


LIST OF FIGURES .............. ....................xii


AB STRAC T ......__................ ........_._ ........xvi


CHAPTER


1 INTRODUCTION ................. ...............1.......... ......


2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................. ...............3................


Introduction to Structural Health Monitoring ................. ...............................3
Sulfate Attack ............... ........... ...............
Evidence of Sulfate Attack ................. ...............5................
Mechanisms of Sulfate Attack ................. ...............6................
Internal Sources of Sulfates ................. ...............7................
External Sources of Sulfates ................... .......... ...............7......
Consequences of External Sulfate Attack .............. ...............10....
External appearance and volume stability ................. .........................10
Microstructure of concrete ................. ...............12........... ....
Mechanical properties of concrete .............. .....................13
Nondestructive Testing ................. ...............16.................
Rebound Hammer Test............... ...............17..

Impact-Echo Method ................. ...............19.......... ......
Development .............. ...............20....
General description .............. ...............21....
Basic principles .............. ...............23....
Significance of P-waves ................ ........... ...............24......
Conversion of a waveform to a frequency spectrum ................. ................25
Measurements using the impact-echo method .............. ....................2
Plate thickness ................. ...............27.......... .....
Flaw depth ................... ........... .......... .............2
Limitations of flaw depth measurements .............. ...............29....
Sum m ary .............. ...............30....












Resonant Frequency .............. ...............3 1....
Theory .............. ...............3 1....
Test methods ............... .. ...............32...
Limitations of resonant frequency. ...._._................. ............ ........32
Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Test .....__.....___ ..........__ ...........3
In storm entati on................. ...............35... .. ......
Principles of the test .............._ ....._. ....._._ ...........3
Testing configurations ........_.._ .... ..._. ......_._ ...........3
Factors affecting pulse velocity............... ...............39
Applications .............. .. ...... ...............4
Estimation of concrete strength ..........._.. ......._ ......_. ...........4
Estimation of concrete homogeneity ......__................. ................ ...41
Durability of concrete ................. ....._._ ...............41......
Dynamic modulus of elasticity ................. .........._._........ 42.........
Limitations of the test. ............_... ....._._ ...............43. ....
Combined Methods .............. ...............43....
Advantages and limitations .............. ...............46....
Applications .............. ...............46....
Pressure Tension Test............... ...............47..


3 EXPERIMENTAL SETUP .............. ...............52....


Test Specimens ......... ................ ...............52.......
M ixture Design .............. ...............54....
Mixing of Concrete ......_._................. ........._. .........5


4 MONITORING OF CHEMICAL DETERIORATION VIA
NONDE S TRUCTIVE TE S ETIG ................. ...............62...............


Prior Research ................. ...............62.................
M ethodology ................. ...............63.......... ......
Testing Procedure .............. ...............64....
Results and Discussion .............. ...............66....


5 DESTRUCTIVE TEST RESULTS .............. ...............77....


C oring .............. .... .. ... ..... ............7
Compressive Strength Test Results .............. ...............79....
Splitting Tensile Test Results ................ ...............83................
Pressure Tension Test Results .............. ...............89....
Summary ................. ...............99.................


6 RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN DESTRUCTIVE AND
NONDESTRUCTIVE TEST RESULTS .............. ...............102....


Nondestructive Tomography Testing ................. ...............102................
Rebound Hammer Testing............... ...............104











Compressive strength versus reb ound numb er ................. ............... ..... 10 5
Pressure tensile strength versus rebound number ................... ...............107
Tomography Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Testing ................. ....................0
Compressive strength versus ultrasonic pulse velocity ........._..................111
Pressure tensile strength versus ultrasonic pulse velocity ................... .......113
Impact-Echo Tomography Testing ................. ............ .. ............... 115.....
Compressive strength versus impact-echo P-wave speed ................... .......116
Pressure tension strength versus impact-echo P-wave speed ................... ..117
Compressive Strength Predictions by Combined Tomography Methods .........118
Nondestructive Core Testing ................. ......... ...............124 .....
Core Rebound Hammer Testing ................. ...............124...............
Core Pulse Velocity Testing ................. .......... .... ...............125...
Compressive strength versus pulse velocity ................. ......................125
Pressure tension strength versus pulse velocity .............. .. ....................12
Compressive strength versus ultrasonic pulse velocity and
rebound number ............ .....__ ...............128..
Core Resonant Frequency Testing. ....__ ......_____ .......___ ...........13
Summary ............ ..... .._ ...............134...

7 CONCLUSIONS .............. ...............137....

APPENDIX

A MIXTURE PROPORTIONS AND PLASTIC PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE....141

B NONDESTRUCTIVE TEST MONITORING DATA FOR
BLOCKS 1-8 AND 17-24 ................ ...............148..............

C REBOUND HAMMER TEST RESULTS .............. ...............323....

D ULTRASONIC PULSE VELOCITY TOMOGRAPHY TEST RESULTS.............348

E IMPACT-ECHO TEST DATA .............. ...............373....

F CORE TEST RESULTS................ ...............37

LIST OF REFERENCES ........._._ ............ ...............402....

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ............. ..............406.....


















LIST OF TABLES


Table pg

3.1: Concrete mixture proportions............... ..............5

3.2: Summary of block identification and conditioning ................. ................. ...._56

5.1: Compressive strength data for Mixture A............... ...............82...

5.2: Compressive strength data for Mixture B .............. ...............82....

5.3: Splitting tensile strength data for Mixture A............... ...............86...

5.4: Splitting tensile strength data for Mixture B ................ ............... ......... ...86

5.5: Pressure tensile strength data for Mixture A............... ...............92...

5.6: Pressure tensile strength data for Mixture B .............. ...............92....

6.1: Average pulse velocities from tomography testing for Mixture A ........................109

6.2: Average pulse velocities from tomography testing for Mixture B ................... ......110

A.1:. Mix proportions for Mixture A .............. ...............142....

A.2: Mix proportions for Mixture B ................. ...............145..............

B.1: Block monitoring data for Block 1 .............. ...............149....

B.2: Block monitoring data for Block 2 ................. ...............164........... ..

B.3: Block monitoring data for Block 3 ................. ...............179........... ..

B.4: Block monitoring data for Block 4 ................. ...............192........... ..

B.5: Block monitoring data for Block 5............... ...............205...

B.6: Block monitoring data for Block 6............... ...............212...

B.7: Block monitoring data for Block 7............... ...............219...

B.8: Block monitoring data for Block 8............... ...............228...












B.9: Block monitoring data for Block 17............... ...............237..


B.10: Block monitoring data for Block 18............... ...............250..


B. 11: Block monitoring data for Block 19 ................. ...............263...........


B.12: Block monitoring data for Block 20............... ...............280..


B. 13: Block monitoring data for Block 21 ................ ...............295...........


B.14: Block monitoring data for Block 22............... ...............302..


B. 15: Block monitoring data for Block 23 ................ .......... ...............309


B. 16: Block monitoring data for Block 24 ................. ...............316...........

C.1: Rebound hammer test results for Block 1 .............. ...............324....


C.2: Rebound hammer test results for Block 2 .............. ...............325....


C.3: Rebound hammer test results for Block 3 .............. ...............326....


C.4: Rebound hammer test results for Block 4 .............. ...............327....


C.5: Rebound hammer test results for Block 5 .............. ...............328....


C.6: Rebound hammer test results for Block 6 .............. ...............329....


C.7: Rebound hammer test results for Block 7 .............. ...............330....


C.8: Rebound hammer test results for Block 8 .............. ...............331....


C.9: Rebound hammer test results for Block 9 .............. ...............332....


C.10: Rebound hammer test results for Block 10 .............. ...............333....


C. 11: Rebound hammer test results for Block 11 .............. ...............334....


C.12: Rebound hammer test results for Block 12 .............. ...............335....


C.13: Rebound hammer test results for Block 17 .............. ...............336....


C. 14: Rebound hammer test results for Block 18 ................. .............. ........ .....337


C.15: Rebound hammer test results for Block 19 .............. ...............338....


C.16: Rebound hammer test results for Block 20 .............. ...............339....


C. 17: Rebound hammer test results for Block 21 ................. ...............340...........











C.18: Rebound hammer test results for Block 22 .............. ...............341....

C.19: Rebound hammer test results for Block 23 .............. ...............342....

C.20: Rebound hammer test results for Block 24 .............. ...............343....

C.21: Rebound hammer test results for Block 25 .............. ...............344....

C.22: Rebound hammer test results for Block 26 .............. ...............345....

C.23: Rebound hammer test results for Block 27 .............. ...............346....

C.24: Rebound hammer test results for Block 28 .............. ...............347....


D.1: Ultrasonic pulse velocity data for Block 1 .............. ...............349....

D.2: Ultrasonic pulse velocity data for Block 2 .............. ...............350....

D.3: Ultrasonic pulse velocity data for Block 3 .............. ...............351....

D.4: Ultrasonic pulse velocity data for Block 4 .............. ...............352....

D.5: Ultrasonic pulse velocity data for Block 5 .............. ...............353....

D.6: Ultrasonic pulse velocity data for Block 6 .............. ...............354....

D.7: Ultrasonic pulse velocity data for Block 7 .............. ...............355....

D.8: Ultrasonic pulse velocity data for Block 8 .............. ...............356....

D.9: Ultrasonic pulse velocity data for Block 9 .............. ...............357....

D. 10: Ultrasonic pulse velocity data for Block 10 ................. ...............358...........

D. 11: Ultrasonic pulse velocity data for Block 11 .............. ...............359....

D. 12: Ultrasonic pulse velocity data for Block 12 ................ ...............360...........

D. 13: Ultrasonic pulse velocity data for Block 17 ................. ...............361...........

D. 14: Ultrasonic pulse velocity data for Block 18 ................. ...............362...........

D. 15: Ultrasonic pulse velocity data for Block 19 ...._._ ................ .............. .....363

D. 16: Ultrasonic pulse velocity data for Block 20 ................. ...............364...........

D. 17: Ultrasonic pulse velocity data for Block 21 ................ ...............365...........

D. 18: Ultrasonic pulse velocity data for Block 22 ................ ...............366...........












D. 19: Ultrasonic pulse velocity data for Block 23 ................. ...............367...........


D.20: Ultrasonic pulse velocity data for Block 24 .............. ...............368....


D.21: Ultrasonic pulse velocity data for Block 25 .............. ...............369....


D.22: Ultrasonic pulse velocity data for Block 26 .............. ...............370....


D.23: Ultrasonic pulse velocity data for Block 27 .............. ...............371....


D.24: Ultrasonic pulse velocity data for Block 28 .............. ...............372....


E. 1: Impact-echo test results for Blocks 1-9 .....__.....___ ........... .........37


E.2: Impact-echo test results for Blocks 10-12 and 17-22 ......._.._........... ........ .......3 75


E.3: Impact-echo test results for Blocks 23-28 ................. ...............376......._._..

F.1: Core data for Blocks 1 and 2............... ...............378...


F.2: Core data for Blocks 3 and 4............... ...............380...


F.3: Core data for Blocks 5 and 6............... ...............382...


F.4: Core data for Blocks 7 and 8 .............. ...............384....


F.5: Core data for Blocks 9 and 10............... ...............386..


F.6: Core data for Blocks 11 and 12............... ...............388..


F.7: Core data for Blocks 17 and 18 .............. ...............390....


F.8: Core data for Blocks 19 and 20 ................. ...............392........... .


F.9: Core data for Blocks 21 and 22 ............... ...............394............


F.10: Core data for Blocks 23 and 24 ................. ...............396.........


F.11: Core data for Blocks 25 and 26 ................. ...............398...........


F.12: Core data for Blocks 27 and 28 ................ ...............400........... .


















LIST OF FIGURES


Figure pg

2.1: Reactions taking place between Portland cement components and magnesium
sulfate solution .............. ...............9.....

2.2: Sulfate transport mechanism in footings ...._.._.._ .... ... ..._. .. ....__ .........1

2.3: Effect of cement content on strength and expansion of mortars under internal
sulfate attack (1.0 ksi x 6.89 MPa) ................. ...............13..............

2.4: Variation in cube strength with time under the following experimental
conditions: distilled water immersion, immersion in 0.35 M Na2SO4
with-out pH control, and immersion in 0.35 M Na2SO4 Solution while
maintaining the solution pH at 6, 10 and 11.5 ......._____ ..... .. ...............1

2.5: Comparison of expansion of mortar bars and tensile strength of briquets in
0. 15 M solution of Na2SO4 at 22 oC ................. ...............15......___.

2.6: Effect of cement content on strength and expansion of mortars under
external sulfate attack. ........... ..... .._ ...............16......

2.7: Operation of a rebound hammer............... .................18

2.8: The impact-echo method .............. ...............22....

2.9: Typical wave propagation through a cross section of a solid ............. .................24

2. 10: Example of frequency analysis using the fast Fourier transform ...........................26

2.11: Set-up for P-wave speed measurement .............. ...............27....

2. 12: Comparison of P-wave responses from a flawless slab and a cracked slab.............28

2.13: Comparison of P-wave responses from a void and a crack at the same depth ........29

2. 14: Typical forced vibration resonant frequency test setup ................. .....................33

2.1 5: Dynami c modulus of el asti city versus compressive strength ................. ........._.....33

2. 16: A portable ultrasonic testing apparatus used at the University of Florida ...............3 5










2.17: Pulse velocity test circuit............... ...............36

2.18: Ultrasonic pulse velocity test procedure. ............. ...............37.....

2.19: Pulse velocity measurement configurations. .............. ...............39....

2.20: Example strength versus velocity relationship for estimation of
strength of concrete .............. ...............41....

2.21: Strength curves for reference concrete in the SONREB method. ............................45

2.22: Bridgman' s explanation of the diphase concept ................. .......... ...............49

2.23: Pressure tension experiment details .............. ...............49....

3.1: Typical core locations on a block............... ...............53.

3.2: Coarse aggregate being added to the concrete mixer at the State Materials
Office of the Florida Department of Transportation in Gainesville, FL. ...............58

3.3: Mixing Concrete at the State Materials Office of the Florida Department of
Transportation in Gainesville, FL. ............. ...............58.....

