Citation
Allowable Limits for Conductivity Test Methods and Diffusion Coefficient Prediction of Concrete Structures Exposed to Marine Environments

Material Information

Title:
Allowable Limits for Conductivity Test Methods and Diffusion Coefficient Prediction of Concrete Structures Exposed to Marine Environments
Creator:
Vivas, Enrique A
Place of Publication:
[Gainesville, Fla.]
Publisher:
University of Florida
Publication Date:
Language:
english
Physical Description:
1 online resource (216 p.)

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Doctorate ( Ph.D.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Civil Engineering
Civil and Coastal Engineering
Committee Chair:
Hamilton, Homer R.
Committee Members:
Cook, Ronald A.
Gurley, Kurtis R.
Bloomquist, David G.
Littell, Ramon C.
Graduation Date:
12/14/2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Calcium ( jstor )
Chlorides ( jstor )
Compressive strength ( jstor )
Conductivity ( jstor )
Corrosion ( jstor )
Diffusion coefficient ( jstor )
Electrical resistivity ( jstor )
Fumes ( jstor )
Ions ( jstor )
Nitrites ( jstor )
Civil and Coastal Engineering -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
concrete, conductivity, diffusion, durability, permeability, rcp, resistivity
City of Brooksville ( local )
Genre:
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation
born-digital ( sobekcm )
Civil Engineering thesis, Ph.D.

Notes

Abstract:
This work details research conducted on methods used to rapidly determine the resistance of concrete to the penetration of chloride ions. These methods, based on the electrical conductivity of concrete, were Rapid Chloride Permeability (RCP) (AASHTO T277, ASTM C1202) and Surface Resistivity (SR) (FM 5-578). The results of these conductivity tests were compared to the Bulk Diffusion (NordTest NTBuild 443) test, which allow a more natural penetration of the concrete by the chlorides. Nineteen different mixtures were prepared using materials typically used in construction in the State of Florida. Twelve mixtures were laboratory prepared and the remaining seven mixtures were obtained at various field sites around the State. The concrete mixtures were designed to have a range of permeabilities. Some of the designs included such pozzolans as fly ash and silica fume. One mixture was prepared with calcium nitrate corrosion inhibitor. Diffusion coefficients were determined from the Bulk Diffusion test using a 1 and 3-year chloride exposure period. The electrical results from the short-term tests RCP and SR at 14, 28, 56, 91, 182 and 364 days of age were then compared to the long-term diffusion reference test. A new calibrated scale to categorize the equivalent RCP measured charge in coulombs to the chloride ion permeability of the concrete was developed. The proposed scale was based on the correlation of the 91-day RCP results related to the chloride permeability measured by a 1-year Bulk Diffusion test. Finally, to provide additional data to which the laboratory long-term Bulk Diffusion results can be compared, several concrete specimens were collected from six selected FDOT bridges located in marine environments. A total of 14 core samples were obtained from the substructures tidal zone of exposure. The average chloride exposure was ten-years. The diffusion results obtained showed considerable lower chloride penetration than the 1 and 3 year laboratory results. It appears that the laboratory methods overestimate the chloride ingress from concrete exposed in the field. ( en )
General Note:
In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note:
Includes vita.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description:
Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description:
This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Thesis:
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local:
Adviser: Hamilton, Homer R.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Enrique A Vivas.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright Vivas, Enrique A. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Classification:
LD1780 2007 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

vivas_e.pdf

vivas_e_Page_185.txt

vivas_e_Page_210.txt

vivas_e_Page_059.txt

vivas_e_Page_049.txt

vivas_e_Page_155.txt

vivas_e_Page_158.txt

vivas_e_Page_010.txt

vivas_e_Page_136.txt

vivas_e_Page_025.txt

vivas_e_Page_146.txt

vivas_e_Page_013.txt

vivas_e_Page_164.txt

vivas_e_Page_061.txt

vivas_e_Page_179.txt

vivas_e_Page_089.txt

vivas_e_Page_162.txt

vivas_e_Page_093.txt

vivas_e_Page_204.txt

vivas_e_Page_032.txt

vivas_e_Page_098.txt

vivas_e_Page_080.txt

vivas_e_Page_104.txt

vivas_e_Page_154.txt

vivas_e_Page_037.txt

vivas_e_Page_065.txt

vivas_e_Page_062.txt

vivas_e_Page_048.txt

vivas_e_Page_043.txt

vivas_e_Page_086.txt

vivas_e_Page_152.txt

vivas_e_Page_015.txt

vivas_e_Page_175.txt

vivas_e_Page_029.txt

vivas_e_Page_070.txt

vivas_e_Page_005.txt

vivas_e_Page_071.txt

vivas_e_Page_039.txt

vivas_e_Page_159.txt

vivas_e_Page_119.txt

vivas_e_Page_038.txt

vivas_e_Page_127.txt

vivas_e_Page_169.txt

vivas_e_Page_017.txt

vivas_e_Page_138.txt

vivas_e_Page_063.txt

vivas_e_Page_023.txt

vivas_e_Page_209.txt

vivas_e_Page_092.txt

vivas_e_Page_112.txt

vivas_e_Page_035.txt

vivas_e_Page_192.txt

vivas_e_Page_145.txt

vivas_e_Page_040.txt

vivas_e_Page_190.txt

vivas_e_Page_206.txt

vivas_e_Page_135.txt

vivas_e_Page_047.txt

vivas_e_Page_207.txt

vivas_e_Page_201.txt

vivas_e_Page_130.txt

vivas_e_Page_044.txt

vivas_e_Page_211.txt

vivas_e_Page_183.txt

vivas_e_Page_193.txt

vivas_e_Page_103.txt

vivas_e_Page_018.txt

vivas_e_Page_166.txt

vivas_e_Page_068.txt

vivas_e_Page_144.txt

vivas_e_Page_153.txt

vivas_e_Page_189.txt

vivas_e_Page_045.txt

vivas_e_Page_108.txt

vivas_e_Page_088.txt

vivas_e_Page_149.txt

vivas_e_Page_142.txt

vivas_e_Page_122.txt

vivas_e_Page_180.txt

vivas_e_Page_200.txt

vivas_e_Page_024.txt

vivas_e_Page_213.txt

vivas_e_Page_198.txt

vivas_e_Page_123.txt

vivas_e_Page_147.txt

vivas_e_Page_199.txt

vivas_e_Page_126.txt

vivas_e_Page_066.txt

vivas_e_Page_176.txt

vivas_e_Page_006.txt

vivas_e_Page_078.txt

vivas_e_Page_161.txt

vivas_e_Page_020.txt

vivas_e_Page_034.txt

vivas_e_Page_101.txt

vivas_e_Page_085.txt

vivas_e_Page_054.txt

vivas_e_Page_194.txt

vivas_e_Page_079.txt

vivas_e_Page_109.txt

vivas_e_Page_215.txt

vivas_e_Page_075.txt

vivas_e_Page_011.txt

vivas_e_Page_168.txt

vivas_e_Page_191.txt

vivas_e_Page_177.txt

vivas_e_Page_118.txt

vivas_e_Page_087.txt

vivas_e_Page_188.txt

vivas_e_Page_031.txt

vivas_e_Page_033.txt

vivas_e_Page_141.txt

vivas_e_Page_084.txt

vivas_e_Page_156.txt

vivas_e_Page_028.txt

vivas_e_Page_182.txt

vivas_e_Page_212.txt

vivas_e_Page_014.txt

vivas_e_Page_167.txt

vivas_e_Page_001.txt

vivas_e_Page_069.txt

vivas_e_Page_064.txt

vivas_e_Page_202.txt

vivas_e_Page_173.txt

vivas_e_Page_181.txt

vivas_e_Page_208.txt

vivas_e_Page_165.txt

vivas_e_Page_076.txt

vivas_e_Page_096.txt

vivas_e_Page_004.txt

vivas_e_Page_186.txt

vivas_e_Page_170.txt

vivas_e_Page_067.txt

vivas_e_Page_027.txt

vivas_e_Page_009.txt

vivas_e_Page_057.txt

vivas_e_Page_007.txt

vivas_e_Page_124.txt

vivas_e_Page_041.txt

vivas_e_Page_106.txt

vivas_e_Page_030.txt

vivas_e_Page_121.txt

vivas_e_Page_094.txt

vivas_e_Page_114.txt

vivas_e_Page_117.txt

vivas_e_Page_111.txt

vivas_e_Page_021.txt

vivas_e_Page_148.txt

vivas_e_Page_116.txt

vivas_e_Page_160.txt

vivas_e_Page_083.txt

vivas_e_Page_140.txt

vivas_e_Page_026.txt

vivas_e_Page_115.txt

vivas_e_Page_171.txt

vivas_e_Page_051.txt

vivas_e_Page_137.txt

vivas_e_Page_036.txt

vivas_e_Page_105.txt

vivas_e_Page_052.txt

vivas_e_Page_151.txt

vivas_e_Page_216.txt

vivas_e_Page_178.txt

vivas_e_Page_129.txt

vivas_e_Page_128.txt

vivas_e_Page_046.txt

vivas_e_Page_125.txt

vivas_e_Page_081.txt

vivas_e_Page_132.txt

vivas_e_Page_113.txt

vivas_e_Page_058.txt

vivas_e_Page_163.txt

vivas_e_Page_131.txt

vivas_e_Page_150.txt

vivas_e_Page_002.txt

vivas_e_Page_102.txt

vivas_e_Page_060.txt

vivas_e_Page_139.txt

vivas_e_Page_196.txt

vivas_e_Page_053.txt

vivas_e_Page_091.txt

vivas_e_Page_042.txt

vivas_e_Page_019.txt

vivas_e_Page_214.txt

vivas_e_Page_055.txt

vivas_e_Page_203.txt

vivas_e_Page_095.txt

vivas_e_Page_022.txt

vivas_e_Page_120.txt

vivas_e_Page_184.txt

vivas_e_Page_107.txt

vivas_e_Page_100.txt

vivas_e_Page_056.txt

vivas_e_Page_008.txt

vivas_e_Page_016.txt

vivas_e_Page_097.txt

vivas_e_Page_143.txt

vivas_e_Page_077.txt

vivas_e_Page_074.txt

vivas_e_Page_174.txt

vivas_e_Page_090.txt

vivas_e_pdf.txt

vivas_e_Page_050.txt

vivas_e_Page_073.txt

vivas_e_Page_072.txt

vivas_e_Page_099.txt

vivas_e_Page_110.txt

vivas_e_Page_012.txt

vivas_e_Page_082.txt

vivas_e_Page_172.txt

vivas_e_Page_187.txt

vivas_e_Page_134.txt

vivas_e_Page_205.txt

vivas_e_Page_195.txt

vivas_e_Page_197.txt

vivas_e_Page_157.txt

vivas_e_Page_133.txt

vivas_e_Page_003.txt


Full Text





BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Enrique A. Vivas was born in 1976 in Valencia, Venezuela, to Yolanda and Pedro Vivas.

He graduated from La Salle High School in Valencia Venezuela in July of 1993. He received his

Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering in the Fall of 1999 from the University of Carabobo,

Venezuela. While attending the University of Carabobo full time, Enrique worked part time for

the Department of Civil Engineering, for three year as an Assistant Engineer at the Physical Plant

Office.

Enrique continued his education by entering graduate school to pursue a Master of

Engineering in the Structural Group of the Civil and Coastal Engineering Department at the

University of Florida in the Spring 2002. He received his Master of Engineering in the Spring of

2004.

















MIX CPR2

Depth NaCI (lb/yd )
(in.) A B C AT G
0.0 -0.25 37.154 39.357 42.339 39.617

0.25 -0.50 27.537 29.155 34.621 30.438
0.50 -0.75 23.160 25.107 27.150 25.139

0.75 1.0 16.862 19.349 20.440 18.884
1.0 -1.25 14.387 12.610 15.927 14.308

1.25 1.5 9.829 10.459 13.710 11.333

1.5 -1.75 10.340 5.863 8.575 8.259
1.75 -2.0 5.697 4.866 5.282

2.0 -2.25 4.130 1.298 -2.714

2.25 -2.5 1.981 0.844 -1.413
2.5 -2.75 1.146 0.917 -1.032

2.75 -3.0 0.607 0.773 -0.690
3.0-3.25

3.25 -3.5
3.5 -4.0

MIX CPR4

Depth NaCI (lb/yd )
(in.) A B C AT G
0.0 -0.25 36.046 41.032 34.361 37.146

0.25 -0.50 22.629 23.515 17.399 21.181

0.50 -0.75 14.121 11.295 5.292 10.236
0.75 1.0 5.975 3.172 2.386 3.844

1.0 -1.25 1.317 1.371 0.482 1.057

1.25 1.5 1.357 0.576 0.967
1.5 -1.75 0.385 0.371 0.466 0.407

1.75 -2.0 0.368 0.856 0.372 0.532
2.0 -2.25

2.25 -2.5

2.5-2.75
2.75 -3.0

3.0 -3.25

3.25 -3.5
3.5 -4.0

MIX CPR6

Depth NaCI (lb/yd )
(in.) A B C AT G
0.0 -0.25 38.232 39.903 43.053 40.396
0.25 -0.50 33.886 34.925 34.932 34.581

0.50 -0.75 27.434 29.759 28.634 28.609

0.75 1.0 15.267 21.663 21.051 19.327
1.0 -1.25 13.720 13.355 13.408 13.494

1.25 1.5 9.621 8.028 8.831 8.827
1.5 -1.75 5.210 2.932 4.416 4.186

1.75 -2.0 2.309 1.367 1.681 1.786

2.0 -2.25 0.656 0.274 0.598 0.509
2.25 -2.5 0.349 0.285 0.612 0.415

2.5 -2.75

2.75 -3.0
3.0 -3.25

3.25 -3.5
3.5 -4.0


NaCI (lb/yd )
B C

33.452 34.588

35.226 34.828
33.214 28.138

27.243 28.077
26.474 22.327

25.658 14.609

22.339 20.012
17.235 19.116

14.146 14.477

13.994 12.994
12.696 12.880

11.258 11.358
10.252 8.386

8.306 6.849
-8.006


A G

37.773

36.024
33.059

27.379
25.472

21.556

22.360
19.288

16.041

14.765
14.463

11.006
10.848

9.367
10.358


NaCI (lb/yd )
B C

41.429 36.779

34.038 30.973

29.453 25.809
25.212 22.980

18.944 21.055

15.550 19.729
13.631 14.762

11.477 13.927
8.165 10.256

7.706 9.120

5.431 7.437
3.156 5.436

2.584 3.425

1.697 2.363
1.319 1.474


A

30.180

28.312

21.316
20.950

13.411

15.245
11.003

9.063
8.265

5.523

3.916
1.531

1.351

1.175
1.214

CPR5


NaCI (lb/yd )
B C

39.266 42.149
38.666 29.563

22.811 23.244

12.896 12.387
5.711 8.140

2.537 3.222
2.113 1.791

2.039 1.756

1.360 1.621
1.206 1.546

1.531 1.791

1.642 2.041
2.730 1.719

2.470 2.030


A

42.960
28.962

24.604

15.365
5.200

2.083
1.534

1.168

1.295
1.452

1.789

1.877
2.059

1.884


A G

41.458
32.397

23.553

13.549
6.350

2.614
1.813

1.654

1.425
1.401

1.704

1.853
2.169

2.128


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


A G

36.129

31.108

25.526
23.047

17.803

16.841
13.132

11.489
8.895

7.450

5.595
3.374

2.453

1.745
1.336


MIX

Depth
(in.)
0.0 -0.25

0.25 -0.50
0.50 -0.75

0.75 1.0
1.0 -1.25

1.25 1.5

1.5 -1.75
1.75 -2.0

2.0 -2.25

2.25 -2.5
2.5 -2.75

2.75 -3.0
3.0-3.25

3.25 -3.5
3.5 -4.0

MIX

Depth
(in.)
0.0 -0.25

0.25 -0.50

0.50 -0.75
0.75 1.0

1.0 -1.25

1.25 1.5
1.5 -1.75

1.75 -2.0
2.0 -2.25

2.25 -2.5

2.5-2.75
2.75 -3.0

3.0 -3.25

3.25 -3.5
3.5 -4.0

MIX

Depth
(in.)
0.0 -0.25
0.25 -0.50

0.50 -0.75

0.75 1.0
1.0 -1.25

1.25 1.5
1.5 -1.75

1.75 -2.0

2.0 -2.25
2.25 -2.5

2.5 -2.75

2.75 -3.0
3.0 -3.25

3.25 -3.5
3.5 -4.0


CPR1


A

45.278

38.017
37.825

26.818
27.616

24.401

24.728
21.513

19.501

17.308
17.812

10.401
13.905

12.947
12.709

CPR3
















Table E-2. Continued.
182-Day Surface Resistivity (ime Cured) (lo.cm) CO 182-Day Surface Resistivity (ime Cured) (kn.cm) C1
MIX Sample Reading Locations (Deg.) Std. MIX Sample Reading Locations (Deg.) Std.
Average (%/) Average (%/)
0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270 Dev. O 90 180 270 0 90 180 270 Dev.
A 8 8 9 4 86 9 5 11 9 7 8 5 9 2 9 34 A 28 26 5 26 1 25 6 29 25 9 25 4 25 26 4
CPR1 B 8 7 8 5 9 2 84 8 6 8 5 9 4 85 8 73 9 1 0 34 3 76 CPR11 B 24 3 22 4 25 9 23 6 23 4 22 3 25 6 23 9 23 9 24 7 1 50 6 09
C 89 85 103 102 86 81 10 98 93 C 263 227 226 23 7 262 225 229 23 1 238X
A 134 167 135 123 12 1 127 143 127 135 A 12 1 119 134 135 118 116 137 134 127
CPR2 B 144 129 127 123 128 144 13 2 122 13 1 128 081 628 CPR12 B 133 154 139 136 141 134 142 141 14 130 085 653
C 114 155 106 124 126 114 109 106 119 C 126 133 118 121 134 122 118 121 124
A 9 101 82 91 83 84 83 85 874 A 111 121 105 108 104 11 102 108 109
CPR3 B 8 6 9 2 88 7 9 9 3 9 9 2 7 7 8 71 8 6 0 14 1 59 CPR13 B 10 6 11 4 10 1 10 7 10 7 9 9 10 1 10 4 10 5 10 8 0 32 2 96
C 81 106 85 69 9 92 84 72 849 C 111 128 113 106 11 112 103 107 111
A 725 755 797 856 703 763 786 792 772 A 148 155 141 152 132 152 85 152 14
CPR4 B 79 2 78 4 77 6 83 4 884 76 2 85X 8 2 81 4 76 9 4 61 5 99 CPR15 B 16 5 16 1 16 9 16 1 16 5 15 4 15 9 16 5 16 2 15 2 1 15 7 56
C 826 797 618 626 717 825 671 694 722 C 134 156 158 15 154 154 167 158 154
A 25 4 26 5 31 3 25 6 26 2 26 1 27 9 23 5 26 6 A 20 7 21 5 21 2 24 3 20 1 20 6 20 7 24 6 21 7
CPR5 B 23 6 27 3 27 6 31 1 24 3 26 6 28 5 23 7 26 6 25 3 2 16 8 52 CPR16 B 24 1 23 7 21 4 26 7 24 8 23 3 20 4 26 9 23 9 22 4 1 29 5 76
S21 5 22 3 24 2 22 3 23 3 23 1 23 8 22 2 22 8 C 20 725 222 121 4 18 22 622 420 721 6
A 163 158 15 1 16 163 155 15 1 153 157 A 225 239 249 246 224 244 253 24 24
CPR6 B 147 154 154 15 143 155 154 158 152 157 057 363 CPR17 B 25 2 25 1 23 4 248 267 25 2 23 9 243 248 241 063 261
C 176 147 155 169 18 153 157 169 163 C 245 228 234 233 245 239 236 227 236
A 41 6 47 2 44 2 44 7 43 6 51 6 40 1 41 44 3 A 59 8 51 1 59 2 61 4 58 3 55 7 55 5 57 57 3
CPR7 B 42 7 45 50 2 47 7 43 4 44 1 44 7 47 3 45 6 45 9 1 79 3 90 CPR18 B 56 57 55 6 56 3 55 1 62 2 58 2 55 6 57 55 6 2 57 4 61
C 487 477 464 502 455 447 476 516 478 C 512 53 528 526 504 54 517 558 527
A 43 6 44 5 44 39 42 3 48 1 43 2 39 4 43 A 34 8 31 7 29 3 30 7 31 5 31 9 31 29 31 2
CPR8 B 44 6 44 4 40 2 41 2 41 8 44 1 41 1 41 6 42 4 43 2 0 95 2 21 CPR20 B 31 1 32 5 29 4 33 3 32 2 29 2 29 6 31 5 31 1 30 9 0 44 1 43
C 411 45 2 45 4 43 7 412 497 43 6 441 443 C 296 34 301 278 321 297 319 281 304
A 456 436 426 423 473 446 417 424 438 A 427 244 141 237 21 122 157 134 209
CPR9 B 42 8 40 5 44 2 39 40 8 39 6 45 7 40 3 41 6 43 4 1 61 3 72 CPR21 B 10 7 40 3 40 2 39 7 42 1 43 1 42 1 37 6 37 33 5 11 31 33 73
C 416 409 458X 484 428 448 45 3 486 448 C 46 9 42 6 40 2 428X 45 4 413 40 9 417 42 7
A 40 41 9 34 5 41 39 4 40 7 35 5 31 5 38 1
CPR10 B 37 9 40 41 7 37 8 42 2 42 5 42 3 40 2 40 6 41 3 3 61 8 74
C 444 425 473 454 469 425 459 465 452
364-Day Surface Resistivity (Lime Cured) (kQ.cm) 364-Day Surface Resistivity (Lime Cured) (kO.cm)
MIX Sample Reading Locations (Deg.) Std. CO AIX Sample Reading Locations (Deg.) Std. C1
Average (%/) Average (%/)
0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270 Dev. O 90 180 270 0 90 180 270 Dev.
A 14 3 13 4 10 9 7 12 11 7 10 1 10 3 11 4 A 32 8 30 6 26 9 32 7 29 2 29 4 27 7 28 29 7
CPR1 B 9 7 13 4 12 6 11 4 14 2 9 8 15 5 10 7 12 2 12 0 0 55 4 60 CPR11 B 26 2 27 3 30 5 29 8 25 8 25 31 1 27 8 27 9 28 9 0 87 3 00
C 12 5 13 2 99 14 6 9 3 16 10 4 14 3 12 5 C 37 2 27 2 26 1 26 9 32 4 28 5 25 1 28 2 29
A 147 144 148 143 133 162 145 144 146 A 126 125 156 14 1 129 122 153 147 137
CPR2 B 14 7 12 7 16 2 12 1 13 7 13 1 14 2 12 4 13 6 13 5 1 17 8 67 CPR12 B 15 8 16 7 16 16 4 15 2 16 3 15 3 16 3 16 14 7 1 18 801
C 13 4 12 6 10 2 12 3 13 3 13 4 9 9 12 9 12 3 C 15 5 15 9 13 6 13 4 14 2 15 6 13 13 3 14 3
A 11 2 3 8 3 11 1 11 9 8 3 9 7 8 95 A 10 4 11 6 11 11 4 10 5 11 2 10 6 11 3 11
CPR3 B 91 123 92 7 92 87 68 68 864 89 026 296 CPR13 B 10 106 102 102 105 109 101 101 103 108 044 406
C 91 92 98 79 88 103 106 76 916 C 114 118 108 108 108 112 113 111 112
A 83 5 92 9 96 3 104 87 1 82 6 99 1 100 93 3 A 20 5 20 7 20 3 20 4 20 2 20 4 21 20 4 20 5
CPR4 B 97 9 85 92X 8 25 102 90 8 96 7 85 91 6 89 4 5 36 6 00 CPR15 B 22 7 23 7 23 6 22 24 7 22 3 25 9 22 5 23 4 22 4 1 69 7 54
C 85 2 95 8 74 6 76 88 8 92 4 75 8 77 4 83 3 C 20 3 21 8 22 9 22 6 27 23 7 25 3 23 7 23 4
A 34 1 41 8 42 4 30 7 36 40 8 40 4 34 37 5 A 29 2 29 5 26 7 35 7 31 3 29 7 28 6 33 30 5
CPR5 B 44 43 6 38 2 43 6 39 5 36 7 35 6 41 4 40 3 38 2 1 90 4 96 CPR16 B 38 34 7 46 40 3 47 4 45 7 35 7 38 1 40 7 37 1 5 73 15 47
C 36 4 43 6 35 7 34 5 37 8 32 8 38 3 34 6 36 7 C 34 4 38 7 49 8 43 6 32 6 39 45 1 36 9 40
A 224 218 213 231 226 224 212 238 223 A 295 327 329 315 311 313 298 312 313
CPR6 B 20 6 23 2 21 5 22 22 5 22 1 22 4 22 1 22 1 22 2 0 15 0 67 CPR17 B 35 4 34 4 32 4 32 3 38 4 32 7 34 8 31 5 34 33 8 2 43 7 18
S23 4 199 228 221 245 212 222 222 223 C 379 399 327 35 7 343 376 373 33 3 361
A 473 419 33 6 43 5 407 43 6 419 445 421 A 101 903 877 923 976 949 895 899 929
CPR7 B 55 4 42 3 40 5 47 2 46 5 42 45 6 47 3 45 9 44 6 2 18 4 89 CPR18 B 87 2 102 84 2 91 7 95 2 88X 8882 89 5 90X 8 91 4 97 5 58
C 433 465 442 501 406 469 438 523 46 C 827 862 848 85 2 802 83 7 823 824 83 4
A 484 534 438 475 459 51 451 466 477 A 548X 44 6 44 1 43 6 39 1 415 398X 42 2 43 7
CPR8 B 48 2 51 4 48 1 43 6 39 8 44 7 45 7 41 1 45 3 46 8 1 29 2 75 CPR20 B 41 6 42 4 44 2 44 2 37 3 42 6 44 2 45 2 42 7 44 7 2 67 5 98
C 478 493 397 464 501 496 487 473 474 C 48 468 455 502 475 536 462 443 478
A 51 8 55 7 45 7 48 54 5 47 3 53 1 46 50 3 A 64 1 69 7 63 8 61 5 67 9 69 5 63 65 8 65 7
CPR9 B 70 2 42 5 50 6 45 4 47 7 46 1 50 9 45 3 49 8 50 7 1 18 2 33 CPR21 B 64 1 62 3 63 8 62 2 64 8 62 7 67 5 61 2 63 6 65 5 1 81 2 76
S52 59 7 54 3 46 8 48 9 50 4 51 1 53 3 52 1 C 73 1 68 63 6 65 2 71 67 5 63 9 65 1 67 2
A 558 564 513 532 552 552 526 535 542
CPR10 B 518 52 3 56 5 52 3 516 52 7 53 4 52 5 52 9 55 1 28X6 5 19
C 61 4 55 2 57 63 1 58 3 57 2 57 4 57 2 58 4





























0 20 40 60 80 100

Depth (mm)
Diffusion(m^2/sec)l 1.170E-11 Back grunoun ~d3) 0.178
Surfacebl~yd^3) -1 '\\1 Nunti-.1 1ni1! 2 25.57


CPR13 (Sample C) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion




S60


S40 --


S20 --



0 1 2 3 4

Depth (in)
Diffusion(m^2/sec)l 9.404E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.178
Surfacebl~yd^3) 56.4491 Sum(Error)^2 30.48


CPR15 (Sample B) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion



80



S40 --


S20 --



0 1 2 3 4

Depth (in)
Diffusion(m^2/sec)l 4.452E-12 Backgroundnblvyd^3) 0.515
Surfacebl~yd^3) 67.2601 Sumn(Error)^2 129.612

Figure C-1. Continued.


0 1 2 3 4

Depth (in)
Diffusion(m^2/sec)l 9.155E-1 BackgroundOl d3) 0.178
Surfacebl~yd^3) 53.1441 Sum(Error)^2 46.819


CPR15 (Sample A) 364-Day Bulk Diffitsion
80Il



S60-


S40


S20



0 1 2 3 4

Depth (in)
Diffusion(m^2/sec)l 6.306E-1 Bakground(lblyd^3) 0.515
Surfacebl~yd^3) 59.-Mi sunti-.Inc.1,s! 2 1.443


CPR15 (Sample C) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
80Il



S60


S40


20



0 1 2 3 4

Depth (in)
Diffusion(m^2/sec)l 4.656E-1 Bcronld3) 0.515
Surfacebl~yd^3) 63 .4261 Sumn(Error)^2 69.269


CPR13 (Sample A) 364-Day Bulk Diffitsion


CPR13 (Sample B) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion










CHAPTER 4
TEST PROCEDURES

Laboratory and Field Concrete Sample Matrix

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

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

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

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

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

Chloride lon Content Analysis

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diffusion Test

Bulk Diffusion Test

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

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

samples cast for each mixture. The samples were kept in a moist room with a sustained 100%

humidity for 28 days, removed from the moist conditions, and sliced on a water-cooled diamond

saw into two halves (Figure 4-1). The cut specimens were immersed in a saturated Ca(OH)2

solution in an environment with an average temperature of 73oF (23oC). The samples were

weighed daily in a surface-dry condition until their mass did not change by more than 0.1









Time Dependent Diffusion in Concrete

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

expressed as a power function:


D(t) =Dry tre' (2-8)

where D(t) diffusion coefficient at time t (instantaneous diffusion coefficient)
Dry the diffusion coefficient at some reference time tryf
m curve fitting constant that describes the rate of change of the diffusion coefficient.

The constant m depends on the concrete mix proportions such as the type of cementitious

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thomas et al. 1999).


















Dry Zone


MHW

Water
Level


Splash Zone

Tidal Zone


MLW


Submerged Zone


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


O 10 20 30 40


Cl Exposure Period (Years)


-X- 1-40(a)
-EB 3-40(a)


+ 2-40(a)
n Pile 44-2(b)


(a) Tang, L. 2003.
(b) Cannon et al. 2006.


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












Bulk Diffusion






~~y = 0.032x078
R2 = 0.757

0 5 10 15 2(
Bulk Diffusion (n~i/s)


SR (Moist) (28 Days) vs. 364-Day
Bulk Diffusion
0.3


S0.2-


S0.1 y=0080.763

R2 = 0.747


Bulk Diffusion

y 0.021xoo
-R2 0.745


l 'I
0 5 10 15
Bulk Diffusion (nI /)


SR (Moist) (14 Days) vs. 364-Day


0.3


S0.2
0.1


0 5 10 15
Bulk Diffusion (nI /s)


SR (Mloist) (56 Days) vs. 364-Day


SR (Mloist) (91 Days) vs. 364-Day
Bulk Diffusion
0.3
y = 0.016x.4
9 0.2 -1 R2 = 0.787


0.3


S0.2

0.1


0 5 10 15
Bulk Diffusion (nI /s)

SR (Moist) (182 Days) vs. 364-Day
Bulk Diffusion


0 5 10 15
Bulk Diffusion (nI /s)


SR (Moist) (364 Days) vs. 364-Day
Bulk Diffusion


0.3 -

-
S0.2 -


0.3 -


S0.2


0.863
y = 0.012x
R2 = 0.770


0.945
y = 0.009x
R2 = 0.744


0 5 10 15
Bulk Diffusion (nI /s)


Figure G-5. SR (Moist Cured) vs. 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficients (x Concrete mixture
containing Calcium Nitrite (CPR12). It was not include in the general correlation
calculations).














Table C-2. Continued.

MIX CPR21

Depth NaCl (blyd )
(in.) A B C AVG
0.0 -0.25 32.782 24.576 25.698 27.685
0.25 -0.50 22.953 20.168 13.717 18.946
0.50 -0.75 5.269 8.619 3.701 5.863
0.75 1.0 0.937 2.435 1.234 1.535
1.0 -1.25 0.401 0.467 0.369 0.412
1.25 1.5 0.416 0.328 0.304 0.349
1.5 -1.75 0.318 0.313 0.335 0.322
1.75 -2.0 0.455 0.345 0.326 0.375
2.0 -2.25
2.25 -2.5
2.5 -2.75
2.75 -3.0









conservative result. Applying this ratio to the Hield results ostensibly converts those diffusion

coefficients to a submerged condition as is shown in Figure 6-5. Comparing these diffusion

coefficients to the laboratory diffusion coefficients indicates that the 1 and 3 year bulk diffusion

coefficients are higher than the field values for a ten year period.

It is not clear why 1 and 3 year laboratory values are higher than the ten-year Hield values.

This analysis considered only the diffusion coefficients and not the chloride content at the level

of the steel. The diffusion coefficients are derived from fitting a curve to the chloride profile

data. It perhaps gives a better indication of the shape of the curve rather than a direct indication

of the chloride content at a certain depth. Further data are needed to better characterize this time

dependency. One suggestion is to obtain shorter and longer exposure periods in the laboratory

samples to establish time variations of the diffusion for the laboratory samples. This trend can

then be used to establish correlation with the longer-term results obtained from the field on

comparable mixtures. Nevertheless, it appears that the 1 and 3-year bulk diffusion results

overestimate the diffusion coefficients from ten-year old concrete in the field.










Table 5-8. Correlation Coefficients (R2) Of RCP to Reference Tests.


Test Conducted
Age (Days)


1-Year Bulk
Diffusion (a)


3 -Year Bulk
Diffusion (a)


Number of
Sample Sets


Test Procedure


0.59


0.39


RCP 28 0.67 0.47
56 0.81 0.70
(AASHTO T277) 91 0.80 0.76
182 0.79 0.78
364 0.77 0.81
(a) Concrete Mixture Containing Calcium Nitrite (35_752_4.5CN) was not included in the correlation.


Table 5-9. Correlation Coefficients (R2) Of Surface Resistivity to Reference Tests.


Test Conducted
Age (Days)
14
28
56
91
182
364
455
546
14


1-Year Bulk
Diffusion (a)


3 -Year Bulk
Diffusion (a)


Number of
Sample Sets


Test Procedure

Surface
Resi stivity
(Lime Cured)






Surface
Res~istiv~i t~


0.48
0.77
0.80
0.84
0.81
0.70
0.70
0.68
0.76


0.29
0.49
0.60
0.72
0.77
0.77
0.77
0.73
0.50


18
18
18
18
18
18
18
13(b)


LVICyIC 28
(Moist Cured) 56
91
182
364
455
546
(a) Concrete Mixture Containing Calcium Nitrite (35_752_


0.75 0.53
0.75 0.60
0.79 0.72
0.77 0.79
0.74 0.76
0.70 0.78
0.69 0.75
_4.5CN) was not included in the correlation.


(b) Fewer set of samples were available for this correlation.


Table 5-10. I and 3 year Bulk Diffusion Relative to 91-Day RCP Charge Passed (Coulombs).
91-Day RCP Charge Passed 1-Year Bulk Diffusion 3 -Year Bulk Diffusion
(Coulombs) (x10-12) (m2/S) (x10-12) (m2/S)


> 4,000
2,000 4,000
1,000 2,000
100 1,000
< 100


> 8.478
4.044 8.478
1.929 4.044
0.165 1.929
< 0.165


> 10.518
3.834 10.518
1.398 3.834
0.049 1.398
< 0.049









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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





























0 1 2 3 4

Depth (in)
Diffusion(m^2/sec)l 8.766E-13 BackgroundOl d3) 0.075
Surfacebl~yd^3) 71.946 Sum(Error)^2 0.343


CPR9 (Sample C) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion




S60 -


S40 --


S20 --



0 1 2 3 4

Depth (in)
Diffusion(m^2/sec)l 1.232E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.075
Surfacebl~yd^3) 78.7921 Sum(Error)^2 0.217


CPR10 (Sample B) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion




S60


S40 -


S20



0 1 2 3 4

Depth (in)
Diffusion(m^2/sec)l 2.425E-12 Backgroundnblvyd^3) 0.074
Surfacebl~yd^3) 47.7881 Sumn(Error)^2 3.795

Figure C-1. Continued.


0 1 2 3 4

Depth (in)
Diffusion(m^2/sec)l 1.206E-12 BackgroundOl d3) 0.075
Surfacebl~yd^3) 62.9791 Sum(Error)^2 0.30


CPR10 (Sample A) 364-Day Bulk Diffitsion
80Il



S60-


S40


S20



0 1 2 3 4

Depth (in)
Diffusion(m^2/sec)l 2.251E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.074
Surfacebl~yd^3) 57.6411 Sum(Error)^2 2.08


CPR10 (Sample C) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
80Il



S60-


S40


S20-



0 1 2 3 4

Depth (in)
Diffusion(m^2/sec)l 2.587E-1 Bcronld3) 0.074
Surfacebl~yd^3) 54.6011 Sumn(Error)^2 40.766


CPR9 (Sample A) 364-Day Bulk Diffitsion


CPR9 (Sample B) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion









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

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

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

equation can then be reduced to:

C (x, t) x
= 1- erf ( ) (2-3)

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

The Crank' s solution to Fick' s Second Law of Diffusion can also be presented in the

following form:


C~Jxt t)=C C,-C) (2-4)

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

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

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

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

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

solution (Figure 2-1).

Test Methods to Predict Permeability of the Concrete

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

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

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

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

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
















RCP (14 Days) vs. 364-Day BD
15000


o10000 -


500- + y = 1550.771xo7s
R2 = 0.592

0 5 10 15 20
Bulk Difliasion (x10m1) (n Is)

RCP (56 Days) vs. 364-Day BD
15000
y = 619.604x095
10000o -I R2 = 0.810


S 5000 p


RCP (28 Days) vs. 364-Day BD
15000


S10000-


S5000 y =1041.691x0.862
M R2 = 0.669

0 5 10 15 20
Bulk Difliasion (x10m1) (n Is)

RCP (91 Days) vs. 364-Day BD
15000
2 V~~ = 540.534x0.3
10000o -1 R2 =0.802


S 5000 -x


RCP (182 Days) vs. 364-Day BD
15000
2S y = 382.517x1.12
0 10000 -I R2 = 0.787


5000 -



0 5 10 15 20
Bulk Difliasion (x10m1) (n Is)


RCP (364 Days) vs. 364-Day BD
15000
2S y =259.604xt~s
o 10000 -I R2 = 0.770


5000 -1



0 5 10 15 20
Bulk Difliasion (x10m1) (n Is)


APPENDIX G
COMPARISON OF CONDUCTIVITY AND LONG-TERM LABORATORY DIFFUSION
TESTS


0 5 10 15 2
Bulk Difliasion (x10m1) (n Is)


0 5 10 15
Bulk Difliasion (x10m1) (n Is)


Figure G-1. RCP Coulombs vs. 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficients (x Concrete mixture
containing Calcium Nitrite (CPR12). It was not include in the general correlation
calculations).











I I


I


-m- RCP

-+ Suface Resistivity (ime)

-M- Suface Resistivity (Mloist)


0.8 -



S0.6 -

-

S0.4 -

-

0.2 -


a


-m- RCP

-+ Suface Resistivity (ime)

-x- Suface Resistivity (Mloist)


200 400
Age (Days)


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


1-



0.8 -



U 0.6 -

-

S0.4 -



0.2


200 400
Age (Days)


600


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










15000


2000


E 10000

o

PI 5000


a 1000

P.
500


10 20 :
Bulk Diffusion (x10 l) (m /)


0 1 2 3
Bulk Diffusion (x10 ')(m /s


Figure 5-19. Relating Electrical Tests and Bulk Diffusion. A) 1-Year Bulk Diffusion vs. RCP at
91 Days and B) 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficient Associated with a 91-Day RCP
Test of a 1000 Coulombs.


15000



E 10000

o

PI 5000
U


2000



150

a 1000

P.
C) 500


10 20 :
Bulk Diffusion (x10 ') (m /s)


0 1 2 3
Bulk Diffusion (x10 1) (m /s)


Figure 5-20. Relating Electrical Tests and Bulk Diffusion. A) 3-Year Bulk Diffusion vs. RCP at
91 Days and B) 3-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficient Associated with a 91-Day RCP
Test of a 1000 Coulombs.











- Fitted Correlation i
- 90% Confidence Limit


15473


*


10000


8000 -
600-


6000 -


8.924x10


-12


2000


0


Figure 7-3. 28-Day RCP Coulombs Limit with a 90%
with a Moderate Chloride Permeability.


Confidence Level for Concrete Elements


6000


- Fitted Correlation
- 90% Confdence Limit





2912



4.020x10


S4000




C. 2000


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


O 2 4 6 8 10
Bulk Diffusion (x10-12)(HI2/S)


Bulk Diffusion (x10 1)(m /s)










RCP (91 Days) vs. 1092-Day BD
0.8-


~0.4-



4 4*0.5 11.
~-0.4-

-0.8-
Log(BD(x10-12) (2/S))

SR(Moist) (91 Days) vs. 1092-Day
BD
0.8-

S0.4-



1 () 4.5 1 I1.5
S-0.4-

-0.8-
Log(BD(x10-12) (2/S))

SR(ime) (91 Days) vs. 1092-Day
BD
0.8-

S0.4-




S-0.4-

-0.8-
Log(BD(x10-12) (2/S))


RCP (91 Days) vs. 1092-Day BD



5



1 y = 0.687x + 2.900
c~l R2 = 0.755

0 0.5 1 1.5
Log(BD(x10-12) (2/s))

SR(Moist) (91 Days) vs. 1092-Day
BD

) 0 5 1 1 5
-0.5 -




3-1.5 -y =0.615x 1.632
R2 = 0.723
-2
Log(BD(x10-12) (2/s))

SR(ime) (91 Days) vs. 1092-Day
BD

) 0 5 1 1 5
-0.5 -




-1.5 y = 0.560x 1.566
R2 = 0.715
-2
Log(BD(x10-12) (2/s))


Figure F-2. Electrical Test Modified Linear Regression Analysis to 3-Year Bulk Diffusion Data
(x Concrete mixture containing Calcium Nitrite (CPR12). It was not include in the
general correlation calculations).










Glass, G.K., and Buenfeld, N.R. (1995). "Chloride threshold levels for corrosion induced
deterioration of steel in concrete." International RILEM Workshop.

Gowers, K.R. and Millard, S.G. (1999). "Measurement of Concrete Resistivity for Assessment of
Corrosion Severity of Steel Using Wenner Technique." ACI Materials Joumnal, 96(5), 536-
541.


Hooton, R.D. (1997). "Discussion of the rapid chloride permeability test and its correlation to the
90-day chloride ponding test." PCI Joumnal, 42(3), 65-66.

Hooton, R.D.,Thomas, M.D.A. and Stanish, K. (2001). "Prediction of Chloride Penetration in
Concrete." Final Report No. FHWA/RD-00/142, Federal Highway Administration.


Hughes, B.P., Soleit, A.K.O. and Brierly, R.W. (1985). "New Technique for Determining the
Electrical Resistivity of Concrete." Magazine of Concrete Research, 37(133), 243-248.


Kirkpatricka, T., Weyers, R.E., Anderson-Cook, C.M. and Sprinkel, M.M. (2002). "Probabilistic
Model for the Chloride-Induced Corrosion Service Life of Bridge Decks." Cement and
Concrete Research, 32(12), 1943-1960.

Kranc, S.C. and Sagties, A.A. (2003). "Advanced Analysis of Chloride lon Penetration Profiles
in Marine Sub structure." Final Report No. BB 880, Florida Department of Transportation.

Kondratova, I.L., Montes, P. and Bremner, T.W. (2003). "Natural Marine Exposure Results for
Reinforced Concrete Slabs with Corrosion Inhibitors." Cement and Concrete Composites,
25(4), 483-490.

Li, Z., Peng, J., and Ma, B. (1999). "Investigation of chloride diffusion for high-performance
concrete containing fly ash, microsilica, and chemical admixtures." ACI Materials Joumnal,
96(3), 391-396.

Luping, T. and Nilson, L.O. (1992). "Chloride Diffusivity in High-Strength Concrete at Different
Ages." Nordic Concrete Research, Publication No. 11.

Ma, B., Li, Z. and Peng, J. (1998). "Effect of Calcium Nitrite on High Performance Concrete
Containing Fly Ash". Supplementary Proceedings of the Six CANMET/ACI International
Conference on Fly Ash, Silica Fume, Slag and Natural Pozzolans in Concrete. Bangkok,
113-24.


Mangat, P.S. and Molloy, B.T. (1994). "Prediction of Long Term Chloride Concentration in
Concrete." Materials and Structures, 27, 338-346.









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

hours (McGrath and Hooton 1999).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Streicher and Alexander 1995).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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









Diffusion mechanism is considered the principal mechanism that drives chloride ions into

the pore structure of concrete (Tuutti 1982; Stanish and Thomas 2003). However, the AASHTO

T259 test set up induces a combined effect of diffusion, adsorption and vapor conduction

wickingg) mechanisms. Previous research (McGrath and Hooton 1999) has suggested that the

relative importance of the absorption effect is overestimated by the AASHTO T259 test set up.

Hooton, Thomas and Stanish (2001) have indicated that the relative amounts of chloride ions

drawn into the concrete by the absorption effect compared to the amount entering by diffusion

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

amounts during the lifetime of a structure. Moreover, they exposed that the wicking effect is also

overestimated by the test procedure. The actual structure humidity gradient will likely be less, at

least for part of the time, than the exposed during the test. Therefore, the use of a well-controlled

"diffusion only" ponding test as Bulk Diffusion test will improve the precision of the chloride

penetration profile and may more accurately reflect the extent of long-term penetration of

chloride into concrete than the AASHTO T259 test. Consequently, a method to relate the

equivalent measured charge in coulombs to the chloride ion permeability of the concrete based

on the Bulk Diffusion test is needed.

Curve fitting of the relationship between RCP or SR and the 1 and 3-year Bulk Diffusion

test results were previously presented. Figure 5-17 and Figure 5-18 shows the correlation

coefficients (R2) Of those fits as a function of the time at which the respective RCP test was

conducted. The plots are for 1 and 3-year Bulk Diffusion results. The R2 ValUeS for both Bulk

Diffusion ages increase dramatically for approximately the first 91-days. The RCP R2 reaches

plateau at 91 days when compared to those of 1-year Bulk Diffusion. This is believed to be

related to the high variability on the different pozzolan internal reactions at early age concretes.










Table 7-6. Allowable Surface Resistivity Values for a 28-Day Test for Concrete Elements Under
Extremely Aggressive Environments.
28-Day Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured)
Conductivity Resistivity Resistivity (Rounded Confidence
(1/(kOhm-cm)) (kOhm-cm) Values) (kOhm-cm) Level
0.0377 26.52 27 90%
0.0360 27.76 28 95%
0.0328 30.50 31 99%

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


28-Day Surface Resistivity Limits (KOhm-cm)


With Silica Fume or MK(3)


Without Silica Fume or MK(3)


37 31 28 27 37
14 14 14 14 5


0 0 0 0 1


Total
Number of
Mixtures
Number of
Passed
Mixtures
Percentage of
Passed
Mixtures
Total
Number of
Mixtures (2)
Number of
Passed
Mixtures
Percentage of
Passed
Mixtures


4 4


0% 0%


0% 20% 60% 80% 80%



462 40 40 40 40


2 2
.; N
4 &


2


462 462 462


7 16 25 28 8 18 19 20


4% 5%


6% 20% 45% 48% 50%


(1) All Mixtures were cast at the FDOT laboratory.
(2) All Mixtures were collected from actual job sites.
(3) Metakaolin.





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


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


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









Previous research has shown that the RCP test method presents some limitations when

applied to concrete modified with chemical admixtures as corrosion inhibitors (Shi, Stegemenn

and Caldwell 1998). Concrete modified with a corrosion inhibitor such as calcium nitrite exhibits

a higher coulomb value than the same concrete without the corrosion inhibitor when tested with

the RCP test. Yet long-term chloride ponding tests have indicated that concrete with calcium

nitrite is at least as resistant to chloride ion penetration as the control mixture. Conversely, the

RCP results compared with the 1 and 3 years Bulk Diffusion results tend to follow the same

trend as the other concrete mixtures. The calcium nitrite effect, however, is represented by only

one mixture on the entire specimen population. Consequently, there is not enough information to

draw a solid Einal conclusion from the available data results. Therefore, the concrete mixture

containing calcium nitrite (3 5_752_4.5CN) was not included on the general correlations with

long-term tests in order to establish a uniform level of comparison between all the electrical tests.

General levels of agreement (R2) to references are presented in Table 5-8. Moreover, detailed

graphs with their least-squares line-of-best fit for the complete set of data are presented in

APPENDIX G.

Surface Resistivity

The electrical conductivity derived from the surface resistivity test was also compared to

their respective 1 and 3 years Bulk Diffusion. The surface resistivity test was conducted using

two methods of curing, one at 100% humidity (moist cured) and the other in a saturated Ca(OH)2

solution (lime cured). Surface resistivity results from the two curing regimens at 14, 28, 56, 91,

182, 364, 455 and 546 days of age are compared to their respective diffusion test results. The

data were then fit with a curve to provide an empirical relationship between the short and long

term tests. Power function was selected because it provided the best fit with the relationship

between the two set of test results (APPENDIX F). Concrete modified with a corrosion inhibitor
















Table E-2. Continued.
56-Day Surface Resistivity (Lime Cured) (kQ.cm) CO 56-Day Surface Resistivity (ime Cured) (kR.cm) CO
MIX Sample Reading Locations (Deg.) Std. MIX Sample Reading Locations (Deg.) Std.
Average (%/) Average (%/)
0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270 Dev. O 90 180 270 0 90 180 270 Dev.
A 65 7 67 71 64 72 64 71 68 A 207 20 201 203 215 197 198 21 204
CPR1 B 68 64 71 65 65 63 68 65 661 67 010 151 CPR11 B 18 177 196 181 189 178 194 184 185 191 109 568
C 61 69 72 7 6 69 72 69 678 C 201 174 189 183 204 172 178 181 185
A 9 6 10 10 9 9 9 10 9 6 10 8 10 3 10 1 A 10 5 10 2 11 7 11 2 10 10 2 11 6 11 2 10 8
CPR2 B 9 8 9 7 9 3 9 9 7 9 1 9 8 9 9 31 9 3 0 89 9 58 CPR12 B 12 2 12 9 12 2 12 2 11 7 12 7 11 1 12 2 12 2 11 2 0 81 7 24
C 89 88 77 8 83 93 79 8 836 C 115 11 106 102 105 111 107 98 107
A 62 65 63 68 66 6 63 65 64 A 81 82 81 84 81 79 79 86 816
CPR3 B 62 58 58 58 59 57 57 58 584 62 029 466 CPR13 B 75 76 74 75 76 75 73 77 751 79 035 442
C 73 63 61 58 67 6 59 56 621 C 77 83 83 78 77 83 86 78 806
A 482 444 52 534 47 449 526 504 491 A 86 87 79 84 82 84 8 91 841
CPR4 B 55 9 53 3 50 5 48 1 57 4 49 5 52 1 48 5 51 9 48 4 3 87 7 99 CPR15 B 8 1 8 3 9 1 8 5 8 5 8 89 8X 8853 8 5 0 06 0 70
C 446 484 417 425 449 475 438X 407 443 C 84 82 93 78 86 85 88 79 844
A 105 111 116 106 107 127 114 10 111 A 89 91 89 97 88 91 91 101 921
CPR5 B 11 8 11 7 12 3 10 9 11 3 12 3 12 2 10 6 11 611 10 58 526 CPR16 B 9 3 9 7 8 6 10 4 9 8 9X 885 10 6 9 59 9 5 0 27 2 79
C 10 4 10 7 10 1 10 6 10 2 11 1 10 4 10 3 10 5 C 8 8 10 10 3 9 6 8 8 10 10 4 9 9 9 73
A 94 92 88 99 95 88 87 96 924 A 121 123 131 134 12 124 128 126 126
CPR6 B 9 6 9 4 9 4 9 1 9 2 9 6 9 4 9 8 9 44 9 5 0 24 2 52 CPR17 B 12 2 12 12 6 11 9 12 8 12 5 12 5 12 1 12 3 12 3 0 29 2 39
C 10 2 88 93 10 2 10 3 9 1 9 4 10 4 9 71 C 11 8 11 7 122 12 1 12 1 122 11 9 12 12
A 367 379 349 341 363 362 35 1 35 1 358X A 198 182 176 184 199 186 177 186 186
CPR7 B 35 3 35 1 36 4 36 7 34 37 36 3 37 6 36 1 36 5 1 03 2 82 CPR18 B 19 9 18 6 19 7 19 2 19 1 19 7 17 4 19 4 19 1 18 9 0 29 1 51
C 364 37 371 409 357 383 37 391 377 C 185 191 186 198 187 192 188 198 191
A 24 1 29 2 29 27 5 27 3 29 27 8 27 3 27 7 A 14 6 16 2 15 8 14 8 14 7 15 7 15 3 15 15 3
CPR8 B 268 289 265 272 264 294 269 27 1 274 279 065 232 CPPJO B 138X 159 165 162 146 153 158 157 155 15 5 0 18 1 14
S29 1 30 4 29 27 3 28 3 28 6 29 3 27 28 6 C 16 16 1 15 15 16 1 15 9 15 5 15 3 15 6
A 39 8 37 35 9 34 6 40 6 37 1 33 35 1 36 6 A 16 14 8 14 7 15 5 16 2 14 7 15 3 16 15 4
CPR9 B 37 2 33 8 39 2 32 8 36 4 34 38 7 34 6 35 8 37 3 1 92 5 14 CPR21 B 15 3 14 15 4 14 1 14 8 14 14 9 14 14 6 14 6 0 79 5 44
C 34 8 35 41 5 45 3 36 3 36 5 41 4 45 1 39 5 C 13 3 13 7 13 6 15 13 1 13 9 13 14 9 13 8
A 285 317 274 302 306 322 257 309 297
CPR10 B 29 1 32 2 29 7 29 6 25 2 30 6 317 30 6 298X 30 7 170 5 54
C 35 2 31 4 33 31 1 34 1 30 5 34 5 31 7 32 7
91-Day Surface Resistivity (Lime Cured) (kO.cm) 91-Day Surface Resistivity (Lime Cured) (kO.cm)
MIX Sample Reading Locations (Deg.) Std. CO AIX Sample Reading Locations (Deg.) Std.CO
Average (%/) Average (%/)
0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270 Dev. O 90 180 270 0 90 180 270 Dev.
A 73 83 77 83 72 82 76 85 789 A 234 226 218 23 228 218 211 227 224
CPR1 B 7 1 7 3 7 5 7 6 7 1 7 4 7 9 7 5 7 43 7 6 0 28 3 68 CPR11 B 19 5 18 7 22 1 20 18 6 18 6 20 8 19 8 19 8 20 9 1 37 6 57
C 71 73 78 76 66 73 78 76 739 C 214 192 204 198 221 202 206 198 204
A 112 109 112 105 112 108 116 11 111 A 111 11 126 121 108 105 127 124 117
CPR2 B 10 1 10 9 9 9 8 10 2 10 10 8 9 2 10 10 5 053 5 07 CPR12 B 12 4 13 1 11 5 13 3 11 9 11 6 11 5 12 9 12 3 11 6 0 64 5 53
C 10 4 9 7 9 7 12 2 10 1 9 8 9 7 11 5 10 4 C 11 11 11 1 109 11 1 109 11 109 11
A 87 71 76 82 71 71 69 77 755 A 89 9 1 89 93 89 91 87 86 894
CPR3 B 64 7 59 67 64 65 55 62 633 69 062 902 CPR13 B 82 82 83 87 82 85 84 83 835 87 031 358
C 75 74 72 58 69 68 68 57 676 C 86 91 91 85 84 94 89 86 883
A 63 8 52 63 2 61 4 58 5 56 59 1 64 6 59 8 A 9 8 10 1 9 6 10 1 10 4 10 3 9 8 10 5 10 1
CPR4 B 64 9 59 4 66 62 7 56 5 62 9 71 9 60 8 63 1 59 3 4 14 6 98 CPR15 B 9 8 10 5 10 7 9 8 10 7 10 3 10 3 9 8 10 2 10 3 0 24 2 35
C 55 7 60 8 55 3 49 7 54 1 54 7 57 1 51 9 54 9 C 10 7 10 11 10 3 10 6 10 1 11 6 10 1 10 6
A 149 161 146 137 14 163 158 138 149 A 129 138 122 144 124 132 13 145 133
CPR5 B 163 15 7 161 146 15 3 162 15 7 142 15 5 149 061 407 CPR16 B 142 139 136 159 156 145 142 146 146 137 080 584
C 134 137 16 146 133 142 156 136 143 C 125 141 142 112 123 141 135 128 131
A 11 6 11 6 10 8 11 6 11 7 10 9 11 6 11 4 11 4 A 15 1 16 3 17 7 17 15 8 16 8 17 7 16 4 16 6
CPR6 B 123 115 107 116 116 115 112 113 115 115 013 113 CPR17 B 176 166 175 158 172 164 159 149 165 164 028 169
C 114 105 115 123 125 107 115 128 117 C 156 163 162 159 167 158 161 16 161
A 378 431 383 381 402 401 368 397 393 A 312 285 287 30 314 293 295 294 298
CPR7 B 36 6 40 1 42 4 41 3 37 4 41 6 40 8 41 5 40 2 41 1 2 33 5 67 CPR18 B 31 5 32 2 30 9 29 2 29 3 30 2 29 7 28 9 30 2 29 3 1 24 4 23
C 37 7 43 2 43 47 4 43 4 43 2 44 6 47 43 7 C 25 5 282 285 293 266 289 27 29 1 279
A 35 2 38 33 6 33 4 33 7 36 9 33 6 33 8 34 8 A 20 4 20 3 20 6 20 20 9 20 19 4 20 3 20 2
CPR8 B 34 8 38 33 8 35 1 35 6 36 4 32 6 33 34 9 34 6 0 43 1 24 CPR20 B 19 2 20 6 19 2 21 5 20 8 19 6 21 4 21 1 20 4 20 4 0 18 0 86
C 344 33 5 35 1 33 3 343 33 5 35 6 33 2 341 C 201 22 217 189 206 208 202 204 206
A 422 369 358 363 445 393 389 355 387 A 247 253 229 219 225 252 232 229 236
CPR9 B 35 8 36 2 41 2 36 4 35 3 34 7 41 7 35 8 37 1 39 3 2 49 6 33 CPR21 B 22 2 22 5 22 9 21 4 22 3 22 9 23 4 21 22 3 23 5 1 18 5 02
C 36 6 40 6 41 4 49 38 4 40 7 42 7 46 6 42 C 25 2 263 23 5 244 25 9 25 9 23 6 22 7 24 7
A 31 233 228 4 31 30 732 727 430 730 7
CPR10 B 30 308X 318 315 30 6 29 9 319 319 31 1 32 1 2 23 6 93
S36 28 5 36 3 35 1 36 8 33 7 36 9 34 3 34 7









where: terf- effective age at which the DAVn occurs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and Thomas 2003).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Effective Diffusion Coefficients of Concrete Structures Exposed to Marine Environments

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

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

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

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

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

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









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

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

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

FDOT State Materials Office Research Laboratory (Gainesville).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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









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

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

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

aggressive marine environments with consistently high temperature and humidity. These

environment conditions forced the chloride intrusion through additional mechanisms. Chloride

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

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

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

from laboratory samples as "apparent" diffusion coefficients and "effective" for diffusion

coefficients calculated from samples exposed to field conditions.

A marine substructure element is intermittently subj ected to chloride exposure due to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

reinforcing steel (Thomas et al. 1995).

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

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

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









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





















By

ENRIQUE A. VIVAS


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2007










CHAPTER 7
RECOMMENDED APPROACH FOR DETERMINIG LIMITS OF CONDUCTIVITY TESTS

In the previous section, it was concluded that 91 days was the earliest age at which the

RCP and Surface Resistivity testing age correlated well with the chloride diffusion penetration of

a 1 or 3 year Bulk Diffusion test. More realistic diffusion coefficients associated with these test

results can be derived. However, the present FDOT specifications (FDOT 346 2004) require

shorter time period of 28 days to predicted diffusion rates for a specific mix design. Therefore,

the following recommendations present a method by which RCP and Surface Resistivity rapid

electrical tests can be calibrated so that, with reasonable confidence, diffusion coefficients can be

predicted from 28 days samples. It is anticipated that this approach would be used for quality

control purpose and not for service life prediction.

The original RCP coulomb limit standards (Table 2-1) are the staring point for the new

recommendations. These coulomb limits were derived in the original research from 91-day RCP

samples. Therefore, to maintain consistency with the original method and because this age

appears to be optimal for predicting the long-term chloride diffusion, the diffusion coefficient

associated with the coulombs limits for a 91-day test were selected as the "standards" for which

the allowable limits would be set when the RCP or SR test is conducted at 28 days after casting.

The 1-year Bulk Diffusion results derived from the Monte Carlo analysis were selected as the

"standard" benchmark coefficients (Table 5-12) for the analysis. The fundamental assumption is

that the selected diffusion coefficient is sufficiently low to give the desired service life with the

associated concrete cover.

RCP and Bulk Diffusion

The coulomb limits associated with the "standard" diffusion coefficients (Table 5-12) are

calculated from the trend line equation derived on the 28-day RCP correlation to the 1-year Bulk































I ~Depth (in) I
Diffusion(m^2/sec)l 5.829E-1 BackgroundOl d3) 0.16
Surfacebl~yd^3) 58.558 Sum(Error)^2 3258


CPR16 (Sample C) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion




S60


S40 -


S20 --



0 1 2 3 4

Depth (in)
Diffusion(m^2/sec)l 5.851E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.126
Surfacebl~yd^3) 44.1241 Sum(Error)^2 6.116


CPR17 (Sample B) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion




S60


S40 --


S20



0 1 2 3 4

Depth (in)
Diffusion(m^2/sec)l 5.729E-12 Backgrounnb/d"l3d^3 0.179
Surfacebl~yd^3) 27.0141 Sumn(Error)^2 2.928

Figure C-1. Continued.


0 1 2 3 4

Depth (in)
Diffusion(m^2/sec)l 5.723E-1 BackgroundOl d3) 0.126
Surfacebl~yd^3) 51.562 Sum(Error)^2 1.914


CPR17 (Sample A) 364-Day Bulk Diffitsion
80Il


S60-


S40


S20



0 1 2 3 4

Depth (in)
Diffusion(m^2/sec)l 3.027E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.17
Surfacebl~yd^3) 30.835 Sum(Error)^2 4.053


CPR17 (Sample C) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
80Il


S60-


S40


S20



0 1 2 3 4

Depth (in)
Diffusion(m^2/sec)l 4.526E-1 Bcronld3) 0.17
Surfacebl~yd^3) 26.3011 Sumn(Error)^2 1.103


CPR16 (Sample A) 364-Day Bulk Diffitsion


CPR16 (Sample B) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion


0 1 2 3 4


















NaCl (lblyd )
B C AVG

38.941 36.229 36.572
29.105 23.789 26.405
21.452 21.007 21.868
18.183 18.610 17.934
14.491 13.567 14.049
11.26 10.128 11.310
9.119 8.519 9.011
6.768 6.285 6.645
4.512 4.169 4.807
3.346 2.783 3.697
2.206 1.693 2.772
1.351 0.992 2.067


MIX CPR4

Depth
(in.) A
0.0 -0.25 38.985
0.25 -0.50 17.066
0.50 -0.75 3.553
0.75 1.0 0.861

1.0 -1.25 0.524
1.25 1.5 0.338
1.5 1.75 0.365
1.75 -2.0 0.297
2.0 -2.25
2.25 -2.5
2.5 -2.75
2.75 -3.0

MIX CPR6

Depth
(in.) A
0.0 -0.25 46.150
0.25 -0.50 33.319
0.50 -0.75 21.566
0.75 1.0 12.985
1.0 -1.25 5.993
1.25 1.5 2.060
1.5 -1.75 0.607
1.75 -2.0 0.423
2.0 -2.25
2.25 -2.5
2.5 -2.75
2.75 -3.0


NaCl (lblyd )
B C

42.387 35.510
16.198 14.251
3.701 3.363
0.966 1.195

0.475 0.554
0.369 0.348
0.380 0.314
0.306 0.285


AVG

38.961
15.838
3.539
1.007

0.518
0.352
0.353
0.296


NaCl (lblyd )
B C AVG

40.827 41.401 40.336
29.107 24.517 27.156
18.215 15.873 16.029
9.060 10.595 8.958
5.210 7.267 5.477
3.287 5.609 3.847
3.224 4.141 3.280
2.888 4.202 3.074
3.267 4.375 3.419
2.952 4.131 3.168


NaCl (lblyd )
B C

50.752 52.240
35.785 33.166
22.170 20.228
11.790 12.543
4.713 5.547
1.480 1.623
0.551 0.513
0.341 0.350


AVG

49.714
34.090
21.321
12.439
5.418
1.721
0.557
0.371


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


NaCl (lblyd )
B C AVG

48.040 46.615 46.920
35.387 33.338 33.025
22.518 22.259 22.732
17.604 18.464 18.322

14.951 13.151 13.698
9.737 8.800 9.340
5.864 5.611 6.066
3.502 3.011 3.613
2.098 1.214 1.833
1.225 0.506 0.912


MIX CPR1

Depth
(in.) A
0.0 -0.25 34.545
0.25 -0.50 26.321
0.50 -0.75 23.144
0.75 1.0 17.010
1.0 -1.25 14.090
1.25 1.5 12.543
1.5 -1.75 9.394
1.75 -2.0 6.883
2.0 -2.25 5.741
2.25 -2.5 4.962
2.5 -2.75 4.417
2.75 -3.0 3.858

MIX CPR3

Depth
(in.) A
0.0 -0.25 46.106
0.25 -0.50 30.350
0.50 -0.75 23.419
0.75 1.0 18.898

1.0 -1.25 12.992
1.25 1.5 9.483
1.5 1.75 6.724
1.75 -2.0 4.326
2.0 -2.25 2.188
2.25 -2.5 1.005
2.5 -2.75 -
2.75 -3.0 -

MIX CPR5

Depth
(in.) A
0.0 -0.25 38.780
0.25 -0.50 27.843
0.50 -0.75 13.999
0.75 1.0 7.220
1.0 -1.25 3.955
1.25 1.5 2.644
1.5 -1.75 2.475
1.75 -2.0 2.131
2.0 -2.25 2.616
2.25 -2.5 2.420
2.5 -2.75 -
2.75 -3.0 -


MIX CPR2

Depth NaCl (blyd )
(in.) A B C AVG
0.0 -0.25 39.658 42.397 39.408 40.488
0.25 -0.50 24.826 27.064 27.004 26.298
0.50 -0.75 16.312 17.004 15.944 16.420
0.75 1.0 8.230 10.622 10.422 9.758
1.0 -1.25 2.457 3.732 5.092 3.760
1.25 1.5 0.597 1.149 1.575 1.107
1.5 -1.75 0.203 0.449 0.406 0.353
1.75 -2.0 0.208 0.442 0.261 0.304
2.0 -2.25
2.25 -2.5
2.5 -2.75
2.75 -3.0










LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page

2-1 Fick' s Second Law of Diffusion Regression Analysis Example. ........._._._........._.......3 8

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3-1 Air Curing of Cast Concrete Specimens. ........._.._.. ................._ ..........5

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

3-3 Field Samples Curing during transport to Laboratory. ................... ...............5

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

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

3-6 Hurricane Pass Bridge (HPB) Sub structure Elements. ................... ...............6

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

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

3-9 Seabreeze West Bound Bridge (SWB) General Span View. .............. ....................6

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

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

3-12 Granada Bridge (GRB) Sub structure Elements ................ ...............62........... ..