3.4: Concrete block that has just been cast into a form. ................. .................5

3.5: Concrete blocks immersed in solution in a curing tank .............. .....................6

3.6: Lift used for moving concrete block specimens ................. .............. ...._.....61

4.1: Sulfate transport mechanism in footings. .............. ...............63....

4.2: An ultrasonic pulse velocity test being performed at the University of Florida ......64

4.3: An impact-echo test being performed at the University of Florida. ........._..............65

4.4: Locations of ultrasonic pulse velocity tests on concrete block specimens. ..............66

4.5: Wave speed over time for 3-month control block from Mixture A. ........................67

4.6: Wave speed over time for 12-month control block from Mixture A. ......................67

4.7: Wave speed over time for 3-month control block from Mixture B..........................68

4.8: Wave speed over time for 12-month control block from Mixture B. ......................68

4.9: Wave speed over time for the 3-month sulfate-exposed block from Mixture A......71

4. 10: Wave speed over time for the 12-month sulfate-exposed block from Mixture A....71











4. 11: Wave speed over time for the 3-month sulfate-exposed block from Mixture B......72

4.12: Wave speed over time for the 12-month sulfate-exposed block from Mixture B....72

4.13: Efflorescence is noticeable at the immersion line on blocks exposed to
sulfate solution. ............. ...............73.....

4.14: Surface scaling due to sulfate crystallization on Block 1 (0.45 W/C ratio)
at age of 52 weeks. ............. ...............74.....

4.15: Surface scaling due to sulfate crystallization on Block 19 (0.65 W/C ratio)
at age of 52 weeks. ............. ...............74.....

5.1: Coring of a block at The University of Florida ................. ......... ................77

5.2: Photograph of a cored block ................. ...............78...............

5.3: MTS 810 Materials Test System load frame used at the University of Florida.......79

5.4: A concrete core subj ected to compressive loading. ................ .......___...........80

5.5: Average compressive strength over time for specimens exposed to
lime-saturated water. .............. ...............8 1....

5.6: Average compressive strength over time for specimens exposed to
5% sodium sulfate solution. ............. ...............81.....

5.7: A concrete core subj ected to a splitting tensile load. ................ ............ .........84

5.8: Average splitting tensile strength over time for specimens exposed to
lime-saturated water. .............. ...............85....

5.9: Average splitting tensile strength over time for specimens exposed to
5% sodium sulfate solution. ............. ...............85.....

5.10: Photograph of cores failed under a splitting tensile load. ............. ....................88

5.11: Close-up photograph of a cylinder failed under a splitting tensile load. .................. 88

5.12: A concrete core subj ected to pressure tensile loading ................. ............. .......90

5.13: Pressure tensile strength over time for specimens exposed to
lime-saturated water. .............. ...............9 1....

5.14: Pressure tensile strength over time for specimens exposed to 5% sodium
sulfate solution. ............. ...............91.....

5.15: Close up photograph of core 18-1A showing a large amount of
voids in the specimen due to inadequate consolidation. ............. .....................9











5.16: Cores from top of a block failed under a pressure tensile load. ............... ...............96

5.17: Cores from the immersion line of a block failed under a
pressure tensile load. ............. ...............97.....

5.18: Cores from the bottom of a block failed under a pressure tensile load. ...................97

5.19: Cylinders failed under a pressure tensile load. ................. .....__...............98

5.20: Pressure tension failure locations. .............. ...............98....

6.1: Tomography grid pattern ........._. ...... .___ ...............103...

6.2: Tomography grid pattern on a block. .............. ...............103....

6.3: Photograph of a block that has been cored. ....._._._ .... ... .__ ......._..........0

6.4: Rebound hammer testing. ........._. ...... .... ...............104..

6.5: Compressive strength versus rebound number from tomography testing. .............106

6.6: Photograph of dimples induced by rebound hammer testing ........._..... ..............107

6.7: Pressure tensile strength versus average rebound number for
tomography testing. .............. ...............107....

6.8: Ultrasonic pulse velocity tomography testing. ......____ ........_ ................1 08

6.9: Relationship suggested by Samarin & Meynink for compressive strength
versus pulse velocity from tomography testing ......... ................. ...............112

6.10: Relationship suggested by Malhotra for compressive strength versus pulse
velocity from tomography testing. ................ ...............112...............

6. 11: Pressure tensile strength versus tomography ultrasonic pulse velocity from
tomography testing ................. ...............113................

6. 12: Impact-echo testing at the University of Florida ................. .......... .............1 15

6. 13: Compressive strength versus P-wave speed from impact-echo testing. .................11 6

6. 14: Pressure tensile strength versus impact-echo P-wave speed ................. ...............118

6.15: Relationship suggested by Samarin and Meynink for SONREB correlation for
specimens immersed in lime-saturated water. ......____ .... ... ._ ...............120

6.16: Relationship suggested by Samarin and Meynink for SONREB correlation for
specimens immersed in sulfate solution. ......____ .... ... .__ .. ......__.........2











6.17: Relationship suggested by Malhotra for SONREB correlation for specimens
immersed in lime-saturated water. ............. ...............121....

6.18: Relationship suggested by Malhotra for SONREB correlation for specimens
immersed in sulfate solution. ............. ...............121....

6. 19: Predicted versus actual values of compressive strength for tomography data
as per relationship suggested by Samarin and Meynink. ............. ....................12

6.20: Predicted versus actual values of compressive strength for tomography data
as per relationship suggested by Malhotra. ............. ...............123....

6.21: Compressive strength versus rebound number for cores. ............. ....................124

6.22: Ultrasonic pulse velocity experimental setup ................. ............................125

6.23: Compressive strength versus pulse velocity for individual cores. ......................... 126

6.24: Pressure tension strength versus pulse velocity for individual cores. ....................127

6.25: Relationship suggested by Samarin and Meynink for SONREB correlation for
cores from blocks immersed in lime-saturated water............._ .........___......129

6.26: Relationship suggested by Samarin and Meynink for SONREB correlation for
cores from blocks immersed in sulfate solution. ......____ ... ....._ .............129

6.27: Relationship suggested by Malhotra for SONREB correlation for specimens
immersed in lime-saturated water. ............. ...............130....

6.28: Relationship suggested by Malhotra for SONREB correlation for specimens
immersed in sulfate solution. ............. ...............130....

6.29: Predicted versus actual values of compressive strength for core data as per
relationship suggested by Samarin and Meynink ................. ................ ...._.131

6.30: Predicted versus actual values of compressive strength for core data as per
relationship suggested by Malhotra ................. ...............132...............

6.3 1: Typical resonant frequency test at the University of Florida. .............. .... ...........133

6.32: Core data for compressive strength versus resonant frequency .............................134

6.33: Core data for pressure tensile strength versus resonant frequency ........................134

B.1: Wave speed versus age for Block 1 .............. ...............163....

B.2: Wave speed versus age for Block 2 .............. ...............178....

B.3: Wave speed versus age for Block 3 .............. ...............191....











B.4: Wave speed versus age for Block 4 .............. ...............204....

B.5: Wave speed versus age for Block 5 .............. ...............2.....11

B.6: Wave speed versus age for Block 6 .............. ...............218....

B.7: Wave speed versus age for Block 7 .............. ...............227....

B.8: Wave speed versus age for Block 8 .............. ...............236....

B.9: Wave speed versus age for Block 17 .............. ...............249....

B. 10: Wave speed versus age for Block 18 ................. ...._.. ........__.........._..262

B. 11: Wave speed versus age for Block 19 .............. ...............279....

B.12: Wave speed versus age for Block 20 .............. ...............294....

B. 13: Wave speed versus age for Block 21 ........._._ ...... .__ ......_........0

B.14: Wave speed versus age for Block 22 .............. ...............308....

B.15: Wave speed versus age for Block 23 .............. ...............315....

B.16: Wave speed versus age for Block 24 .............. ...............148....
















Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Engineering

NONDESTRUCTIVE TESTING TO MONITOR CONCRETE DETERIORATION
CAUSED BY SULFATE ATTACK

By

Scott Russell Cumming

May 2004

Chair: Andrew J. Boyd
Major Department: Civil and Coastal Engineering

The obj ective of this work was to enable the Florida Department of Transportation

to nondestructively assess and monitor the quality of in-situ concrete structures. As part

of the research, a literature review of relevant nondestructive test methods was

performed. Research on a relatively new destructive test procedure for the measurement

of the tensile strength of concrete was also performed.

Laboratory research focused on monitoring the changes in nondestructive test data

from field-sized concrete samples exposed to continuous sulfate attack over time. The

intent was to decipher differences between low-permeability and high-permeability

concrete and to assess which nondestructive testing techniques were most sensitive for

detecting sulfate attack. Attempts were made to identify the nondestructive properties

and their relation to ultimate strength properties by using destructive tests after

nondestructive tests were performed.


XV111









Field studies have suggested that wave velocities through concrete samples

decrease with increasing damage. However, to date there has been no replication of this

effect in a laboratory setting allowing for a controlled experiment to quantify this effect.

The primary obj ective was to see how the exposure of concrete to sulfate solutions

related to surface wave velocity and through wave velocity. The impact-echo method

and the ultrasonic pulse velocity test were used to quantify these relationships

respectively.















CHAPTER 1
INTTRODUCTION

Throughout the life of a concrete structure, it will most likely experience some

form of deterioration. One of the most severe forms of deterioration is sulfate attack.

Often, it is difficult for inspectors to determine the quality of concrete without removing

samples of the structure via destructive means such as coring. Coring a structure is an

intrusive process, and often leaves flaws that can propagate failure at a future point in

time. Coring can also lead to long-term durability concerns for the concrete.

The obj ective of this work was to

* Monitor simulated concrete footings for deterioration caused by sulfate attack,
using ultrasonic pulse velocity and impact-echo testing at regular intervals.

* Assess various nondestructive testing (NDT) procedures as to whether they are able
to detect damage inflicted on concrete by sulfate attack.

* Decipher differences between low -permeability and high -permeability concrete
subj ected to sulfate attack.

* Develop relationships and trends between nondestructive and destructive test
results.

A literature review was conducted on sulfate attack and the different nondestructive

testing techniques used in this research. Laboratory research was performed to simulate

damage caused by sulfate attack in the field, and to assess the sensitivity of each NDT

procedure in detecting the damage.

Concrete specimens were prepared to simulate the effect of both curing and damage

for field-sized specimens. Two different water-to-cement ratio mixture proportions were

used to cast the test specimens. The specimens were placed in solutions to observe










changes in the material properties over time. One set of specimens was partially

immersed in 5% sulfate solution to simulate the effect of a harsh environment and its

effects on concrete specimens over time. The other set of specimens was partially

immersed in lime-saturated water to simulate the effect of curing.

Testing was performed to monitor the change in mechanical properties over time of

both the exposure specimens and control specimens for 3 different exposure periods. The

samples were exposed for 1 month, 3 months, and 12 months. Test procedures used for

this monitoring included measurement of ultrasonic pulse velocity and measurement of

surface P-wave speed using the impact-echo method. The testing regime consisted of bi-

weekly nondestructive testing of the concrete samples. Monitoring of this nature was

performed for the 3-month and 12-month conditioning periods.

The samples were removed from their respective solutions at the conclusion of the

exposure periods. Core samples were taken at three levels from each block; as close as

possible to the top of the block, the immersion line, and the bottom of the block.

Ultrasonic pulse velocity and resonant frequency tests were performed on each core.

Destructive tests included compressive strength, splitting tensile strength, and pressure

tensile strength.















CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction to Structural Health Monitoring

Throughout the life of a concrete structure, it may be subj ected to many kinds of

degradation. Concrete can be attacked both physically and chemically. Quite often, when

chemical attack is taking place, it is not evidenced early on, and a large amount of

damage can occur before the problem is realized. This is especially true when sulfates

attack concrete.

In the past, testing of concrete to detect this kind of deterioration has been

performed destructively, by taking core samples from the structure. More recently,

efforts have been put forth to diagnose chemical attack of concrete by various

nondestructive testing methods.

Sulfate Attack

The term sulfate attack is typically used to describe a series of chemical reactions

that take place between sulfate ions and the components of the hydrated cement paste in

the presence of water. The definition of sulfate attack has been a long-debated topic as it

is a very complicated subject. Damage can be inflicted on concrete in many different

ways. The sulfates can come from within the concrete itself or from an external source.

The problem of sulfate attack has been recognized for hundreds of years. European

scientists conducted the first studies on sulfate-resistant concrete in the nineteenth

century. The problem was first realized in North America as early as 1908. Work

performed by scientists during that era led to the development of the "Bogue" method for









determining the mineralogical composition of cement, and also led to the creation of

sulfate-resistant cements (Skalny et al. 2002).

In 1992, American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 201 published a Guide to

durable concrete, in which they defined two chemical mechanisms that were considered

to be sulfate attack: the combination of sulfate with calcium ions liberated during the

hydration of cement to form gypsum (Ca2SO4*2H20); and the combination of sulfate

with hydrated calcium aluminate (monosulfoaluminate) to form calcium sulfoaluminate

(3CaO* Al203* 3CaSO4* 3H20) (more commonly known as ettringite). Both reactions

are accompanied by a volume expansion that is believed to be the main source of damage

to concrete; with the formation of ettringite thought to be worse than the formation of

gypsum (ACI 1992). Other researchers on the topic consider the progressive loss of

strength and loss of mass to be sulfate attack as well. Relevant literature also shows that

depending on sulfate ion concentrations, environmental conditions, and processing

practices, the volume expansion accompanying the formation of ettringite and gypsum

are not always the source of damage (Skalny et al. 2002).

There are many kinds of sulfate salts that can attack concrete. Calcium sulfate

(CaSO4), magnesium sulfate (MgSO4), Sodium sulfate (Na2SO4), and potassium sulfate

(K2SO4) are the salts of concern (ACI 1992). The salt that is the focus of this research is

sodium sulfate.