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

3-14 Turkey Creek Bridge (TCB) Sub structure Elements. .................... ..............6










mm) slice was first removed to dress the top edge of the sample (Figure 4-3), and then the 2-inch

(51l-mm) thick sample required for the test was sliced (Figure 4-4). The sides of the specimens

were roughened (Figure 4-4) followed by application of Sikadur 32 Hi-Mod epoxy to seal the

specimen (Figure 4-5).

The second day of preparation began with the desiccation process to water-saturate the

samples. The specimens were placed in a desiccation chamber connected to a vacuum pump

capable of maintaining a pressure of less than 1 mm Hg (133 Pa). The vacuum was maintained

for three hours to remove the pore solution from the samples. The container was then filled with

boiled de-aerated water until the samples were totally submerged and the pump was left running

for an additional hour (Figure 4-6). The desiccation chamber was return to atmospheric pressure

and the samples were left submerged for 18 hours, plus or minus 2 hours.

After the samples were removed from the desiccation chamber, each sample was placed

into their acrylic cells and sealed with silicone (Figure 2-4 and Figure 4-7). The upper surface of

the specimen was left in contact with the 3.0 percent NaCl solution (this side of the cell was

connected to the negative terminal of the power supply) and the bottom face was exposed to the

0.3 N NaOH solution (this side of the cell was connected to the positive terminal of the power

supply). The test was left running for 6 hours with a constant 60-volt potential applied to the cell.

A data logging system recorded the temperature of the anolyte solution, charge passed, and

current every 5 minutes. Furthermore, it calculated the cumulative charge passed during the test

in coulombs by determining the area under the curve of current (amperes) versus time (seconds).

The three total readings from each sample were averaged to obtain a representative Einal result

for the specimens set.
















Table E-3. Continued.
455-Day Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) (lo.cm) 455-Day Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) (kO.cm)
MIX Sample Reading Locations (Deg.) Std. CO AIX Sample Reading Locations (Deg.) Std. C1
Average (%/) Average (%/)
0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270 Dev. O 90 180 270 0 90 180 270 Dev.
A 113 108 125 126 11 10 133 125 118 A 364 341 375 357 35 5 35 6 367 377 362
CPR1 B 10 1 9 8 10 4 10 2 9 8 9 8 10 4 10 9 10 2 11 3 0 93 8 28 CPR11 B 37 5 41 33 1 35 7 37 5 42 33 9 35 7 37 1 34 1 4 42 12 97
C 119 116 13 1 108 122 118 125 107 118 C 286 273 245 352 298 273 247 345 29
A 146 16 162 16 144 164 164 159 157 A 138X 127 112 137 13 9 122 121 138X 129
CPR2 B 13 8 13 3 13 3 14 2 13 1 13 7 14 13 3 13 6 14 3 1 26 8 79 CPR12 B 13 1 12 9 13 7 14 5 13 1 12 7 14 6 14 3 13 6 12 9 0 73 5 67
C 12 8 5 9 14 8 14 6 13 9 16 15 1 15 2 13 5 C 12 5 11 9 11 7 124 12 1 12 12 1 12 5 12 2
A 82 93 87 93 81 95 96 101 91 A 112 116 113 108 119 117 116 11 114
CPR3 B 9 7 9 7 9 7 10 4 9 7 9 8 10 2 10 4 9 95 9 4 0 45 4 73 CPR13 B 10 6 10 6 10 5 10 6 10 9 11 1 10 5 11 1 10 7 11 0 0 35 3 16
C 95 9 9X 889 9 2 8 8 10 1 9 9 29 C 9 9 11 9 11 10 7 9 7 11 3 10 8 11 5 10 9
A 116 98 2 119 108 119 98 2 112 113 110 A 29 1 25 6 20 9 27 1 27 8 24 9 18 4 28 1 25 2
CPR4 B 111 112 106 115 115 122 114 117 114 112 1 1 75 1 56 CPR15 B 32 3 22 1 23 8 22 2 26 4 25 6 25 5 22 8 25 1 24 6 0 98 400
C 96 4 103 132 120 105 101 127 113 112 C 26 9 21 6 23 2 23 1 23 5 22 6 24 5 22 3 23 5
A 44 4 44 9 47 6 46 3 43 45 6 47 4 45 4 45 6 A 42 7 48 3 34 6 40 5 48 9 49 35 4 35 3 41 8
CPR5 B 47 9 54 1 45 6 44 3 47 6 48 8 46 5 44 47 4 47 3 1 74 3 67 CPR16 B 37 3 35 8 32 4 29 5 34 8 35 2 35 7 30 8 33 9 37 2 4 12 11 06
C 49 7 45 4 50 8 52 6 46 3 46 2 47 6 53 8 49 1 C 38 4 32 9 35 6 36 40 5 35 3 33 8 34 6 35 9
A 258 275 258 278 269 294 269 286 273 A 398 338 382 365 338 337 362 358 36
CPR6 B 25 6 25 2 25 8 30 8 27 22 5 25 8 30 2 26 6 26 9 0 39 1 45 CPR17 B 36 3 28 5 29 6 26 4 25 2 30 31 4 28 29 4 33 2 3 41 10 25
S263 266 272 271 27 258 275 263 267 C 34 323 338 329 348 342 375 351 343
A 50 6 52 4 50 6 47 9 48 9 50 3 49 7 46 1 49 6 A 108 114 101 104 92 1 115 103 0 1 91 9
CPR7 B 45 8 40 7 44 7 47 1 45 3 41 7 45 47 8 44 8 46 8 2 47 5 28 CPR18 B 89 6 86 7 885 93 91 3 91 5 91 7 94 4 90 8 92 7 2 33 2 51
C 47 9 47 7 44 1 45 4 47 5 47 4 44 7 44 5 46 2 C 108 85 4 85 7 104 92 9 98 4 95 6 92 9 95 3
A 642 588 618 572 606 574 607 612 602 A 37 429 366 469 368 399 387 424 402
CPR8 B 602 665 672 615 627 676 681 618 645 596 5 17 866 CPR20 B 475 395 422 325 425 396 412 324 397 402 055 137
C 474 516 50 598 556 519 557 614 542 C 446 412 392 425 378 374 418 417 408
A 495 476 508 568 513 478 53 3 566 517 A 83 2 714 695 704 767 682 75 5 702 73 1
CPR9 B 45 5 48 3 54 4 49 8 47 5 49 54 2 49 9 49 8 51 5 1 59 3 08 CPR21 B 77 70 3 70 5 69 9 72 7 75 2 69 7 73 8 72 4 70 4 4 09 5 81
C 54 8 50 52 8 54 3 51 4 50 1 53 2 57 2 53 C 71 2 72 2 64 4 66 5 62 2 61 8 61 7 65 7 65 7
A 828 859 882 845 803 856 848 862 848
CPR10 B 76 3 85 84 3 92 3 76 7 85 8 79 8 93 7 84 2 827 3 12 3 77
C 802 723 83 6 763 815 771 872 749 791
546-Day Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) (kO.cm) 546-Day Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) (kO.cm)
MIX Sample Reading Locations (Deg.) Std. CO AIX Sample Reading Locations (Deg.) Std. C1
Average (%/) Average (%/)
0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270 Dev. O 90 180 270 0 90 180 270 Dev.
A 10 4 12 11 7 10 1 10 3 11 3 11 6 9 4 10 9 A 33 5 38 3 43 3 36 8 34 5 35 4 42 9 35 3 37 5
CPR1 B 9 5 10 3 10 2 9 9 7 10 6 10 9 4 9 84 10 6 0 65 6 14 CPR11 B 38 29 2 36 6 40 7 37 5 32 4 34 8 39 1 36 34 6 3 76 10 84
S11 101 121 112 113 103 121 103 111 C 29 357 28 273 308 364 262 297 304
A 138 142 152 149 135 148 16 148 147 A 115 136 128 128 133 149 115 122 128
CPR2 B 13 1 12 6 13 13 13 6 12 6 12 8 12 4 12 9 13 9 0 91 6 55 CPR12 B 12 1 11 6 11 11 1 13 6 11 10 6 11 6 11 6 12 9 1 36 10 53
C 129 138 135 154 137 143 14 157 142 C 134 136 144 138 146 135 163 147 143
A 77 85 81 87 78 88 84 89 836 A 113 115 117 106 106 112 117 104 111
CPR3 B 9 4 9 3 9 6 9 5 9 3 9 2 9 7 9 7 9 46 8 9 0 56 6 30 CPR13 B 10 6 10 7 11 11 4 10 6 10 7 10 8 11 10 9 10 9 0 19 1 78
C 88 8 7 9 8 6 8X 886 9 8 5 8 75 C 10 5 11 4 10 4 11 10 5 10 8 11 3 10 1 10 8
A 113 107 103 102 117 110 106 102 108 A 26 7 27 8 22 8 30 5 26 2 27 5 22 9 30 8 26 9
CPR4 B 104 114 102 109 102 117 99 6 107 107 106 5 1 23 1 15 CPR15 B 33 3 31 5 29 6 27 4 33 2 31 30 4 27 9 30 5 28 5 1 88 6 60
C 94 1 111 119 93 4 98 2 112 118 95 5 105 C 26 8 27 2 29 3 28 5 28 7 26 7 28 4 27 7 27 9
A 44 7 42 4 48 43 5 45 4 43 8 44 3 42 1 44 3 A 46 8 46 5 35 7 36 4 45 49 2 35 3 36 41 4
CPR5 B 448 448 442 438 451 463 461 465 452 454 130 287 CPR16 B 367 324 36 379 381 372 358 385 366 378 317 839
C 431 512 469 437 454 525 459 461 469 C 35 353 325 363 397 349 342 351 354
A 28 1 28 5 31 7 28 7 29 3 30 2 30 8 30 5 29 7 A 38 1 43 1 45 8 41 3 42 7 41 44 5 45 3 42 7
CPR6 B 27 8 25 2 27 3 31 3 28 6 26 5 27 5 31 6 28 2 28 5 1 10 3 87 CPR17 B 35 37 6 38 1 36 1 36 3 39 1 40 2 36 3 37 3 39 6 2 78 7 02
S26 8 26 5 27 6 29 27 27 1 27 5 29 1 27 6 C 41 7 32 3 32 9 38 9 39 3 40 2 44 1 41 2 38 8
A 47 3 44 1 47 2 48 7 47 3 41 7 45 2 48 1 46 2 A 127 126 128 121 139 139 126 113 127
CPR7 B 43 2 45 7 40 3 37 1 43 8 38 8 41 2 40 5 41 3 43 6 2 46 5 64 CPR18 B 109 114 114 116 109 113 110 118 113 119 2 7 43 6 23
C 44 5 43 1 42 8 43 5 43 5 40 2 43 6 44 7 43 2 C 110 119 125 114 119 114 121 117 117
A 64 4 61 1 63 4 62 7 64 4 62 5 61 3 60 9 62 6 A 44 8 46 7 48 7 51 8 44 6 45 2 50 9 51 4 48
CPR8 B 666 683 747 67 681 696 726 581 681 652 279 428 CPR20 B 535 55 1 534 423 569 537 524 444 515 499 175 351
C 61 1 59 2 59 5 74 2 71 3 72 3 59 9 60 5 64 8 C 50 1 47 2 48 9 53 2 50 3 47 1 52 5 52 8 50 3
A 55 6 55 9 53 51 9 55 4 64 54 53 7 55 4 A 103 85 3 93 4 87 1 102 88 4 89 4 893 92 3
CPR9 B 49 6 53 6 57 8 52 5 48 7 54 55 5 54 8 53 3 55 6 2 39 4 29 CPR21 B 87 86 6 86 5 93 2 867 83 9 824 90X 8 71 86 6 5 88 6 79
C 575 60 595 538 564 625 591 558 581 C 773 878 748 882 772 782 772 835 805
A 91 794 2 83892 8 7 7 95 90 993 791 2
CPR10 B 87 1 94 1 93 1 107 86 4 96 1 92 1 106 95 3 90 3 5 53 6 13
C 899 785 889 873 808 829 812 85 2 843









Surface Resistivity Test

The Surface Resistivity test was conducted conforming to Florida Method of Test

designation FM 5-578. The Surface Resistivity was measured on 4-inch (102-mm) diameter by

8-inch (204-mm) long concrete cylinders. To evaluate the effect of curing, two sets of three

samples each were tested. The first set was kept in a moist room with a sustained 100%

humidity, and the other in saturated Ca(OH)2 Solution (dissolved in tap water) tanks. Due to its

nondestructive test nature, the test was performed to a wider amount of ages than the other

electrical tests. For the purpose of this proj ect, the samples were tested at 14, 28, 56, 91, 182,

364, 454 and 544 days. Additionally, these samples are being monitoring until no further

changes in the surface resistivity reading is observed as part of another research proj ect.

Commercial four-probe Wenner array equipment was utilized for resistivity measurements. The

model used had wooden plugs in the end of the probes that were pre-wetted with a contact

medium to improve the electrical transfer with the concrete surface (Figure 4-8). The inter-probe

spacing was set to 1.5-inch (38-mm) for all measurements.

On the day of testing the samples were removed from their curing environment and the

readings were taken under surface wet condition. Readings were then taken with the instrument

placed such that the probes were aligned with the cylinder axis. Four separate readings were

taken around the circumference of the cylinder at 90-degrees increments (Oo, 90o, 180o and 2700)

This process was repeated once again, in order to get a total of eight readings that were then

averaged. This minimized possible interference due to the presence of a single aggregate particle

obstructing the readings (Chini, Muszynski and Hicks 2003).

Bridge Core Sample Chloride lon Content Analysis

The core samples obtained from the bridge substructures were profiled at varying depths to

obtain their respective acid-soluble chloride content in accordance with the FDOT standard test
























0 5 10 15
Bulk Diffusion (m2/S)


SR (ime) (455 Days) vs. 364-Day
Bulk Diffusion


SR (Lime) (546 Days) vs. 364-Day
Bulk Diffusion


y = 0.010x0.823
R2 = 0.682


S0.2 -


o~
0.1


y 0.011x
R2 0.695


U 0.2 1

-
0.1


0 5 10 15
Bulk Diffusion (m2/s)


Figure G-3. Continued.





























0 12 3 4

Depth (in)
Diffusion(m^2/sec)l 2.165E-1 Background(lyd3) 0.259
Surfacebl~yd^3) 47.2661 Sum(Error)^2 196.8


CPR18 (Sample C) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion




S60


S40 --


S20 --





Depth (in)
Diffusion(m^2/sec)l 1.459E-12 Backgroun(b/d"l3d^3 0.259
Surfacebl~yd^3) 54.7861 Sum(Error)^2 62.999


CPR20 (Sample B) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion




S60


S40 --


S20





Depth (in)
Diffusion(m^2/sec)l 1.891E-12 Backgroundnblvyd^3) 0.119
Surfacebl~yd^3) 58.7661 Sum(Error)^2 19.541

Figure C-2. Continued.


01 23 4

Depth (in)
Diffusion(m^2/sec)l 2.412E-12 Background(lyd3) 0.259
Surfacebl~yd^3) 39.7261 Sum(Error)^2 151.98


CPR20 (Sample A) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion




S60-


S40


S20





Depth (in)
Diffusion(m^2/sec)l 3.004E-12 Bakrudl~yd^3) 0.119
Surfacebl~yd^3) 48.18 Sum(Error)^2 17.569


CPR20 (Sample C) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
80Il


S60


S40


S20-





Depth (in)
Diffusion(m^2/sec)l 1.730E-12 Bakgondld3) 0.119
Surfacebl~yd^3) 68.01 Sum(Error)^2 9.173


CPR18 (Sample A) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion


CPR18 (Sample B) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion


























Table 7-4. Allowable RCP Values for a 28-Day Test with a 95% Confidence Levels for Concrete
Elements with Different Chloride Permeability.


Table 7-5. Allowable RCP Values for a 28-Day Test with a 99% Confidence Levels for Concrete
Elements with Different Chloride Permeability.
Current Research Allowable RCP Limits 99%
AASHTO T277 Standard Limits
Confidence Level
1-Year Bulk 28-Day RCP
Chloride 9lDyRP Diffusion Charge Passed
Charge Passed -12~LZ Charge Passed
Permeability (x0)(Rounded Values)
(Coulombs) (2is (COulombs) Cuo s


Table 7-3. Allowable RCP Values for a 28-Day Test with a 90% Confidence Levels for Concrete


Elements with Different

AASHTO T277 Standard Limits


Chloride Permeability.
Current Research Allowable RCP Limits 90%
Confidence Level


1-Year Bulk
Diffusion

(m /s)
> 8.924
4.020 8.924
1.820 4.020
0. 162 1.820
< 0.162


28-Day RCP

Charge Passed
(C Oulomb s)
> 5,473
2,991 5,473
1,422 2,991
113 -1,422
< 113


91-Day RCP
Charge Passed
(C oulomb s)

> 4,000
2,000 4,000
1,000 2,000
100 1,000
< 100


Chloride
Permeability

High
Moderate
Low
Very Low
Negligible


Charge Passed
(Rounded Values)
(Coulomb s)
> 5,450
2,950 5,450
1,400 2,950
110 -1,400
< 110


Current Research Allowable RCP Limits 95%
Confidence Level


AASHTO T277 Standard Limits


1-Year Bulk
Diffusion
(x10 ) >
(m /s)
> 8.924
4.020 8.924
1.820 4.020
0. 162 1.820
< 0.162


28-Day RCP

Charge Passed
(C Oulomb s)
> 5,105
2,861 5,105
1,335 -2,861
93 -1,335
< 93


91-Day RCP
Charge Passed
(C oulomb s)

> 4,000
2,000 4,000
1,000 2,000
100 1,000
< 100


Chloride
Permeability

High
Moderate
Low
Very Low
Negligible


Charge Passed
(Rounded Values)
(Coulomb s)
> 5,100
2,850 5,100
1,300 -2,850
90 1,300
< 90


> 4,400
2,600 4,400
1,150 -2,600
60 1,150
< 60


High
Moderate
Low
Very Low
Negligible


> 4,000
2,000 4,000
1,000 2,000
100 1,000
< 100


> 8.924
4.020 8.924
1.820 4.020
0. 162 1.820
< 0.162


> 4,427
2,614 -4,427
1,174 -2,614
61 -1,174
< 61






























I ~Depth (in) I
Diffusion(m^2/sec)l 2.346E-1 Background(lyd3) 0.185
Surfacebl~yd^3) 58.64 Sum(Error)^2 31.993


CPR11 (Sample C) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion



S60 -


S40


S20



0 1 2 3 4

Depth (in)
Diffusion(m^2/sec)l 1.776E-1 Background(lblyd^3) 0.185
Surfacebl~yd^3) 62.573 Sum(Error)^2 8.68


CPR12 (Sample B) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion



60- -


~40- -

$ 0 O
O O



0 1 2 3 4

Depth (in)
Diffusion(m^2/sec)l 1.505E-11 Bsackgroundnblvd^3)1 0.141
Surfacebl~yd^3) 1' \'-\1 sunRI-.1ini1! 2 106.19

Figure C-2. Continued.


I ~Depth (in)
Diffusion(m^2/sec)l 2.785E-12 Background(lyd3) 0.185
Surfacebl~yd^3) 54.68 Sum(Error)^2 115.51


CPR12 (Sample A) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion



6 60-


S40


S20-

eI I

0 1 2 3 4

Depth (in)
Diffusion(m^2/sec)l 8.174E-12 Bakrudl~yd^3) 0.141
Surfacebl~yd^3) 43.1461 Sum(Error)^2 141.8


CPR12 (Sample C) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion



S60-


S40


S20-



0 1 2 3 4

Depth (in)
Diffusion(m^2/sec)l 1.121E-11 b Bcronld3) 0.141
Surfacebl~yd^3) 41.5761 Sumn(Error)^2 70.94


CPR11 (Sample A) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion


CPR11 (Sample B) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion


0 1 2 3 4


0 1 2 3 4



































0.848
y 0.016x
R2 0.787







x Calcium Nitrite Mix


0 10 20 30
Bulk Diffusion (x10 1) (m /s)


V.,
y=0.02X0.763

R2 0.747
0.2 -



0.1 +

x Calcium Nitrite Mix


0 10 20 3
Bulk Diffusion (x10 ') (m /s)


u 0.2
I

0.1


u 0.2
I

0.


10 20 1
Bulk Diffusion (x10 1) (m /s)


10 20 30
Bulk Diffusion (x10 1) (m /s)


Figure 5-9. 3-Year Bulk Diffusion vs. SR (Lime Cured) Conductivity at: A) 28 Days and B) 91
Days.


0.3



S0.2

0.1


Figure 5-10. 1-Year Bulk Diffusion vs. SR (Moist Cured) Conductivity at: A) 28 Days and B) 91
Days.









LIST OF REFERENCES


AASHTO T 23 (1993). "Standard Method of Test for Making and Curing Concrete Test
Specimens." American Association of States Highway and Transportation Officials.

AASHTO T 259-80 (1993). "Standard Method of Test for Resistance of Concrete to Chloride
lon Penetration." American Association of States Highway and Transportation Officials.

AASHTO T 260 (1997). "Standard Method of Test for Sampling and Testing for Chloride lon in
Concrete and Concrete Raw Materials." American Association of States Highway and
Transportation Officials.

AASHTO T 277-86 (1990). "Rapid Determination of the Chloride Permeability of Concrete."
American Association of States Highway and Transportation Officials.

ASTM C 39 (1999). "Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete
Specimens." American Society for Testing and Materials.

ASTM C 138 (2001). "Standard Test Method for Density (Unit Weight), Yield, and Air Content
(Gravimetric) of Concrete." American Society for Testing and Materials.

ASTM C 143 (2000). "Standard Test Method for Slump of Hydraulic Cement Concrete."
American Society for Testing and Materials.

ASTM C 173 (2001). "Standard Test Method for Air Content of Freshly Mixed Concrete by the
Volumetric Method." American Society for Testing and Materials.

ASTM C 1064 (1999). Standard Test Method for Temperature of Freshly Mixed Portland
Cement Concrete." American Society for Testing and Materials.

ASTM C1152/C1152M (1990). "Standard Test Method for Acid-Soluble Chloride in Mortar and
Concrete." American Society for Testing and Materials.

ASTM C 1202 (1997). "Standard Test Method for Electrical Indication of Concrete' s Ability to
Resist Chloride lon Penetration." American Society for Testing and Materials.

Andrade, C. (1993). "Calculation of chloride diffusion coefficients in concrete from ionic
migration measurements." Cement and Concrete Research, 23(3), 724-742.

Ann, K.Y., Jung, H.S., Kim, H.S. and Moon,H.Y. (2005). "Effect of Calcium Nitrite-Based
Corrosion Inhibitor in Preventing Corrosion of Embedded Steel in Concrete." Cement and
Concrete Research, 36(3), 530-535.





























0 1 2 3 4

Depth (in)
Diffusion(m^2/sec)l 2.299E-1 BackgroundOl d3) 0.233
Surfacebl~yd^3) 54.78 Sum(Error)^2 3.243


CPR7 (Sample C) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion




S60


S40 --


S20 --



0 1 2 3 4

Depth (in)
Diffusion(m^2/sec)l 1.656E-1 Background(lblyd^3) 0.233
Surfacebl~yd^3) 60.3261 Sum(Error)^2 1.66


CPR8 (Sample B) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion




S60 -


S40 --


S20



0 1 2 3 4

Depth (in)
Diffusion(m^2/sec)l 2.729E-12 Backgrounnb/d"l3d^3 0.06
Surfacebl~yd^3) 66.2981 Sumn(Error)^2 10.26

Figure C-1. Continued.


0 1 2 3 4

Depth (in)
Diffusion(m^2/sec)l 2.255E-1 BackgroundOl d3) 0.233
Surfacebl~yd^3) 55.418 Sum(Error)^2 4.376


CPR8 (Sample A) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
80Il



S60-


S40


S20



0 1 2 3 4

Depth (in)
Diffusion(m^2/sec)l 2.351E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.096
Surfacebl~yd^3) 55.771 Sum(Error)^2 9.72


CPR8 (Sample C) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
80Il



S60-


S40


S20-



0 1 2 3 4

Depth (in)
Diffusion(m^2/sec)l 3.562E-1 Bcronld3) 0.096
Surfacebl~yd^3) 57.763 Sumn(Error)^2 3.753


CPR7 (Sample A) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion


CPR7 (Sample B) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion










CHAPTER 8
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This work details results of a research proj ect aimed at evaluating currently available

conductivity tests and compare the results of these tests to those from long-term diffusion tests.

Rapid Chloride Permeability (RCP) and Surface Resistivity (SR) were evaluated. The long-term

test Bulk Diffusion was selected as a benchmark to evaluate conductivity tests. This test was

conducted using 1 and 3 years chloride exposure. Diffusion coefficients from Bulk Diffusion test

results were determined by fitting the data obtained in the chloride profiles analysis to Fick' s

Diffusion Second Law equation. The electrical results from the short-term tests RCP and SR at

14, 28, 56, 91, 182 and 364 days of continuous moist curing were then compared to the long-

term diffusion reference test. Moreover, cored samples obtained at the tidal zone of marine

exposure from several bridge structures around the state of Florida were obtained to be compared

to the laboratory diffusion results. Conclusions were as follows:

The SR test was conducted using two methods of curing, one at 100% humidity (moist

cured) and the other in a saturated Ca(OH)2 Solution (lime cured). The comparison of

results of the SR tests between the two curing procedures showed no significant

differences. Therefore, it is concluded that either of the methods will provide similar

results.

The mixture proportions affected directly the rate of chloride diffusion into concrete. The

mixture designs with the higher water-cementitious ratios, lower cementitious contents

and without the presence of pozzolans showed significantly higher diffusion coefficients

compared with the rest of the samples. Furthermore, the addition of metakaolin decreased

the chloride diffusion compared to the control mixture about 70 percent for the 1 and 3

years of exposure results. Moreover, the addition of silica fume, ground blast furnace slag










Table 5-4. 3-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficients.
3 -Year Bulk Diffusion (x10-1) (m2/SOC)


Coefficient of
Standard Variation
Deviation (%)
2.991 11
0.502 10
2.281 21
0.308 35
0.042 2
0.100 3
0.165 8
0.226 9
0.187 13
0.036 2
0.506 22
3.448 30
7.174 28
0.791 8
0.565 18
0.421 17
0.495 25
0.694 31
0.135 10


Mixture Name
49 564
35 752
45 752
28 900 8SF 20F
35 752 20F
35 752 12CF
35 752 8SF
35 752 8SF 20F
35 752 10M
35 752 10M 20F
35_752_50Slag
35 752 4.5CN
45 570
29 450 20F
33 658 18F
34 686 18F
30 673 20F
28 800 20F
29 770 18F


Sample A
29.829
5.371
9.706
1.212
2.160
3.806
1.796
2.850
1.601
2.168
2.346
8.174
31.792
10.036
3.426
2.305
2.165
3.004
1.517


Sample B
25.367
4.383
8.962
0.850
2.240
3.711
2.126
2.683
1.227
2.108
2.785
15.054
26.808
10.012
2.527
2.265
2.412
1.891
1.384


Sample C
24.146
5.034
13.232
0.600
2.224
3.606
1.951
2.402
1.392
2.172
1.776
11.208
17.648
11.394
3.570
3.013
1.459
1.730
1.246


Average
26.448
4.929
10.633
0.887
2.208
3.708
1.958
2.645
1.407
2.149
2.303
11.479
25.416
10.481
3.174
2.528
2.012
2.208
1.382









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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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













Best-fit-curve based on
Power Function Model


Bulk Diffusion (m /s)



Family of Curves Fitted to the Random
Variables Generated
-*** ;


Bulk Diffusion (m Is)


RCP Limit


Y
FI
~ 'G
~rFI
rc~
aO




a


Bulk Diffusion (m2/S)


Bulk Diffusion (m Is)


Figure 5-21. Schematic Process of Bulk Diffusion Correlation to RCP Using Monte Carlo
Simulation: A) Generating Data Parameters from Normal Random Variables, B)
Curve Fitting of Generated Variables Based on Power Function Model, C) Family of
Curves Generated for each Set of Random Variables, D) Associated Bulk Diffusion
Coefficients to the RCP Limits of each Fitted Curve and E) Bulk Diffusion Histogram
for Simulated Data.










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


Materials
Portland
Cement



Fly-Ash


Silica Fume



Water
Fine
Aggregate
Coarse
Aggregate

Air Entrainer


HPB
Florida Mining &
Materials
AASHTO M-85
Type II
Florida Mining &
Materials Class F

W.R. GRACE
DARACEM 10,000

Port Manatee, FL
Florida Crushed Stone
Silica Sand


BRB
Pennsuco Tarmac
AASHTO M-85
Type II

Boral Bowen Class F


Master Builders MB-SF
110


Dayton Beach, FL
Florida Rock Ind. Silica
Sand


SWB
BROCO (Brooksville)
AASHTO M-85
Type II

Florida Mining &
Materials Class F

W.R. GRACE
DARACEM 10,000D

Orlando, FL
Florida Rock Ind. Silica
Sand

Martin Marietta
Aggregates Crushed
Granite
W.R. GRACE DAREX


W.R. GRACE WRDA
64

W.R. GRACE
DARACEM 100


Florida Crushed Stone Martin Marietta


Crushed Limestone

W.R. GRACE
Daravair 79


Aggregates Crushed
Granite
Master Builders MBAE
90


Water Reducer W.R. GRACE WRDA


Master Builders
POZZ .200N


Super
Plasticizer


W.R. GRACE WRDA Master Builders RHEO
19 1,000










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

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

5-11 3-Year Bulk Diffusion vs. SR (Moist Cured) Conductivity .............. .....................0

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

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

5-14 AASHTO T259 Total Integral Chloride Content Analysis. ............. ......................0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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










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

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

of the date and location of the cores were extracted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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









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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

in the Hield.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Field Core Sampling

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

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

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

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









Concrete mixtures containing highly reactive pozzolans as silica fume will react faster than

mixtures containing slower reacting pozzolans as fly ash. However, as the concrete internal

hydration takes place, these reactions will be reduced. Consequently, the short-term test results

obtained from these more stable mixtures will correlate better to the long-term specimens. RCP

samples compared to those of 3-year Bulk Diffusion achieve a maximum R2 value at 1 year of

testing. R2 ValUeS from correlations of Surface Resistivity tests (Table 5-9) to the references were

also included in the comparison with similar results. Even duo the maximum R2 Value for the 3-

year Bulk Diffusion results is reached at 1-year RCP, the 91-day R2 is considered also a

reasonable correlation level. Therefore based on the reduced variability reached at 91-days, it is

concluded that the earliest effective age at which the RCP and SR will correlate with the 1 or 3

year Bulk Diffusion test is 91 days. Furthermore, the relationship between the 91-day RCP

results and the BD tests can be used to derive a target Bulk Diffusion coefficient for Florida

concretes. This target is based on the 1000 coulomb requirement that is commonly used to

characterize durable concrete. The ultimate goal is to be able to predict a 1 or 3-year Bulk

Diffusion from a test conducted at 91-days. The diffusion coefficient related to a given coulomb

value can be obtained from the trend line equation of the test correlations as shown in Figure

5-19 and Figure 5-20. Table 5-10 shows a complete scale for categorizing 91 day RCP results

related to the chloride permeability measured by a 1 and 3 year Bulk Diffusion test.

Refinement of the Long-Term Diffusion Coefficient Prediction Using Monte Carlo
Simulation

Closed form statistical solutions were used to develop the scale presented in the previous

section. 91-days was found to be the earliest effective testing age to predict the chloride diffusion

penetration of a 1 and 3 year Bulk Diffusion test when using either SR or RCP. The proposed

diffusion coefficients related to a given coulomb value were obtained from a fit of the available










CHAPTER 5
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Fresh Properties

Several quality control procedures were executed during mixing and casting of the test

samples for the laboratory and field mixtures. The results obtained from the standard testing

procedures for slump (ASTM C 143), air content (ASTM C 173), concrete temperature (ASTM

C 1064), air temperature and unit weight of the concrete (ASTM C 13 8) are included in Table

5-1. Due to natural variability of concrete workability, a consistent concrete slump from mixture

to mixture is difficult to obtain. The laboratory concrete mixture slump measurements ranged

between 2.25 to 9.75-inch (57 to 248-mm) and the field mixtures between 0.5 to 7.75-inch (13 to

197-mm). The laboratory mixture unit weight measurements presented a coefficient of variation

of 1.5% and the field mixtures vary by 2.3%. This indicates that there were no large variations in

entrapped air or aggregate volume proportions among mixtures. The air content for all batches

was within the target range of 1.0 to 6.0%. The laboratory concrete mixture air contents range

from 1.25% to 6.0% and the field mixtures from 1.5% to 4%.

Mechanical Properties

The compressive strength of each mixture was evaluated in accordance with ASTM C39.

Though compressive strength is not a concrete permeability indicator, it represents a helpful tool

for checking the design compressive strength. Therefore, the compressive strength changes

caused by the mixture proportions and different added pozzolan can then be used as quality

indicators of the corrected preparation of the cast mixtures. Moreover, the strength trend of

change by time can be used as an indirect comparative reference to the electrical conductivity

results tested at the same age. The electrical conductivity of water saturated concrete depends on





Table C-3. Continued.

MIX CPR7

Depth NaCI (lb/yd3)

(in.) A B C AVG

0.0 -0.25 37.602 35.221 36.545 36.456

0.25 -0.50 25.020 26.580 22.891 24.830

0.50 -0.75 21.457 20.615 15.849 19.307

0.75 1.0 9.612 12.823 11.790 11.408

1.0 -1.25 4.064 5.054 7.054 5.391

1.25 1.5 0.886 0.975 2.702 1.521

1.5 -1.75 0.466 0.268 0.440 0.391

1.75 -2.0 0.291 0.254 0.202 0.249

2.0 -2.25 ----

2.25 -2.5 ----

2.5-2.75 ----

2.75 -3.0 ----

3.0 -3.25 ----

3.25 -3.5 ----

3.5 -4.0 ----

MIX CPR9

Depth NaCI (lb/yd )

(in.) A B C AVG
0.0 -0.25 39.434 49.439 45.287 44.720

0.25 -0.50 30.800 30.579 28.557 29.979

0.50 -0.75 18.881 18.325 18.288 18.498

0.75 1.0 9.913 8.528 9.834 9.425

1.0 -1.25 1.903 3.119 3.735 2.919

1.25 1.5 0.761 1.551 0.722 1.011

1.5 -1.75 0.316 0.759 0.422 0.499

1.75 -2.0 0.294 0.212 0.395 0.300

2.0 -2.25 ----

2.25 -2.5 ----

2.5-2.75 ----

2.75 -3.0 ----

3.0 -3.25 ----

3.25 -3.5 ----

3.5 -4.0 ----

MIX CPR11

Depth NaCI (lb/yd3)

(in.) A B C AVG

0.0-0.25 50.261 42.966 53.800 49.009

0.25 -0.50 38.149 44.938 38.003 40.363

0.50 -0.75 29.264 26.989 23.563 26.605

0.75 1.0 19.071 19.626 16.032 18.243

1.0 -1.25 10.176 11.156 7.755 9.696

1.25 1.5 2.532 4.770 1.961 3.088

1.5 -1.75 0.603 0.990 0.450 0.681

1.75 -2.0 0.235 0.162 0.390 0.262

2.0 -2.25 ----

2.25 -2.5 ----

2.5-2.75 ----

2.75 -3.0 ----

3.0 -3.25 ----

3.25 -3.5 ----

3.5 -4.0 ----


MIX CPR8

Depth NaCI (lb/yd3)

(in.) A B C AVG

0.0 -0.25 36.681 35.872 37.243 36.599

0.25 -0.50 31.887 26.630 28.037 28.851

0.50 -0.75 24.104 25.113 21.110 23.442

0.75 1.0 17.647 15.455 14.300 15.801

1.0 -1.25 9.109 7.672 8.621 8.467

1.25 1.5 3.162 2.094 1.698 2.318

1.5 -1.75 0.615 0.480 0.406 0.500

1.75 -2.0 0.240 0.255 0.296 0.264

2.0 -2.25

2.25 -2.5

2.5-2.75

2.75 -3.0

3.0 -3.25

3.25 -3.5

3.5 -4.0

MIX CPR10

Depth NaCI (lb/yd )

(in.) A B C AVG
0.0 -0.25 43.994 39.019 41.456 41.490

0.25 -0.50 38.626 35.126 35.993 36.582

0.50 -0.75 22.472 22.847 26.470 23.930

0.75 1.0 22.922 13.241 14.800 16.988

1.0 -1.25 2.251 5.591 6.117 4.653

1.25 1.5 0.552 0.604 1.337 0.831

1.5 -1.75 0.263 0.303 0.204 0.257

1.75 -2.0 0.173 0.720 0.310 0.401

2.0 -2.25

2.25 -2.5

2.5-2.75

2.75 -3.0

3.0 -3.25

3.25 -3.5

3.5 -4.0

MIX CPR12

Depth NaCI (lb/yd3)

(in.) A B C AVG

0.0-0.25 47.519 36.716 44.526 42.920

0.25 -0.50 30.467 24.307 33.428 29.401

0.50 -0.75 26.049 22.354 25.778 24.727

0.75 1.0 24.141 18.097 24.907 22.382

1.0 -1.25 20.604 19.309 21.900 20.604

1.25 1.5 11.860 19.183 18.654 16.566

1.5 -1.75 11.790 17.116 13.320 14.075

1.75 -2.0 12.301 16.036 13.351 13.896

2.0 -2.25 7.340 11.693 12.555 10.529

2.25 -2.5 9.698 8.211 10.170 9.360

2.5-2.75 6.666 5.572 7.173 6.470

2.75 -3.0 5.368 4.447 5.200 5.005

3.0 -3.25 1.820 3.661 4.153 3.211

3.25 -3.5 0.740 1.865 1.752 1.452

3.5 -4.0 0.508 2.560 0.936 1.335









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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and Hicks 2003).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

test (Table 2-1).















































NaCl (lblyd )


Depth NaCl (blyd )
(in) A B C AYG
0.13 36.518 37.006 -36.762
0.38 22.111 21.579 -21.845
0.63 3.639 5.450 -4.545
0.88 1.665 1.858 -1.762
1.13 0.353 0.346 -0.350
1.38 0.310 0.325 -0.318
1.63 0.326 0.308 -0.317
1.88 0.305 0.329 -0.317


(in) A B C AYG
0.13 39.780 37.705 -38.743
0.38 24.557 17.593 -21.075
0.63 8.962 4.097 -6.530
0.88 1.052 1.396 -1.224
1.13 0.375 0.404 0.390
1.38 0.370 0.411 0.391
1.63 0.368 0.400 0.384
1.88 0.382 0.397 0.390


APPENDIX H
ANALYSIS OF DATA OBTAINED FROM OTHER PROJECTS


Table H-1. HRP Proj ect (Paredes 2007) Concrete Mixture Designs.
Materials and Specifications

Mixture FDOT Cementicious Pozzolan Pozzolan Coarse
Name Class W/C (pcy) (%Cement.) (%Cement.) Aggregate
HRP3 V 0.35 752 Fly-Ash Silica Fume 89 Limestone
(20%) Slurry
(8%)
HRP4 V 0.35 752 Fly-Ash Silica Fume 89 Limestone
(20%) Densified
(8%)

Table H1-2. Initial Chloride Background Levels from HRP Proj ect (Paredes 2007).
TEST Initial Chloride Background Levels

AllX NaCl (lblyd )
A B C AYG
HRP3 0.426 0.426 0.435 0.429
HRP4 0.310 0.368 0.344 0.341


Table H1-3. 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Chloride Profile Testing from HRP Proj ect (Paredes 2007).
AllX HRP3 Mnx HRP4
TEST Bulk Diffusion TEST Bulk Diffusion


Depth










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


Diffusion Coefficient (x10-12) (m2/SOC)
Exposed for Exposed for Exposed for
0.6-1.3 5.1-5.4 10.1-10.5
years years years
4.55 2.51 1.95
1.98 1.31 1.43
2.30 1.92 1.36
2.35 1.93 1.67
0.54 0.91 1.10
4.35 2.12 1.52
3.78 1.26 1.25
1.49 0.41 1.33
2.54 3.07 0.94


Exposed
for ~39
years












11.48
18.27
0.63


Chloride
Exposure Zone
Submerged
Tidal
Ratio (Sub./Tidal)
Submerged
Tidal
Ratio (Sub./Tidal)
Submerged
Tidal
Ratio (Sub./Tidal)
Submerged
Tidal
Ratio (Sub./Tidal)


Mixture

1-40(a)(c)



2-40 (a) (c)



3-40(a) (d)



Pile 44-2(b) (c)


(a) Tang, L. 2003.
(b) Cannon et al. 2006.
(c) Plain cement concrete mixture. No additional cementitious materials were added.
(d) Concrete mixture containing silica fume.


Table 6-3. Laboratory Bulk Diffusion Coefficients for Comparable Mixtures with an Expected
Low Chloride Permeability Design.
1-Year Bulk Diffusion 3 -Year Bulk Diffusion
Coefficient (x10-12) (m2/SOC) COefflcient (x10-12) (m2/SOC)


Sample Standard
Mixture(a) ID Results Average Deviation Results t
35 752 A 2.351 2.850
8SF 20F B 2.729 2.683
C 3.562 2.402
HRP3(b) A 1.691 2.220 0.744
B 1.782
HRP4(b) A 2.071
B 1.355
(a) Mixture design: w/c: 0.35, Cementitious:752 pcy, 20% Fly Ash and 8% Silica Fume.
(b) Samples obtained from FDOT research currently in progress (Paredes 2007).


Standard
Average Deviation


2.645


0.226









Diffusion test. A statistical study is included to ensure the validity of this new RCP limit. A

confidence interval for the mean response of the test correlations was employed. This confidence

interval represents the statistical probability that the next set of samples tested will fall within the

specified acceptance range. It was found that a modified linear regression trend presented as a

power function (APPENDIX F) provided the best representation of the relationship between the

RCP and Bulk Diffusion test results. Therefore, the confidence interval was calculated according

to the analytical derivation presented as followed:

pr, x, = 70 Elfo) (7-1)

E(yo)= ts -+ o(7-2)
n SX


S, bS
s = (7-3)
n-2

Su = (xi X2) (7-4)

S, = (yG, Y)1 (7-5)


S~ = (xI X)(yI Y) (7-6)

where pv so is the mean confidence limit response for an independent variable xo; yo: dependent
variable from regression analysis equation;s(yo) is the standard error of dependent variable; t,:
one-tailed Student' s t-distribution value with n-2 degrees of freedom for an specific confidence
level; yi: experimental dependent variables; y : mean of experimental dependent variables; xi:
experimental independent variables; x : mean of experimental independent variables; b: slope
value from regression analysis; n: number of samples.

Figure 7-1 shows the 90% confidence limit for the mean response of the 28-day RCP test

correlation to the 1-year Bulk Diffusion reference test. The 28-day RCP test coulomb limit for

concrete elements with very low chloride permeability with 90% confidence on the correlated

data is derived as shown in Figure 7-2. Moreover, several coulomb limits for concrete elements

under extremely aggressive environments at different levels of confidence are presented in Table










Table 3-7. Locations of Field Mixtures.


Location and Contact
Information of the Concrete
Supplier Plant
RINKER MATERIALS CORP.
1501 Belvedere Road. Belle
Glade West Palm Beach, FL
32406 Phone: (561) 833-5555
FDOT Plant No. 93-104

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

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

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


FDOT
Di stri ct
DISTRICT
4


Mixture
Name(a)
45 570


Concrete
Class
Class II


Location of the
Concrete Casting
Interstate I-95 at
West Palm Beach,
FL.


33 658
18F


Class V At the Plant






Class V At the Plant


Class VI


Class II At the Plant

Class V St. George Island
Bridge
Class VI Construction Site


DISTRICT
2


34 686
18F

28_800
20F

29 450
_20F
30_673
20F
29 770
18F


DISTRICT
3


(a) Fly-Ash (F).



















-A B
Figue 3-0. Rpaiing trucuralCord Meber.A) Ptchng Cred penig B FinshedPie
Member.Q~ iii























































-


CPR1-W/C=0.49, Plain
564 lb Cementitious


CPR2-W/C=0.35, Plain
752 lb Cementitious


S12000


6000


3000


,,12000



6000


-


-


L~L~


4__ 4---4-- ---*


0003


II ill


I I I I I


14 28 56 91 182 364
Age (Days)

CPR4-W/C=0.28, 20%FA, 8%SF
900 lb Cementitious


S12000

9000 i

S6000 -
-
3000 -


4---+---*


14 28 56 91 182 364
Age ifays)

CPR3-W/C=0.45, Plain
752 lb Cementitious
~12000

9000 -

Eo6000- ---

3000 I I -
14 28 56 91 182 364
Age (Days)

CPR5-W/C= 0.35, 20% FA
752 lb Cementitious


I I I I I


14 28 56 91 182 364
Age Q@ays)

CPR6-W/C= 0.35, 12% CFA
752 lb Cementitious


~12000 -


6000 -
S3000 -


Ij12000

90-
S6000

3000


*_t~e--t~*


-e---


I I I I I


14 28 56 91 182 364
kge (Days)

CPR7-W/C=0.35, 8%SF
752 lb Cementitious


14 28 56 91 182 364
Age (Days)

CPR8-W/C=0.35, 20%FA, 8%SF
752 lb Cementitious


~-12000 -

9000 -
E-
S6000 -

S3000 -


Ij12000

S9000
r-
S6000

3000


I'
14 28 56 91 182 364
kge (Days)


II ill


14 28 56 91 182 364
Age (Days)


Figure B-1. Concrete Compression Strength Graphs.













I -Fitted Correlation


- 90% Confden

0.0377


- Fitted Correlation

- 90% Confdence Limit




0.1248







*44+ 8.924x10


0.06~






a 0.04




-
S0.02 1





0-


Ice Limit


L
L
I
I
I


r
r
r
r


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


0.25


0.2


0.15


0.1


0.05


0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Bulk Diffusion (x10 )(Hm /s)


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


11.820x10~2
1.820x10


1.5 2

Bulk Diffusion (x10 ')(m /s)











CPR3 (Sample A) 1092-Day Bulk Diffitsion



60 60


~40



20

0 12 3 4

Depth (in)
Diffusion(m^2/sec)l 9.706E-1 Background(lyd3) 0.125
Surfacebl~yd^3) 32.-0-1 sunRI-.111ni! 2 24.78

CPR3 (Sample C) 1092-Day Bulk Diffitsion



S60


S40 --


S20 --




Depth (in)
Diffusion(m^2/sec)l 1.323E-11 Bsackground(llyd^3)I 0.125
Surfacebl~yd^3) 36.9611 Sum(Error)^2 16.389

CPR4 (Sample B) 1092-Day Bulk Diffitsion



S60


S40 -


S20


0 nn I 3

Depth (in)
Diffusion(m^2/sec)l 8.501E-13 Bsackgroundnblvd^3)1 0.151
Surfacebl~yd^3) 51.303 Sum(Error)^2 2.67

Figure C-2. Continued.


I ~Depth (in)
Diffusion(m^2/sec)l 8.962E-12 Background(lyd3) 0.125
Surfacebl~yd^3) 42.46 Sum(Error)^2 12.215

CPR4 (Sample A) 1092-Day Bulk Diffitsion



S60-


S40


S20




Depth (in)
Diffusion(m^2/sec)l 1.212E-12 Bakrudl~yd^3) 0.151
Surfacebl~yd^3) 43.3081 Sum(Error)^2 3.77

CPR4 (Sample C) 1092-Day Bulk Diffitsion
80Il


S60-


S40


S20-




Depth (in)
Diffusion(m^2/sec)l 5.998E-13 Bakgondld3) 0.151
Surfacebl~yd^3) 45.051 Sum(Error)^2 1.928


CPR3 (Sample B) 1092-Day Bulk Diffitsion


0 1 2 3 4























I_


SR (Mloist) (455 Days) vs. 1092-

03 Day Bulk Diffusion
0.683
. Ay = 0.012x .8
U 0.2 -1 R2 = 0.777


0.0- 4


SR (Mloist) (546 Days) vs. 1092-

03 Day Bulk Diffusion


0.717
y = 0.011x
R2 = 0.750


U 0.2 1

-
0.1


10 20
Bulk Diffusion (nI /s)


10 20
Bulk Diffusion (m2/S)


Figure G-6. Continued.





























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


Figure 4-2. Bulk Diffusion Saline Solution Exposure.











Diffusion
Coefficient
(x10-12)
(m2/Sec)
0.050
0.149
0.151


Water
Chloride
COntent
(ppm)
19284


Table 6-1. Calculated Diffusion Parameters of Cored Samples.
Initial Surface
Chloride Chloride
Exposure Content Content
Bridge Name Lab. # (Years) (lb/yd3) (lb/yd3)
Hurricane Pass 5016 15 0.547(a) 20.336
(HPB)5017 0.533 41. 112
5018 0.561 44.904


14864(c)



14864(c)


14864(c)

9608


Broadway
Replacement
(BRB)
Seabreeze West
Bound (SWB)

Granada (GRB)

Turkey Creek
(TCB)


5054
5081

5082
5083

5084

5078
5079
5080


5 0.467
0.858(b)

9 0.467
0.432

9 0.637

7 0.556
0.423
0.417


33.012
32.401

42.497
49.660

0.942

26.791
30.269
33.237


0.585
0.358

0.628
0.329

0.051

0.185
0.132
0.155


New Roosevelt 5075 9 0.614 27.046 0.361 31072
(NRB) 5076 0.432 28.700 0.540

5077 0.382 29.696 0.373

(a) Initial Chlorides were not tested for this sample. An average between Lab sample# 5017 and 5018 was
reported.
(b) Initial Chloride value was considered an erroneous value (too high). The value of initial chlorides from Lab
sample# 5054 was used.
(c) The Bridge Structures are exposed to the same body of water.









group was recorded. The coefficient of variation (COV) of the obtained set of results for each of

the number of samples was then calculated (Figure 5-22 and Figure 5-23). To ensure a low COV

the selected number of interaction was increased from 100 to 50000 samples which reduced the

COV to less than 1%.

The average and standard deviation of the correlation coefficient (R2) Obtained for each of

RCP and Surface Resistivity curve-fitting using the simulation (Table 5-11) are compared in

Figure 5-24 and Figure 5-25. The obtained results corroborated previous findings. The average

of RCP and Surface Resistivity trend of agreement reaches a maximum value on samples tested

at 91 days when compared to those of I and 3 year Bulk Diffusion. Therefore, it is concluded

that the most effective RCP and Surface Resistivity testing age to predict the chloride diffusion

penetration of a 1 or 3 year Bulk Diffusion test is 91 days. More realistic diffusion coefficients

associated with these test results can be derived. The average and standard deviation of the

chloride permeability measured by a 1 and 3 year Bulk Diffusion test related to 91 day RCP

results including the grade of variability from the experimental data is presented in Table 5-12.













CPR1 (Sample A) 1092-Day Bulk Diffitsion




60 6

O
~40


OO

U t

0 12 3 4

Depth (in)
Diffusion(m^2/sec)l 2.983E-11 Background(lyd3) 0.133
Surfacebl~yd^3) 42.14 Sum(Error)^2 111.39


CPR1 (Sample C) 1092-Day Bulk Diffitsion




S60


S40 --


S20 -O-





Depth (in)
Diffusion(m^2/sec)l 2.415E-11l Background(lblyd^3)1 0.133
Surfacebl~yd^3) 35.6421 Sum(Error)^2 78.87


CPR2 (Sample B) 1092-Day Bulk Diffitsion




S60


S40 -


S20





Depth (in)
Diffusion(m^2/sec)l 4.383E-12 Backgroundnblvyd^3) 0.09
Surfacebl~yd^3) 42.0691 Sum(Error)^2 12.811


CPR1 (Sample B) 1092-Day Bulk Diffitsion




60 60


~40


S20


0 12 3 4

Depth (in)
Diffusion(m^2/sec)l 2.537E-11 Backgrunduldyd^3 0.133
Surfacebl~yd^3) 37.92 Sum(Error)^2 34.265


CPR2 (Sample A) 1092-Day Bulk Diffitsion




S60-


S40


S20





Depth (in)
Diffusion(m^2/sec)l 5.371E-12 Bakrudlyd^3) 0.07
Surfacebl~yd^3) 38.14 Sum(Error)^2 19.12


CPR2 (Sample C) 1092-Day Bulk Diffitsion
80Il


S60-


S40


S20-





Depth (in)
Diffusion(m^2/sec)l 5.034E-12 Bakgondld3) 0.07
Surfacebl~yd^3) 45.60 Sum(Error)^2 6.12


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
















(Coulombs) Values) (Coulombs) Confidence Level
1,422 1,400 90%
1,335 1,300 95%
1,174 1,150 99%

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


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


Charge Passed


Charge Passed (Rounded


28-Day RCP Limits (Coulombs)

Without Silica Fume or MK(3)


With Silica Fume or MK(3)


1000 1150 1300 1400 1000 1150
14 14 14 14 5'1 5 1


0 0 0 0 2 2


1300
5 1


1400
5(1


Total
Number of
Mixtures
Number of
Passed
Mixtures
Percentage of
Passed
Mixtures
Total
Number of
Mixtures (2)
Number of
Passed
Mixtures
Percentage of
Passed
Mixtures


3 4


0% 0%


0% 40% 40% 60% 80%



455 36 36 36 36


2 2




d o


455 455 455


4 8 13 18 15 18 21 23


<1%


4% 42% 50% 58% 64%


(1) All Mixtures were cast at the FDOT laboratory.
(2) All Mixtures were collected from actual job sites.
(3) Metakaolin.










15000


15000


SR = 0.474 J R = 0.755
10000o -I I 10000-
o +o


PI 5000 -1 +- I 5000 -1 X


/ x Calcium Nitrite Mix x Calcium Nitrite Mix
01 1 I 0
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
Bulk Diffusion (x10-1 2) (2/s) Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (2/S)
A B

Figure 5-7. 3-Year Bulk Diffusion vs. RCP (AASHTO T277) at A) 28 Days and B) 91 Days.

0.3 0.3
y 0.019x0.0
I I R2 0.840
S0.2 0.2-

0. y=0070.5 .
R2 = 0.0770

x Calcium Nitrite Mix I x Calcium Nitrite Mix
01 1 I 0
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
Bulk Diffusion (x10 1) (m /s) Bulk Diffusion (x10' 2) (m /s)
A B

Figure 5-8. 1-Year Bulk Diffusion vs. SR (Lime Cured) Conductivity at: A) 28 Days and B) 91
Days.
























11111I
0 100 200 300 400
Testing Age (Days)


-A- 35 752 8SF
-+-35 752 8SF 20F
-m-35 752 10M
-A-35 752 10M 20F
-X- 35_752_50Slag
-a- 35 752 4.5CN


12000


12000


8000



4000


8000



4000


0 100 200 300 400
Testing Age (Days)


12000


12000


8000



4000


8000



4000


0 100 200 300 400
Testing Age (Days)


0 100 200 300 400
Testing Age (Days)


Figure 5-16. RCP Test Coulomb Results Change With Age for: A,B) Laboratory Mixtures and
C,D) Field Mixtures.











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


Table C-1.


Mixture
Name
CPR1
CPR2
CPR3
CPR4
CPR5
CPR6
CPR7
CPR8
CPR9
CPR10
CPR11
CPR12
CPR13
CPR15
CPR16
CPR17
CPR18
CPR20
CPR21


Initial Chloride Background Level of Concrete Mixtures.
Initial Chloride Background Level (lb/yd3)


Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
14
29
22
24
26
8
19
18
7
15
18
4
2
8
3
21
13
20
8


Standard
Deviation
0.019
0.023
0.028
0.036
0.036
0.009
0.044
0.017
0.005
0.011
0.034
0.006
0.004
0.042
0.003
0.037
0.033
0.024
0.027


Sample A
0.112
0.097
0.093
0.192
0.181
0.097
0.284
0.077
0.070
0.087
0.146
0.147
0.181
0.467
0.124
0.187
0.221
0.146
0.323


Sample B
0.149
0.053
0.136
0.130
0.112
0.114
0.204
0.111
0.076
0.070
0.209
0.139
0.174
0.546
0.130
0.212
0.274
0.100
0.286


Sample C
0.137
0.087
0.145
0.130
0.126
0.110
0.212
0.101
0.080
0.066
0.200
0.136
0.178
0.533
0.125
0.139
0.281
0.112
0.338


Average
0.133
0.079
0.125
0.151
0.140
0.107
0.233
0.096
0.075
0.074
0.185
0.141
0.178
0.515
0.126
0.179
0.259
0.119
0.316









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

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

By

Enrique A. Vivas

December 2007

Chair: H. R. Hamilton
Major: Civil Engineering

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

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

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

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

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

penetration of the concrete by the chlorides.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



















St. George Island
CPR15
CPR18
CPR21


West Palm Beach
CPR13
CPR16


~pS5' "


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


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









This connection can be tested by comparing the results of the 1 and 3 year bulk diffusion

testing to the diffusion coefficients of the piles from which the samples were collected for this

research, as long as the mixture proportions and constituents are comparable. The diffusion

coefficients from mixture design 35_752_8SF_20F (Table 5-2 and Table 5-4) are compared to

diffusion coefficients from extracted cores that were taken from piles that used a similar mixture

design (including the addition of silica fume). The comparison is based on the cores taken at the

tidal zone. Additionally, available chloride profiles from FDOT research currently in progress

(Paredes 2007) were included in this analysis. Table 6-3 shows the summary of the calculated

laboratory diffusion coefficients with the statistical parameters average and standard deviation.

Detailed data on these calculations are presented in APPENDIX H.

Figure 6-5 shows the diffusion coefficients of the selected laboratory and field samples

plotted on a logarithmic scale. The field samples used in the plot were selected because they

were extracted from tidal zone. There is nearly an order of magnitude difference between the

diffusion coefficients from the bulk diffusion tests and those from the field-cored samples. This

variation can be attributed to the several factors affecting chloride diffusion under field

conditions as the sampling location and the concrete ageing.

Assuming that the ratio of the submerged to tidal diffusion coefficients is controlled

primarily by environment, then the ratios from Table 6-2 can be used to "convert" the tidal

diffusion coefficient to a submerged diffusion coefficient. Although this assumption is probably

not strictly correct since variation in concrete permeability will likely affect the ratio as well, it

makes a convenient method by which the laboratory results can be related to field results.

Because the piles sampled for this research were approximately ten years in service, the highest

calculated ratio of 1.52 for a comparable age of exposure of 10 years will give the most
















Table E-3. Continued.
182-Day Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) (kQ.cm) 182-Day Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) (kO.cm)
MIX Sample Reading Locations (Deg.) Std. CO AIX Sample Reading Locations (Deg.) Std. C1
Average (%/) Average (%/)
0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270 Dev. O 90 180 270 0 90 180 270 Dev.
A 83 78 97 94 81 89 104 103 911 A 255 276 277 237 239 261 27 249 258
CPR1 B 8 7 8 5 89 8 7 7 7 8 7 9 6 8 3 864 9 1 0 50 5 48 CPR11 B 27 9 27 9 25 3 31 2 27 3 28 2 25 1 32 3 28 2 25 2 3 27 12 97
C 9 4 8 9 10 8 94 94 9 7 9 8 9 7 9 64 C 21 8 25 4 18 4 208 21 7 25 5 19 1 20 8 21 7
A 11 1 12 6 12 9 12 4 11 3 12 5 12 6 11 8 12 2 A 13 4 10 3 10 6 12 3 11 6 11 1 10 4 12 3 11 5
CPR2 B 11 5 10 4 11 2 11 1 10 9 10 8 10X 8 11 11 11 7 0 61 5 21 CPR12 B 12 3 10 9 11 5 11 10 9 10 6 11 9 11 5 11 3 10 9 0 87 7 98
S11 12 7 11 9 11 9 10 6 12 5 12 1 11 9 11 8 C 10 5 9 8 9 6 9 7 10 9 9 4 10 94 9 91
A 65 67 68 65 63 68 66 67 661 A 92 86 92 82 89 91 93 82 884
CPR3 B 77 78 76 82 8 75 74 73 769 71 054 760 CPR13 B 86 83 88 92 83 87 91 88 873 87 022 254
S7 7 77 68 67 7 74 68 705 C 76 88 83 84 78 88 82 94 841
A 89 1 79 7 80 2 77 5 88 4 76 1 81 1 77 3 81 2 A 15 9 16 6 14 9 17 3 15 5 16 8 14 9 17 3 16 2
CPR4 B 75 7 84 79 7 87 71 1 78 6 77 4 869 80 1 81 1 1 04 1 29 CPR15 B 19 5 17 1 17 6 17 3 19 16 5 16 8 16 9 17 6 16 7 0 79 4 76
C 72 9 70 2 99 1 77 2 78 5 74 4 97 6 87 2 821 C 16 5 16 7 16 3 15 7 17 1 16 16 4 15 6 16 3
A 27 27 3 27 6 26 8 26 9 26 3 29 2 30 27 6 A 25 8 27 9 21 2 22 1 26 1 27 7 19 9 22 24 1
CPR5 B 29 2 31 2 27 3 28 3 28 8 30 9 28 28 6 29 28 6 0 84 2 95 CPR16 B 23 4 18 6 19 1 17 5 23 2 18 4 19 17 4 19 6 21 9 2 26 10 32
S27 4 29 8 29 1 31 8 27 1 27 8 28 3 31 9 29 2 C 24 2 21 5 20 5 21 8 23 7 19 7 22 8 22 1 22
A 179 175 167 182 184 178 166 185 177 A 298 309 298 327 306 274 313 322 306
CPR6 B 17 17 2 17 2 18 6 16 8 18 17 4 18 6 17 6 18 3 1 20 6 54 CPR17 B 25 9 24 26 2 24 8 23 4 24 9 24 7 24 2 24 8 28 6 3 34 11 68
C 19 2 22 3 18 2 18 7 19 5 21 6 19 7 18 6 19 7 C 29 9 31 31 4 304 29 2 30 32 8 29 4 30 5
A 45 7 43 1 45 6 43 44X 8 9 44 4 39 5 43 1 A 63 8 67 9 65 5 62 1 57 8 61 4 60 9 59 8 62 4
CPR7 B 41 37 5 42 1 39 5 38 4 41 1 42 7 39 4 40 2 41 3 1 60 3 88 CPR18 B 55 2 62 61 3 54 8 52 64 8 60 65 6 59 5 61 6 1 86 3 02
S42 39 2 40 6 40 2 40 6 39 3 41 2 41 2 40 5 C 64 2 59 6 60 8 64 3 60 3 61 8 64 8 67 4 62 9
A 50 7 44 9 47 9 48 45 8 47 48 4 47 4 47 5 A 29 4 31 2 34 6 31 2 31 5 29 6 31 6 33 4 31 6
CPR8 B 44 49 6 43 8 42 7 44 2 55 5 43 6 48 5 46 5 46 2 1 47 3 18 CPR20 B 35 5 38 3 32 4 31 6 34 7 35 31 3 28 33 4 32 7 1 00 3 07
C 44 3 41 4 48 1 43 2 44 1 46 1 44 4 45 3 44 6 C 33 2 31 6 34 1 36 2 32 8 30 8 35 2 32 1 33 3
A 42 3 46 9 41 7 41 4 38 7 48 7 42 4 39 2 42 7 A 45 2 45 3 39 4 41 1 42 40 3 42 2 43 9 42 4
CPR9 B 39 1 42 2 47 3 41 2 35 6 42 8 47 2 41 2 42 1 43 5 2 03 4 67 CPR21 B 45 8 44 6 41 8 40 6 38 7 39 43 3 41 2 41 9 42 1 0 30 0 71
C 44 7 51 4 44 7 41 4 47 6 54 4 41 3 41 3 45 9 C 67 40 2 36 4 37 3 42 9 38 2 36 37 6 42
A 58 2 59 2 60 6 59 5 55 59 3 61 1 62 59 4
CPR10 B 55 9 63 57 59 53 3 62 7 56 3 56 9 58 56 6 3 71 6 56
C 555 485 528 514 569 504 567 467 524
364-Day Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) (kO.cm) 364-Day Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) (kO.cm)
MIX Sample Reading Locations (Deg.) Std. CO AIX Sample Reading Locations (Deg.) Std. C1
Average (%/) Average (%/)
0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270 Dev. O 90 180 270 0 90 180 270 Dev.
A 10 87 97 118 89 87 109 114 10 A 367 342 35 4 356 325 348 35 2 308 344
CPR1 B 8 9 7 5 9 7 9 5 8X 881 88 9 7 888 9 6 0 62 6 48 CPR11 B 33 1 31 3 32 6 34 7 32 9 31 1 32 36 9 33 1 31 4 4 16 13 26
C 9 8 10 3 10 8 92 10 3 9 5 9 8 9 3 9 88 C 28 5 27 7 25 2 25 3 26 8 30 5 24 7 24 3 26 6
A 11 7 13 6 13 8 12 8 12 5 13 7 14 2 12 8 13 1 A 13 411 810 713 1 13 11 810 614 212 3
CPR2 B 11 7 11 3 12 11 3 12 3 11 2 11 6 11 8 11 7 12 6 80 6 40 CPR12 B 12 4 12 6 14 13 5 12 5 12 8 13 7 14 1 13 2 12 3 0 86 6 99
C 11 6 14 1 13 1 12 7 11 6 13 9 13 13 4 12 9 C 12 7 11 11 4 11 11 1 11 12 211 411 5
A 6 9 83 71 6 89 73 76 753 A 99 97 95 86 10 101 95 87 95
CPR3 B 75 82 86 66 84 87 69 72 776 72 076 1059 CPR13 B 9 92 96 101 94 92 97 92 943 94 018 189
C 8 1 6 4 6 1 8 6 5 9 4 9 5 9 4 8 6 34 C 8 2 9 3 8 9 10 1 8 4 9 1 8 8 10 5 9 16
A 95 2 75 9 89 2 92 3 97 7 79 7 92 6 87 1 887 A 25 923 821 225 925 723 8 19 24 623 7
CPR4 B 91 6 89 4 863 955 856 93 87 5 96 4 90 7 897 0 98 109 CPR15 B 26 2 23 6 24 5 21 5 26 5 22 7 24 7 22 6 24 23 3 0 99 4 26
C 81 4 97 6 95 5 97X 8 12 84 2 89X 8 96 89 6 C 22 8 22 1 21 9 21 6 21 7 22 9 22 8 21 7 222
A 383 291 258 395 369 349 285 342 334 A 301 396 268 288 341 403 282 302 323
CPR5 B 35 31 2 44 3 34 6 38 4 36 7 33 6 33 35 9 35 0 1 38 3 94 CPR16 B 31 3 34 2 26 3 25 8 28 6 27 8 25 5 24 7 28 29 6 2 32 7 86
C 34 6 39 9 35 4 33 33 2 33 8 33 6 42 3 35 7 C 29 1 25 2 28 5 29 2 31 9 28 6 27 1 28 3 28 5
A 20 1 23 7 22 5 22 8 23 7 21 6 20 2 22 2 22 1 A 29 3 34 2 40 2 43 4 38 6 36 8 38 1 36 8 37 2
CPR6 B 237 228 219 233 244 245 221 229 232 237 182 771 CPR17 B 294 287 33 1 28 273 276 307 284 292 334 404 1209
S245 278 266 276 246 25 4 247 241 25 7 C 318 365 362 327 337 321 365 325 34
A 44 39 3 41 6 38 2 46 5 41 7 42 1 48 3 42 7 A 94 1 96 3 106 93 9 98 9 96 2 100 101 98 2
CPR7 B 43 3 49 3 40 7 38 7 40 5 40 9 40 2 40 41 7 42 1 0 56 1 33 CPR18 B 88 2 92 4 90 3 91 2 93 8 90 1 88 6 93 1 91 94 2 3 69 3 92
C 43 6 33 9 40 8 42 4 45 5 41 2 42 7 44 3 41 8 C 90 3 97 7 90 5 92 4 96 95 3 92 6 91 8 93 3
A 66 3 57 5 57 8 58 9 56 3 56 9 60 2 57 9 59 A 38 6 37 36 5 45 35 4 39 8 41 3 43 3 39 6
CPR8 B 52 5 58 7 53 8 56 4 58 3 60 5 53 56 1 56 2 56 5 2 26 4 00 CPR20 B 44 4 43 2 45 5 36 6 41 8 44 4 42 9 43 2 42 8 42 1 2 26 5 35
C 53 6 57 57 2 51 54 51 3 56 6 55 3 54 5 C 47 2 43 44 8 44 7 42 6 42 4 43 1 44 1 44
A 57 4 64 8 64 2 51 9 55 6 52 5 50 3 49 8 55 8 A 82 3 72 4 71 8 70 5 79 5 66 4 68 66 1 72 1
CPR9 B 62 57 4 62 1 62 7 54 9 59 8 78 6 53 4 61 4 60 0 3 67 6 11 CPR21 B 68 2 67 1 64 8 62 9 69 1 62 2 68 1 65 1 65 9 66 4 5 56 8 38
C 692 689 633 598 613 589 625 58 627 C 62 595 586 647 604 595 591 644 61
A 87 909 87 1 88 86 5 884 74 9 86 7 862
CPR10 B 92 7 82 3 60X 8 49 70 5 104 82 2 99 4 846 85 3 0 82 0 96
C 83X 8 7 92 72 3 97 6 82 3 837 83 5 853





