Many literature sources divide sulfate attack into categories of physical or chemical

attack mechanisms, as well as internal or external attack. Chemical sulfate attack is

widely considered to be the result of chemical reactions that involve the sulfate anion

SO42-. Physical sulfate attack takes place with the formation of sodium sulfate










decahydrate (Na2SO4*10H20), which is then followed by its repeated recrystallization

into sodium sulfate anhydrite (Na2SO4), and vice versa (Skalny et al. 2002). Internal

sulfate attack refers to circumstances where the sulfates come from a source internal to

the concrete, such as fly ash, slag, aggregate, or certain chemical admixtures. External

sulfate attack occurs when sulfates from a source external to the concrete matrix

penetrate into the matrix and attack the hydrated cement paste. Such sources may be

groundwater, fertilizers, soil that is rich in sulfate content, or others (Skalny et al. 2002).

Evidence of Sulfate Attack

Evidence of sulfate attack can appear in many different ways. Some of the visible

damage includes spelling, delamination, macrocracking, and in extreme cases loss of

cohesion. Typically the first signs of sulfate attack appear in the form of hairline cracks

or white, powdery stains manifesting on the concrete surface (known as efflorescence).

All of the reactions that lead to these signs of distress are on a scale far too small for the

naked eye to see.

Some or all of the following processes may be involved in a typical case of sulfate

attack (Neville 1996, Skalny et al. 2002), depending upon the specific sulfate salt that is

involved

* Dissolution or removal of calcium hydroxide from the cement paste.

* Complex and continuous changes in the ionic composition of the pore liquid phase.

* Adsorption or chemisorption of ionic components present in the pore liquid phase
on the surface of the hydrated solids present in the cementing system.

* Decomposition of unhydrated clinker components.

* Decomposition of previously formed hydration components.

* Formation of gypsum.










* Formation of ettringite.

* Formation of thaumasite.

* Formation of brucite and magnesium silicate hydrate.

* Formation of hydrous silica (silica gel).

* Formation and repeated recrystallization of sulfate salts.

Mechanisms of Sulfate Attack

The sulfate attack reaction mechanism is a very complex process as it potentially

involves all of the hydration products present in hardened cement paste. Damage

inflicted on the concrete can include cracking, expansion of the concrete as a whole, and

softening and disintegration of the cement paste.

Typically sulfate attack can be broken down into a sequence of three processes

* Sulfate ions diffuse into the pores of the concrete

* Sulfates react with calcium hydroxide to produce gypsum

CH + SO42- (aqueous) CSH2 (gypsum) +20H- (aqueous)

* Gypsum reacts with the monosulfoaluminate in the hydrated cement paste to form
ettringite.

C4ASH12 (monosulfate) + 2CSH2 (gypsum) +16H 4 C6AS3H32 (ettringite)

A clear relationship has been established between the susceptibility of concrete to

sulfate attack and its tricalcium aluminate (C3A) content; a concrete with a high content

of C3A is more likely to experience degradation due to sulfate attack than is a concrete

with a low C3A content. The damage is caused by corrosion of the sulfoaluminate and

subsequent formation of ettringite. This is the most important reaction in external sulfate

attack. The formation of ettringite is accompanied by a 55% increase in solid volume,

which causes internal stresses that eventually lead to cracking (Skalny et al. 2002).










Before sulfoaluminate corrosion can occur, a separate reaction must first occur

between the sulfate ions and calcium hydroxide. This reaction is the corrosion of

gypsum, and it is accompanied with a 120% expansion in volume. Gypsum corrosion is

considered to be of secondary importance in sulfate attack, but for prolonged exposure

periods (typically 10 years or more) gypsum corrosion can eventually become a more

serious problem than ettringite formation. The gypsum corrosion reaction encourages

penetration of sulfates into the concrete and concentrates them in a form in which they

can react directly with the monosulfoaluminate (Skalny et al. 2002).

Though the volume expansion associated with gypsum corrosion is more than

double that associated with sulfoaluminate corrosion, the volume of monosulfoaluminate

in the hydrated cement paste is far more than the other constituents involved in the

reaction, thus making it the more serious issue. Often, sulfate attack does not involve a

large volume expansion, but instead induces a softening or disintegration of the cement

due to decalcification, rendering it no more rigid than putty (Skalny et al. 2002).

Internal Sources of Sulfates

Calcium sulfate is added to all cement clinker during the refining process to control

flash setting of C3A. Additional sulfates may be present in the clinker from the raw

materials, or from the fuel combustion products. Sulfates and sulfides may also be

present in aggregate as well as both mineral and chemical admixtures. Mixing water may

also contain sulfates. However, concentrations in water are usually so low that mixing

water can be dismissed as a source of serious damage (Skalny et al. 2002).

External Sources of Sulfates

Solid salts do not attack concrete, but when the salts are present in solution, they

can react with, and deteriorate hardened cement paste. The primary forms of sulfates for









external attack are magnesium, calcium, sodium and potassium salts. Agricultural wastes

often contain sulfates due to the fertilizers used (although sulfates are usually not the

most aggressive chemicals found therein). Industrial wastewaters often contain sulfates,

especially water from cooling towers where sulfate concentrations can become quite

high. Sulfate concentrations are also quite high in seawater, though sulfate attack from

this source is somewhat mitigated due to the protective nature of magnesium hydroxide.

Also, gypsum and ettringite are more soluble in solutions high in chloride concentrations.

Even atmospheric pollution can be considered to be a source of wastewater and,

depending on conditions such as temperature and humidity, can even lead to increased

concentration of sulfates in soils and groundwater, thus increasing the likelihood of the

occurrence of sulfate attack (Neville 1996).

In areas of low humidity, concrete structures that are in contact with both air and

groundwater containing sulfates are particularly vulnerable to attack. This is due to the

increasing concentrations of sulfates at the air-exposed surface due to the evaporation of

surface moisture (Skalny et al. 2002).

Effect of alkali sulfates. When alkali sulfates attack concrete, the sulfate ions

react with the monosulfate that was formed in the hydration process as previously

discussed. If all of the aluminum ions in the zone undergoing interaction with the sulfate

ions have been consumed, and there are still SO42- ions available, gypsum is formed

instead of ettringite. Thus, in concrete undergoing external sulfate attack, gypsum may

be found closer to the surface of the concrete than ettringite. The following zones may be

recognized in a cement paste that is experiencing sulfate attack and are illustrated in

Figure 2.1 (Skalny et al. 2002)










* The original cement paste that is not involved in the corrosion process

* A zone in which ettringite has been formed in the reaction with
monosulfoaluminate; the amount of calcium hydroxide is reduced

* A zone containing gypsum; calcium hydroxide is absent, the C-S-H phase is
partially decalcified (formation of horizontal cracks is preferential in this region)

* A zone containing the C-S-H phase with a significantly reduced C/S ratio as its
main constituent. Limited amounts of sulfate in adsorbed form may also be
present.


Liquid Reaction zone Pore solution Original cement paste


Mg(OH)2

Mg" Mg" Ca(OH)2


CaSO4 2H O


3MgO-2SiO -2Hi) C-S-H

SiO2.aq Arm
AFt

Figure 2.1l:Reactions taking place between Portland cement components and magnesium
sulfate solution (Skalny et al. 2002).

In regard to the alkali ions that were previously combined with the sulfate ions,

these typically migrate into the pore system of the cement paste thereby increasing the

alkalinity of the pore solution. This can lead to the undesirable situation in which alkali-

silica reaction takes place in addition to sulfate attack.

The first sign of the attack of alkali sulfates on concrete is an increase in strength

within the affected region. A filling of the existing pores with ettringite causes this

increase in strength through densifieation of the microstructure. However, as the

formation of ettringite continues the available pore space becomes completely occupied.









Ettringite formation continues and potentially damaging expansive forces are generated

within the concrete matrix. Often, the first visible sign that this damage is occurring is

surface scaling of the concrete (Mindess et al. 2003).

When evaporation of a pore solution having high alkalinity occurs from the surface

of concrete, a crystallization of the salts within that solution will take place. Salt

crystallization is primarily referred to as physical sulfate attack. As the crystals form,

they generate expansive pressures, inflicting further damage to the concrete. A

particularly bad scenario develops when the crystals come in contact with water, and

repeated crystallization is allowed to occur by the following reaction:

Na2SO4 + 10H20 (thenardite) 4 Na2SO4*10H20 (mirabilite).

This reaction is associated with an increase in solid volume of 315% (Skalny et al. 2002).

The appearance of scaling is indicative of serious damage occurring at that

location. However, the internal damage can be much more serious than just the scaling at

the surface. As the sulfate-laden water migrates upward through the concrete, the

sulfates continue to attack any hydrated cement paste that they come into contact with,

thereby inducing microcracking and degrading the mechanical properties of the concrete

on the way through (Boyd & Mindess 2004).

Consequences of External Sulfate Attack

External appearance and volume stability

A vast amount of research has been conducted on the subj ect of volume instability

of concrete exposed to sulfate solutions. The American Society for Testing and Materials

(ASTM) has published standard C1012 for measuring the length change of small

specimens subj ected to continuous immersion in the test solution, in which prismatic

specimens are measured at regular time intervals for changes in length. The test provides









a means of assessing the sulfate resistance of concretes and mortars made using portland

cement, blends of portland cement with pozzolans or slags and blended hydraulic

cements (ASTM 2001h).

Laboratory experiments have shown that the expansion of concrete is typically

accompanied by cracking of the hydrated cement paste matrix. Cracking usually begins

at the surface of the concrete and moves progressively toward the central portion of the

member. It has been found that cracks can be first detected visually when linear

expansion of the sample reaches approximately 0.7% (Lagerbald 1999).

Studies of Hield concrete exposed to sulfate attack have shown that degradation

does not result in the sudden failure of the structure. The detrimental action is a

progressive process of deterioration that can often lead to collapse or require demolition.

Deterioration of concrete in the Hield has been found to be far more severe for structures

that are continuously kept in saturated conditions. Typical first signs of damage are

cracks appearing in the structure. This is especially the case for concrete slabs and

footings that are exposed to moist soils contaminated with sulfates. Such slabs usually

fail in buckling, and in some cases, even though the cracks could possibly have been

attributed to soil expansion, volume instability often appeared as the primary cause of

distress (Skalny et al. 2002). When footings or foundations come under attack, the

bottom of the footing is almost completely saturated with sulfate-laden groundwater

while the upper portion remains exposed and relatively dry. This creates a transport

mechanism for the sulfates as they are drawn up into the concrete, permeate upward

toward drier regions, and are left behind on or near the surface when the water

evaporates. The sulfate transport mechanism in footings is shown in Figure 2.2.









Evidence of this form of attack usually manifests itself as a line of surface scaling just

above the grade line (Boyd & Mindess 2004).











Fiue22 uftetasotmcais nfoig Byd&Mnes20)











siulfae attac bulfte mrayber cnfused with leachings anod caronaionds ofcacimydoxd






(Haynes et al. 1996).

Microstructure of concrete

Microscopic examination of concrete samples experiencing internal or external

sulfate attack has shown that the microstructural damage varies from one form of

degradation to another (Skalny et al. 2002).

Damage caused by internal attack tends to be homogenous throughout the entire

volume of the concrete. Scanning electron microscopy has shown that damage of










concrete samples immersed in sulfate solution moves progressively inward from the outer

surfaces. Damage in layers is not limited to laboratory specimens; slabs exposed to

sulfate rich soils show heavier damage on the surface in contact with the sulfates. At the

surface of the concrete, high levels of gypsum tend to be present, while deeper into the

concrete, high levels of ettringite are found (Ju et al. 1999).

Mechanical properties of concrete

Research on internal sulfate attack has concluded that this form of degradation

results in the formation of a network of microscopic and macroscopic cracks, but it also

contributes to a significant reduction in the mechanical properties of concrete (Skalny et

al. 2002). The effect of internal sulfate attack on the volume stability and compressive

strength of a series of mortars is shown in Figure 2.3.


2.0

I 4~ Cement with 12%C3A
1.5- SO3 7.1%
1.0 5 ment 20%


C)I I




u ~I



Lu( n20~ 4 5' 8 10 1
Age (months)

Figure 2.3:Effect of cement content on strength and expansion of mortars under internal
sulfate attack (1.0 ksi x 6.89 MPa) (Ouyang et al. 1998)










As shown in Figure 2.3, the compressive strength relationships exhibit similar

behavior trends regardless of cement content, though the magnitude increases with

cement content.

Numerous researchers have studied the influence of external sulfate attack on the

mechanical properties of concrete. Almost all studies have concluded that along with a

reorganization of the internal microstructure of the concrete there is a significant

reduction in the material's strength and elastic modulus (Skalny et al. 2002).

The layered damage in concrete resulting from external sulfate attack has often

complicated the work of researchers. For this reason, researchers have begun testing

relatively small samples in efforts to work on a more homogenous material that exhibits

damage that is uniform throughout its volume. This explains why recent studies have

focused on mortar samples (Skalny et al. 2002).

Figure 2.4 shows typical laboratory results related to the effect of sulfate attack on

the compressive strength of mortar mixtures, while Figure 2.5 shows the effect of sulfate

attack on the tensile strengths of mortar mixtures. For both situations, it can be seen that

immersion in sulfate solution initially results in an increase in strength, though a rapid

drop in strength follows this initial strength gain. Time zero in both plots refers to the

time that concrete was immersed in the conditioning solution. The early increase can be

attributed to hydration effects and densification of the concrete microstructure through

the formation of ettringite. The loss of strength and rigidity of the material can be

attributed to the continued formation of ettringite, which causes expansion and

subsequent microcracking as previously discussed. It has been found that the loss of

strength usually corresponds to an expansion of 0. 1% (Ouyang 1989) (Figure 2.6).










































II I za
Expansion Bars in 0.15 IVNa2SO4
2100




250 1500
Tensile S~trength Briquets

DC0 inH! H20~ 1 0




100 '600
k Tensile Strength Eiut
50i q0. 15 MNa2SO4
50'~ ~~ "


~~120



~q100








0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Time (weeks)

Figure 2.4: Variation in cube strength with time under the following experimental
conditions: distilled water immersion, immersion in 0.35 M Na2SO4 with-out
pH control, and immersion in 0.35 M Na2SO4 Solution while maintaining the
solution pH at 6, 10 and 11.5 (Brown 1981).


h



a
9


5 10


0 2 25 30 35 40
Time (d)


Figure 2.5: Comparison of expansion of mortar bars and tensile strength of briquets in
0.15 M solution of Na2SO4 at 22 oC (Thorvaldson et al. 1927).












a Wate cement 0.6, cement with 124b CzA




/ Cement 20%
S2 /~--t Cement 15%









0.6
S11 2 3 4 6
Age (months)

Figure 2.6:Effect of cement content on strength and expansion of mortars under external
sulfate attack (Ouyang et al. 1988).