0 12 3 4

Depth (in)
Diffusion(m^2/sec)l 3.426E-1 Background(lyd3) 0.16
Surfacebl~yd^3) 50.8681 Sum(Error)^2 18.967


CPR16 (Sample C) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion




S60


S40 -


S20 --





Depth (in)
Diffusion(m^2/sec)l 3.570E-12 BackgrounIb/d"l3d^3 0.126
Surfacebl~yd^3) 45.735 Sum(Error)^2 9.04


CPR17 (Sample B) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion




S60


S40 --


S20


I0 I 2

Depth (in)
Diffusion(m^2/sec)l 2.265E-12 Backgroundnblvyd^3) 0.179
Surfacebl~yd^3) 55.521 Sum(Error)^2 66.04

Figure C-2. Continued.


01 23 4

Depth (in)
Diffusion(m^2/sec)l 2.527E-12 Backgrouduldyd^3 0.126
Surfacebl~yd^3) 46.6201 Sum(Error)^2 13.162


CPR17 (Sample A) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion




S60-


S40


S20





Depth (in)
Diffusion(m^2/sec)l 2.305E-12 Bakrudlyd^3) 0.17
Surfacebl~yd^3) 52.9 Sum(Error)^2 23.848


CPR17 (Sample C) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
80Il


S60-


S40


S20-





Depth (in)
Diffusion(m^2/sec)l 3.013E-12 Bakgondld3) 0.17
Surfacebl~yd^3) 60.2451 Sum(Error)^2 45.841


CPR16 (Sample A) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion


CPR16 (Sample B) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
















Table E-3. Continued.
56-Day Surface Resistivty (Moist Cured) (lo.cm) 56-Day Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) (kQ.cm)
MIX Sample Reading Locations (Deg.) Std. CO AIX Sample Reading Locations (Deg.) Std.CO
Average (%/) Average (%/)
0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270 Dev. O 90 180 270 0 90 180 270 Dev.
A 74 73 79 88 73 75 8 88 788 A 215 222 212 205 224 221 226 198 215
CPR1 B 6 6 6 7 7 1 7 3 6 8 6 5 7 7 2 6 9 7 5 0 56 7 37 CPR11 B 22 5 23 5 20 9 25 7 23 6 22 7 20 2 26 5 23 2 20 8 2 83 13 59
C 84 7 5 8 6 7 2 7 9 7 3 8 6 7 3 7 85 C 17 6 20 7 15 17 17 8 21 4 14 7 17 3 17 7
As 10 2 11 11 1 11 9 7 10 10 610 810 6 As 10 10 8 9 6 11 1 10 4 9 6 9 1 11 1 10 2
CPR2 B 96 96 98 94 97 94 99 96 963 101 047 464 CPR12 B 102 94 92 108 104 96 109 101 101 97 081 842
C 9 6 10 8 10 3 10 9 7 11 1 10 1 10 3 10 2 C 9 8 4 9 1 8 3 8 9 85 9 8 7 8 74
A 57 59 58 58 56 58 57 6 579 A 78 78 75 81 68 8 77 82 774
CPR3 B 68 66 7 7 64 65 7 7 679 62 051 819 CPR13 B 73 71 74 71 74 71 77 74 731 76 025 333
C 62 59 64 59 63 6 62 6 611 C 74 73 8 74 83 79 82 76 776
A 683 581 62 638 685 571 637 651 633 A 86 89 88 94 86 91 8 9 88
CPR4 B 62 4 64 4 54 8 67 61 2 65 4 63 2 69 2 63 5 63 8 0 79 1 24 CPR15 B 9 8 9 8 8 9 9 7 8 4 8X 889 9 05 8 8 0 21 2 42
C 571 63 7 704 645 603 598 725 697 648 C 88 86 9 81 88 85 9 82 863
A 11 6 12 8 12 6 13 4 11 9 12 2 12 12 4 12 4 A 8 1 12 7 9 8 11 3 11 1 12 6 10 8 11 3 11
CPR5 B 13 5 12 5 11 9 12 7 13 13 11 8 12 6 12 6 12 6 0 18 1 41 CPR16 B 11 1 8 9 10 1 8 7 11 3 9 9 8 9 1 9 75 10 6 0 71 6 76
C 12 6 11 6 12 7 13 2 12 2 13 2 12 4 13 7 12 7 C 11 9 10 2 11 2 10 9 11 7 10 3 10 8 11 1 11
A 96 94 93 101 98 96 92 96 958 A 167 15 7 173 176 162 158X 178 175 168
CPR6 B 9 2 10 1 9 9 4 9 3 9 3 9 4 9 1 9 35 9 6 0 32 3 29 CPR17 B 13 5 12 9 14 2 13 5 13 13 14 1 13 4 13 5 15 5 1 83 11 76
C 9 7 10 7 9 9 9 7 9 8 10 7 9 2 10 1 9 98 C 16 9 17 4 18 4 15 6 16 6 11 5 18 4 16 16 4
A 38 6 37 3 41 2 42 2 37 9 34 9 45 4 43 40 1 A 18 17 4 14 6 16 5 18 2 13 5 19 1 15 7 16 6
CPR7 B 34 2 34 3 41 37 8 37 4 40 39 3 36 3 37 5 38 8 1 26 3 26 CPR18 B 13 7 14 8 13 6 17 8 14 3 17 5 17 3 15 7 15 6 16 4 0 76 4 61
S41 386 376 425 412 349 366 389 389 C 161 168 17 172 187 159 181 167 171
A 35 2 32 6 33 8 34 6 37 34 5 35 6 33 6 34 6 A 11 4 16 5 11 4 11 3 15 5 16 8 11 2 16 8 13 9
CPR8 B 32 7 34 1 31 5 32 3 32 9 33 1 32 1 32 9 32 7 33 1 1 31 3 94 CPR20 B 11 8 16 1 11 3 15 2 11 2 16 3 16 9 13 7 14 1 14 9 1 57 10 56
C 309 322 303 313 329 329 348 316 321 C 169 168 166 18 166 157 167 161 167
A 37 7 41 4 39 2 35 38 6 40 9 40 7 36 4 38 7 A 15 3 17 6 15 5 16 3 17 2 17 8 15 6 16 1 16 4
CPR9 B 35 4 38 3 42 7 37 8 35 1 38 5 39 2 36 9 38 39 3 1 68 4 28 CPR21 B 16 3 15 1 15 6 14 8 15 15 3 16 14 8 15 4 16 3 0 83 5 11
C 41 2 39 7 38 4 36 7 39 4 46 49 6 38 6 41 2 C 17 7 17 5 16 1 17 4 16 9 17 5 16 16 9 17
A 37 7 38 5 39 6 38 6 37 9 39 37 3 41 6 38 8
CPR10 B 38 8 43 39 39 8 38 9 42 2 38 5 37 9 39 8 37 6 3 02 8 04
C 363 33 1 358X 315 371 324 345 322 341
91-Day Surface Resistivty (Moist Cured) (kQ.cm) 91-Day Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) (kO.cm)
MIX Sample Reading Locations (Deg.) Std. CO AIX Sample Reading Locations (Deg.) Std.CO
Average (%/) Average (%/)
0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270 Dev. O 90 180 270 0 90 180 270 Dev.
A 64 75 79 84 81 71 84 86 78 A 258 232 245 223 248 244 249 233 242
CPR1 B 7 3 7 3 7 4 7 7 7 5 7 3 7 3 7 6 7 43 7 8 0 41 5 20 CPR11 B 25 4 22 8 22 6 26 5 24 7 23 8 23 6 25 9 24 4 22 5 3 13 13 93
C 89 7 9 9 7 7 8 8 7 7 83 7 6 8 24 C 18 321 215 4 19 18 624 115 718 618 9
A 10 7 12 1 11 5 10 9 10 3 11 3 11 1 11 7 11 2 A 11 10 8 4 10 811 110 1 84 10 710 1
CPR2 B 9 2 10 8 11 10 4 10 5 11 1 10 8 10 5 10 5 10 8 0 37 3 39 CPR12 B 10 9 11 11 6 11 5 11 1 10 7 11 9 11 1 11 2 9 9 1 48 15 01
C 104 108 109 104 101 107 106 109 106 C 0 96 92 97 97 96 9 95 829
A 63 62 66 62 64 64 62 67 638 A 85 84 88 77 84 85 82 77 828
CPR3 B 71 71 71 75 69 7 72 72 714 66 043 647 CPR13 B 78 85 8 85 84 8 79 81 815 82 006 077
C 67 62 67 62 65 59 7 61 641 C 78 85 84 76 81 84 85 83 82
A 79 6 74 9 77 7 78 92 72 5 79 9 78 1 79 1 A 12 110 4 89 9 6 9 4 9 8 7 5 9 8 9 69
CPR4 B 70 3 77 78 81 71 3 75 5 76 5 78 9 76 1 78 0 1 68 216 CPR15 B 11 6 15 3 87 8 8 11 9 11 3 9 3 8 7 10 7 10 0 0 60 6 03
C 65 5 81 4 88 1 79 2 73 6 79 5 87 8 75 7 78 9 C 9 8 9 7 9 3 9 2 8 8 10 110 1 10 9 63
A 17 2 17 18 20 16 17 918 718 217 9 A 17 7 18 2 13 4 15 8 18 1 18 5 13 7 15 5 16 4
CPR5 B 18 7 20 17 4 17 7 18 4 19 8 17 2 18 4 18 5 18 5 0 66 3 59 CPR16 B 16 6 13 1 13 5 13 3 14 9 13 3 13 3 12 3 13 8 15 3 1 35 8 83
S18 18 3 19 20818 1 19 8 19 20 619 2 C 16 4 14 4 13 5 16 1 17 1 16 6 16 8 15 4 15 8
A 13 12 2 12 1 12 2 13 1 12 11 6 12 5 12 3 A 20 8 21 4 23 2 23 3 20 8 21 3 22 5 23 2 22
CPR6 B 12 128 12 119 12 129 117 119 122 127 076 599 CPR17 B 18 181 194 176 183 173 196 179 183 207 213 1027
S13 14 6 13 3 13 7 13 5 14 4 12 6 13 3 13 6 C 21 21 3 23 1 20 7 21 6 22 3 24 1 20 7 21 9
A 439 384 456 459 424 386 421 484 432 A 365 396 371 368 359 40 362 364 373
CPR7 B 41 1 38 6 40 8 36 9 40 1 40 6 38 2 37 1 39 2 40 7 2 14 5 25 CPR18 B 34 5 35 2 35 1 37 5 34 34 7 35 1 37 2 35 4 36 1 1 04 2 87
C 43 9 38 3 38 41 5 40 8 37 6 38 7 39 8 39 8 C 34 3 35 8 36 3 36 9 34 7 35 7 34 9 36 6 35 7
A 43 6 39 6 42 3 38 7 43 5 41 7 39 4 39 2 41 A 21 4 21 9 24 7 24 2 22 4 22 1 24 9 23 23 1
CPR8 B 384 382 381 373 383 446 35 1 385 386 389 196 505 CPR20 B 242 239 248 205 24 232 234 219 232 228 067 292
C 36 6 36 5 38 5 37 2 33 9 38 4 38 4 37 4 37 1 C 20 8 20 7 22 6 23 8 21 8 21 2 23 3 21 9 22
A 38 1 35 5 36 1 37 8 41 45 8 38 8 37 1 38 8 A 24 21 1 20 2 21 2 23 1 20 7 22 21 4 21 7
CPR9 B 37 41 8 38 6 36 8 34 8 40 39 2 35 8 38 38 9 0 94 2 41 CPR21 B 19 6 18 6 17 6 20 5 20 3 19 1 18 4 19 7 19 2 20 0 1 45 7 22
C 42 1 42 6 39 2 36 8 41 40 3 39 5 37 4 39 9 C 17 5 19 6 19 8 20 1 18 4 19 6 18 20 5 19 2
A 45 43 8 47 2 46 5 47 1 45 3 45 5 46 1 45 8
CPR10 B 429 471 416 425 426 483 477 449 447 435 316 726
C 40 9 39 4 41 1 35 3 41 2 41 1 41 2 38 8 39 9










CPR18-W/C=0.30, 20%FA
842 lb Cementitious


CPR20-W/C=0.28, 20%FA
1000 lb Cementitious


12000 -
90-



3000 -


12000 -


3000


a


14 28 56 91 182 364
Age (Days)


14 28 56 91 182 364
Age (Days)


CPR21-W/C=0.29, 18%FA
935 lb Cementitious


~12000 -



3000 -


14 28 56 91 182 364
Age (Days)


Figure B-1. Continued.










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

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

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

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

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

AR
p = (2-5)

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

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


p = (2-6)

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

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

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

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


p (n (2-7)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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













Granada Crashwall #790132 LAB#5084





40



20


I ~Depth (in)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 5.077E-14 Backgrun oun ~d3 0.400
Surfacebl~yd^3) 0.9421 Sum(Error)^2 0.005


Turkey Creek Bridge #700203 LAB#5079
60II




S40









0 1 2 3

Depth (in)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.316E-131 Background(lblyd^3 0.423
Surfacebl~yd^3) 30.2691 Sum(Error)^2 5.892


New Roosevelt Bridge #890152 LAB#5075
60II




S40



S20




0 1 2 3

Depth (in)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 13.606E-131 Backgroundbl~yd^3 0.614
Surfacebl~yd^3) 27.046 Sum(Error)^2 7.356


I ~Depth (in) I
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 3.291E-13 BackgroundOlyd3 0.432
Surfacebl~yd^3) 49.660 Sum(Error)^2 38.365


Turkey Creek Bridge #700203 LAB#5078
60 II




S40 --









0 1 2 3

Depth (in)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.854E-131 Background(lblyd^3 0.556
Surfacebl~yd^3) 26.7911 Sum(Error)^2 9.983


Turkey Creek Bridge #700203 LAB#5080
60 II




S40 --



S20 --




0 1 2 3

Depth (in)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.553E-13 BackgroundOl d3 0.417
Surfacebl~yd^3) 33.2371 Su(Eror)^2 5.199

Figure D-1. Continued.


Seabreeze Bridge #790174 LAB#5083


0 1 2











CPR5 (Sample B) 1092-Day Bulk Diffitsion



60 60


~40


S20

I O
0 12 3 4

Depth (in)
Diffusion(m^2/sec)l 2.240E-12 Background(lyd3) 0.140
Surfacebl~yd^3) 49.6611 Sum(Error)^2 94.298

CPR6 (Sample A) 1092-Day Bulk Diffitsion



S60-


S40


S20




Depth (in)
Diffusion(m^2/sec)l 3.806E-12 Bakrudlyd^3) 0.10
Surfacebl~yd^3) 44.462 Sum(Error)^2 29.179

CPR6 (Sample C) 1092-Day Bulk Diffitsion
80Il


S60-


S40


S20-




Depth (in)
Diffusion(m^2/sec)l 3.606E-12 Bakgondld3) 0.10
Surfacebl~yd^3) 49.0981 Sum(Error)^2 15.013


I ~Depth (in) I
Diffusion(m^2/sec)l 2.160E-12 Background(lyd3) 0.140
Surfacebl~yd^3) 48.98 Sum(Error)^2 46.661

CPR5 (Sample C) 1092-Day Bulk Diffitsion



S60


S40 --


S20 --




Depth (in)
Diffusion(m^2/sec)l 2.224E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.140
Surfacebl~yd^3) 47.8541 Sum(Error)^2 24.17

CPR6 (Sample B) 1092-Day Bulk Diffitsion



S60


S40 -


S20




Depth (in)
Diffusion(m^2/sec)l 3.711E-12 Backgroundnblvyd^3) 0.107
Surfacebl~yd^3) 47.5101 Sum(Error)^2 47.28

Figure C-2. Continued.


CPR5 (Sample A) 1092-Day Bulk Diffitsion


0 1 2 3 4





APPENDIX E
SHORT-TERM ELECTRICAL TEST DATA RESULTS


Table E-1. RCP Coulombs Testing Results.
MIX 14-Day RCP Data (Coulomb) COV MX28-Day RCP Data (Coulomb) COV
Sample A Sample B Sample C Average Std (%) Sample A Sample B Sample C Average Std (%)
CPR1 8719 8965 8780 8821 128.10 1.45 CPR1 6917 6644 6847 6803 141.80 2.08
CPR2 5054 5001 5291 5115 154.42 3.02 CPR2 3753 4333 3779 3955 327.62 8.28
CPR3 11689 12568 13535 12597 923.35 7.33 CPR3 9580 9141 9113 9278 261.91 2.82
CPR4 1450 1248 1380 1359 102.57 7.55 CPR4 781 806 757 781 24.50 3.14
CPR5 7348 7269 8877 7831 906.43 11.57 CPR5 5537 5686 5414 5546 136.21 2.46
CPR6 8244 8033 6785 7687 788.53 10.26 CPR6 6548 8648 7699 7632 1051.62 13.78
CPR7 2065 1942 2145 2051 102.26 4.99 CPR7 1371 1485 1248 1368 118.53 8.66
CPR8 2373 2408 2426 2402 26.95 1.12 CPR8 1582 1397 1468 1482 93.33 6.30
CPR9 1090 1169 896 1052 140.48 13.36 CPR9 1063 821 949 944 121.07 12.82
CPR10 1362 1362 1318 1347 25.40 1.89 CPR10 1178 1362 1213 1251 97.71 7.81
CPR11 2610 2988 2979 2859 215.69 7.54 CPR11 2215 2496 1969 2227 263.69 11.84
CPR12 12217 13887 12744 12949 853.72 6.59 CPR12 5186 6363 8631 6727 1751.06 26.03
CPR13 8288 7058 7427 7591 631.19 8.31 CPR13 5669 5836 6820 6108 621.95 10.18
CPR15 9141 7761 8451 975.81 11.55 CPR15 7014 8156 7585 807.52 10.65
CPR16 3964 5704 5001 4890 875.33 17.90 CPR16 3894 4263 3727 3961 274.27 6.92
CPR17 5010 5423 -5217 292.04 5.60 CPR17 5036 3542 3234 3937 963.86 24.48
CPR18 6680 7277 6979 422.14 6.05 CPR18 3252 3032 3142 155.56 4.95
CPR20 4201 4904- 4553 497.10 10.92 CPR20 3173 3691 2997 3287 360.77 10.98


CPR21 7427 7708- 7568 198.70 2.63

MIX 56-Day RCP Data (Coulomb) COV
Sample A Sample B Sample C Average Std (%)
CPR1 6952 8411 7207 7523 779.24 10.36
CPR2 3779 3858 4263 3967 259.65 6.55
CPR3 8640 10107 6978 8575 1565.51 18.26
CPR4 540 514 448 501 47.43 9.47
CPR5 2645 2645 2426 2572 126.44 4.92
CPR6 4184 4368 4395 4316 114.82 2.66
CPR7 984 1055 1055 1031 40.99 3.97
CPR8 1011 1002 1090 1034 48.42 4.68
CPR9 834 830 888 851 32.39 3.81
CPR10 923 905 838 889 44.79 5.04
CPR11 1679 1740 1723 1714 31.48 1.84
CPR12 5871 5915 6064 5950 101.15 1.70
CPR13 5098 5713 5537 5449 316.73 5.81
CPR15 5774 5115 2821 4570 1550.10 33.92
CPR16 3261 2742 2610 2871 344.14 11.99
CPR17 2303 2268 2162 2244 73.42 3.27
CPR18 1591 1740 1652 1661 74.91 4.51
CPR20 2250 1863 1960 2024 201.36 9.95
CPR21 2347 2575 2461 2461 114.00 4.63
MIX 182-day RCP Data (Coulomb) COV
Sample A Sample B Sample C Average Std (%)
CPR1 6047 5801 6056 5968 144.70 2.42
CPR2 2883 2883 2584 2783 172.63 6.20
CPR3 6759 6003 5933 6232 458.02 7.35
CPR4 386 359 396 380 19.14 5.03
CPR5 1213 1195 1283 1230 46.49 3.78
CPR6 4400 2992 4334 3909 794.54 20.33
CPR7 1027 887- 957 98.99 10.34
CPR8 814 989- 902 123.74 13.73
CPR9 719 738 -729 13.44 1.84
CPR10 577 657 -617 56.57 9.17
CPR11 1222 1325 -1274 72.83 5.72
CPR12 4604 4436 -4520 118.79 2.63
CPR13 4166 4184 3955 4102 127.34 3.10
CPR15 2769 2329 2566 2555 220.22 8.62
CPR16 1538 1195 1090 1274 234.30 18.39
CPR17 1644 1283 1626 1518 203.43 13.40
CPR18 544 621 588 584 38.63 6.61
CPR20 867 923 914 901 30.07 3.34
CPR21 712 914 888 838 109.89 13.11


CPR21 4377 5502- 4940 795.50 16.10

MIX 91-Day RCP Data (Coulomb) COV
Sample A Sample B Sample C Average Std (%)
CPR1 4676 5054 5599 5110 464.01 9.08
CPR2 3076 3770 41 31 3659 536.19 14.65
CPR3 8042 7181 7110 7444 51 8.81 6.97
CPR4 408 460 388 419 37.17 8.88
CPR5 1775 1723 1749 1749 26.00 1.49
CPR6 2979 3120 2900 3000 111.45 3.72
CPR7 858 719 976 851 128.64 15.12
CPR8 967 1037 1099 1034 66.04 6.38
CPR9 819 786 923 843 71.50 8.49
CPR10 805 878 949 877 72.00 8.21
CPR11 1564 1635 1854 1684 151.16 8.97
CPR12 5655 4484 5207 5115 590.86 11.55
CPR13 4421 4913 4720 4685 247.90 5.29
CPR15 3568 4148 4412 4043 431.75 10.68
CPR16 2092 2206 2224 2174 71.58 3.29
CPR17 1793 2347 2118 2086 278.38 13.35
CPR18 1160 1134 984 1093 95.00 8.69
CPR20 1477 1301 1547 1442 126.75 8.79
CPR21 1510 1646 1529 1562 73.65 4.72
MIX 364-day RCP Data (Coulomb) COV
Sample A Sample B Sample C Average Std (%)
CPR1 4922 4660 -4791 185.26 3.87
CPR2 2684 3011 3060 2918 204.41 7.00
CPR3 4627 5111 4050 4596 531.18 11.56
CPR4 309 300 268 292 21.55 7.37
CPR5 862 792 753 802 55.23 6.88
CPR6 1371 1520 1564 1485 101.15 6.81
CPR7 791 721- 756 49.50 6.55
CPR8 863 797- 830 46.67 5.62
CPR9 490 533 -512 30.41 5.94
CPR10 349 393 -371 31.11 8.39
CPR11 1103 983 -1043 84.85 8.14
CPR12 3618 3727 -3673 77.07 2.10
CPR13 4192 4488 -4340 209.30 4.82
CPR15 1814 1794 1839 1816 22.55 1.24
CPR16 1180 1031 -1106 105.36 9.53
CPR17 1175 1579 1508 1421 215.70 15.18
CPR18 329 357 306 331 25.54 7.72
CPR20 891 732 882 835 89.31 10.70
CPR21 390 432 453 425 32.08 7.55









7-1. The RCP coulomb limits were rounded to reflect the variability in the data and for a more

practical utilization. The different levels of confidence are provided to offer some flexibility to

the Florida Department of Transportation to make a final decision specifically suitable to their

standards.

It is important to recognize that the limits presented in Table 7-1 and in the following

sections are based on the relatively limited data gathered from the laboratory specimens prepared

and tested as a part of this research proj ect. For example, consider the 90% confidence level in

the table. This indicates that if a random sample is selected from the tests reported in this

research that has an RCP value less than 1,422 coulombs, then, with 90% confidence, that same

concrete would have a 1-year bulk diffusion coefficient that is less than 1.820x10-12 m2/S. Recall

that this diffusion coefficient standard was established in the previous chapter to represent

concrete that will have RCP test results of 1000 coulombs when tested at 91 days.

In addition, the recommended RCP limits are evaluated to corroborate their applicability to

the standard FDOT specifications. These more flexible proposed RCP limits still need to meet

the basic rating criteria of the current FDOT specification. Therefore, the recommended limits

must discriminate between concrete samples that were designed as low chloride permeable and

samples with higher permeability. FDOT categorizes Class V and Class V Special containing

silica fume or metakaolin as a pozzolan as low permeable mixtures. The higher RCP associated

with the lower confidence level showed in Table 7-1 is selected as the more representative limit

for the evaluation. The proj ect concrete mixtures were divided into two groups. The first group

included mixtures that were not design to meet FDOT standard specifications and the second

group included samples designed to meet the minimum requirements. Table 7-2 shows the 28-

day RCP pass rates by FDOT standard specifications for the two groups of samples. All the RCP










APPENDIX F
REGRESSION FIT OF CONDUCTIVITY AND LONG-TERM DIFFUSION TESTS

The results of the short-term test RCP and SR were compared to the Bulk Diffusion test

results. Bulk Diffusion test (independent variable) results after a 1 and 3 years of chloride

exposure period were used as a benchmark to evaluate the conductivity tests (dependent

variable) at different concrete ages. It was found that a modified linear regression (Equation F-2)

expressed as a power function provided the best representation of the trends. Other researchers

(Hooton, Thomas and Stanish 2001) have also found this to be true in their work. The scatter

plots of the data (APPENDIX G) showed that the relationship of the test results followed an

increasing rate and variability around the trend as the dependent variable increases. This

behavior can be simulated by the use of a power function. Therefore, the dependent (y-axis) and

independent (x-axis) variable of the general linear regression equation (Equation F-1) can be

modified as followed:

y = mx + b (F-1)
log(y) = log(x)m + b
log(y)= log(x")+ b
y = xml~b
y =ax m (F -2)
where: y is the dependent variable (electrical tests); x is the independent variable (diffusion
tests); m is the slope of the linear regression analysis; b is the intersect to the y-axis of the linear
regression analysis; a is 10b


Figure F-1 and Figure F-2 show the effectiveness of the modified linear regression model

assumption for some of the tests. The modified axis data tend to follow the linear trend.

Moreover, the pattern of residuals (y,-y, pred; where: yi are the experimental dependent variables

and y, pred are the dependent variables from the regression analysis) showed homogeneous error

variances across the independent variable axis (constant variance).










Table 2-1. Comparison of RCP Results with Ponding Tests (AASHTO T277, ASTM C 1202)
(Whiting 1981).


Type of Aggregate
Sandstone
Limestone
Marble
Granite


Chloride lon
Permeability
High
Moderate
Low
Very Low
Negligible


Total Integral Chloride
to 41 mm Depth
After 90-day
Pending Test
> 1.3


Chloride
Permeability
High


Moderate


Low



Very Low


Charge
(Coul omb s)
> 4,000


2,000 4,000


1,000 2,000


100 1,000


Type of Concrete
High water-to-cement ratio
(>0.6) conventional Portland
cement concrete
Moderate water-to-cement ratio
(0.4-0.5) conventional
Portland cement concrete
Low water-to-cement ratio
(<0.4) conventional Portland
cement concrete
Latex modified concrete,
internally sealed concrete


0.8 -1.3


0.55 0.8


0.35 0.55


Negligible


< 100 Polymer impregnated concrete,
polymer concrete


< 0.35


Table 2-2. Measured Electrical Resistivities of Typical Aggregates used for Concrete (Monfore
1968).


Resistivity (ohm-cm)
18,000
30,000
290,000
880,000


Table 2-3. Apparent Surface Resistivity for 4-inch (102-mm) Diameter by 8-inch (204-mm)
Long Concrete Cylinder using a Four-point Wenner Probe with 1.5-inch (38-mm)
Probe Spacing. Values for 28 and 91-day Test (Chini, Muszynski and Hicks 2003).


Surface Resistivity Test
28-Day Test 91-Day Test
(KOhm-cm) (KOhm-cm)
< 12 < 11
12 -21 11 -19
21 37 19 37
37 254 37 295
> 254 > 295


RCP Test Charge
(C oul omb s)
> 4,000
2,000 4,000
1,000 2,000
100 1,000
< 100





+ Include in the Regression

-Fitted Regression









0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Mid-Layer from Surface (in)


* Include inthe Regression
x Not Include inthe Regression
- Fitted Regression


~~~~~~~~ Inld nh~ges
+ NoInclude m the Regression

- Fitted Re session


"~e
,h40

30

S20

S10


,h40 -

S30 -

U 20 -

*C 10 -


0 0.5 1 1.5
Mid-Layer from Surface (in)


0 0.5 1 1.5
Mid-Layer from Surface (in)


Figure 6-1. Diffusion Regression Analysis for Cored Samples: A) NRB (Lab #5075) and B) HPB
(Lab# 5017).


50

S40

30

O 20

C 10


Figure 6-2. Diffusion Regression Analysis for Cored Sample GRB (Lab #5084).










experimental data (Figure 5-19 and Figure 5-20). Each of the data values used in the test

correlations was a product of an average of three experimental results. Some of these results had

high coefficient of variation with up to 15% on the RCP results (APPENDIX E) and 30% on the

Bulk Diffusion (Table 5-2 and Table 5-4).

To ensure that the variability in the data was accounted for appropriately Monte Carlo

simulation was conducted. This simulation was focused on obtain the respective diffusion

coefficient results related to the standard RCP limits. The available RCP data and Bulk Diffusion

test results at 1 and 3 years of chloride exposure were included in the analysis. Each of the Bulk

Diffusion coefficients and RCP test results were simulated with separate independent random

variables using a normal distribution. The parameters required to define the shape of the normal

distribution, mean and standard deviation, were calculated from the three available data points

from each set of mixture test results. A complete set of Bulk Diffusion and RCP results were

randomly generated from the different normal distribution models. In some of the cases due to

the high coefficient of variation of the variables, the RCP or Bulk Diffusion randomly generated

values resulted on negative values, which was incorrect. Therefore, these negative simulated

results were replaced with new positive random results. The respective best-fit-equation was then

calculated based on the power function model. The diffusion coefficients related to the standard

coulomb limit values were then obtained from the new trend line equation. This process was

repeated many times and different diffusion coefficient results for each RCP limits were

obtained. Finally, the average and standard deviation of the obtained group of diffusion results

were assembled in a histogram.

Figure 5-21 shows a schematic of the correlation process using the Monte Carlo

simulation. Initially 100 simulations were run and the average and standard deviation of each











APPENDIX D
FIELD CORE SAMPLING DATA AND ANALYSIS RESULTS

Table D-1. Initial Chloride Background Level of Cored Samples.
Initial Chloride Samples (lb/yd3)


Bridge Name
Hurricane Pass (HPB)




Broadway Replacement
(BRB)

Seabreeze West Bound
(SWB)

Granada (GRB)

Turkey Creek (TCB)




New Roosevelt (NRB)


Lab. #

5016
5017
5018
5054
5081
5082
5083
5084

5078
5079
5080
5075
5076
5077


Average
0.547(a)
0.533
0.561
0.467
0.858(b)
0.467
0.432
0.637

0.556
0.423
0.417
0.614
0.432
0.382


0.515
0.529
0.426
0.843
0.435
0.390
0.669

0.550
0.423
0.414
0.623
0.445
0.332


0.514
0.594
0.483
0.904
0.508
0.441
0.649

0.574
0.420
0.415
0.609
0.423
0.407


0.570
0.560
0.492
0.828
0.458
0.465
0.594

0.544
0.427
0.423
0.609
0.427
0.408


(a) Initial Chlorides were not tested for this sample. An average between Lab sample# 5017 and 5018 was
reported.
(b) Initial Chloride value was considered an erroneous value (too high). The value of initial chlorides from Lab
sample# 5054 was used.









method FM 5-516 (APPENDIX D). The core surface was first cleaned to remove barnacles or

other debris. Two methods were used to obtain the respective profile samples. The top 0.48-inch

(12-mm) was profied using a milling machine. Powder samples were taken at increments of

0.08-inch (2-mm) (Figure 4-9). Subsequent profies were obtained by cutting the sample into

0.25-inch (6.5-mm) thick slices using a water-cooled diamond saw. The core proofing scheme

summary is presented in Table 4-2. The sample obtained from the two proofing methods was

pulverized and placed in plastic bags until the chloride content testing was executed. The initial

chloride background levels of cored samples were determined from the deepest section of the

specimens (APPENDIX D), assuming that chlorides have not yet reached this depth.










equation. The measured chloride contents at varying depths were fitted to Fick's diffusion

equation by means of a non-linear regression analysis in accordance with the method of least

square fit. The computerized mathematical tools of the program MathCad were used to fit the

data to the non-linear regressions. Table 5-2 to Table 5-5 show the obtained chloride diffusion

coefficients and surface concentration for 1 and 3 years of exposure. Moreover, chloride profies

and curve fitting results for each concrete mixture are summarized in APPENDIX C.

The mixture proportions affect directly the rate of chloride diffusion into concrete. Several

factors such as the water-cementitious ratios and the types and amounts of cementitious materials

used for the mixture will change the rate of chloride diffusion. Figure 5-3 and Figure 5-4 show a

comparison of the obtained chloride diffusion coefficients for 1 and 3 years of exposure for the

entire set of mixtures.

Table 5-6 shows the relative decrease in diffusion from 1 to 3-years of exposure.

Moreover, the effects on the diffusion coefficient by the addition of different pozzolans and

corrosion inhibitor are compared in Table 5-7. Mixtures having the same water-cementitious

ratios, cementitious contents and different pozzolan combinations and corrosion inhibitor were

compared. The chosen mixtures were cast under laboratory conditions with the same source of

materials. Mixture 35_752 that did not contain pozzolan was selected as the control to make the

comparisons. The changes in diffusion from 1 to 3-years compared to the control mixture are

also presented graphically in Figure 5-5. The results show that the addition of metakaolin

(3 5_752_10M) decreases the chloride diffusion compared to the control mixture by about 70

percent for the 1 and 3 years of exposure results. Moreover, the addition of silica fume

(3 5_752_8 SF), ground blast furnace slag (3 5_752_50Slag) and ternary blends of fly-ash with

metakaolin (3 5_752_10M_2F) or silica fume (3 5_752_8 SF_20F) decreases the chloride


























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











A .. B~-

Figure 3-19. btaining Core Sample. A) Etratn rlldCrB Lcto fth xrce
Coeta ece retesn tad











0.862 '
y =1042x '
R2 = 0.669








+ / - 90% Confdence Limit
Fitted Correlation


15000 -




S10000 -




U 5000 -


Bulk Diffusion (x10 1)(m /s)


Figure 7-1. i
D


2500 -



i~2000 -



o 1500 -



1000 -



500 -


90% Confidence Limit for Mean Response of 28-Day RCP Test vs. 1-Year Bulk
>iffusion Test Correlation.


-Fitted Correlation
- 90% Confidence Limit,



1422 *





1.820x10-1


1.4 1.8
Bulk Diffusion (x10-12)(HI2/S)


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










Table 2-4. Several Curve Fitting Constants m that Describes the Rate of Change of the Diffusion
Coefficient with Time for Various Concrete Mix Designs (Stanish and Thomas 2003;
Boddy, Hooton and Gruber 2001; Thomas and Bamforth 1999; Nokken et al. 2006;
Thomas et al. 1999).
Mix Design(a) m Mix Design(a) m
0.40w/c-0% 0.43 0.3 5w/c-12%FA 0.77
0.50Ow/c-0% 0.32 0.3 5w/c-1 8%FA 0.70
0.66w/c-0% 0.10 0.31w/c-12%FA 0.55
0.30w/c-4% SF 0.60 0.48w/c-70%Slag 1.20
0.40w/c-8% SF 0.61 0.30w/c-4%SF, 25%Slag 0.64
0.40w/c-12% SF 0.49 0.30w/c-8%SF, 25%Slag 0.75
0.50w/c-25%/FA 0.66 0.40w/c-8%HRM 0.44
0.5 0w/c-5 6%FA 0.79 0.40w/c-12%HRM 0.50
0.5 4w/c-30O%FA 0.70 0.30w/c-10%SF, 25%FA 0.45
(a) Fly-Ash (FA), Silica Fume (SF), Ground Blast Furnace Slag (Slag) and High Reactivity Metakaolin
(HRM).




























0 12 3 4

Depth (in)
Diffusion(m^2/sec)l 1.517E-12 Background(lyd3) 0.316
Surfacebl~yd^3) 46.78 Sum(Error)^2 73.40

CPR21 (Sample C) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion



S60


S40


S20



0 1 2 3 4

Depth (mm)
Diffusion(m^2/sec)l 1.246E-1 Background(lblyd^3) 0.316
Surfacebl~yd^3) 49.553 Sum(Error)^2 48.17

Figure C-2. Continued.


CPR21 (Sample A) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion


CPR21 (Sample B) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion


a~60





S20





Depth (in)
Diffusion(m^2/sec)l 1.384E-12 Background(lyd3) 0.316
Surfacebl~yd^3) 65.54 Sum(Error)^2 86.231











Bulk Diffusion





x 0.301
y = 0.086x
R2 = 0.286

0 10 20 3(
Bulk Diffusion (m2/s)


Bulk Diffusion

y 0.035xoss
-R2 0.602






0 10 20 3
Bulk Diffusion (m2/s)


SR (Lime) (28 Days) vs. 1092-Day
Bulk Diffusion
0.3


S0.2-

~t ~ 0.397
S0.1 x y =0.054x
R2 = 0.492

0 10 20 30
Bulk Diffusion (m2/S)

SR (Lime) (91 Days) vs. 1092-Day
Bulk Diffusion
n 2


l" I I I
0 10 20 30
Bulk Diffusion (m2/S)


SR (Lime) (14 Days) vs. 1092-Day


0.3


S0.2
0.1


SR (Lime) (56 Days) vs. 1092-Day


0.3


S0.2

0.1


y = 0.027x.6
R2 = 0.715


U 0.2
o
'C 0.1


0 10 20
Bulk Diffusion (m2/S)


SR (Lime) (182 Days) vs. 1092-Day
Bulk Diffusion


SR (Lime) (364 Days) vs. 1092-Day
Bulk Diffusion


0.586
y = 0.019x
R2 = 0.773


0.638
y = 0.014x
R2 = 0.774


U 0.2 -

O
S0.1


U 0.2

O
'C0.1


Bulk Diffusion (m2/s)


Figure G-4. SR (Lime Cured) vs. 3-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficients (x Concrete mixture
containing Calcium Nitrite (CPR12). It was not include in the general correlation
calculations).










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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7-10 28-Day Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) Limit with a 90% Confidence Level for
Concrete Elements with a Negligible Chloride Permeability. ............. ....................13

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

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

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

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

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

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

G-1 RCP Coulombs vs. 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficients ................ ........_. ........._196



























0 5 10 15 20

Depth (in)
Diffusion(In^2/sec)l 1.148E-11 Background(lblyd^3) 0.400
SurfaceOlbyd^3) 27.738 Sumn(Error)^2 32.192



PILE 44-2 (3ft above MHW)(SPLASH)














0 5 10 15 20

Depth (in)
Diffusion(In^2/sec)l 2.495E-12 Background(lblyd^3) 0.400
SurfaceOlbyd^3) 21.163 Sumn(Error)^2 0.184


0 5 10 15 20

Depth (in)
Diffusion(In^2/sec)l 1.827E-11 Background(lblyd^3) 0.400
SurfaceOlbyd^3) 18.879 Sum(n(Error)^ 1.849



PILE 44-2 (7ft above MHW)(DRY)
30II








10




0 5 10 15 20

Depth (in)
Diffusion(In^2/sec)l 1.646E3-121 Background(lblyd^3) 0.400
SurfaceOlbyd^3) 9.219 Sum(n(Error)^ 0.179


PILE 44-2 (6ft below MHW)(SUBMERGED)


PILE 44-2 (1ft below MHW))(TIDAL)


Figure H1-2. St. George Island Bridge Pile Testing Proj ect Diffusion Coefficients (Cannon et al.
2006) (Initial chloride background levels information was not available in this
proj ect. It was assumed a minimum value of 0.40 lb/yd3 for all the samples).




Full Text

PAGE 1

1 ALLOWABLE LIMITS FOR CONDUCTIV ITY TEST METHODS AND DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT PREDICTION OF CONCRETE STRUCTURES EXPOSED TO MARINE ENVIRONMENTS By ENRIQUE A. VIVAS A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2007

PAGE 2

2 2007 Enrique A. Vivas

PAGE 3

3 To my loving family, my mother Carmen Yoland a, my father Pedro Alexander and my brother Pedro Luis, as they have offered their unyielding love and support, and la st but not least, to Johanna Ponchis

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank the Florida Department of Trans portation for providing the funding for this research project. This project was a collaborative effort among the University of Florida, and the FDOT State Materials Office Res earch Laboratory (Gainesville). I would like to thank my committee chair and advisor, Dr. Trey Hamilton, for his guidance and support. It was truly an honor to work unde r his guidance. Special thanks go to Mario Paredes, FDOT State Materials Corrosion Offi ce, for his supervision and technical support during the course of the project. I cannot thank him enough for all of his help. Moreover, I would like to thank the FDOT State Materials Office Re search Laboratory personnel for their help on constructing the specimens and conducting material s testing, especially Ch arlotte Kasper, Phillip Armand and Sandra Bober whose help was critical to the completion of this project. The assistance of Elizabeth (Beth) Tuller, Robert (Mitch) Langley and Richard DeLorenzo is gratefully acknowledged. My sincere gratitude goes to Dennis Baldi and Luke Mcleod who assisted in the field investigati ons of the project. Moreover, the assistance of staff from FDOT Districts (D2, D3, D4, D5 and D7 ) for their assistance in the fi eld investigations; especially Bobby Ivery, Steve Hunt, Wilky Jordan, Ken Go rdon, Donald Vanwhervin, Daniel Haldi and Keith West. I would like to thank CEMEX, BO RAL Materials Technologies Inc., W.R. Grace & Co., Burgess Pigment Co., Lafarge, RINKER Material s Corp., S. Eastern Pres tress Concrete Inc., Gate Concrete Products and C OUCH Concrete for their contri butions to this research.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........7 LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................ .......10 ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ............15 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................17 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................................19 Mechanism of Chloride Ion Transport...................................................................................19 Diffusion of Chloride Ions..................................................................................................... .20 Test Methods to Predict Permeability of the Concrete...........................................................21 Resistance of Concrete to Chlori de Ion Penetration (AASHTO T259)..........................22 Bulk Diffusion Test (Nordtest NTBUILD 443)..............................................................24 Rapid Chloride Permeability Te st (AASHTO T277, ASTM C1202).............................25 Surface Resistivity Test Using the Four-Point Wenner Probe (FM 5-578)....................27 Time Dependent Diffusion in Concrete..................................................................................31 Effective Diffusion Coefficients of Conc rete Structures Exposed to Marine Environments................................................................................................................... ...33 3 CONCRETE MIXTURE DESIGNS AND FIELD CORE SAMPLING...............................42 Concrete Mixtures.............................................................................................................. ....42 Laboratory Concrete Mixtures........................................................................................42 Field Concrete Mixtures..................................................................................................43 Field Core Sampling............................................................................................................ ...44 Bridge Selection..............................................................................................................45 Coring Procedures...........................................................................................................45 4 TEST PROCEDURES............................................................................................................66 Laboratory and Field Conc rete Sample Matrix......................................................................66 Chloride Ion Content Analysis...............................................................................................66 Diffusion Test................................................................................................................. ........66 Bulk Diffusion Test.........................................................................................................66 Electrical Conductivity Tests..................................................................................................67 Rapid Chloride Permeability Test (RCP)........................................................................67 Surface Resistivity Test...................................................................................................69 Bridge Core Sample Chloride Ion Content Analysis..............................................................69

PAGE 6

6 5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.............................................................................................77 Fresh Properties............................................................................................................... .......77 Mechanical Properties.......................................................................................................... ..77 Long-Term Chloride Penetration Procedures.........................................................................79 Comparison of Conductivity and Long-Term Diffusion Tests...............................................81 Rapid Chloride Permeability Test (RCP)........................................................................81 Surface Resistivity...........................................................................................................82 Relating Electrical Test s and Bulk Diffusion.........................................................................83 Refinement of the Long-Term Diffusion Co efficient Prediction Using Monte Carlo Simulation..................................................................................................................... ......87 6 FIELD CORE SAMPLING..................................................................................................114 Diffusion Coefficients of Cored Samples.............................................................................114 Correlation of Long-Term Field Data to Laboratory Test Procedures.................................115 7 RECOMMENDED APPROACH FOr DETERMI NING LIMITS OF CONDUCTIVITY TESTS.......................................................................................................................... .........125 RCP and Bulk Diffusion.......................................................................................................125 SR and Bulk Diffusion..........................................................................................................128 8 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS...................................................................................140 APPENDIX A CONCRETE MIXTURE LABELING SYSTEM CONVERSION.....................................142 B CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTHS.....................................................................143 C LABORATORY LONG-TERM CHLORI DE PENETRATION TEST (BULK DIFFUSION) DATA AND ANALYSIS RESULTS...........................................................148 D FIELD CORE SAMPLING DATA AND ANALYSIS RESULTS.....................................177 E SHORT-TERM ELECTRICAL TEST DATA RESULTS..................................................184 F REGRESSION FIT OF CON DUCTIVITY AND LONG-TER M DIFFUSION TESTS....193 G COMPARISON OF CONDUCTIVITY AND LONG-TERM LABORATORY DIFFUSION TESTS.............................................................................................................196 H ANALYSIS OF DATA OBTAINED FROM OTHER PROJECTS....................................206 LIST OF REFERENCES.............................................................................................................210 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................216

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 Comparison of RCP Results with Ponding Tests (AASHTO T277, ASTM C1202)........36 2-2 Measured Electrical Resistivities of Typical Aggregates used for Concrete.....................36 2-3 Apparent Surface Resistivity us ing a Four-point Wenner Probe......................................36 2-4 Several Curve Fitting Constants m that Describes the Rate of Change of the Diffusion Coefficient with Time fo r Various Concrete Mix Designs...............................37 3-1 Laboratory Mixtures Material Sources..............................................................................47 3-2 Laboratory Mixture Designs..............................................................................................47 3-3 Standard Method for Casting and Vibrat ing Concrete Cylinders (AASHTO T23)...........48 3-4 Specified Compressive Strengt h of FDOT Concrete Classes............................................49 3-5 Field Mixture Designs...................................................................................................... ..49 3-6 Field Mixture Material Sources.........................................................................................50 3-7 Locations of Field Mixtures...............................................................................................51 3-8 FDOT Cored Bridge Struct ures for the Investigation........................................................52 3-9 FDOT Cored Bridge El ement Mixture Designs................................................................53 3-10 FDOT Cored Bridge Elemen t Mixture Material Sources..................................................54 3-11 28-Day RCP Test Data from Concrete Mixture Designs of the Cored Samples...............56 3-12 Summary of Cores Extracted and Associated Properties..................................................57 4-1 Concrete Permeability Research Samp le Matrix for Laboratory Mixtures.......................71 4-2 Bridge Core Samples Profiling Scheme............................................................................71 5-1 Fresh Concrete Properties..................................................................................................90 5-2 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficients...................................................................................91 5-3 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Surface Concentration..................................................................92 5-4 3-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficients...................................................................................93

PAGE 8

8 5-5 3-Year Bulk Diffusion Surface Concentration..................................................................94 5-6 Bulk Diffusion Ratio of Change fr om 3-Years to 1-Year of Exposure.............................95 5-7 Pozzolans and Corrosion Inhibitor E ffects on Bulk Diffusi on Coefficients......................95 5-8 Correlation Coefficients (R2) of RCP to Reference Tests.................................................96 5-9 Correlation Coefficients (R2) of Surface Resistivity to Reference Tests...........................96 5-10 1 and 3 year Bulk Diffusion Relative to 91-Day RCP Charge Passed (Coulombs)..........96 5-11 Correlation Coefficients (R2) of RCP and Surface Resistivity to Reference Tests by Monte Carlo Simulation Analysis......................................................................................97 5-12 1 and 3 year Bulk Diffusion Relative to 91-Day RCP Charge Passed (Coulombs) by Monte Carlo Simulation Analysis......................................................................................97 6-1 Calculated Diffusion Para meters of Cored Samples........................................................120 6-2 Time Dependent Changes in Diffusion Coefficients from Submerged and Tidal Zones.......................................................................................................................... ......121 6-3 Laboratory Bulk Diffusion Co efficients for Comparable Mixtures with an Expected Low Chloride Permeability Design.................................................................................121 7-1 Allowable RCP Values for a 28-Day Test for Concrete Elements Under Extremely Aggressive Environments (Very Low Chloride Permeability) and Associated Confidence Levels...........................................................................................................131 7-2 28-Day RCP Pass Rates of Several Concrete Samples by FDOT Standard Specifications (FDOT 346 2004).....................................................................................131 7-3 Allowable RCP Values for a 28-Day Te st with a 90% Confidence Levels for Concrete Elements with Different Chloride Permeability...............................................132 7-4 Allowable RCP Values for a 28-Day Te st with a 95% Confidence Levels for Concrete Elements with Different Chloride Permeability...............................................132 7-5 Allowable RCP Values for a 28-Day Te st with a 99% Confidence Levels for Concrete Elements with Different Chloride Permeability...............................................132 7-6 Allowable Surface Resistivity Values fo r a 28-Day Test for Concrete Elements Under Extremely Aggressive Environments...................................................................133 7-7 28-Day Surface Resistivity Pass Rates of Several Concrete Samples by FDOT Standard Specifications (FDOT 346 2004)......................................................................133

PAGE 9

9 7-8 Allowable Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) Values for a 28-Day Test with a 90% Confidence Levels for Concrete Elements with Different Chloride Permeability..........134 7-9 Allowable Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) Values for a 28-Day Test with a 95% Confidence Levels for Concrete Elements with Different Chloride Permeability..........134 7-10 Allowable Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) Values for a 28-Day Test with a 99% Confidence Levels for Concrete Elements with Different Chloride Permeability..........134 A-1 Appendix Concrete Mixture Labeling System Conversion.............................................142 B-1 Concrete Compressive Strength Data Results.................................................................143 C-1 Initial Chloride Background Level of Concrete Mixtures...............................................148 C-2 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Chlori de Profile Testing Results.................................................149 C-3 3-Year Bulk Diffusion Chlori de Profile Testing Results.................................................163 D-1 Initial Chloride Background Level of Cored Samples.....................................................177 D-2 Chloride Profile Testing Results of Cored Samples........................................................178 E-1 RCP Coulombs Testing Results.......................................................................................184 E-2 SR (Lime Cured) Testing Results....................................................................................185 E-3 SR (Moist Cured) Testing Results...................................................................................189 H-1 HRP Project Concrete Mixture Designs..........................................................................206 H-2 Initial Chloride Backgro und Levels from HRP Project...................................................206 H-3 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Chloride Profile Testing from HRP Project................................206 H-4 St. George Island Bridge Pile Testing Project Chloride Prof ile Testing of Cored Samples........................................................................................................................ ....208

PAGE 10

10 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2-1 Ficks Second Law of Diffusion Regression Analysis Example.......................................38 2-2 Ninety-day Salt Ponding Test Setup (AASHTO T259).....................................................38 2-3 Bulk Diffusion Test Setup (NordTest NTBuild 443)........................................................39 2-4 Rapid Chloride Permeability Test Setup (AASHTO T277, ASTM C1202).....................39 2-5 Four-point Wenner Probe Test Setup................................................................................40 2-6 Time-Dependent Diffusion Coeffici ents for Concrete having Various Water/Cementitious and Contents of High Reactivity Metakaolin...................................40 2-7 Different Times t for Calculating the Curv e Fitting Constant that Describes the Rate of Change of the Diffusion................................................................................................41 2-8 Diffusion Regression Analysis Exam ple of a Bridge Cored Sample................................41 3-1 Air Curing of Cast Concrete Specimens............................................................................58 3-2 Casting of Field Mixture Specimens..................................................................................58 3-3 Field Samples Curing during transport to Laboratory.......................................................58 3-4 FDOT District Map with Field Mixture Locations............................................................59 3-5 Hurricane Pass Bridge (H PB) General Span View............................................................59 3-6 Hurricane Pass Bridge (HPB) Substructure Elements.......................................................60 3-7 Broadway Replacement East Bound Br idge (BRB) General Span View..........................60 3-8 Broadway Replacement East Bound Bri dge (BRB) Substructure Elements.....................60 3-9 Seabreeze West Bound Bridge (SWB) General Span View..............................................61 3-10 Seabreeze West Bound Bridge (SWB) Substructure Elements.........................................61 3-11 Granada Bridge (GRB) General Span View......................................................................61 3-12 Granada Bridge (GRB) Substructure Elements.................................................................62 3-13 Turkey Creek Bridge (TCB) General Span View..............................................................62 3-14 Turkey Creek Bridge (TCB) Substructure Elements.........................................................62

PAGE 11

11 3-15 New Roosevelt (NRB) General Span View.......................................................................63 3-16 New Roosevelt (NRB) Substructure Elements..................................................................63 3-17 Cored Element Location Defined by the Wa ter Tide Region between High Tine Line (HTL) and the Organic Tide Line (OTL)..........................................................................63 3-18 Bridge Coring Process..................................................................................................... ..64 3-19 Obtaining Cored Sample....................................................................................................64 3-20 Repairing Structural Cored Member..................................................................................65 4-1 Cutting Bulk Diffusion Samples into Two Halves............................................................72 4-2 Bulk Diffusion Saline Solution Exposure..........................................................................72 4-3 RCP test top surface removal of the sample preparation procedure..................................73 4-4 RCP Sample Preparation....................................................................................................73 4-5 RCP Sample Sealed with Epoxy........................................................................................74 4-6 RCP Sample Preconditioning Procedure...........................................................................74 4-7 RCP Test Set-Up............................................................................................................ ....75 4-8 Surface Resistivity Measurements.....................................................................................75 4-9 Profile Grinding Using a Milling Machine........................................................................76 5-1 Comparative Compressive Strength Development of La boratory Control Mixture and Laboratory Mixtures..........................................................................................................98 5-2 Comparative Compressive Strength Development of La boratory Control Mixture and Field Mixtures................................................................................................................. ...99 5-3 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficient Comparisons............................................................100 5-4 3-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficient Comparisons............................................................100 5-5 Pozzolans and Corrosion Inhibitors Effects on Bulk Diffusion Coefficients..................101 5-6 1-Year Bulk Diffusion vs. RCP (AASHTO T277)..........................................................101 5-7 3-Year Bulk Diffusion vs. RCP (AASHTO T277)..........................................................102 5-8 1-Year Bulk Diffusion vs. SR (Lime Cured) Conductivity.............................................102

PAGE 12

12 5-9 3-Year Bulk Diffusion vs. SR (Lime Cured) Conductivity.............................................103 5-10 1-Year Bulk Diffusion vs. SR (Moist Cured) Conductivity............................................103 5-11 3-Year Bulk Diffusion vs. SR (Moist Cured) Conductivity............................................104 5-12 Curing Method Comparison of Correlation Co efficients with 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Test........................................................................................................................... ........104 5-13 Curing Method Comparison of Correlation Co efficients with 3-Year Bulk Diffusion Test........................................................................................................................... ........105 5-14 AASHTO T259 Total Integral Chloride Content Analysis.............................................105 5-15 RCP Test Coulomb Results Change With the Addition of Fly Ash and Silica Fume.....106 5-16 RCP Test Coulomb Results Change With Age................................................................107 5-17 General Correlation Coefficients (R2) of Electrical Tests by Testing Ages with 1Year Bulk Diffusion.........................................................................................................108 5-18 General Correlation Coefficients (R2) of Electrical Tests by Testing Ages with 3Year Bulk Diffusion.........................................................................................................108 5-19 Relating Electrical Tests and 1-Year Bulk Diffusion......................................................109 5-20 Relating Electrical Tests and 3-Year Bulk Diffusion......................................................109 5-21 Schematic Process of Bulk Diffusi on Correlation to RCP Using Monte Carlo Simulation..................................................................................................................... ...110 5-22 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficient of Va riation Change by the Number of Samples Used in Monte Carlo Simulation for the Different 28-Day RCP Standard Limits..........111 5-23 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficient of Va riation Change by the Number of Samples Used in Monte Carlo Simulation for the Different 91-Day RCP Standard Limits..........112 5-24 General Correlation Coefficients (R2) of Electrical Tests by Testing Ages with 1Year Bulk Diffusion by Monte Carlo Simulation Analysis.............................................112 5-25 General Correlation Coefficients (R2) of Electrical Tests by Testing Ages with 3Year Bulk Diffusion by Monte Carlo Simulation Analysis.............................................113 6-1 Diffusion Regression Analysis for Co red Samples for NRB and HPB Bridge...............122 6-2 Diffusion Regression Analysis for Cored Sample GRB Bridge......................................122 6-3 Chloride Exposure Zones of a Typical Bridge Structure.................................................123

PAGE 13