Studies have concluded that external sulfate attack has detrimental effects on

concrete in the field as well. It has been found that shear resistance and tensile strength

of concrete are more sensitive to external sulfate attack than compressive strength. This is

because compressive stresses have been found to close up cracks; in particular, if cracks

are preferentially formed perpendicular to the direction of loading compression tests will

not be a sensitive indicator of intemal damage (Boyd & Mindess 2004).

Nondestructive Testing

Nondestructive testing is rapidly gaining notoriety as a means of evaluating

concrete quality. Prior research has usually attempted to correlate the results from NDT

to the compressive strength of the concrete in question. More recently, efforts have been

made to detect chemical damage in concrete through nondestructive means. Presented

herein is a summary of the nondestructive techniques used for this purpose at the

University of Florida.









Rebound Hammer Test

The rebound hammer test is used to measure the surface hardness of concrete.

Ernest Schmidt developed the test in 1948. Due to its relative ease of use and minimal

operating cost, it has become the most widely used nondestructive testing technique

employed worldwide (Malhotra & Carino 2004). The rebound hammer test is described

in detail in ASTM standard C805 (ASTM 2002). The test method is typically used to

check the uniformity of concrete and in comparing one concrete against another. It can

only be used to obtain an approximate indication of concrete strength when a prior

correlation exists (Mindess et al. 2003).

The main components of a typical rebound hammer include the outer body, the

plunger, the hammer mass and the main spring. A latching mechanism is used to lock the

hammer mass to the plunger rod, and a sliding rider to measure the rebound of the

hammer mass. The rebound distance is indicated by the rider and is displayed on an

arbitrary scale marked from 10 to 100. The operation of a typical rebound hammer is

shown in Figure 2.7.

A typical test is performed by holding the rebound hammer perpendicular to the

concrete surface and slowly pushing the body toward the test obj ect. The main spring

that connects the hammer mass to the body is stretched. When the spring is stretched to

its limit, the latch releases the hammer mass and it is then propelled toward the test obj ect

with a known energy. Upon impact with the back face of the plunger, the mass rebounds.










(a) (b)
Instrument ready Body pushed
for test toward
test object (c) (d)
-Body Hammer is Hammer
released rebounds

-Latch
Indicator


Hammer' \( Spr,,,ing

Shoulder


Plunger






Figure 2.7: Operation of a rebound hammer (ACI 2003).

The rebound distance of the mass is measured by the rider, displayed on the scale,

and recorded as the rebound number. The surface hardness of the concrete is estimated

from this value. Tests performed on harder surfaces result in longer rebound distances

due to an increase in the energy reflected back to the impinging mass.

Despite its apparent simplicity, the rebound hammer test involves complex

problems of impact and the associated stress wave propagation (Neville 1996). The

energy absorbed by a concrete sample is related to both its strength and its stiffness.

Therefore, it is the combination of concrete strength and stiffness that influences the

rebound number (Ferraro 2003).

It is necessary to develop a known relationship between the strength of the

concrete, and the results of the rebound hammer test. Only then is it possible to make an

estimate of concrete strength based on rebound hammer test results. This relationship is










usually established empirically in a laboratory for new concrete. To form the relationship

for concrete that is already cast-in-place, rebound hammer tests must be performed in the

field, and the strength determined from core samples taken adj acent to where the tests

were performed (ACI 2003).

The results of the test are influenced by the following factors (Mindess et al. 2003,

Malhotra & Carino 2004)

* Surface finish of the concrete being tested.
* Surface and internal moisture conditions of the concrete.
* Age of the test specimens.
* Type of cement and coarse aggregate.
* Temperature.
* Size, shape, and rigidity of the member.
* Carbonation.
* Direction of impact.

Generally there exists a correlation between the compressive strength of the

concrete and the rebound number. However, there is a wide disagreement between

researchers as to the accuracy of the strength estimations. Similar relationships between

rebound number and flexural strength have also been established, though the scatter

inherent in the results is greater. Previous research has also attempted to establish a

relationship between rebound number and modulus of elasticity. The research showed

that no valid correlation could be made between the rebound number and static modulus

of elasticity unless the rebound hammer was calibrated for each type of concrete.

However, empirical relationships have been established between the dynamic modulus of

elasticity and rebound number of the concrete (Malhotra & Carino 2004).

Impact-Echo Method

The impact-echo method is used to evaluate the condition of preexisting concrete

and masonry structures based on the propagation of impact-generated stress (sound)









waves through solid media. When used correctly, the method has achieved incomparable

success in pinpointing the locations and evaluating the extent of internal imperfections

within many types of solid media, and measuring the dimensions of the medium being

tested. The speed at which impact-echo tests can be performed is far greater than other

testing techniques; a single test taking only a fraction of a second to perform. The

procedure does not damage the structure being tested in any way whatsoever. Use of the

method has led to savings of millions of dollars in unnecessary repair and retrofit costs

for many types of structures.

Development

The impact-echo method was invented over a rather short period of time, from

1983-1986, at the United States National Bureau of Standards by Dr. Nicholas J. Carino.

Further research and development has since been conducted at Cornell University in

Ithaca, New York from 1987 to the present. This research was primarily conducted by

Dr. Mary Sansalone, and has lead to the development of many diverse applications of the

impact-echo method (Sansalone & Streett 1997). The technique's effectiveness,

accuracy, and quickness have all been improved dramatically with advances in analog-to-

digital data conversion and computer processor speed technologies. The size of the

apparatus required to perform basic impact-echo testing has also been dramatically

reduced, when compared to the original testing equipment first made commercially

available.

There have been four maj or technological advancements since the mid-1980s that

have aided the development of the method. The first was the numerical simulation of

stress waves in solids using finite element computer models. These models are based on

Green's functions, which simulate stress-wave propagation in plates. The second









discovery was that the impacts of small steel ball bearings, typically 4 15 mm in

diameter, induce ideal stress waves for the method. The third development was the

invention of a transducer that can detect impact generated stress waves. The final key

advancement was the use of frequency domain analysis for signal interpretation. This is

the determining component in the use of nondestructive testing as it is very difficult for

the human user to interpret the information contained in complicated waveforms. Using

a Fourier transform on the time-domain signals makes it possible to graph the wave's

frequency-domain signal, resulting in a plot of the wave's amplitude spectrum (Ferraro

2003).

General description

The impact-echo method is an evaluation technique for concrete and masonry

structures that is based on low frequency, transient stress-wave propagation through solid

media. The stress-waves are generated by a short-term elastic impact caused by striking

the surface of a concrete or masonry structure with a spherically tipped steel impactor.

The stress-waves echo back and forth within the structure and are reflected by internal

flaws and/or external surfaces. When the stress-waves reach the surface of the medium, a

small displacement is generated. On the impact surface, a piezoelectric transducer that is

positioned close to the point of impact records these displacements. The displacement-

time signals are transferred from the transducer to a computer where the data are

recorded. These signals are then plotted as a waveform and are converted to the

frequency domain allowing plots of wave amplitude versus frequency (spectra) to be

generated (Impact-Echo Consultants, Inc. 1998). A schematic illustration, summarizing

how the impact-echo method works, is shown as Figure 2.8.










Transducer
Impact


Data Acquisition System and
Computer





Waveform Spectrum






Time Frequency

Figure 2.8: The impact-echo method (Sansalone & Streett 1997)

The patterns that are displayed in the waveforms and the spectra are the

information sources that give details regarding the location and the extent of internal

flaws or the thickness of the structure. Impact-echo tests on solid, flaw-free structures

produce unique peak distributions within the waveforms and spectra for each of the

geometrical forms that concrete is usually found (i.e. plates and columns; rectangular, I-,

and T-beams, etc.). Any interruption in these patterns indicates the presence of an

internal defect within the structure (Impact-Echo Consultants, Inc. 1998).

Resonant vibrations within the medium are generated by multiple reflections of the

stress waves between the internal flaws and/or the external surfaces and the impact

surface. These resonances can easily be recognized in the frequency spectra, and are then

used to calculate the depth of the internal flaw or the thickness of the medium being

tested (Sansalone & Streett 1997).










Basic principles

Impact-Echo is based on the use of transient stress waves that are created by short-

term elastic impacts. A momentary mechanical impact, generated by striking a concrete

or masonry surface with a small spherical steel ball, propagates low-frequency stress

waves through the solid medium. These stress waves reflect off of the interfaces

represented by internal flaws and/or external surfaces of the structure (Impact-Echo

Consultants, Inc. 1998).

There are three primary modes of stress wave propagation through isotropic, elastic

media: dilatational, distortional and Rayleigh waves. Dilatational and distortional waves,

more commonly referred to as compression and shear waves, or P- and S- waves, are

characterized by the direction of particle motion with respect to the direction that the

wave front is propagating. In a P-wave, motion is parallel to the direction of propagation;

in the S-wave, motion is perpendicular to the direction of propagation. P-waves can

propagate in all types of media; S-waves can propagate only in media with shear

stiffness, i.e. only in solids. Where there is a solid/gas interface, Rayleigh waves (R-

waves) can propagate along the interface. When the stress waves are generated by a

point source applied normal to the top surface of a plate, the resulting P- and S-wave

fronts are spherical and the R-wave front is circular (Sansalone & Carino 1986). Figure

2.9 illustrates the typical relationship between stress wave types.






















Figure 2.9: Typical wave propagation through a cross section of a solid (Carino 2001)

Significance of P-waves

P-waves can either be compressional waves (particle motion is outward along the

wave front) or tensional waves (particle motion is inward along wave front). The initial

impact-generated P-wave is a compression wave. When the compression wave reaches

the bottom of the concrete slab or encounters an internal flaw such as a void, crack, or

delamination, it is reflected as a tension wave. The arrival of the tension wave at the

impact surface produces a small downward displacement. The tension wave is reflected

from the impact surface as a compression wave, and the cycle begins again. The progress

of the P-wave from the impact surface to the bottom surface and back again represents

one cycle of P-wave reflection.

A piezoelectric transducer that can detect small displacements normal to the surface

is placed a few centimeters from the impact point. It responds to R-waves and reflected

P-waves, producing positive voltage signals for upward displacements and negative

voltage signals for downward displacements (Carino 2001).

Upon arrival of the P-wave (compression wave) at the transducer, a small upward

displacement (positive voltage) is produced. When the R-wave passes by the transducer,

a downward displacement (negative voltage) is produced. This is most often the part of









the signal with the largest amplitude. Information is provided by the R-wave regarding

the duration of the impact, which determines the frequency content of the stress waves

that are generated.

The arrival of the first reflected P-wave (tension wave) causes a downward

displacement and a negative voltage signal. The surface again recovers to its original

position and the voltage returns to zero. This process is repeated with each successive P-

wave arrival. The amplitude of the signal produced by P-wave arrivals decreases with

time due to spreading of the spherical wave front and dissipation of the energy of the

propagating stress waves.

Conversion of a waveform to a frequency spectrum

The multiple reflections of the P-wave from the top and bottom surfaces of a plate

give the displacement response a periodic character. In finite solids containing flaws,

reflections occur from multiple interfaces. When this occurs, time domain waveforms

can become very difficult to understand as the wave patterns become extremely

complicated. To simplify matters, waveforms are usually converted from the time

domain to the frequency domain where resonant frequencies become dominant peaks in

the amplitude spectra. These frequencies can be used to pinpoint the location of the each

interface (Sansalone & Carino 1986).

The conversion of the waveform from the time domain to the frequency domain is

based on the concept that any waveform can be depicted as a combination of sinusoidal

curves, with each of these curves having a particular amplitude and frequency. This

transformation is executed using a numerical procedure known as a Fourier transform.

Because waveforms generated by impact-echo tests consist of digitized arrays of voltage










versus time, the Fourier transform is performed using an advanced numerical technique

called a fast Fourier transform or FFT (Sansalone & Carino 1986).

In Figure 2.10a, the confusing waveform becomes far easier to interpret after being

converted to its corresponding frequency domain (Figure 2. 10b).






I* * | * o~ * * *
02 t05 R ;;; s4 0 COi



Times Frequ~rey, Hz

Figure 2.10: Example of frequency analysis using the fast Fourier transform (a)
frequency distribution, (b) corresponding amplitude spectrum (Carino
2001)

Measurements using the impact-echo method

ASTM Standard Practice, C-1383-98 outlines the methods for determination of

P-wave speed, plate thickness, and flaw depth (ASTM 2001i).

P-wave speed

The speed of a P-wave can be directly measured by placing two piezoelectric

transducers a known distance apart and then measuring the time required for the P-wave

to travel between them. Both transducers are controlled by the same clock in the data

acquisition system, making it possible to measure the elapsed time between the arrival of

a stress wave at the first transducer and its arrival at the second transducer. The impactor

must be positioned to strike along the centerline passing through the two transducers

(Impact-Echo Consultants, Inc. 1998). Measurement of P-wave speed is shown in Figure

2.11.























Figure 2. 11: Set-up for P-wave speed measurement (Impact-Echo Consultants, Inc.
1998)

Plate thickness

After having measured the P-wave speed independently between two transducers,

impact-echo tests can be used to determine the thickness of concrete plates. The theory

for measuring the plate thickness is based on the basic concepts of frequency analysis,

already discussed.

The impact-generated P-wave propagates back and forth (echoes) between the

external surfaces of the concrete plate. Each time that the P-wave arrives at the impact

surface, there is a unique displacement produced, thus making the waveform periodic,

with a period equal to the interval between successive P-wave arrivals. This time interval

is simply the distance traveled twice the plate thickness, divided by the P-wave speed.

The frequency is equal to the inverse of the period (Impact-Echo Consultants Inc. 1998).

Flaw depth

For it to be possible to measure the depth of a flaw, the P-wave speed must first be

known, thus making it possible to determine the period of reflection. When considering a

solid slab with an internal flaw, the response is similar to that of a solid slab, but the time

interval between P-wave arrivals is shorter.