13 6-4 Time Dependent Changes in Diffusion Coefficients from Submerged and Tidal Zones.......................................................................................................................... ......123 6-5 Time Dependent Laboratory and Field Diffusion Coefficient Trend of Change.............124 7-1 90% Confidence Limit for Mean Response of 28-Day RCP Test vs. 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Test Correlation...............................................................................................135 7-2 28-Day RCP Coulombs Limit with a 90% Confidence Level for Concrete Elements with a Very Low Chloride Permeability..........................................................................135 7-3 28-Day RCP Coulombs Limit with a 90% Confidence Level for Concrete Elements with a Moderate Chloride Permeability...........................................................................136 7-4 28-Day RCP Coulombs Limit with a 90% Confidence Level for Concrete Elements with a Low Chloride Permeability...................................................................................136 7-5 28-Day RCP Coulombs Limit with a 90% Confidence Level for Concrete Elements with a Negligible Chloride Permeability.........................................................................137 7-6 90% Confidence Limit for Mean Res ponse of 28-Day Surface Resistivity Test (Moist Cured) vs. 1-Year Bu lk Diffusion Test Correlation.............................................137 7-7 28-Day Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) Limit with a 90% Confidence Level for Concrete Elements with a Very Low Chloride Permeability...........................................138 7-8 28-Day Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) Limit with a 90% Confidence Level for Concrete Elements with a M oderate Chloride Permeability............................................138 7-9 28-Day Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) Limit with a 90% Confidence Level for Concrete Elements with a Low Chloride Permeability....................................................139 7-10 28-Day Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) Limit with a 90% Confidence Level for Concrete Elements with a Negligible Chloride Permeability..........................................139 B-1 Concrete Compression Strength Graphs..........................................................................145 C-1 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Coe fficient Regression Analysis.................................................153 C-2 3-Year Bulk Diffusion Coe fficient Regression Analysis.................................................167 D-1 Cored Samples Chloride Diffusion Coefficient Regression Analysis.............................181 F-1 Electrical Test Modified Linear Regressi on Analysis to 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Data...194 F-2 Electrical Test Modified Linear Regressi on Analysis to 3-Year Bulk Diffusion Data...195 G-1 RCP Coulombs vs. 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficients.................................................196

PAGE 14

14 G-2 RCP Coulombs vs. 3-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficients.................................................197 G-3 SR (Lime Cured) vs. 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficients..............................................198 G-4 SR (Lime Cured) vs. 3-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficients..............................................200 G-5 SR (Moist Cured) vs. 1-Y ear Bulk Diffusion Coefficients..............................................202 G-6 SR (Moist Cured) vs. 3-Y ear Bulk Diffusion Coefficients..............................................204 H-1 Diffusion Coefficient Re sults from HRP Project.............................................................207 H-2 St. George Island Bridge Pile Te sting Project Diffusion Coefficients............................209

PAGE 15

15 Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy ALLOWABLE LIMITS FOR CONDUCTIV ITY TEST METHODS AND DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT PREDICTION OF CONCRETE STRUCTURES EXPOSED TO MARINE ENVIRONMENTS By Enrique A. Vivas December 2007 Chair: H. R. Hamilton Major: Civil Engineering This work details research conducted on methods used to rapidly determine the resistance of concrete to the penetrati on of chloride ions. These me thods, based on the electrical conductivity of concrete, were Rapid Chlo ride Permeability (RCP) (AASHTO T277, ASTM C1202) and Surface Resistivity (SR) (FM 5-578). Th e results of these conductivity tests were compared to the Bulk Diffusion (NordTest NT Build 443) test, which allow a more natural penetration of the conc rete by the chlorides. Nineteen different mixtures were prepared using materials typi cally used in construction in the State of Florida. Twelve mixtures were labo ratory prepared and the remaining seven mixtures were obtained at various field sites around the St ate. The concrete mixtures were designed to have a range of permeabilities. Some of the designs included such pozzolans as fly ash and silica fume. One mixture was prepared with calcium nitrate corro sion inhibitor. Diffusion coefficients were determined from the Bulk Diffusion test using a 1 and 3-year chloride exposure period. The electrical result s from the short-term tests RCP and SR at 14, 28, 56, 91, 182 and 364 days of age were then compared to the long-term diffusion reference test.

PAGE 16

16 A new calibrated scale to categorize the equiva lent RCP measured charge in coulombs to the chloride ion permeability of the concrete was developed. The proposed scale was based on the correlation of the 91-day RCP results relate d to the chloride permeability measured by a 1year Bulk Diffusion test. Finally, to provide additional da ta to which the laboratory lo ng-term Bulk Diffusion results can be compared, several concrete specimens we re collected from six selected FDOT bridges located in marine environments. A total of 14 co re samples were obtained from the substructures tidal zone of exposure. The average chloride exposure was ten-years. The diffusion results obtained showed considerable lowe r chloride penetration than the 1 and 3 year laboratory results. It appears that the laboratory me thods overestimate the chloride i ngress from concrete exposed in the field.

PAGE 17

17 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Deterioration of reinforced and prestressed concrete structures exposed to a marine environment is a growing problem in the state of Florida and in many other countries throughout the world. The main reason is corrosion of the rein forcing steel due to the penetration of chloride ions through the concrete eith er through cracks or diffusion, or both. Chloride diffusion is the principal mechanism that drives chloride ions through the pore structure of uncracked concrete (Tuutti 1982; Stanish and Thomas 2003). Therefore, the ability to measure and predict chloride diffusion, both for existing and planned structures is very important. The chloride diffusion of porous materials such as concrete is determined conventionally by tests based on the immersion of specimens in a known chloride concentration solution for a period of time. These methods, however, are time -consuming and often required several years to obtain representative results. Therefore, several accelerated test methods have been proposed over the years to address the lack of practicabil ity of the long-term diffusion procedures. These accelerated test methods are intended to predict diffusion rates for a specific mixture design in a relatively short time period. In some methods, the transport of chloride ions through the concrete is accelerated by applying an external electrical potential, forcing the chloride ions through the sample at an accelerated rate. The electrical resi stivity of saturated concrete samples has also been used as an indirect measure of the ease in which chlorides ions can penetrate concrete (Hooton, Thomas and Stanish 2001). However, there is very little experimental information on the ability of these accelerated procedures to reliab ly predict the penetration of chloride ions into concrete under na tural conditions. The accelerated methods have been criticized b ecause they do not neces sarily replicate the natural conditions of chloride penetration of concrete (Pfe ifer, McDonald and Krauss 1994).

PAGE 18

18 Nevertheless, the results of these accelerated methods are commonly used for mixture design development and quality control. Though imperfect, a rational method to re late the short-term results to the results of tests under more natura l conditions might improve the usefulness of the short-term results. Or at least, this would help to make the shor t-term results more meaningful. Long-term diffusion coefficients obtained from uncracked concrete samples tested in the laboratory were selected as a benchmark to ev aluate the electrical tests. These diffusion coefficients represented a more natural rate of chloride ingres s into the concrete. The objective of this research was to de velop a rational method by which selected accelerated electrical tests can be calibrated so that, with r easonable confidence, chloride diffusion coefficients under natura l conditions can be predicted for the typical concrete mixtures used in this research. This appr oach was expanded to include the development of limits for use in evaluating the results of the accelerated test methods. Moreover, laboratory diffusion test methods were compared to chloride ingress in to concrete exposed to aggressive marine environments.

PAGE 19

19 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Mechanism of Chloride Ion Transport There are four fundamental modes that chlori de ions are transpor ted through concrete. They are diffusion, capillary absorption, eva porative transport and hydrostatic pressure. Diffusion is the movement of chloride ions under a concentration gradient. It will occur when the concentration of chlorides on the outside of the concrete member is greater than on the inside. The chlorides ions in concrete will naturally migrate from the regions of high concentration (high energy) to the low concentration (low energy) as long as sufficien t moisture is present along the path of migration. Moreover, it is the principal mechanism that driv es chloride ions into the pore structure of concrete (Tuutti 1982; Stanish and Thomas 2003). Capillary absorption occurs when the dry surface of the concrete is exposed to moisture (perhaps containing chlorides). Th e solution is drawn into the por ous matrix of the concrete by capillary suction, much like a sponge. Generally, th e shallow depth of chloride ion penetration by capillary action will not reach the reinforcing st eel. It will, however, re duce the distance that chloride ions must travel by diffusion (T homas, Pantazopoulou and Martin-Perez 1995). The evaporative transport mechanism, also know n as wicking effect, is produced by vapor conduction from a wet side surface to a drier atmosphere. This is a vapor diffusivity process where a retained body of liquid in the pore structure of the concrete evaporates and leaves deposits of chlorides inside. For this mechanism to occur, it is necessary that one of the surfaces be air-exposed. Another mechanism for chloride ingress is permeation, driven by hydrostatic pressure gradients. A hydrostatic pressu re gradient can provide the required force to move liquid containing chlorides ions through the internal conc rete matrix. An external hydrostatic pressure

PAGE 20

20 can be supplied by a constant wave action or by a retained body of water like bridges, piers, dams, etc. that are exposed to a marine environment (Chini, Muszynski and Hicks 2003). Diffusion of Chloride Ions Chloride diffusion into concrete, like any othe r diffusion process, is controlled by Ficks First Law. It describes the flow of an impurity in a substance, showing th at the rate of diffusion of the material across a given plane is proporti onal to the concentrati on gradient across that plane. It states for chloride diffusion into concre te or for any diffusion process considered in onedimensional situation that: dx dC D J (2-1) where J the rate of diffusion of the chloride ions D chloride diffusion coefficient (m2/s) C concentration of chloride ions (% mass) x depth below the exposed surface (t o the middle of a layer) (m). The minus sign means that mass is flowing in the direction of d ecreasing concentration. The diffusion coefficient considered the effect of the chloride ions movement through a heterogeneous material like the concrete. Hence, the rate of diffusion calculated includes the effect of the concrete porous matrix that cont ains both solid and liquid components. The equation can be used only when no changes in concentrati on in time are present. Therefore, this equation can be only be used after a steadystate condition have been reached. Ficks Second Law is a derivation of the first law to represent the changes of concentration gradient with time. It states that for the diffusion coefficient ( D ) the rate of change in concentration with time ( t ) is proportional to the rate at whic h the concentration gradient changes with distance in a given direction: 2 2 x C D t C (2-2)

PAGE 21

21 If the following boundary conditions are assu med: surface concentration is constant ( C(x=0, t>0) = C0), initial concentration in the concrete is zero ( C(x>0, t=0) = 0 ) and concentration at an infinite point far enough from the surface is zero ( C(x= t>0) = 0 ). The equation can then be reduced to: ) 4 ( 1 ) (0Dt x erf C t x C (2-3) where C(x,t) chloride concentration, measured at depth x and exposure time t (% mass) t the exposure time (sec) erf error function (tables with values of the error func tion are given in standard mathematical reference books). The Cranks solution to Ficks Second Law of Diffusion can also be presented in the following form: Dt x erf C C C t xi s s4 ) ( ) ( C (2-4) where Ci initial chloride-ion concentration of the cementitious mixture prior to the submersion in the exposure solution (% mass) A common method of determining the concrete chloride diffusion is to expose saturated samples constantly to a chloride solution for a known period of time. The ch loride concentrations at varying depths are then obtained and diffusion coefficients and surface chloride concentrations are determined by fitting the profiled data to the non-linear Ficks Second Law of Diffusion solution (Figure 2-1). Test Methods to Predict Permeability of the Concrete Permeability is defined as the resistance of the concrete to chloride ion penetration. Several researchers (Dhir and Byars 1993; Li, Peng and Ma 1999; Page, Short and El Tarras 1981) have attempted to capture the natural diffusion of ch lorides through the conc rete pore structure by immersing or ponding samples with salt soluti on. These test methods, however, require considerable time to obtain a realistic flow of ch lorides. Consequently, numerous accelerated test

PAGE 22

22 procedures have been designed to predict the penetration of chloride ions. The accelerated methods permit diffusion rates to be established fo r a specific mixture desi gn in a relatively short time period. The migration of chlorides through the sample is generally accelerated by the application of an electrical pot ential, forcing the chloride ions through the sample at an accelerated rate. The following sections describe the testing pr ocedures that have been selected for the research as the methods that represent the more natural ingress of ch loride ions and some accelerated test methods. Resistance of Concrete to Chloride Ion Pe netration (-Day Salt Ponding Test) (AASHTO T259) AASHTO T259 has been traditionally the most widely used method of determining the actual resistance of concrete to chloride ion penetration. For th is test, three concrete slabs measuring 3-inch (76-mm) thick and 12-inch (305 -mm) square are used. These slabs are moist cured for 14 days and then kept for an additi onal 28 days in a drying room with a 50 percent relative humidity environment. A dam is affixed to the non-finished face of the slab and a 3 percent NaCl solution is ponded on the surface, l eaving the bottom face of the slabs exposed to the drying environment (Figure 2-2). The specimens are mainta ined with a constant amount of the chloride solution for a period of 90 days They are removed from the drying room and chloride ion content of half-inch thick slices is determined acco rding to the standard method of test for sampling and testing for chloride ion in concrete and concrete raw materials (ASTM C1152/C1152M 1990 or AASHTO T 260 1997). The ponding test has several limitations. The co mplete test takes at least 118 days to complete (moist cured for 14 days, dried for 14 days and ponded for 90 days). This means that the chloride permeability samples must be cast at l east four months before a particular concrete

PAGE 23

23 mixture will be used in the field. In additi on, the 90-day ponding period is often too short to allow sufficient chloride penetra tion in higher strength concrete. Pozzolans such as fly ash or silica fume have been shown to greatly reduce the permeability of concrete, thus reducing the penetration of chlorides over the 90-day test period (Scanlon and Sherman 1996). Consequently, an extended ponding time is generally necessary to en sure sufficient penetrat ion of chloride ions (Hooton, Thomas and Stanish 2001; Scanlon and Sherman 1996). Another drawback of this test method is that sampling every 0.5 inch (13 mm) does not provide a fine enough measurement to allow for determination of a prof ile of the chloride penetration. Only the average of the chloride pe netration in those slices is obtained, not the actual variation of the chloride concentration over that 0.5 inch (13 mm) (Hooton, Thomas and Stanish 2001). The actual penetratio n depth is a more useful measur ement rather than an average chloride content as measured in the slices (Hoot on 1997). This is particularly important in low permeability concrete where the chloride content can change drastically over a short length. The ponding test forces chloride intrusi on through immediate absorption; long-term diffusion of chloride into the c oncrete under a static concentration gradient ; and wicking due to drying from the exposed surface of the specimen (Scanlon and Sherman 1996). Since the sample initially has to be dried for 28 days, an absorption effect occurs when it is first exposed to the NaCl solution by capillary suction, pulling chlo rides into the concrete (Glass and Buenfeld 1995). During the ponding process one of the exposed faces is submerged in the solution while the other is exposed to air at 50 percent relative humidity (presumably to model the underside of a bridge deck). This creates vapor conduction (wic king) from the wet side face of the sample to the drier face, which enhances the natural diffu sion of the chloride ions. There is still some controversy concerning the relativ e importance of these mechanisms in actual field conditions.

PAGE 24

24 McGrath and Hooton (1999) have su ggested that the relative impor tance of the absorption effect is overestimated. Hooton, Thomas and Stanish ( 2001) have indicated that the relative amounts of chloride ions drawn into the concrete by the ab sorption effect compared to the amount entering by diffusion will be greater when the test is run on ly for a short period of time compared to the relative amounts during the lifetim e of a structure. Moreover, th ey exposed that the wicking effect is also overestimated by the test proced ure. The actual structure humidity gradient will likely be less, at least for part of th e time, than the exposed during the test. Bulk Diffusion Test (Nordtest NTBUILD 443) The bulk diffusion procedure was developed in or der to address some of the problems with the 90-day salt ponding test. The te st was standardized as a Nord test procedure (an organization for test methods in the Nordic countries). The ma in focus of the modifications was to attain a better controlled diffusion only test with no contribution from absorption or wicking effects (Hooton, Thomas and Stanish 2001). This will impr ove the precision of the profile obtained for the simulation of a long-term chloride penetrati on. The method can be applied to new samples or samples taken from existing structures. The sample configuration used for this proced ure is a 4-inch (102-mm) diameter by 4-inch (102-mm) long concrete cylinder. In contrast to AAS HTO T259, the specimens are immediately placed in a saturated limewater solution after a 28 days moist cured period. This wet condition prevents the initial sorption wh en the solution first contacts the specimen. Furthermore, the sample is sealed on all faces except the one that is exposed to the 2.8 M NaCl solution (16.5% NaCl) (Figure 2-3). The test procedure calls for an exposure period of at least 35 days for lowerquality concretes (NTBuild 443 1995 ). For higher-quality concrete mixtures, the exposure time must be extended to at least 90-days.

PAGE 25

25 The chloride profiles are performed immediat ely after the exposure period. The profile layers are obtained by grinding the sample with a diamond-tipped bit. The benefit of pulverizing the profile by this method is the accuracy of depths that can be at tained. Chloride profiles with depth increments on the order of 0.02 inch (0 .5 mm) can be attained. The actual chloride penetration depth calculated by this method gives more resoluti on than the 0.5-inch (13-mm) layers obtained from 90-day salt ponding test procedure. Electrical Indication of Concretes Ability to Resist Chloride Ion Penetration (Rapid Chloride Permeability)( AASHTO T277, ASTM C1202) The rapid chloride permeability test (RCP) is one of the short-term procedures most widely used to assess concrete durability. The test is, however, a measurement of the electrical conductivity of concrete, rather th an a direct measure of concrete permeability. Nonetheless, its results correlate reasonably well with those fr om the long term 90-day salt ponding test (Whiting 1981). More recent research has found inconsistent test results when the samples contained pozzolans or corrosion inhibito rs (Pfeifer, McDonald and Krauss 1994; Scanlon and Sherman 1996 and Wee, Suryavanshi and Tin 2000). The test method measures the electrical conductance by subjecting a 4-inch (102-mm) diameter by 2-inch (51-mm) thick saturated sample to a 60-volt DC poten tial for a period of six hours. One side of the specimen is immersed in a reservoir with a 3.0 percent NaCl solution, and the other side to another reservoir cont aining a 0.3 N NaOH solution (1.2% NaOH) (Figure 2-4). The cumulative electrical charge, measured in coulombs, represents the current passed through the concrete sample during the test period. The area under the current versus time curve was found to correlate with the resist ance of the specimen to chlori de ion penetration (Whiting 1981). According to ASTM C1202, permeability levels based on charge passed through the sample are presented on Table 2-1.The RCP test has received much criticism from researchers during the

PAGE 26

26 past decade for inconsistencies found when the electrical resistivit y-based measurements obtained are compared with diffu sion-based test procedures lik e the 90-day salt ponding test (Andrade 1993; Feldman et al. 1994; Pfeifer, McDonald and Kr auss 1994; Scanlon and Sherman 1996 and Shi, Stegemann and Caldwell 1998; Shi 2003) One of the main criticisms is that permeability depends on the pore structure of the concrete, while electri cal conductivity of the water saturated concrete depends not only on the pore structure but also the chemistry of pore solution. Changes in pore solution chemistry genera te considerable alterati ons in the electrical conductivity of the sample. Thes e variations can be produced by adding fly ash, silica fume, metakaoline or ground blast furnace slag. Silica fume, metakaoline and ground blast furnace slag are reactive materials that may considerably improve the pore structure and reduce the permeability of the concrete. This is not the ca se with fly ash, however, because it is slow reacting and generally reduces permeability by on ly 10 to 20% at 90 days. In addition, the reduction in charge passed in the presence of fly as h is mainly due to a reduction of pore solution alkalinity, rather than a reduction in th e permeability of the concrete (Shi 2003). Another criticism is that the high voltage of 60 volts applied during the test leads to an increase in temperature, especially for a low quality concrete, which may result in an apparent increase in the permeability due to a higher ch arge being passed (McGrath and Hooton 1999; Snyder et al. 2000 and Yang, Cho and Huang 2002). Several modifications to the procedures have been proposed to minimize the temperat ure effect. One (Yang, Cho and Huang 2002) proposes an increase in the standardized acry lic reservoirs from 250 ml (as recommended by ASTM C1202) to 4750 ml. It was found that the chloride diffusion coefficient from RCP reached a steady-state after chloride-ions pass through the specimen. Anot her modification is to record

PAGE 27

27 the charge passed at the 30-minute mark and linearly extrapolate to the speci fied test period of 6 hours (McGrath and Hooton 1999). The standardized RCP test method, ASTM C1 202, is commonly required by construction project specifications for both precast and cast-in-place concrete An arbitrary value, chosen from the scale shown on Table 2-1 of less than 1000 coulombs is usually specified by the engineer or owner for concrete elements under extremely aggressive environments (Pfeifer, McDonald and Krauss 1994). This low RCP coulom b limit is required by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) when Class V or Class V Special conc rete containing silica fume or metakaolin as a pozzolan is tested on 28 days concrete samples (FDOT 346 2004). Surface Resistivity Test Using the Four-Point Wenner Probe (FM 5-578) Concrete conductivity is fundame ntally related to the permeability of fluids and the diffusivity of ions through a porous material (Whiting and Mohamad 2003). As a result, the electrical resistivity can be used as an indirect measure of the ease in which chlorides ions can penetrate concrete (Hooton, Thomas and Stanis h 2001). The resistivity of a saturated porous medium, such as concrete, is mainly measur ed by the conductivity th rough its pore solution (Streicher and Alexander 1995). Two procedures have been developed to dete rmine the electrical resistivity of concrete. The first method involves passing a direct curren t through a concrete specimen placed between two electrodes. The electrical concrete porous re sistivity between the two electrodes is measured. The actual resistance measured by this met hod can be reduced by an unknown amount due to polarization at the probe contac t interface. The second method so lves the polarization problem by passing an alternating current (AC) through th e sample. A convenient tool to measure using this method is the four-point Wenner Probe resistivity meter (Hooton, Thomas and Stanish 2001). The set up utilizes four equally spaced surf ace contacts, where a sma ll alternating current

PAGE 28

28 is passed through the concrete sample between th e outer pair of contact s. The current drive presents a trapezoidal waveform at a frequency of 13-Hz. A digital voltmeter is used to measure the potential difference between the two inner elec trodes, obtaining the resistance from the ratio of voltage to current (Figure 2-5). This resistance is then used to calculate resistivity of the section. The resistivity of a prismatic section of length L and section area A is given by: L AR (2-5) where R is the resistance of the specimen cal culated by dividing the potential V by the applied current I. The resistivity for a concrete cylinder can be ca lculated by the following formula: I V L d 1 42 (2-6) where d is the cylinder diameter and L its length (Morris, Moreno and Sages 1996). Assuming that the concrete cylinder has homogeneous semi-infinite geometry (the dimensions of the element are large in comparis on of the probe spacing), and the probe depth is far less than the probe spacing, the concrete cylinder resistivity is given by Equation 2-7 I V a 2 (2-7) where a is the electrode spacing (Figure 2-5). The non-destructive nature, sp eed, and ease of use make the Wenner Probe technique a promising alternative test to characterize c oncrete permeability. Results from Wenner Probe testing can vary significantly if the degree of saturation or conductivity of the concrete is inconsistent. Techniques to achieve more uniform saturation, such as vacuum saturation or submerging in water overnight, can be performed in the laboratory. However, the laboratory presaturation procedure still presents some inc onsistencies. The known conductivity of the added solution changes when mixed with the ions (m ainly alkali hydroxides) still present in the

PAGE 29

29 concrete pores after the drying process (Hooton, Thomas and St anish 2001). To overcome this problem, Streicher and Alexander (1995) suggested the use of a high cond uctivity solution, for example 5 M NaCl, to saturate the sample so th at the change in conductivity from the ions remaining in the concrete is insignificant. Use of the Wenner Probe on concrete in the fi eld presents further complications. The test can give misleading results when used on field samples with unknown conductivity pore solution. Therefore, the pore solution must be removed from the sample to determine its resistivity or the sample must be pre-satu rated with a known conduc tivity solution (Hooton, Thomas and Stanish 2001). Moreover, pre-saturation of the concrete requires that the sample be first dried to prevent dilution of the saturation solution. Some in situ drying techniques, however, can cause microcracks to form in the pore structur e of the concrete, resulting in an increase in diffusivity. Another possible problem with the in s itu readings is that reinforcing steel can cause a short circuit path an d give a misleadingly low reading. Th e readings should be taken at rightangles to the steel rather than along the reinforcing length to mi nimize this error (Broomfield and Millard 2002). Hooton, Thomas and Stanish (2001) have suggested that because of these problems, the Wenner probe should only be used in the laboratory, on either laboratory-cast specimens or on cores taken from the structure without steel. The test probe spacing is critical to obtaining accurate measurements of surface resistivity. The Wenner resistivity technique assumes that th e material measured is homogeneous (Chini, Muszynski and Hicks 2003). In addition, the electr ical resistivity of the concrete is mainly governed by the cement paste microstructure (Whiting, and Mohamad 2003). It depends upon the capillary pore size, pore system complexity a nd moisture content. Changes in aggregate type, however, can influence the electr ical resistivity of concrete Monfore (1962) measured the

PAGE 30

30 electrical resistivity of seve ral aggregates typically used in concrete by themselves (Table 2-2). The resistivity of a concrete mixture containing gran ite aggregate has higher than a mixture containing limestone (Whiting a nd Mohamad 2003). Moreover, othe r research (Hughes, Soleit and Brierly 1985) shows that as the aggregate cont ent increases, the electr ical resistance of the concrete will also increase. Gowers and Millard (1999) determ ined that the minimum probe spacing should be 1.5 times the maximum aggregat e size, or the depth of the specimen, to guarantee more accurate readings. Morris, More no and Sages 1996 suggest averaging multiple readings taken with varying inte rnal probe spacings. Another reas onable technique is to average multiple readings in different locations of the conc rete surface. In the case of test cylinders, the readings can be made in four locations at 90-degree increments to minimized variability induced by the presence of a single aggregate particle interfering with the read ings (Chini, Muszynski and Hicks 2003). Chini, Muszynski and Hicks (2003) evaluated the possible replacement of the widely used electrical RCP test (AASHTO T277, ASTM C1202) by the simple non-destructive surface resistivity test. The research program correlated results from the two tests from a wide population of more than 500 sample sets. The samp les were collected from actual job sites of concrete pours at the state of Florida. The te sts were compared over the entire sample population regardless of concrete class or admixture presen t to evaluate the strength of the relationship between procedures. The two test s showed a strong relationship. The levels of agreement (R2) values reported were as high as 0.95 for samples te sted at 28 days and 0.93 for samples tested at 91 days. Finally, a rating table to aid the inte rpretation of the surface resistivity results was proposed (Table 2-3) based on the previous permeability ranges provided in the standard RCP test (Table 2-1).

PAGE 31

31 Time Dependent Diffusion in Concrete As concrete matures, the ongoing internal hydration process reduces the diffusion coefficient (Stanish and Thomas 2003). The diffu sion will decrease as the time passes since the capillary pore volume is reduce by the continue d formation of intern al hydration products. Moreover, some chloride ions will become chem ically or physically bound as they penetrate the pore system (Nokken et al. 2006). Previous resear ch has found that the change in chloride diffusion during time followed a nonlinear te ndency (Boddy et al. 1999; Mangat and Molloy 1994; Nokken et al. 2006). When plotted on a logari thmic scale the data were found to be linear. (Figure 2-6). Therefore, the variation of the ch loride diffusion coefficient with time can be expressed as a power function: m ref reft t D t D ) ( (2-8) where D(t) diffusion coefficient at time t (i nstantaneous diffusion coefficient) Dref the diffusion coefficient at some reference time tref m curve fitting constant that describes the rate of change of the diffusion coefficient. The constant m depends on the concrete mix pr oportions such as the type of cementitious materials used for the mixture to account for the rate of reduction of di ffusion with time (Nokken et al. 2006). Only few values of the m are availa ble from the literature for relatively short time periods of exposure. Although these data represent only concrete behavior at early ages (up to 3 years), further research (Thomas and Bamforth 1999) have indicated that the transport properties continue to decay at the same rate predicted fr om these early age tests. Further research to properly quantify this parameter would improve the precision of the diffusion predictions. Table 2-4 shows some reported constant m values by prev ious research projects (Stanish and Thomas 2003; Boddy, Hooton and Gruber 2001; Thomas and Bamforth 1999; Nokken et al. 2006; Thomas et al. 1999).

PAGE 32

32 The mathematical model proposed by Cranks solution to Ficks second law of diffusion assumes a constant diffusion coefficient over the testing period. This same mathematical model is typically used in some form to calculate th e diffusion coefficient for the previously discussed chloride penetration test methods. In reality, the diffusion coefficient is de creasing rather rapidly (Figure 2-6) during the early age of the sample. C onsequently, the resultant coefficient value is an average of the changing diffusion coefficient over the period of exposure. This average measured diffusion coefficient will equal the inst antaneous diffusion coefficient at some point during the testing period. The di ffusion coefficient obtained from Equation 2-8, D(t), represents this instantaneous diffusion coefficient at time t. Given that the change in diffusion with time is non-linear, the determination of th e effective age during the expos ure that correlates to the average diffusion coefficient determined for that period is not straightforward. Stanish and Thomas (2003) developed a useful method to esta blish at what age the instantaneous diffusion coefficient, effective age, is equal to the averag e diffusion coefficient. To determine this age, the instantaneous diffusion coefficient presented in E quation 2-8 was integrated over time in order to determine an average of diffusion coefficient: 2 1 2 1 t t t t m ref ref AVGdt dt t t D D (2-9) where DAVG average diffusion coefficient over the testing period. t1 and t2 represent the age of the concrete at th e start and completion of the diffusion test exposure, respectively. Additionally, the effective age at which the average of diffusion coefficient occurs was also determined from the Equation 2-8: m eff ref ref AVGt t D D (2-10)

PAGE 33

33 where: teff effective age at which the DAVG occurs. The obtained expression by equating Equations 2-9 and 2-10 determines at what age the average of diffusion coefficient will occur based on diffusion tests conditions (beginning and end of the immersion period, t1 and t2) and the rate of change of di ffusion coefficient with time, m. Moreover, a subsequent research project by Nokken et al. (2006) calculated different diffusion coefficient estimations by using three different times (effective age, average age and total age) (Figure 2-7). They found that th ere was a significant variation in the diffusion coefficients calculated at the selected times in the time-depe ndent reduction Equation 2-8. This can lead to significantly conservative or unconser vative estimations of the service life of structures (Stanish and Thomas 2003). The concrete diffusion coefficient values have been used to model the period of time for chloride ions to reach a critical corrosion concen tration at the surface of the steel reinforcement (Kirkpatricka et al. 2002). The time for corrosion initiation can be estimated from the diffusion equation (Equation 2-4) when the concentration of chloride ions at steel reinforcement (C(x,t)) is set equal to the chloride corrosion initiation concen tration. Therefore, it is believed that this estimation would be more accurate if the rate of change in the concrete diffusion properties with time were included in the pr ediction (Nokken et al. 2006). Effective Diffusion Coefficients of Concrete Structures Exposed to Marine Environments The most notable assumption when using the previously described methods to determine diffusion coefficients is that diffusion is the un ique chloride mechanism that transports the chloride ions through the concrete. This is a reasonable assumption for tests conducted under controlled laboratory conditions, such as the bulk diffusion te st. The bulk diffusion test is believed to attain controlled diffusion only re sults with no contribution from other chloride transports mechanisms. Figure 2-8 shows a typical example of a bulk diffusion sample fit to the