Note the difference between the periods of the two waveforms and the peaks in the

frequency spectra in Figure 2.12; the period for the flawed specimen is much smaller than

the specimen that is free of imperfections, and the frequency for the flawed specimen is

displaced to the right. The depth of the flaw is determined using the same procedure as

for plate thickness; the only difference being that the period is now equal to the distance
traveled to the flaw (instead of the distance traveled to the opposite surface) divided by

the speed of the P-wave.











FrqenyIW1WG

Figre2.2:Copaisn f wav repne rma lwessa ndacakdsa

(Impact-Ech Coslans nc98
Thsi avr ueu ppicain si eerie h xc P l octo o nitra






interior(Impact-Echo Consultants, Inc. 1998).










Limitations of flaw depth measurements

The Impact-Echo technique has achieved remarkable success in locating flaws and

determining their extent within concrete and masonry structures. However, in some

cases, the method is unable to tell exactly what type of flaw is present (i.e. a crack, a

void, or a delamination, etc.). A crack or void within a concrete structure forms a

concrete/air interface. The responses from cracks and voids are similar, because stress

waves are reflected from the first concrete/air interface encountered. Thus a crack at a

certain depth will give the same response as a void whose upper surface (nearest to the

impact surface) is at the same depth (Impact-Echo Consultants, Inc. 1998). An

illustration of this phenomenon is provided as Figure 2. 13.










Figure 2.13: Comparison of P-wave responses from a void and a crack at the same
depth (Impact-Echo Consultants, Inc. 1998)

Another maj or limitation that needs to be considered when performing impact-echo

tests is that the energy of the stress wave (and thus the amplitude of the particle motion)

decreases primarily as a result of wave reflection and mode conversion compressionall

waves changing to tensional waves) at each interface between dissimilar media. To

counteract this problem, depending on the situation, impactors of different sized

diameters can be implemented. The larger the diameter of impactor used, the higher the

energy of the stress wave that is generated. To locate flaws at shallow depths, a small

impactor that produces a low energy stress wave is preferable. However, due to









attenuation of the wave energy, the stress wave is unable to locate deep-seated

imperfections. In this case, an impactor with a larger diameter (which generates a high

energy stress wave) is best used, as the energy will not be dissipated before it has reached

the deep internal flaw. Large impactors cannot always be used, as the stress waves that

they generate are not completely reflected by small interfaces that are commonly present

at small and/or shallow imperfections (Sansalone & Carino 1986).

Summary

The impact-echo method is a very fast, efficient, and reliable method for locating

internal flaws and measuring the depth of flaws, and for establishing the thicknesses of

solid media for which access to both sides is not available. According to ASTM,

Impact-echo may eventually substitute for core drilling to establish thickness of slabs,

pavements and other plate structures (Ferraro 2003). Efforts have also been made to

establish relationships between the compressive strength of concrete and the P-wave

velocity. It was found that at lower velocities, the velocity increased rapidly when

compared to the rate of strength gain, while at later ages the velocity did not increase as

rapidly with increased strength. Factors affecting the relationship between P-wave speed

and compressive strength include: curing temperatures, coarse aggregate content, and

water-cement ratio. To date there has been no research relating effect of air content on

wave speed. The method has also been used to measure the setting time of concrete by

measuring the development of P-wave velocity and relating it to the setting time

measured by penetration resistance. The relationship between compressive strength and

P-wave speed is specific to a particular mix design, and the relationship must be

established between concrete strength and the in-place test values (Pessiki & Carino

1988).









Resonant Frequency

Powers first developed the resonant frequency method in 1938. He established that

the resonant frequency of concrete could be matched to the musical tones produced by

tapping the specimens with a hammer (Malhotra & Carino 2004). Over time, the method

has evolved, and electronic equipment is now available for the measurement of resonant

frequency.

Theory

An important property of any elastic material is its natural frequency of vibration.

This property can be related to the material's density and dynamic modulus of elasticity.

Though the relationships for resonant frequency were originally established for

homogenous media, it has been found that the method can also be applied to concrete if

the specimens being tested are large in relation to their constituent materials (Malhotra &

Carino 2004).

Past studies have discovered mathematical relationships between a specimen's

shape and its resonant frequency. For a cylindrical specimen, Young's modulus of

elasticity can be calculated from the fundamental frequency of vibration of a specimen

according to Equation 2.1 (Malhotra & Carino 2004).

47r2L4 2d
E = (2.1)
m4k2

Where

E = Young's dynamic modulus of elasticity

d = density of the material

L = length of the specimen

N = fundamental flexural frequency









k = the radius of gyration about the bending axis

m = a constant (4.73)

Test methods

ASTM published a standard in 1985 governing this method, entitled "Standard Test

Method for Fundamental Transverse, Longitudinal, and Torsional Frequencies of

Concrete Specimens". The procedure determines the resonant frequency via two

methods; the forced resonance method and the impact resonance method (ASTM 2001d).

Test equipment for the forced resonance method is commercially available, simple

to use, and works for a wide variety of specimen geometries. The forced resonance test

method is the more commonly used of the two procedures and is the procedure that was

used for testing at the University of Florida. For this method, a vibration generator is

used to cause vibration in the concrete specimen. A vibration pickup transducer is

coupled to the specimen. As the frequency of the driver is varied, the peak amplitude

reading on a voltage indicator is discerned and the frequency used to generate that peak is

considered to be the resonant frequency of the specimen. Care must be exercised to

distinguish harmonics from the resonant frequency. A typical setup for a forced vibration

resonant frequency test is shown in Figure 2.14. The driver is coupled to the right side of

the specimen while the vibration sensor is coupled to the left.

Limitations of resonant frequency

Typically, data from the resonant frequency method is used in an attempt to

estimate the compressive strength of concrete, when in fact the property being measured

is the dynamic modulus of elasticity. A vast amount of laboratory testing has shown that

compressive strength and modulus of elasticity cannot be directly linked. When concrete

























Figure 2.14: Typical forced vibration resonant frequency test setup.

strength is estimated from resonant frequency testing, there are two sources of error that

exist, the first being a considerable amount of experimental error inherent in the test

method (Malhotra & Carino 2004). The second source of error is the assumption that

must be made when calculating compressive strength from dynamic modulus data, since

the relationship between the two quantities is not absolute. This problem can also be

shown graphically in Figure 2.15. The figure shows the relationship between dynamic

modulus of elasticity and compressive strength; note the error is estimated to be f10%.

This margin of error assumes that the actual measurements from the resonant frequency

test have no error associated with them at all, when in fact the opposite is true. In reality,

the graph should display an uncertainty that is greater than f10% (Ferraro 2003).

KG/CM2
"210 280 350 420 490 560 56




a~o 300 400 50 60 000 6


Carn 2004).2










Regardless as to whether the dynamic modulus or compressive strength of concrete

can be calculated resonant frequency is an effective tool for detecting change in a

material. When used as a monitoring technique, resonant frequency can be used to

measure qualitative changes in a material. Due to the confounding effect of boundary

conditions and the inherent properties of concrete, testing is usually performed on small

specimens in a laboratory rather than on full-scale structures in the field. Specimen shape

also becomes a problem, as the calculations for dynamic elastic modulus involve "shape

factor" corrections. This limits the geometry of specimens to prismatic or cylindrical,

unless new shape factors are derived for other geometries. If the specimens deviate from

these shapes, the correction calculations can become quite complicated (Malhotra &

Carino 2004). Regardless, it still remains possible to monitor specimens for changes in

material property regardless of their shape.

Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Test

The ultrasonic pulse velocity test has been used for more than 60 years to evaluate

the quality of concrete. This technique has been used to (Qasrawi & Marie 2003)

* Check the uniformity of concrete.

* Detect cracking and voids inside concrete.

* Control the quality of concrete and concrete products by comparing results to a
similarly made concrete.

* Monitor the condition and deterioration of concrete.

* Detect the depth of a surface crack.

* Determine the strength if previous data are available.

The ultrasonic pulse velocity test is purely nondestructive in nature in that the

procedure uses mechanical waves resulting in no damage whatsoever to the concrete.










Repeated tests at the same location are possible, making it suitable for monitoring

concrete for internal changes over long periods of time (Malhotra & Carino 2004).

However, compared to the rebound hammer test, it has been found that the ultrasonic

pulse velocity test is less reliable in predicting concrete strength when the concrete

constituents are not known (Qasrawi 2000).

Instrumentation

The ultrasonic pulse velocity apparatus used at the University of Florida is shown

in Figure 2.16. The instrument consists of mechanisms for generating and introducing a

stress wave into the concrete (pulse generator and transducer), detecting the arrival of the

pulse (receiver) at a separate point, and accurately measuring the elapsed time taken for

the pulse to travel through the medium (Malhotra & Carino 2004). Portable testing

apparatuses are commercially available worldwide. The equipment is lightweight, easy

to use, and allows for rapid testing (Qasrawi 2000).
















Figure 2.16: A portable ultrasonic testing apparatus used at the University of Florida

ASTM has published standard C597 as the recommended test procedure to

determine the propagation velocity of a pulse of vibrational energy through a concrete









member (ASTM 2001g). The operational principle of modern testing equipment is

illustrated in Figure 2.17.


Figure 2.17: Pulse velocity test circuit (ASTM 2001g)

Principles of the test

The basic concept on which the test procedure is founded is that the pulse velocity

of a compression wave through a medium depends on the elastic properties and the

density of the medium being tested, as shown in Equation (2.2). The experiment shown

in Figure 2.18 is a typical test being performed according to ASTM C597-97 at the

University of Florida.


V = (2.2)


where: V= compression wave pulse velocity

L = distance









At = transit time











Figure 2.18: Ultrasonic pulse velocity test procedure.

The experiment shown in Figure 2.18 provides the user with a quantitative result.

The pulse velocity, V, of stress waves through a concrete mass is related to its physical

properties (ASTM 2001Ig). It is a function of Young' s Modulus of Elasticity E, the mass

density p, and Poisson's Ratio v. The relevant equation for wave speed is shown in

Equation 2.3:

E(1 v)
V (2.3)
p(1 + v)(1 2v)

A compressional wave sent through the concrete experiences scattering at the

interface between aggregate particles and hydrated cement paste. By the time the wave

front arrives at the receiving transducer it has been transformed into a complex waveform

containing compression waves and shear waves that have been reflected multiple times

(Malhotra & Carino 2004).

In order to transmit or receive a pulse, the transducers must be in complete contact

with the medium being tested. Often, completely smooth concrete surfaces that are ideal

for pulse velocity testing are difficult or impossible to find. To overcome this obstacle,

and eliminate small air pockets that can exist between the concrete and transducer, a










coupling agent is necessary. The coupling agent is spread in a thin layer between the

transducer and the concrete to fill such air voids.

Testing configurations

There are three possible configurations in which the transducers can be arranged for

the pulse velocity test. These arrangements are illustrated in Figure 2.19 (a) to (c). The

direct transmission arrangement shown in Figure 2. 19 (a) is the most desirable since the

maximum energy of the transmitted pulse is received. The other configurations, while

still valid for testing, are not as desirable as the direct transmission method. Problems

exist in the semi-direct transmission method with attenuation of the waves and with the

indirect surface method with weaker wave amplitudes. Another problem with the

indirect surface method is that the waves typically travel through the concrete near the

surface of the concrete, which quite often has a higher content of cement paste and fine

aggregate than the concrete further from the surface. This tends to make the waves travel

slower through the full concrete mass, and thus the tests are performed on an area of

concrete that may not be representative of the entire sample (Malhotra & Carino 2004).




















,~B Semidirect






C Indirect

T= Transmitter
R = Receiver

Figure 2.19: Pulse velocity measurement configurations. (a) Direct method. (b)
Semi-direct method. (c) Indirect surface method. (Malhotra & Carino
2004)
Factors affecting pulse velocity

The pulse velocity through concrete is dependent on many different factors

(Mindess et al. 2003, Ohdaira & Masuzawa 2000, Malhotra & Carino 2004)

* Contact surface smoothness: good contact is needed between the transducers and
concrete to ensure a good pulse velocity reading.

* Path length: as the path length increases, the pulse velocity decreases.

* Temperature: the pulse velocity is unaffected between ambient temperatures of
40oF to 85oF.

* Moisture content: pulse velocity and transmission of frequency decreases
approximately linearly with a decrease in moisture content.

* Reinforcing steel: the presence of steel bars will tend to increase the pulse velocity,
as the compression wave travels much faster through steel than through concrete.

* Concrete strength: lower strength concretes typically exhibit lower pulse velocities
than do higher strength concretes.

* Aggregate size, grading, type and content: pulse velocity is lower in cement paste
than aggregate, and a concrete with a high aggregate content has a higher pulse
velocity than does a concrete with a low aggregate content.










* Cement type: type of cement does not have an effect on pulse velocity, but rate of
hydration does. At early ages, concrete with a rapid rate of hydration will have a
higher pulse velocity than will a concrete with a low rate of hydration.

* Water-to-cement (W/C) ratio: as the w/c ratio increases the pulse velocity
decreases.

* Admixtures: air entrainment does not have a marked effect on the concrete;
accelerators or retarding agents that affect the rate of hydration will increase or
decrease the early age pulse velocity respectively.

* Size and shape of specimen: in most instances, pulse velocity is not affected by the
size or shape of the specimen. However, the transducer frequency may not always
be suitable for a given path length being tested; a low frequency transducer is ideal
for a short path length, while a high frequency transducer is suitable for long path
lengths.

* Level of stress; when the concrete being tested has been subjected to loads of about
65% or more of its ultimate strength microcracks appear in the concrete that will
serve to reduce the pulse velocity considerably.

Applications

Use of the ultrasonic pulse velocity method has been successful in the laboratory

and in the field to estimate concrete strength, to establish concrete homogeneity, and to

determine dynamic modulus of elasticity, as well as many other applications not relevant

to this research proj ect.

Estimation of concrete strength

Although there is no physical relationship between pulse velocity and strength, the

pulse velocity method may be used to estimate the strength of both precast and in-situ

concrete. In order to make an estimation of strength, a pre-established graphical

relationship between the two parameters is necessary. An example of one such

relationship is shown in Figure 2.20. The relationship between velocity and strength is

unique to a particular concrete mix design, and is affected by the factors previously

discussed, particularly the age and degree of hydration.











Pulse Velocity, ft/s
6600 8200 9800 11500 13100










Puls Veoiy km/s
Fiue22:Exml steghvru eoiyrltosi o siaino tegho
cocrt (Mlora&Crno20)
Esiaio fcnceehmoeet
Th lrsnipusveoiytsmehdiagodolfr ea uatn h
hooeet fcncee hsmkn i odto o asesin the0 qualtoh

cocee Htrgnet a be ecrbda etroaio fte oceeitra
voids, hoecmig inera crcig an vaito ntepoorin ftemxue

Ths anmle ilcuevaitosi h usevlct A I20)

Tyialy whe used fo ult oto upss rdpteni salse n









Past eseach hs shwn tat te ulrsnc us velocity, meho anbeuedt






doetet damage uediny aggesiveen denvrironentas. Sucho damage can bee, caused bcyle









of freezing and thawing, sulfate attack, alkali-silica reactivity, or corrosion of items

embedded in the concrete. All will cause a decrease in the measured pulse velocity. As

the deterioration grows worse due to prolonged exposure, the pulse velocity will continue

to decrease, thus allowing for monitoring of the concrete over time to assess deterioration

by performing repeated tests at the same locations (Malhotra & Carino 2004). It has been

found that the sensitivity of ultrasound to degradation is improved when the wavelength

of the pulse is comparable to the thickness of the damage. The effect of degradation on

concrete acoustic parameters was evidenced for P-waves, S-waves, and R-waves;

decreased wave velocity and attenuation of the signal was observed for all three types of

waves (Ould Naffa et al. 2002).

Dynamic modulus of elasticity

A compression wave's velocity through an elastic material is defined by the elastic

constants and density of the material in Equation (2.3), which was previously defined.

Thus, when the pulse velocity has been measured, and when the values for Poisson' s ratio

and density are known or assumed, it is possible to calculate the dynamic modulus of

elasticity. The pulse velocity test has an advantage over other vibrational test methods

used to calculate the dynamic modulus of elasticity, such as resonant frequency, in that it

is insensitive to size and shape restrictions.

Much research has been conducted on the capability of ultrasonic testing to

determine the modulus of elasticity, and the conclusions are that the method is not

usually recommended for this purpose. The reasons for this are that there is a large error

associated with the estimation of Poisson' s ratio, and Equation (2.3) is suitable for

homogenous materials only, which concrete is not. Typically when used to estimate the

dynamic modulus, results garnered from ultrasonic testing are higher than those obtained









from vibrational techniques, even when the Poisson's ratio is known (Malhotra & Carino

2004).

Limitations of the test

The ultrasonic pulse velocity is a very effective means for evaluating concrete for

many properties. However, many researchers have recommended against using the

method for estimation of ultimate strength in compression and/or flexure in the absence

of a previously established correlation between pulse velocity and the ultimate strength

value being estimated.

Combined Methods

The term "combined method" refers to the use of one nondestructive testing

technique to improve the reliability and precision of another in evaluating a property of

concrete. By combining results from multiple in-place test methods, a multi-variable

correlation can be used to estimate concrete strength. The basic idea is that if the

methods are influenced in different ways by the same factor, their combined use results in

a canceling effect that tends to improve the accuracy of the estimation (ACI 2003).

However, the use of combined methods is usually only justifiable if a reliable correlation

for a particular type of concrete is developed prior to testing (Malhotra & Carino 2004).

Of all the nondestructive testing techniques that are used, the most common

combination is that of the surface hardness method and the ultrasonic pulse velocity test.

This combination has resulted in strength relationships with lower coefficients of

variance than when the methods are used on their own (ACI 2003). In the maj ority of

cases, the difference between the estimated strength values and the values obtained from

destructive testing was in the order of 5% (Malhotra & Carino 2004).









The usual obj ective of combined testing is to evaluate the compressive strength of

in-situ concrete. The general approach is to develop a correlation between pulse velocity,

rebound hammer readings, and compressive strength of standard laboratory specimens.

When testing concrete of suspect composition in the field, it is advantageous to have such

a prior relationship established. However, in many instances this is not possible and

cores must be taken to establish the relationship (Malhotra & Carino 2004).

Combined methods can also be used for purposes other than strength evaluation.

The most common are monitoring the rate of strength gain or evaluating variations in

strength between concrete batches mixed to the same proportions.

The only standardized test method for the use of combined testing techniques is the

SONREB method published by Reunion Internationale des Laboratoires et Experts des

Materiaux (RILEM). RILEM Committee TC 43 suggested a general relationship

between concrete compressive strength, rebound number, and ultrasonic pulse velocity in

accordance with the recommendations for "In-situ concrete strength estimation by

combined nondestructive methods" in 1983, and this forms the basis of the technique

(Malhotra & Carino 2004). The nomogram shown in Figure 2.21 is used to estimate the

compressive strength of concrete when the ultrasonic pulse velocity and rebound hammer

number is known.
















37 -7




25 10\




3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.4 4,6 4.8
PULSE VELOCITY, V (km/s)
Figure 2.21: Strength curves for reference concrete in the SONREB method (Malhotra
& Carino 2004).

A series of correction coeffieients, developed for a specific concrete grade and type

are then applied to improve the accuracy of the prediction made by the nomogram. The

following coefficients are used:

Co = coefficient of influence of cement type

Cd = COefficient of influence of cement content

Ca = coefficient of influence of petrological aggregate type

C, = coefficient of influence of aggregate fine fraction (less than 0. 1 mm)

Co = coefficient of influence of maximum size of aggregate (Facaoaru 1984).

The accuracy of the estimated strength is considered to be (Malhotra & Carino

2004)

* 10 to 14% when the correlation relationship is developed with known strength
values of cast specimens and when the composition is known.

* 15 to 20% when only the composition is known.









Advantages and limitations

Most of the limitations that are applicable to the rebound hammer test also apply to

the ultrasonic pulse velocity test. Hence, these limitations are likely to affect the

reliability, reproducibility, and sensitivity of the results obtained using a combined

method. However, situations exist where the opposite is true and variations in concrete

properties have an opposite effect on the results of each component test, in which case the

errors can be self-correcting. An example is the moisture content of concrete; when a

concrete specimen has a high moisture content, the rebound number is lower, while the

pulse velocity is higher, and when the moisture content is low, the rebound number is

higher, and the pulse velocity is lower.

Surface treatments such as hardeners and curing regimes tend to affect rebound

hammer readings while liquid surface treatments have little effect. Pulse velocity results

are for the most part unaffected by these factors. The strength of concretes containing

superplasticizing admixtures, however, tend to be higher than those predicted by the

combined method technique (Malhotra & Carino 2004).

Applications

When applying combined techniques to evaluate in-situ concrete, the extent of

strength variation between upper and lower parts of a structural element is of importance.

Also of importance is the orientation in which the cores are taken from the structure.

Cores that are drilled horizontally, generally give lower strength values than cores drilled

vertically at the same location (Malhotra & Carino 2004). Once the cores have been

destructively tested, and a correlation has been made, a large number of nondestructive

tests can be performed at a relatively low cost, having no effect on the structural integrity

of the concrete, and an estimation of the strength can be made.









Prior research has shown that the primary influences on the accuracy and reliability

of strength estimates are aggregate type and the form of the multiple regression equation.

Non-linear correlation relationships have been shown to provide more accurate estimates

(Malhotra & Carino 2004).

When a reliable relationship has been established for a particular concrete type, the

use of combined nondestructive test techniques provides a valid alternative to

conventional methods of destructive testing. Often it is possible to perform a

representative number of tests at a reduced cost when compared with coring, while at the

same time having no adverse effect on the structural integrity of the concrete (Qasrawi

2000).

Pressure Tension Test

The pressure tension test is a relatively new application that is used to evaluate the

tensile strength of concrete. Developed originally by the Building Research

Establishment in the United Kingdom, prior research has shown that the test method is

capable of providing consistent results in a much easier fashion than other standardized

tensile tests (Bremner et al. 1995). The pressure tension test is an alternative to the most

commonly used procedure, the splitting tensile test according to ASTM C496. However,

it has yet to be recognized by any standardizing agency.

The pressure tension test is performed on a standard concrete cylinder. A specimen

is inserted into a specially designed pressure vessel, which allows for nitrogen gas

pressure to be applied to its curved surface. The concrete is subjected to an

asymmetrically applied compressive stress using the nitrogen gas as a loading medium.

Though not readily apparent through direct observation, the end result is that the concrete

is subj ected to a direct tensile pressure.









The test was first discovered by accident by Bridgman in 1912. He struggled to

form an explanation as to why, when the load applied to the concrete appeared to be

compressive in nature, the cylinder fails in a tensile manner. He formed an explanation

as follows (Clayton & Grimer 1979).

Application of axisymmetric pressure to a cylindrical specimen is equivalent to a

hydrostatic pressure applied to the specimen plus an applied axial tensile stress of the

same value. A graphical explanation of this phenomenon is shown in Figure 2.22. There

are two ways of looking at the figure. The first is to consider the hydrostatic pressure

shown as the atmospheric pressure, and thus constant. An increase in axisymmetric

pressure is identically equal to an increase in axial tensile stress (this is the way in which

the tensile stress is increased for a pressure tension test). The other way of looking at the

figure is that if the axisymmetric pressure is held constant, then a decrease in hydrostatic

pressure results in an increase in axial tensile strength. A schematic diagram of the

testing apparatus is shown in Figure 2.23.

The internal pore pressure of the concrete counteracts the external gas pressure that

is applied to the curved surface of the sample. The success of the test is dependent on the

ends of the sample. The ends protrude outside the pressure chamber as shown in Figure

2.23. Leakage is prevented from the chamber by using rubber O-rings. The induced pore

pressure acts in all directions, while the nitrogen gas pressure only acts on the curved

surface of the specimen. Because of this, the specimen is subjected to uniaxial tension, as

shown previously in Figure 2.22. The pressure developed inside the chamber is recorded

as the tensile strength of the concrete by a pressure transducer attached to a computer.


















AXISYMMETRIC HYDROSTATIC AXIAL
PRESSURE E PRESSURE TENSILE
(BIAXIAL STRESS) (TRIAXIAL STRESS) STRESS











AXISYMMETRIC AXIAL
PRESSURE f TENSILE
(BIAXIAL STRESS) STRESS

Figure 2.22: Bridgman' s explanation of the diphase concept (Clayton & Grimer 1979)

i---D
CAP
~o'O.aSCREWS
END

a' I~\\\\~ __STEEL_

o~P,* JACKET


3f1 -I~ ~~INLET

(3 UNCOVERED
O SURFACE

Gi 1-1~7 RUBBER
o < SEAL
a PVC
TAPE

Figure 2.23: Pressure tension experiment details (Clayton & Grimer 1979)
Prior Research. Work has been done over the past decade by a small group of

researchers to further advance the test method. It has been found that the tensile strength

values yielded by the pressure tension method tend to be higher than results garnered









from other test procedures (Bremner et al. 1995). Reasons for this have yet to be

explained, but will be addressed later.

Research by Boyd and Mindess found that results for specimens exposed to sulfates

showed a downward trend in tensile strength. Ratios were calculated between the results

yielded by the pressure tension test and the compression test. A negative trend in this

ratio was indicative that the tensile strength was dropping faster than the compressive

strength (Boyd & Mindess 2004).

The tensile strength results yielded by the pressure tension test were shown to be

more sensitive to early stages of deterioration caused by sulfate attack than compressive

strength test results; the tensile strength was shown to drop at an early age, while the

compressive strength was shown to still be increasing (Boyd & Mindess 2004).

Specimens that were subjected to sulfate attack showed a significant amount of

variation when compared to the control specimens (i.e. the variability increased as the

damage grew worse). Observations were made that the failure planes in the specimens

damaged by sulfates were almost exclusively immediately above the immersion line at

earlier ages but following prolonged exposure, the concrete became weaker in the high

sulfate exposure region below the immersion line (Boyd & Mindess 2004).

The research concluded that the pressure tension test is more applicable to the

detection and evaluation of damage inflicted on concrete by sulfate attack than

compressive strength testing. As such, the test procedure is a useful tool in the evaluation

of damaged concrete at earlier ages (Boyd & Mindess 2004).

Other test procedures have been proposed for testing concrete in direct tension,

such as the one by Zheng at the University of Hong Kong (Zheng et al. 2001). Most have









involved a way of imposing tensile stress on concrete specimens by way of gripping the

ends of the samples in one fashion or another. In comparison to the pressure tension

method, the procedure proposed is far more labor intensive in that each specimen requires

a lengthy preparation period and thus may not be as economically viable.















CHAPTER 3
EXPERIMENTAL SETUP

Test Specimens

The original proposal called for a comprehensive laboratory-testing program that

focused on appropriately conditioning concrete materials to simulate damage

mechanisms of interest and performing destructive testing to accelerate any load related

damage mechanisms. One of the most severe and widespread forms of chemical

deterioration is sulfate attack, which was thus chosen for use in this proj ect.

It was decided that the best way to simulate sulfate attack on concrete footings was

to cast concrete specimens replicating these footings and immerse them in a solution of

5% sodium sulfate. This would reproduce as closely as possible the sulfate attack

mechanism that a concrete footing is exposed to in sulfate rich soil with a high water

table.

Concrete was destructively tested in three different modes; compressive strength

according to ASTM C39, splitting tensile strength according to ASTM C496, and

pressure tensile strength as previously described in Chapter 2 (ASTM 2001a, ASTM

2001f). The concrete blocks were fabricated, conditioned for a predetermined period of

time, removed from their solution, and cored. Cores were centered at three levels: as

close to the bottom of the block as possible (centered approximately 50 mm from the

bottom face), at the immersion line (approximately 150 mm from the bottom), and close

to the top of the block (approximately 43 5 mm from the bottom).






53


For each test, three cores were required at each level, thus for each test specimen

twenty-seven cores were necessary, nine at each level. To obtain nine cores at each level,

a block at least 1200 mm in length would have been necessary. Blocks of this size would

have been very large, heavy, and difficult to manage in a laboratory setting, so it was

instead decided to cast two identical blocks and condition them in exactly the same

manner. Blocks having dimensions of 900 mm (length) x 485 mm (height) x 240 mm

(width) were cast. Minor differences in dimensions between blocks were noted and

accounted for during experimentation. The blocks weighed approximately 240 kg each.

Using blocks of this size also allowed for an extra set of three cores at each level to be

obtained as spare samples. Figure 3.1 shows a diagram of core locations on a typical

block. The gridlines shown on the block are for nondestructive tomography testing and

will be explained in Chapter 6.




Side View






1- 2I 3 --l-- 4 5I- A

Figur 3.1: Tyia oelctoso lc
It~ wa alsoT--- deie tocs e ftn 0 mx10m yineswt ahpi

of ~ -~----------+--~--~- blcs hs yidr eecmltl imre ntecniinn ouint









determine whether the evaporation and crystallization mechanism typically associated

with sulfate attack was of more concern than the formation of gypsum and ettringite.

The damage inflicted on concrete due to sulfate attack happens over a very long

period of time. In order to assess the sensitivity of each test in detecting damage due to

sulfate attack, specimens were cast, and destructively tested at ages of 28 days, 91 days,

12 months, 18 months, and 24 months.

Length change expansion prisms measuring 25 mm x 25 mm x 250 mm and cubes

measuring 50 mm x 50 mm x 50 mm were cast according to ASTM C1012. The

expansion prisms were cast along with the twelve-month block specimens.

Mixture Design

Two different mixture proportions were used, with mixture design based on

example designs from the book Design and Control of Concrete M~ixtures, published by

the Portland Cement Association. Mixture A was designed to have a water-to-cement

ratio of 0.45; mixture B was designed to have a water-to-cement of 0.65 (Kosmatka &

Panarese 1988). These particular mix designs were chosen, as they are typical of mix

designs used for residential and commercial construction. Exact mix proportions are

presented in Table 3.1.









Table 3.1: Concrete mixture proportions
Mixture Design A B
0.45 W/CM 0.65 W/CM
Cement
TyeI Portland Cement (kg/m3) 507.7 350.3
Water
Water (kg/m3) 228.6 228.6
Aggregate
Fine aggregate (kg/m3) 855.1 985.7
Coarse Aggret (kg/m3) 733.4 626.5
Admixtures
Ava 100 Superplasticizer (L/m3) 0.8 0
Total (/m ) 2324.8 2191.2


Materials used for mixing were cement, coarse aggregate, fine aggregate water, and

superplasticizer. The cement was Type I Portland Cement, the coarse aggregate was

Florida limestone from the Miami area, and the fine aggregate was graded concrete sand,

all provided by Rinker Materials. The superplasticizer was Adva 100, provided by Grace

Construction Products.

Mixing of Concrete

All mixing of concrete was performed at the State Materials Office of the Florida

Department of Transportation, due to the availability of a pan-type mixer of sufficient

capacity to cast the large-scale specimens needed for this research.

In total, 40 concrete blocks were cast over a period of six months; 20 blocks were

cast from Mixture A and 20 blocks were cast from Mixture B. Blocks numbered 1

through 16 and 33-36 are from mixture A, while blocks 17 through 32 and 37-40 are

from mixture B. Table 3.2 summarizes the block-numbering scheme, exposure solution,

casting date, and age of testing for each block. Summaries of the exact mixture

proportions used for each block are included in Appendix A.










Table 3.2: Summary of block identification and conditioning
Blocks Exposed to Sulfate Solution Blocks Expoe to Lime-Saturated Water
Block W/CM Date Age at Block W/CM Date Age at
# Ratio Cast Tetn # Ratio Cast Testin
1 0.45 1/28/2003 12 months 3 0.45 1/28/2003 12 months
2 0.45 1/28/2003 12 months 4 0.45 1/28/2003 12 months
5 0.45 2/6/2003 3 months 7 0.45 2/6/2003 3 months
6 0.45 2/6/2003 3 months 8 0.45 2/6/2003 3 months
9 0.45 5/20/2003 1 month 11 0.45 5/20/2003 1 month
10 0.45 5/20/2003 1 month 12 0.45 5/20/2003 1 month
13 0.45 6/17/2003 18 months 15 0.45 617/2003 18 months
14 0.45 6/17/2003 18 months 16 0.45 617/2003 18 months
19 0.65 1/21/2003 12 months 17 0.65 1/21/2003 12 months
20 0.65 1/21/2003 12 months 18 0.65 1/21/2003 12 months
23 0.65 213/2003 3 months 21 0.65 213/2003 3 months
24 0.65 213/2003 3 months 22 0.65 213/2003 3 months
25 0.65 6/12/2003 1 month 27 0.65 612/2003 1 month
26 0.65 6/12/2003 1 month 28 0.65 612/2003 1 month
29 0.65 7/10/2003 18 months 31 0.65 7/10/2003 18 months
30 0.65 7/10/2003 18 months 32 0.65 7/10/2003 18 months
33 0.45 7/16/2003 24 months 35 0.45 7/16/2003 24 months
34 0.45 7/16/2003 24 months 36 0.45 7/16/2003 24 months
37 0.65 7/23/2003 24 months 39 0.65 7/23/2003 24 months
38 0.65 7/23/2003 24 months 40 0.65 7/23/2003 24 months



For each concrete mix, four blocks were cast, resulting in a total of 10 separate

days on which concrete was cast. For the first five mixes, extra concrete cylinder

specimens were required for other ongoing test proj ects at the University of Florida and

these cylinders were cast simultaneously with the blocks and companion cylinders. The

extra volume required for these cylinders meant that the volume of concrete needed was

more than the capacity of the mixer, so concrete was mixed twice, with two blocks being

made from each batch. On the remaining five days of mixing, all four blocks were cast


from a single batch of concrete.










The plastic properties of concrete that were measured included air content, slump,

temperature and plastic density, in accordance with ASTM C231, ASTM C143, ASTM

C1064, and ASTM C138 respectively (ASTM 2001e, ASTM 2001c, ASTM 2003, ASTM

2001b). Results of these tests are also included in Appendix A.

In order to control the moisture properties of the aggregate, the coarse aggregate

was batched into water pervious bags and soaked in water for a period of no less than one

week to ensure full saturation. Before mixing, the bags were removed and allowed to

drain for a period of one hour before the aggregate was introduced into the mixer. The

fine aggregate was batched in fabric bags and dried in an oven at 150 degrees Celsius for

a period of twenty-four hours. The bags were removed and allowed to cool for at least

twenty-four hours before mixing. These aggregate preparation techniques are the

standard procedures used by the State Materials Office at the Florida Department of

Transportation (FDOT) for watching aggregate.

Moisture content of the coarse aggregate was determined by weighing a sample of

the material immediately upon removal from water, and then oven drying the sample.

This was done periodically between batches, and the variance in moisture content of the

coarse aggregate was found to vary by no more than 0.1%. As the fine aggregate was

oven-dried, the moisture content was negative, requiring an absorption correction of

1.9%.

During mixing, all of the coarse and fine aggregate were combined into the mixer

and agitated. The portland cement was then added along with the water. The materials

were then mixed for a period of three minutes, allowed to sit for three minutes and then










agitated for an additional two minutes. Photographs of the mixing process are shown in

Figures 3.2 and 3.3.





















Figure 3.2: Coarse aggregate being added to the concrete mixer at the State Materials
Office of the Florida Department of Transportation in Gainesville, FL.


Figure 3.3: Mixing Concrete at the State Materials Office of the Florida Department of
Transportation in Gainesville, FL.










After mixing, the concrete was dumped through a trap door at the bottom of the

mixer into a wheeled bin. The bin was repositioned close to the block forms, and casting

of the specimens was performed.

Concrete was placed in the forms in two lifts using shovels, and consolidated

using a poker vibrator at two locations after each lift. At the edge of each specimen, a

metal hook was embedded in the concrete to facilitate movement of the specimens in the

laboratory. A picture of a concrete block that has just been cast is shown in Figure 3.4.













Figre3.: onree boc tatha jstbee cstino frm













Onur 34 thnedyatermxnte block h a js were loaded onto a flabe ruk n






transported back to the materials laboratory at the University of Florida. Upon arrival,

the forms were stripped from the blocks. A layer of epoxy resin was applied to the ends









of the blocks in an effort to prevent water ingress through the ends, thereby eliminating

three-dimensional effects of chemical damage and thus simulate a finite section of a

continuous footing.

The epoxy resin was allowed to cure for a period of twenty-four hours before the

blocks were immersed in the conditioning tanks. The blocks were arbitrarily separated

into pairs. One pair of blocks became the control specimens and was exposed to

lime-saturated water, while the other pair was exposed to a solution of sodium sulfate at a

concentration of 5% by mass. The sulfate solution was changed approximately once per

month in an effort to keep the concentration as close to five percent as possible. The

depth of immersion was 150 mm, designed to simulate a concrete footing partially buried

in sulfate bearing soil.

Originally the blocks were placed in individual plastic curing tanks. However, due

to problems with leakage very early in the proj ect alternate curing tanks were constructed

out of plywood. The wood was then coated with a fiber reinforced polymer resin to seal

the seams and protect the tanks from water ingress and subsequent rotting of the wood.

Figure 3.5 shows one of the curing tanks in use.












II


Figure 3.5: Concrete blocks immersed in solution in a curing tank
In order to remove the blocks from the curing tanks, a special lift was designed and
custom built at the University of Florida. This lift is shown in Figure 3.6.


Figure 3.6: Lift used for moving concrete block specimens.


ii I















CHAPTER 4
MONITORING OF CHEMICAL DETERIORATION VIA NONDESTRUCTIVE
TESTING

The obj ective of the experiment was to study the effects that the exposure of

deleterious chemicals has on simulated concrete footings over time. Some of the most

aggressive chemicals that attack concrete are sulfates salts. Damage caused by sulfates

can include

* Volume expansion
* Cracking
* Loss of strength and cohesion
* Leaching of components of the hydrated cement paste
* Surface scaling

The ultrasonic pulse velocity test was used to measure the speed of sound waves

through the concrete according to ASTM C597, while the impact-echo method was used

to measure the speed of a sound along the surface of the concrete according to ASTM

C1383.

Prior Research

A large volume of research has been performed to develop relationships between

pulse velocity and compressive strength. A lesser amount of research has been conducted

to relate surface wave speed and compressive strength. An exhaustive search of literature

found no relevant research correlating pulse velocity and surface wave speed. There also

exists no research relating chemical damage to concrete with its effect on stress wave

velocities in a laboratory setting. On the other hand, field studies have suggested that









chemical attack on concrete tends to decrease stress wave velocities as damage worsens.

The relationship has yet to be quantified due to a lack of control of the test samples.

Methodology

The concrete blocks described in Chapter 3 were split into two groups. Half were

immersed in a 5% sodium sulfate solution while the other half were immersed in

lime-saturated water to act as control specimens. All of the blocks were immersed to a

depth of 150 mm. This depth was held constant throughout the duration of the

experiment. Approximately every two weeks, the 3 month, 12 month, and 24 month

blocks were removed from the conditioning solution and evaluated using the ultrasonic

pulse velocity and impact-echo techniques.

By partially immersing the blocks, sulfate attack on concrete footings buried in

sulfate rich soil with a high water table was simulated as closely as possible. Leaving the

top portion of the blocks exposed to air resulted in the induction of an evaporation cycle,

drawing the sulfates from the solution up into the concrete and allowing it to evaporate

out the sides. This is shown graphically in Figure 4.1.
















Figure 4.1:. Sulfate transport mechanism in footings (Boyd & Mindess 2004).









Testing Procedure

The testing regime consisted of regular nondestructive evaluation of the concrete

samples approximately every week until the specimens were six weeks old, and every

two weeks thereafter. Blocks 5-8 and 21-24 were removed from solution at an age of 13

weeks, while blocks 1-4 and 17-20 were removed at an age of 52 weeks. Blocks 9-12

and 25-28 were removed at an age of 28 days but were not monitored using NDT.

Nondestructive tests were performed using a James Instruments V-Meter Mark II

Ultrasonic pulse velocity meter, and a Germann Instruments Docter-1000 Impact-echo

testing apparatus. Figures 4.2 and 4.3 are photographs of both tests being performed on

the block specimens.


Figure 4.2: An ultrasonic pulse velocity test being performed at the University of Florida




























Figure 4.3: An impact-echo test being performed at the University of Florida

Each block was tested at fifteen locations. Measurements were taken through the

concrete blocks at heights of 75 mm (center of the submerged concrete), 240 mm

(slightly above the immersion line), and 405 mm (well above the immersion line). Five

locations at each height were tested, four through the concrete widthwise, and one

through the concrete lengthwise. Figure 4.4 indicates the ultrasonic pulse velocity testing

locations. Data from all monitoring is summarized in Appendix B.

Thirty-seven weeks into the monitoring, salt crystallization and scaling was

visually apparent on the specimens exposed to sulfate solution. It was decided then that

the pulse velocity at this location was of interest as well. However, it was impossible to

measure the pulse velocity in the scaled area due to an inability to form an effective

couple between the concrete and the pulse velocity transducers. In an effort to measure

the velocity through the concrete at this location, diagonal measurements were made by

placing the transducers above and below the scaled area and taking diagonal readings

through the section (see Figure 4.4). The average time from the two tests was then


n~Tb~Z1










calculated and the width corrected for the geometry of the length measurements. From

these results, the pulse velocity through the damaged area was estimated.









Posth of ultr asonlc
pulse th ough concrete














i'40 mm






Figure 4.4: Locations of ultrasonic pulse velocity tests on concrete block specimens

Impact-echo surface wave velocity tests were performed at the same heights as the

pulse velocity tests. Six tests were performed per block, two at each level. Only one face

was tested per block. At the age of thirty-seven weeks, an additional line of testing was

added to the testing regime right at the immersion line at a height of 150 mm.

Results and Discussion

Relationships were developed between pulse velocity and time, and surface wave

speed and time. Graphical representations of the data obtained for the 3-month and

12-month control specimens from Mixture A are shown in Figures 4.5 and 4.6,

respectively.















S28 Days 91 Days


5000
4800
4600



38400
3600
3 4000

~3200



3000


10 12 14

SUPV Bottom
-0 IE Bottom


Age (Weeks)
SUPV Middle
-0- IE Middle


UPV Top
S- IE Top


Figure 4.5: Wave speed over time for 3-month control block from Mixture A.


5000
4800
4600
S4400




,3800
f 3600
3400
3200
3000
0 28 Days 10 91 Days 20 30 40 5 65 Days

Age (Weeks)


UPV Top
Y IE Top


SUPV Middle
-0 IE Middle


SUPV Bottom
-A IE Bottom


Figure 4.6: Wave speed over time for 12-month control block from Mixture A.


Figures 4.7 and 4.8 are graphical representations of the data obtained for the


3-month and 12-month control specimens from Mixture B, respectively.












5000
4800
4600

F 4400
4200




~3400


3200 28 Days 91 Days

3000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Age (Weeks)
UPV TopUPV Middle UPV Bottom
IE Top IE Middle -0 IE Bottom

Figure 4.7: Wave speed over time for 3-month control block from Mixture B.


5000
4800
4600

4 4400
E 4200




E 3600t~ -Ic ... .
3400 .
3200
3000
28 Days 91 Days 365 Days
0 10 20 30 40 50
Age (Weeks)
UPV To UPV Middle UPV Bottom
4 IETop IE Middle -A IE Bottom

Figure 4.8: Wave speed over time for 12-month control block from Mixture B.

As can be seen from Figures 4.5 through 4.8, wave speeds were lower at higher


elevations in the blocks. This trend was evident in every concrete block cast for this


experiment, and can be attributed to higher concrete densities in the lower parts of the

block due to segregation of the coarse aggregate during casting. The coarse aggregate


tends to migrate toward the bottom of the block in the formwork while the concrete is









still in a plastic state. This trend is even more evident in Mixture B, which had a higher

water-to-cement ratio and was thus a more fluid mixture than Mixture A.

All four figures show that the portions of the concrete blocks that were immersed in

lime-saturated water had the highest rate of pulse velocity and surface wave-speed

increase. This was expected due to the continued hydration of the concrete and

associated increase in strength. Pulse velocity and surface wave speeds, at levels above

the immersion line, while still increasing, did not increase at the same rate.

Up until approximately 13 weeks of age, the pulse velocities and surface wave

speeds tended to increase. At that time, the lines tended to plateau and no definitive

change was apparent thereafter. This can be attributed to cessation of the hydration

process as the proportion of unhydrated cement dwindled. However, the sensitivity of

the pulse velocity test as an indicator of change in concrete strength decreases with

increasing strength (ACI 2003). Conceivably, the strength of the concrete could have

still been increasing, while the pulse velocity test was unable to detect the change, though

this is unlikely at the strength levels reached in this experiment.

The surface wave speed from the impact-echo tests generally leveled off at about

the same point in time as the pulse velocities did. However, there exists no literature

indicating whether there is a similar effect regarding the sensitivity of the impact-echo

test for concretes of increasing strength. This will be discussed in more detail in Chapter



When comparing wave velocities and surface wave speeds for blocks from

Mixtures A and B, it is evident that the concrete from Mixture A tended to have higher

wave velocities and surface wave speeds than the concrete from Mixture B. Destructive









tests showed that the concrete from Mixture A was stronger than that from Mixture B in

all three modes of failure tested. It can be concluded from this that the concrete from

Mixture A had a higher elastic modulus than did Mixture B, and thus had

correspondingly higher pulse velocities.

It can also be seen that the pulse velocity and surface wave speed from the lowest

test locations on the blocks match relatively closely, whereas the pulse velocities and

surface wave speeds from the middle and upper test locations do not. This may be

attributed to the uniform curing of the concrete at this location. It is possible that the

concrete above the immersion line had some curing effects imparted on it as well, due to

movement of the conditioning solution upward through the concrete, but this is not

thought to have had a large effect on either the wave speeds or the concrete strength.

When testing first commenced, pulse velocities and surface wave speeds were

increasing due to hydration effects, densification and strengthening of the concrete. As

the rate of hydration slowed down, changes in pulse velocity and surface wave speed

followed suit. Changes in surface wave speed and pulse velocity after about 13 weeks of

age were for the most part negligible. As expected, at no point in time did the pulse

velocities or surface wave speeds show a downward trend for the control specimens.

This indicated that there was no reason to anticipate a loss in concrete strength with time.

Figures 4.9 and 4. 10 are graphical representations of pulse velocity and surface

wave speed versus time for the 3 month and 12 month blocks from Mixture A,

respectively.















j28 Days 91 Days


)24 6 810 12 1


5000
4800
4600
S4400


3600
3 4000


3200
3000


Age (Weeks)

UPV Top UPV Middle UPV Bottom
-0- IE Top ,-0- IE Middle ,-6-IE Bottom

Figure 4.9: Wave speed over time for the 3-month sulfate-exposed block from Mixture A.


5000
4800 !
4600

S4400




~3800
S3600
3400
3200
3000
0 28 Days 10 91 Days 20 30 40 5 65 Days
Age (Weeks)
UPV Top UPV Middle UPV Bottom UPV Immersion
4 IE Top -0 IE Middle -0 IE Bottom -0 IE Immersion

Figure 4.10: Wave speed over time for the 12-month sulfate-exposed block from
Mixture A.


Figures 4. 11 and 4. 12 show the relationship between pulse velocity and surface


wave speed versus time for the 3 month and 12 month blocks from Mixture B that were


exposed to sulfate solution, respectively.













5000 -

4800 -

4600 -

,4400 -

S4200 -

S4000 -

~3800 -

S3600 -

3400 -

3200 -

3000 -







Figure 4.11:


2 4 6 8 10 12
Age (Weeks)
SUPV Top UPV Middle UPV Bottom
S- IE Top ,-0-IE Middle -6- IE Bottom

Wave speed over time for the 3-month sulfate-exposed block from
Mixture B.


5000

4800

4600

4400

S4200



364000



3400 .

3200

3000
0 28 Days 10 91 Days 20 30 40 50 365 Days
Age (Weeks)
UPVTopUPV Middle UPV Bottom UPV Immersion
4 IE Top-0- IE Middle -6 IE Bottom -0- IE Immersion


Figure 4.12: Wave speed over time for the 12-month sulfate-exposed block from
Mixture B.









Initially, the blocks that were exposed to sulfate solution exhibited similar trends

when compared to the blocks immersed in lime-saturated water. Pulse velocities and

surface wave speeds increased, and the concrete gained strength. This can be attributed

to continued hydration of the concrete. However, some of the initial strength gain and

increase in pulse velocity and surface wave speed must also be attributed to the

densification of concrete due to the formation of gypsum and ettringite, and the

associated reduction in porosity of the concrete.

Early in the experiment, sulfate crystallization was visible on the concrete blocks at

the immersion line. Evidence of this is shown in Figure 4. 13. This crystallization

eventually caused surface scaling of the concrete. Damage due to scaling was first

visible at an age of approximately 37 weeks. Physical damage due to scaling can be seen

in Figures 4.14 and 4.15.


Sulf~tz ~r4 jtllj
I Sulthrz~-l)srdls


Figure 4.13: Efflorescence is noticeable at the immersion line on blocks exposed to
sulfate solution.










































Figure 4.14:

































Figure 4.15:


Surface scaling due to sulfate crystallization on Block 1 (0.45 W/C ratio)
at age of 52 weeks.


/C ratio)


Surface scaling due to st
at age of 52 weeks.


e crystallization on


i~~ 1.
~3~
: :,P!


I'.L
4* '~
~-- -.rc.
1L s
-- .c.
1"'
-~ 9
'u~ r ~O'~
~ s*









As seen in Figures 4. 14 and 4. 15, the concrete blocks from the 0.65 W/C

ratio-concrete (Mixture B) exhibited much more scaling than did the concrete blocks

from the 0.45 W/C-ratio concrete (Mixture A). This is primarily due to the

water-to-cement ratio of the mixtures. Mixture A had a much lower permeability than

Mixture B, and thus did not permit as much ingress of the sulfate solution into the

concrete. This is apparent in that there is almost no evidence of scaling on the concrete

from Mixture A, even after one year of exposure. Surface scaling is usually an indication

of severe damage occurring within the concrete (Skalny et al. 2002).

Data from the NDT monitoring of the blocks shows the beginning of downward

trends in pulse velocity and surface wave speed for the concrete from Mixture B at

around 9 months of age. The downward trend began at approximately the same time that

surface scaling was first observed. This trend is not apparent in the concrete from

Mixture A at the age of 9 months, although toward the end of the one year monitoring

period there appears to be signs that it may be starting, though this cannot be definitively

concluded at this point in time.

The blocks exposed to sulfate solution for only 91 days showed no downward trend

in pulse velocities. However, the surface wave speeds seem to show the beginning of a

downward trend. No such trend was apparent at 13 weeks of age for the 12-month blocks

of Mixture B. The earlier downward trend in surface wave speed is perhaps indicative

that the impact-echo method is more sensitive to detecting chemical damage than is the

ultrasonic pulse velocity test. An explanation for impact-echo being more sensitive in

detecting early-age damage is that sulfate attack is an external attack mechanism, and will

thus do greater amounts of damage near the surface, with the extent of damage trailing









off moving inward. Impact-echo P-wave speed measurements only test the surface

material (the area that experienced the most damage) while the ultrasonic pulse velocity

test averages the velocity over the entire thickness of the concrete being tested.

A higher rate of decay in the pulse velocities and surface wave speeds is evident for

concrete below the immersion line when compared to the dry concrete. Most of the

internal damage due to sulfate attack should occur at this location, while damage

occurring above the immersion line is happening at a much slower rate, and is mainly due

to salt crystallization rather than expansive reactions such as the formation of ettringite

and gypsum.

Downward trends in pulse velocity and surface wave speed are not enough to form

a conclusion that damage to sulfate attack is occurring in the concrete so destructive tests

were performed to support these conclusions. Results of these tests will be discussed in

detail in Chapter 5.

It can be concluded that both the ultrasonic pulse velocity test and the impact-echo

test are capable of detecting damage due to chemical attack in concrete over a prolonged

period of time. The earlier downward trend in impact-echo surface wave speeds may be

indicative that the test is more sensitive in detecting early age chemical attack in concrete

than is the ultrasonic pulse velocity test.















CHAPTER 5
DESTRUCTIVE TEST RESULTS

Coring

At the conclusion of the exposure cycles, the blocks and companion cylinders were

removed from their respective conditioning solutions. Eighteen core samples were then

taken from each block. Figure 5.1 shows the coring operation, while Figure 5.2 shows a

block with the cores removed.


Figure 5.1: Coring of a block at The University of Florida.








~p ~ -~IPT~L C1
T- 3:
-- rp~.. ~.
~ ~r~E~
~aa ap ,,";;r? R. p~i a"
rp~ t~ea ~--1~1

'~i~ibz~~s~Bt~.
~e~i _~C~ I
~rPb
.. I
-~s? ~~5~-, ; ,
1


Figure 5.2:Photograph of a cored block.

As can be seen in Figures 5.1 and 5.2, one set of cores was taken as close to the

bottom of the block as possible, another was taken right at the immersion line, and the

last set was taken as close as possible to the top of the block. The cores were

approximately 240 mm in length; too long for standard compressive strength test, which

requires a length-to-diameter ratio of 2.0. To compensate for this, approximately 20 mm

was trimmed off of each end of the cores using a diamond concrete saw. Doing this also

removed any scaling damage, or damage localized at the surface of the concrete. Both

ends of the specimens that were to be tested in compression were then ground so that they

were completely flat and normal to the longitudinal axis of the core, thus preventing any

loading eccentricities.

After preparation, the samples were immersed in lime-saturated water for a

minimum of five days to ensure complete saturation prior to testing. All destructive tests

were performed within two hours of removal from the lime-saturated water.










Compressive Strength Test Results

All compressive strength testing was performed using an MTS 810 Materials Test

System load frame (shown in Figure 5.3) at the University of Florida in compliance with

ASTM C39. All specimens tested had the nominal dimension of 101.6 mm x 203.2 mm.

A constant load rate of 14.5 MPa per minute was used. Figure 5.4 shows a core subjected

to a compressive load.


Figure 5.3:MTS 810 Materials Test System load frame used at the University of Florida.

















Figre5.: cncet cresujete t cmpesiv ladng









Fguraphic .all ion Figu ors 5.5 j and e 5.6 Compressive stre ingthdt speene nApni



F.







81



90 + 04 I o
S0.45 WIC Middle
80
.. A 0.45 WIC -Bottom
70 e 0.45 WIC Cylinders

60 0.65 W IC -Top
S 0.65 WIC -Middle
50 A 0.65 WIC Bottom
vO 0.65 WIC Cylinders
40 ru .Y .Y .L 0.45 WIC Top
0.45 WIC -Middle
E0 *L 0.45 WIC Bottom

0 20 -0.45 WIC Cylinders
-0.65 WIC Top
10
0.65 WIC Middle

0 *0.65 WIC -Bottom
0 100 200 300 40 0.65 WIC Cylinders
Age (Days)

Figure 5.5: Average compressive strength over time for specimens exposed to
lime-saturated water.


90 + 0.45 WIC Top
S0.45 WIC Middle
80
.. A 0.45 WIC -Bottom
70 ...*""" 0.45 WIC Cylinders
,,.*. ** 0.65 WIC Top
60 O 0.65 WIC Middle

50 E A 0.65 WIC -Bottom
O 0.65 WIC Cylinders

i 40 a -0.45 WIC Top
a a .... *0.45 WIC -Middle
E 30 1 0.45 WIC Bottom
S 0.45 W IC -Cylinders
20 1 4 / o
-0.65 WIC Top
10 0.65 WIC Middle
0.65 WIC -Bottom
0' I-- 0.65 WIC -Cylinders
0 100 200 300 40C
Age (Days)

Figure 5.6: Average compressive strength over time for specimens exposed to 5% sodium
sulfate solution.