PAGE 34

34 non-linear Ficks Second Law of Diffusion. The results show very good agreement with the expected diffusion regression. However, this controlled laboratory te sting method presents several drawbacks on estimating the lifetime behavior of concrete structural members exposed to aggressive marine environments with consis tently high temperature and humidity. These environment conditions forced the chloride in trusion through additional mechanisms. Chloride ingress by absorption and leaching of surface chlo ride are some of the additional mechanisms induced by these environmental conditions. In or der to differentiate between them, previous researches (Kranc and Sags 2003; Sohanghpurwala 2006) have cat alogued the results obtained from laboratory samples as apparent diffusi on coefficients and effective for diffusion coefficients calculated from sample s exposed to field conditions. A marine substructure element is intermitten tly subjected to chloride exposure due to changes of the water tides. These changes in water tides are due to the peri odic tidal forces and the effects of meteorological hydrological and oceanographic conditions. This wetting and drying phenomenon creates a chlori de intrusion mechanism by absorption. Since the concrete exposed surface is dry during a low tide period an d hot weather conditions, an absorption effect occurs when it is exposed to a high tide water level. The absorption is generated by capillary suction of the concrete at the surface pulling chlori des into the concrete. This allows chloride ion to penetrate more rapidly than by natural diffusion. The chloride ions then continue to move by natural diffusion. Therefore, the absorption eff ect decreases the chloride path to reach the reinforcing steel (Thomas et al. 1995). The continuous changes on the water tides also induce leaching of unbonded shallow surface chlorides. During concrete drying period, shallow surface water evaporates and chlorides are left either as chemically bonded to th e pore walls or as unbonded crystal forms.

PAGE 35

35 Subsequently, when the concrete is again wett ed, some of these unbonded crystals are leached out of the concrete surface. Therefore, chloride profiles content can thus differ from that of a chloride penetration under permanent immersion. The chloride concentration near the exposed surface can be considerably less than deeper into the concrete. The profile shown in Figure 2-8 was obtained from a cored sample at the splash z one of a substructure element of a bridge. The profile shows considerably lower chloride concen tration near to the surf ace than the predicted by Ficks Law. It also shows that the consequent chloride profile penetrations, following the initial surface values affected by leaching, fit the diffu sion trend behavior. These consequent chlorides accumulated at a further penetration either by the initial diffusion or absorption followed a diffusion behavior. Therefore, effective diffusi on coefficients can be also approximately calculated by fitting the Ficks Second Law of Diffusion by excluding these misleading peaks in the regression analysis. The effective diffusion coefficients account for all the effects that an aggressive environment could subject a concrete element. Th erefore, it provides a good estimate of the rate of migration of chloride ions into the concrete. Previous rese arches (Sags 1994, Sags et al. 2001) have quantified few effective diffusion coefficients for particul ar structures located at the state of Florida. These diffusion coefficients were calculated from cored samples obtained at different bridge substructure lo cations around the state. The high co st and labor associated with coring concrete samples from existing structures make this approach of analysis sometimes untenable. Therefore, there is limited informa tion on how these diffusion coefficients can be predicted.

PAGE 36

36 Table 2-1. Comparison of RCP Results with Ponding Tests (AASHT O T277, ASTM C1202) (Whiting 1981). Chloride Permeability Charge (Coulombs) Type of Concrete Total Integral Chloride to 41 mm Depth After 90-day Ponding Test High > 4,000 High water-to-cement ratio (>0.6) conventional Portland cement concrete > 1.3 Moderate 2,000 4,000 Moderate water-to-cement ratio (0.4-0.5) conventional Portland cement concrete 0.8 1.3 Low 1,000 2,000 Low water-to-cement ratio (<0.4) conventional Portland cement concrete 0.55 0.8 Very Low 100 1,000 Latex modified concrete, internally sealed concrete 0.35 0.55 Negligible < 100 Polymer impregnated concrete, polymer concrete < 0.35 Table 2-2. Measured Electrical Resistivities of Typical Aggregates used for Concrete (Monfore 1968). Type of Aggregate Resistivity (ohm-cm) Sandstone 18,000 Limestone 30,000 Marble 290,000 Granite 880,000 Table 2-3. Apparent Surface Resistivity for 4inch (102-mm) Diameter by 8-inch (204-mm) Long Concrete Cylinder using a Four-poi nt Wenner Probe with 1.5-inch (38-mm) Probe Spacing. Values for 28 and 91-day Test (Chini, Muszynski and Hicks 2003). Surface Resistivity Test Chloride Ion Permeability RCP Test Charge (Coulombs) 28-Day Test (KOhm-cm) 91-Day Test (KOhm-cm) High > 4,000 < 12 < 11 Moderate 2,000 4,000 12 -21 11 -19 Low 1,000 2,000 21 37 19 37 Very Low 100 1,000 37 254 37 295 Negligible < 100 > 254 > 295

PAGE 37

37 Table 2-4. Several Curve Fitting Constants m that Describes the Rate of Change of the Diffusion Coefficient with Time for Various Concre te Mix Designs (Stanish and Thomas 2003; Boddy, Hooton and Gruber 2001; Thomas and Bamforth 1999; Nokken et al. 2006; Thomas et al. 1999). Mix Design(a) m Mix Design(a) m 0.40w/c-0% 0.43 0.35w/c-12%FA 0.77 0.50w/c-0% 0.32 0.35w/c-18%FA 0.70 0.66w/c-0% 0.10 0.31w/c-12%FA 0.55 0.30w/c-4% SF 0.60 0.48w/c-70%Slag 1.20 0.40w/c-8% SF 0.61 0.30w/c-4%SF, 25%Slag 0.64 0.40w/c-12% SF 0.49 0.30w/c-8%SF, 25%Slag 0.75 0.50w/c-25%FA 0.66 0.40w/c-8%HRM 0.44 0.50w/c-56%FA 0.79 0.40w/c-12%HRM 0.50 0.54w/c-30%FA 0.70 0.30w/c-10%SF, 25%FA 0.45 (a) Fly-Ash (FA), Silica Fume (SF), Ground Blast Furn ace Slag (Slag) and High Reactivity Metakaolin (HRM).

PAGE 38

38 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 020406080 Mid-Layer Profile from Surface (mm)Chloride Concentratio n (%Concrete) Test Values Fitted Regression Surface Chloride Concentration Figure 2-1. Ficks Second Law of Di ffusion Regression Analysis Example. 3 % NaCl Solution 3 in 0.5 in 12 in1 2 i nConcrete Slab Plastic dam 50 % relative humidity atmosphere Figure 2-2. Ninety-day Salt Pondi ng Test Setup (AASHTO T259).

PAGE 39

39 16.5 % NaCl Solution Sealed on All Faces Except One Concrete Cylinder (4 in diameter, 4 in length) Figure 2-3. Bulk Diffusion Test Setup (NordTest NTBuild 443). Data Logger Stainless steel anode Stainless steel cathode 3.0 % NaCl reservoir 1.2 % NaOH reservoir 60 V Power supply + Epoxy Coated Concrete Sample (4 in diameter, 2 in length) Figure 2-4. Rapid Chloride Permeability Test Setup (AASHTO T277, ASTM C1202).

PAGE 40

40 a aaCurrent Applied (I) Potential Measured (V)Concrete Surface to be TestedCurrent Flow Lines Equipotential lines Figure 2-5. Four-point We nner Probe Test Setup. 0 5E-12 1E-11 1.5E-11 2E-11 04008001200 Total Time (days)App. Diffusion (m2/s) 0.4/0%HRM 0.4/8%HRM 0.4/12%HRM 0.3/0%HRM 0.3/8%HRM 0.3/12%HRMA 1E-13 1E-12 1E-11 1E-10 10100100010000 Total Time (days)App. Diffusion (m2/s) 0.4/0%HRM 0.4/8%HRM 0.4/12%HRM 0.3/0%HRM 0.3/8%HRM 0.3/12%HRMB Figure 2-6. Time-Dependent Diffusion Coefficients fo r Concrete having Various Water/Cementitious and Contents of Hi gh Reactivity Metakaolin (HRM) Plotted using A) Linear Scale and B) Logarith mic Scale (Boddy, Hooton and Gruber 2001).

PAGE 41

41 Figure 2-7. Different Times t for Calculating the Curve Fitting Constant that Describes the Rate of Change of the Diffusion (Nokken et al. 2006). 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 01020304050 Mid-Layer from Surface (mm)Chloride Concentration ( lb/yd3 ) Include in the Regression Not Include in the Regression Fitted Regression Figure 2-8. Diffusion Regression Analysis Example of a Bridge Cored Sample.

PAGE 42

42 CHAPTER 3 CONCRETE MIXTURE DESIGN S AND FIELD CORE SAMPLING Concrete Mixtures Nineteen concrete mixtures were selected a nd prepared in the laboratory and in the field for the project. A labeling system was implemen ted to identify each of the selected concrete mixture designs. The first term of the notation system represents the water-cementitious ratio in percentage, followed by the cementitious amount in pounds per cubic yard (lb/yd3) and finally the pozzolans or corrosion inhibitor contents in percentage of cementitious measured by weight. For example the concrete mixt ure labeled as _752_8SF_20F (Table 3-2) has a watercementitious ratio of 35 percent (35%), 752 pounds per cubic yard (lb/yd3) of total cementitious materials, 8 percent (8%) by weight of ceme ntitious of Silica Fume and 20 percent (20%) by weight of cementitious of Fly-Ash. Laboratory Concrete Mixtures Twelve representative mixtures using locally available materials in the State of Florida were selected and cast in the laboratory, such that they represented a variety of different concrete qualities and constituents. These concrete mixtures were selected from a range of possibilities, from the most permeable possible designs to less permeable quality mixtures that include pozzolans and a single mixture containi ng calcium nitrite co rrosion inhibitor (Table 3-1 and Table 3-2). The wide permeability range between the selected designs should allow a better point of comparison between the test proc edures under for different conditions. The mixtures were performed under controlled environmental conditions, with a constant air temperature for each mixture. The size of th e concrete batch for each mixture was six cubic feet (0.17 cubic meters). This volume of concre te included the specimens, concrete for quality

PAGE 43

43 control testing, and several ex tra samples. The quality control procedures executed during mixing and casting of the test samples were: Standard Test Method for Slump of H ydraulic Cement Concrete (ASTM C 143). Standard Test Method for Air Content of Freshly Mixed Conc rete by the Volumetric Method (ASTM C 173). Standard Test Method for Temperature of Fres hly Mixed Portland Ceme nt Concrete (ASTM C 1064). Standard Test Method for Density (Unit Wei ght) of Freshly Mixed Concrete (ASTM C 138). The standard process for casting concrete cylinders proposed by the AASHTO T23 method was followed (Table 3-3). An external vi bration device, also known as vibrating table was used to ensure complete compaction of the specimens The 4-inch (102-mm) diameter cylinders were cast and vibrated in two layers as is shown in Table 3-3. The vibration period for each mixture was determined by visual inspection of the firs t set of samples vibrated. The samples were vibrated until the larger air bubbl es ceased breaking through the top of surface but before visible segregation occurred. It was gene rally between 15-seconds to 30-s econds for each inserted layer. After the samples were cast in their respective molds and the t op exposed surface finished with the help of a trowel, they were left approximately 24-hours for atmospheric curing. During this period, the exposed surfaces of sample s were covered with plastic bags (Figure 3-1) to minimize evaporation of the water in the surface of the concrete. Finally, the samples were de-molded and placed in their particular curing en vironment until their testing date. Field Concrete Mixtures In addition to the laboratory concrete mixtur es, seven field mixtures obtained from FDOT construction projects around the St ate were collected. The mixtures were chosen to represent a wide range of concrete permeab ilities through the use of different constituents. From the FDOT concrete specification (Table 3-4), Class II concrete was c hosen as the lower bound of the range

PAGE 44

44 as most permeable, and Class V and VI as the least permeable (Table 3-5 and Table 3-6). These mixtures also represent the typical concretes used in structural members such as bridge concrete barriers, prestressed concrete beams and piles that are constantly exposed to chloride attacks. The State of Florida is divided by the FDOT into seven geographic regions (Figure 3-4). In order to attain a balanced group of samples that reflected local materials of the state, specimens from three districts were collected. Samples from District 3 (North Florid a), District 2 (Central Florida) and District 4 (Sout h Florida) were selected (Figure 3-4 and Table 3-7). The concrete batches for the specimens were supplied directly from mixer trucks to several wheel barrows at the job site or at the ready mix plant (Figure 3-2). The volume of concrete supplied was enough for the casting of the specimens, quality control testing, and several extra samples. The same quality control testing and standard casting proc edures for the laboratory mixtures were followed in the field. After the samples were cast in their respectiv e molds, they were left approximately 24hours for atmospheric air curing with the exposed surfaces covered by plastic bags to prevent evaporation of water from the concrete. Afterwar d, they were de-molded and submerged in water tanks so that their treatment prior to arriving at the laboratory is controlled curing conditions was as uniform as possible (Figure 3-3). The high temperature of the water tanks induced by Floridas hot weather was controlled by the addition of several bags of ice. Field Core Sampling The laboratory test procedure Bu lk Diffusion was used to estimate the long-term chloride diffusion performance of concrete. However, this test was conducted using a maximum of 3-year chloride exposure. Longer term diffusion test results are needed to confirm these laboratory findings. Therefore, to provide additional data to which these laboratory results can be

PAGE 45

45 corroborated, several concrete sp ecimens were collected from F DOT bridges located in marine environments. Bridge Selection With the assistance of FDOT personal, re cently constructed bri dges (since 1991) were surveyed. The search criteria in cluded bridges in which the struct ural elements were originally designed to meet the FDOT specifications (FDOT 346 2004) for concrete elements under extremely aggressive environments. The mixture designs for the selected structural elements used silica fume as a pozzolan for a FDOT class V or class V special mixture. The search criteria also included mixtures for whic h RCP data were available (Table 3-11). This information allowed a direct comparison with the laboratory re sults reported in previous sections. Six bridges had substructures that met these requirements (Table 3-8, Table 3-9 and Table 3-10). The intent of the sampling was to take concre te cores from undamaged concrete near the tide lines. The cores were then sliced or ground and chloride content was measured to produce a profile, from which the diffusion coefficient was calculated. Coring Procedures A total of 14 core samples were obtained from the substructures of the six selected bridges. Figure 3-5 through Figure 3-16 show a general view of the bridge structures and the cored substructure elements. Concrete cores were extracted from the substructure elements in the tidal region between the high tide line (HTL) and the organic tide line (OTL) (Figure 3-17). HTL was determined visually by the oil or scum stain on the structural element. OTL was also identified visually as the elevation that appeared to have continuous ma rine growth present such as barnacles or other growth. This lin e is usually lower than the HTL and represents a tide level that is regularly inundated providing a regular source of water to s upport the marine growth and to keep the concrete saturated. The location of the extracted cores was measured from HTL and

PAGE 46

46 OTL to the sample center. Core elevations ra nged from 3-inch (76-mm) to 12-inch (305-mm) below HTL and 3-inch (76-mm) to 10-inch (254-mm) above OTL. Table 3-12 shows a summary of the date and location of the cores were extracted. A rebar locator was used to measure the dept h of cover and bar spaci ng in the structural members (Figure 3-18). Due to high variability, howe ver, the coring bit rarely reached the reinforcement during the drilling process (Figure 3-19). The samples were cored with a cylindrical 4-inch (102-mm) diameter core drill bit, resulting in a core diameter of 3-3/4-inch (95-mm). The specimens were cored using a fres h-water bit-cooling system. After the desired depth was reached, the cores we re extracted as shown in Figure 3-19. The structural members were then repaired using a high bond strength mortar containing s ilica fume. The mortar material was applied and compacted in se veral layers as is shown in Figure 3-20.

PAGE 47

47 Table 3-1. Laboratory Mixt ures Material Sources. Materials Source Portland Cement CEMEX Type II Fly-Ash Boral Materials Technologies Inc. Fly Ash Class F Classified Fly-Ash Boral Mate rials Technologies Inc. Micron3 Silica Fume W.R. Grace Force 10,000D Metakaolin Burgess Pigment Co. Burgess #30 Slag Lafarge NewCem-Grade 120 Calcium Nitrite W.R. GRACE DCI-S Water Gainesville, FL Fine Aggregate Silica Sand Coarse Aggregate Crushed Limestone Air Entrainer W.R. Grace Darex Water Reducer W.R. Grace WRDA 64 Super Plasticizer W.R. GRACE Daracem 19 Table 3-2. Laboratory Mixture Designs. Mixture Name(a) Materials 49_564 35_752 45_752 28_900_8SF _20F 35_752 _20F 35_752 _12CF Casting Date 9/29/03 10/15/03 10/21/03 10/22/03 10/23/03 1/5/04 W/C 0.49 0.35 0.45 0.28 0.35 0.35 Cement (pcy) 564 752 752 648 601.6 661.8 Pozzolan 1 (pcy) Fly-Ash (20%) 180 Fly-Ash (20%) 150.4 Classified Fly-Ash (12%) 90.2 Pozzolan 2 (pcy) Silica Fume (8%) 72 Water (pcy) 276.4 263.2 338.4 252 263.2 263.2 Fine Aggregate (pcy) 1,105 1,080 990 1,000 1,043 1,061 Coarse Aggregate (pcy) 1,841 1,750 1,647 1,670 1,750 1,750 Calcium Nitrite (oz) Air Entrainer (oz) 3.0 4.0 4.0 6.8 5.6 5.6 Water Reducer (oz) 18.3 24.4 24.4 29.3 24.4 24.4 Super Plasticizer (oz) 20.2 29.7 17.7 180 37.6 45.1 (a) Fly-Ash (F), Classified FlyAsh (CF) and Silica Fume (SF).

PAGE 48

48 Table 3-2. Continued. Mixture Name(a) Materials 35_752 _8SF 35_752_8SF _20F 35_752 _10M 35_752_10M _20F 35_752 _50Slag 35_752 _4.5CN Casting Date 1/28/04 1/29/04 2/4/04 2/5/04 2/17/04 3/9/04 W/C 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 Cement (pcy) 691.8 541.4 676.8 526.4 376 752 Pozzolan 1 (pcy) Fly-Ash (20%) 150.4 Fly-Ash (20%) 150.4 Pozzolan 2 (pcy) SF(a) (8%) 60.2 SF(a) (8%) 60.2 M(a) (10%) 75.2 M(a) (10%) 75.2 Slag (50%) 376 Water (pcy) 263.2 263.2 263.2 263.2 263.2 229.5 Fine Aggregate (pcy) 1,058 1,021 1,051 1,037 1,053 1,030 Coarse Aggregate (pcy) 1,750 1,750 1,750 1,729 1,750 1,703 Calcium Nitrite (oz) 576 Air Entrainer (oz) 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 7.5 Water Reducer (oz) 24.4 24.4 24.4 24.4 24.4 24.4 Super Plasticizer (oz) 37.6 45.1 90.2 136.9 33.8 33.8 (a) Calicium Nitrite (CN), Fly-Ash (F), Silica Fume (SF) and Metakaolin (M). Table 3-3. Standard Method for Casting and Vibrating Concrete Cylinders (AASHTO T23). Cylinder Diameter (in) Number of Layers Number of Vibrator Insertions per Layer Approximate Depth of Layer 4 2 1 depth of specimen 6 2 2 depth of specimen 9 2 4 depth of specimen

PAGE 49

49 Table 3-4. Specified Compressive Stre ngth of FDOT Concrete Classes. FDOT Concrete Classes Desi gn Compressive Strength (psi) Class I 3,000 Class I Special 3,000 Class II 3,400 Class II Bridge Deck 4,500 Class III 5,000 Class III Seal 3,000 Class IV 5,500 Class IV Drill Shaft 4,000 Class V 6,500 Class V Special 6,000 Class VI 8,500 Table 3-5. Field Mixture Designs. Mixture Name(a), FDOT Concrete Classes and Geographic Location 45_570 29_450 _20F 33_658 _18F 34_686 _18F 30_673 _20F 28_800 _20F 29_770 _18F Class II Class II Class V Class V Class V Class VI Class VI Materials South FL North FL South FL Central FL North FL Central FL North FL Casting Date 8/11/03 7/11/03 8/ 12/03 7/18/03 7/9/ 03 7/17/03 7/10/03 W/C 0.45 0.29 0.33 0.34 0.30 0.28 0.29 Cement(pcy) 569.7 450 657.4 686 673 800 770 Pozzolan 1 (pcy) Fly-Ash (20%) 115 Fly-Ash (18%) 150 Fly-Ash (18%) 154 Fly-Ash (20%) 169 Fly-Ash (20%) 200 Fly-Ash (18%) 165 Water (pcy) 254.5 162.3 269.7 288 251.9 280 267.5 Fine Aggregate (pcy) 1,434 1,137 1,048 935 973.5 868 727.5 Coarse Aggregate (pcy) 1,655 1,918 1,724 1,720 1,914 1,650 1,918 Air Entrainer (oz) 0.3 2.0 1.0 5.0 4.0 2.0 5.0 Water Reducer (oz) 45.6 22 8.0 17 40 16 47 Super Plasticizer (oz) 70.0 55.0 110 52 110 (a) Fly-Ash (F).

PAGE 50

50 Table 3-6. Field Mixt ure Material Sources. Source(a) Materials 45_570 29_450_20F 33_658_18F 34_686_18F Portland Cement RINKER Miami Type II Southdown Brooksville Type II RINKER Monjos Type I PENNSUCO Type II Fly-Ash BORAL Plant Daniel Class F BORAL BOWEN Class F ISG Fernandine Beach, FL Class F Water Miami, FL St. George Island, FL West Palm Beach, FL Jacksonville, FL Fine Aggregate Silica Sand Silica Sand Silica Sand Silica Sand Coarse Aggregate Crushed Limestone Crushed Granite Crushed Limestone Crushed Limestone Air Entrainer W.R. GRACE DAREX Master Builders MBAE-90 Master Builders MBAE-90 Master Builders MBVR-S Water Reducer W.R. GRACE WRDA 60 Master Builders POZZ 300R Master Builders POZZ 961R Master Builders POZZ 100XR Super Plasticizer Master Builders POZZ 400N Master Builders RHEO 1,000 (a) Fly-Ash (F). Table 3-6. Continued. Source(a) Materials 30_673_20F 28_800_20F 29_770_18F Portland Cement CEMEX Type II PENNSUCO Type II CEMEX Type II Fly-Ash BORAL Plant Daniel Class F ISG Fernandine Beach, FL Class F BORAL Plant Daniel Class F Water St. George Island, FL Jacksonville, FL St. George Island, FL Fine Aggregate Silica Sand Silica Sand Silica Sand Coarse Aggregate Crushed Granite Crushed Limestone Crushed Granite Air Entrainer Master Builders MBAE-90 Master Builders MBVR-S Master Builders MBAE-90 Water Reducer Master Builders POZZ 300R Master Builders POZZ 100XR Master Builders POZZ 300R Super Plasticizer Master Builders RHEO 1,000 Master Builders 3,000FC Master Builders RHEO 1,000 (a) Fly-Ash (F).

PAGE 51

51 Table 3-7. Locations of Field Mixtures. FDOT District Mixture Name(a) Concrete Class Location of the Concrete Casting Location and Contact Information of the Concrete Supplier Plant 45_570 Class II Interstate I-95 at West Palm Beach, FL. RINKER MATERIALS CORP. 1501 Belvedere Road. Belle Glade West Palm Beach, FL 32406 Phone: (561) 833-5555 FDOT Plant No. 93-104 DISTRICT 4 33_658 _18F Class V At the Plant S. EASTERN PRESTRESS CONCRETE INC. West Palm Beach, FL 33416 P.O. BOX 15043 Phone: (561) 793-1177 FDOT Plant No. 93-101 34_686 _18F Class V DISTRICT 2 28_800 _20F Class VI At the Plant GATE CONCRETE PRODUCTS 402 Hecksher Drive Jacksonville, FL 32226 Phone: (904) 757-0860 FDOT Plant No. 72-055 29_450 _20F Class II At the Plant 30_673 _20F Class V DISTRICT 3 29_770 _18F Class VI St. George Island Bridge Construction Site COUCH CONCRETE 60 Otterslide Rd. Eastpoint, FL 32328 Phone: (850) 670-5512 FDOT Plant No. 49-479 (a) Fly-Ash (F).

PAGE 52

52 Table 3-8. FDOT Cored Bridge St ructures for the Investigation. Bridge Name Abbr. County (District) Location Bridge # Project # Year Built Hurricane Pass HPB Lee (D1) SR-865 San Carlos Blvd 120089 120043506 1980/91(a) Broadway Replacement East Bound BRB Volusia (D5) US-92 E International Speedway Blvd. 790187 790803544 2001 Seabreeze West Bound SWB Volusia (D5) SR-430 790174 792203510 1997 Granada GRB Volusia (D5) SR-40 Granada Blvd. 790132 791503515 1983/97(a) Turkey Creek TCB Brevard (D5) US-1 700203 700103529 1999 New Roosevelt NRB Martin (D4) US-1/SR-5 890152 -(b) 1997 (a) Built year/Modified year (b) Unknown Information

PAGE 53

53 Table 3-9. FDOT Cored Bri dge Element Mixture Designs. Bridge Name Abbreviation HPB BRB SWB GRB TCB NRB Class V Class V Class V Class V Special Class V Special Class (a) Materials Lee (D1) Volusia (D5) Volusia (D5) Volusia (D5) Brevard (D5) Martin (D4) FDOT Mixture # 3514 05-M2028 05-0446 05-0426 07-M0223B -(a) W/C 0.35 0.33 0.35 0.35 0.33 -(a) Cement(pcy) 617 605 595 618 785 -(a) Pozzolan 1 (pcy) Fly-Ash (19.5%) 135 Fly-Ash (19.5%) 168 Fly-Ash (18%) 145 Fly-Ash (18%) 150 Fly-Ash (18%) 192 -(a) Pozzolan 2 (pcy) SF(b) (10.3%) 87 SF(b) (10.3%) 89 SF(b) (7.8%) 63 SF(b) (8.3%) 70 SF(b) (8.1%) 86 -(a) Water (pcy) 263 219 271.6 292 355 -(a) Fine Aggregate (pcy) 1,111 912 1,055 1,314 1,281 -(a) Coarse Aggregate (pcy) 1,616 1,925 1,784 1,475 2,286 -(a) Air Entrainer (oz) 7 8.4 10 6.8 9.2 -(a) Water Reducer (oz) 30.85 42 17.9 30.9 31.4 -(a) Super Plasticizer (oz) 56 134 95.2 185.4 98.1 -(a) (a) Unknown Information (b) Silica Fume

PAGE 54

54 Table 3-10. FDOT Cored Bridge El ement Mixture Material Sources. Bridge Name Abbreviation Materials HPB BRB SWB Portland Cement Florida Mining & Materials AASHTO M-85 Type II Pennsuco Tarmac AASHTO M-85 Type II BROCO (Brooksville) AASHTO M-85 Type II Fly-Ash Florida Mining & Materials Class F Boral Bowen Class F Florida Mining & Materials Class F Silica Fume W.R. GRACE DARACEM 10,000 Master Builders MB-SF 110 W.R. GRACE DARACEM 10,000D Water Port Manatee, FL Dayton Beach, FL Orlando, FL Fine Aggregate Florida Crushed Stone Silica Sand Florida Rock Ind. Silica Sand Florida Rock Ind. Silica Sand Coarse Aggregate Florida Crushed Stone Crushed Limestone Martin Marietta Aggregates Crushed Granite Martin Marietta Aggregates Crushed Granite Air Entrainer W.R. GRACE Daravair 79 Master Builders MBAE 90 W.R. GRACE DAREX Water Reducer W.R. GRACE WRDA Master Builders POZZ.200N W.R. GRACE WRDA 64 Super Plasticizer W.R. GRACE WRDA 19 Master Builders RHEO 1,000 W.R. GRACE DARACEM 100

PAGE 55

55 Table 3-10. Continued. Bridge Name Abbreviation Materials GRB TCB NRB Portland Cement BROCO (Brooksville) AASHTO M-85 Type II BROCO (Brooksville) AASHTO M-85 Type II -(a) Fly-Ash MONEX Crystal River Class F Florida Fly Ash Class F -(a) Silica Fume Master Builders RHEOMAC SF 100 W.R. GRACE DARACEM 10,000D -(a) Water West Palm Beach, FL Tampa, FL -(a) Fine Aggregate Florida Rock (Marison) Silica Sand Vulca/ICA Silica Sand -(a) Coarse Aggregate Martin Marietta Aggregates Crushed Granite Florida Crushed Stone Crushed Limestone -(a) Air Entrainer Master Builders MB VR-S W.R. GRACE Daravair 79 -(a) Water Reducer Master Builders LL961R W.R. GRACE WRDA -(a) Super Plasticizer Master Builders RHEO 1,000 W.R. GRACE WRDA 19 -(a) (a) Unknown Information

PAGE 56

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

PAGE 57

57 Table 3-12. Summary of Cores Extr acted and Associated Properties. Bridge Abbr. Lab. # Date Cored Structural Element Type(a) Bent #(b) Pier #(b) Struct. Cored Side Elevation Below HTL (in) Elevation Above OTL (in) 5016 2-1-06 Pile PC 3 1 NW 3 3 5017 2-1-06 Pile PC 7 1 NW 6 0 HPB 5018 2-1-06 Pile PC 6 1 NW 6 0 5054 3-2-06 Column CIP 11 1 SW 12 0 BRB 5081 5-3-06 Column CIP 7 1 NE 4 8 5082 5-3-06 Column CIP 3 1 NE 8 8 SWB 5083 5-3-06 Column CIP 7 1 SW 5 10 GRB 5084 5-3-06 Crashwall CIP 9 1 NW 6 8 5078 5-24-06 Pile PC 3 15 NE 4 10 5079 5-24-06 Pile PC 4 15 NE 9 6 TCB 5080 5-24-06 Pile PC 5 15 NE 9 6 5075 6-1-06 Pile Cap CIP 8 1 S 7 6 5076 6-1-06 Pile Cap CIP 10 1 S 6 7 NRB 5077 6-1-06 Pile Cap CIP 7 1 S 6 7 (a) CIP: Cast in Place and PC: Pretensioned Concrete. (b) Bent# and Pier# were labeled in ascendant number from North to South or West to East direction depending on the bridge location. The Bent# 1 is considered as the bridge abutment.

PAGE 58

58 Figure 3-1. Air Curing of Cast Concrete Specimens. Figure 3-2. Casting of Field Mixture Specimens. Figure 3-3. Field Samples Curing during transport to Laboratory.

PAGE 59

59 St. George Island CPR15 CPR18 CPR21 Jacksonville CPR17 CPR20 West Palm Beach CPR13 CPR16 Figure 3-4. FDOT Dist rict Map with Field Mixture Locations. Figure 3-5. Hurricane Pass Bri dge (HPB) General Span View.

PAGE 60

60 Figure 3-6. Hurricane Pass Bridge (HPB) Substructure Elements. Figure 3-7. Broadway Replacement East Bound Bridge (BRB) General Span View. Figure 3-8. Broadway Replacement East B ound Bridge (BRB) Substructure Elements.

PAGE 61

61 Figure 3-9. Seabreeze West Bound Br idge (SWB) General Span View. Figure 3-10. Seabreeze West Bound Bri dge (SWB) Substructure Elements. Figure 3-11. Granada Bridge (GRB) General Span View.

PAGE 62

62 A B Figure 3-12. Granada Bridge (GRB) Substructu re Elements. A) Pier Elements, B) Barge Crashwall. Figure 3-13. Turkey Creek Bri dge (TCB) General Span View. Figure 3-14. Turkey Creek Bridge (TCB) Substructure Elements.

PAGE 63

63 Figure 3-15. New Roosevelt (NRB) General Span View. Figure 3-16. New Roosevelt (N RB) Substructure Elements. High Tide Line (HTL) Organic Tide Line (OTL) Figure 3-17. Cored Element Location Defined by the Water Tide Region between High Tine Line (HTL) and the Organic Tide Line (OTL). Sample from Broadway Replacement East Bound Bridge (BRB) (Eas t Bound) BENT 11, PIER 1.

PAGE 64

64 A B Figure 3-18. Bridge Coring Process. A) Loca ting Reinforcing Steel, B) Locating Drill for Coring. A B Figure 3-19. Obtaining Cored Sample. A) Extracti ng Drilled Core, B) Location of the Extracted Core that Reached Prestressing Strand.

PAGE 65

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

PAGE 66

66 CHAPTER 4 TEST PROCEDURES Laboratory and Field Concrete Sample Matrix A total of 988 samples from 19 separate mixt ures were cast for testing. The concrete mixtures were divided into two groups. Twelve were mixed and formed at the FDOT State Materials Office (SMO) in Gainesville. The remain ing 7 mixtures were obtained at various field sites around the state and brought back to th e SMO for storage and eventual testing (Table 4-1). The cast samples were primarily 4-inch (102-mm ) diameter by 8-inch (204-mm) long cylinders. Chloride Ion Content Analysis Chloride ions are typically present in concre te in two forms, soluble chlorides in the concrete pore water and chemically bound chloride s. There are several laboratory methods to estimate these amounts of chloride in the concrete structure. The FDOT st andardized test method (FM 5-516) to determine low-levels of chloride in concrete and raw materials was selected for the analysis. This wet chemical analysis method also known as acid-soluble method determines the sum of all chemically bound and free chlorides ions from powdered concrete samples. Diffusion Test Bulk Diffusion Test The Bulk Diffusion Test was conducted us ing the NT BUILD 443 (NT BUILD 443 1995) test procedure. Samples were 4-inch (102-mm) diameter by 8-inch (204-mm) long, with three samples cast for each mixture. The samples were kept in a moist room with a sustained 100% humidity for 28 days, removed from the moist conditions, and sliced on a water-cooled diamond saw into two halves (Figure 4-1). The cut specimens were immersed in a saturated Ca(OH)2 solution in an environment with an average temperature of 73oF (23oC). The samples were weighed daily in a surface-dry condition until th eir mass did not change by more than 0.1

PAGE 67

67 percent. The specimens were then sealed with Sikadur 32 Hi-Mod epoxy (on all surfaces except the saw-cut face) and left to cure for 24-hours. The sealed samples were then returned to the Ca(OH)2 tanks to repeat the above sa turation process by weight cont rol. The samples were then immersed under surface-dry conditions in salt solu tion (16.5 percent of sodi um chloride solution mixed with deionized water) in tanks with tight closing lids (Figure 2-3 and Figure 4-2). The tanks were shaken once a week and the NaCl so lution was changed every 5 weeks. The original procedure called for at least 35 days of exposure be fore the chloride penetration analysis was to be conducted. Moreover, it suggests to sample be tween 0.04-inch to 0.08-inch (1-mm to 2-mm) increments by powder grinding the profiles for th is exposure time and type of high quality concrete. With the equipment available for the use on the project, an exposure of 35 days is insufficient to achieve a measurable chloride pr ofile. A coarser chloride sampling evaluation was implemented; 0.25-inch (6.5-mm) increments were tested on 1 and 3 years old samples. Finally, the respective acid-soluble chlori de content of the profile samp les at varying depths were obtained in accordance with the FDOT standard test method FM 5-516. The initial chloride background levels for each of the concrete mixes were also determined from the extra unexposed samples. Electrical Conductivity Tests Rapid Chloride Permeability Test (RCP) The RCP test was conducted in conforma nce with AASHTO T277 and ASTM C1202. The specimen dimensions were 4-inch (102-mm) di ameter by 8-inch (204-mm) long. All samples were kept in a moist room with a sustained 100% humidity until testing day. RCP tests were conducted at ages of 14, 28, 56, 91, 182 and 364 da ys, with three samples tested at each age. The procedure calls for two days of specimen preparation. On the first day, the samples were removed from the moist room to be cut on a water-cooled diamond saw. A -inch (6.4-

PAGE 68

68 mm) slice was first removed to dress the top edge of the sample (Figure 4-3), and then the 2-inch (51-mm) thick sample required for the test was sliced (Figure 4-4). The sides of the specimens were roughened (Figure 4-4) followed by application of Sikadur 32 Hi-Mod epoxy to seal the specimen (Figure 4-5). The second day of preparation began with th e desiccation process to water-saturate the samples. The specimens were placed in a de siccation chamber connected to a vacuum pump capable of maintaining a pressure of less than 1 mm Hg (133 Pa ). The vacuum was maintained for three hours to remove the pore solution from the samples. The container was then filled with boiled de-aerated water until the samples were totally submerge d and the pump was left running for an additional hour (Figure 4-6). The desiccation chamber wa s return to atmospheric pressure and the samples were left submerged for 18 hours, plus or minus 2 hours. After the samples were removed from the de siccation chamber, each sample was placed into their acrylic cells and sealed with silicone (Figure 2-4 and Figure 4-7). The upper surface of the specimen was left in contact with the 3.0 percent NaCl solution (this side of the cell was connected to the negative terminal of the power supply) and the bottom face was exposed to the 0.3 N NaOH solution (this side of the cell was connected to the positive terminal of the power supply). The test was left running for 6 hours with a constant 60-vo lt potential applie d to the cell. A data logging system recorded the temperature of the anolyte solution, charge passed, and current every 5 minutes. Furthermore, it calculated the cumulative charge passed during the test in coulombs by determining the area under the curv e of current (amperes) versus time (seconds). The three total readings from each sample were averaged to obtain a representative final result for the specimens set.

PAGE 69

69 Surface Resistivity Test The Surface Resistivity test was conducte d conforming to Florida Method of Test designation FM 5-578. The Surface Resistivity wa s measured on 4-inch (102-mm) diameter by 8-inch (204-mm) long concrete cylinders. To eval uate the effect of curi ng, two sets of three samples each were tested. The first set was kept in a moist room with a sustained 100% humidity, and the other in saturated Ca(OH)2 solution (dissolved in tap water) tanks. Due to its nondestructive test nature, the test was performe d to a wider amount of ages than the other electrical tests. For the purpose of this project, the samples were tested at 14, 28, 56, 91, 182, 364, 454 and 544 days. Additionally, these samp les are being monitoring until no further changes in the surface resistivity reading is obs erved as part of another research project. Commercial four-probe Wenner a rray equipment was utilized for resistivity measurements. The model used had wooden plugs in the end of the probes that were pre-wetted with a contact medium to improve the electrical tr ansfer with the concrete surface (Figure 4-8). The inter-probe spacing was set to 1.5-inch (38-mm) for all measurements. On the day of testing the samples were re moved from their curing environment and the readings were taken under surface wet condition. R eadings were then taken with the instrument placed such that the probes were aligned with the cylinder axis. Four separate readings were taken around the circumference of the cylinder at 90-degrees increments (0o, 90o, 180o and 270o). This process was repeated once again, in order to get a total of eight readings that were then averaged. This minimized possible interference due to the presence of a single aggregate particle obstructing the readings (Chi ni, Muszynski and Hicks 2003). Bridge Core Sample Chloride Ion Content Analysis The core samples obtained from the bridge subs tructures were profiled at varying depths to obtain their respective acid-soluble chloride cont ent in accordance with the FDOT standard test

PAGE 70

70 method FM 5-516 (APPENDIX D). The core surface wa s first cleaned to remove barnacles or other debris. Two methods were us ed to obtain the respective profile samples. The top 0.48-inch (12-mm) was profiled using a milling machine. Powder samples were taken at increments of 0.08-inch (2-mm) (Figure 4-9). Subsequent profiles were obtained by cutting the sample into 0.25-inch (6.5-mm) thick slices using a watercooled diamond saw. The core profiling scheme summary is presented in Table 4-2. The sample obtained from the two profiling methods was pulverized and placed in plastic bags until the chlo ride content testing was executed. The initial chloride background levels of cored samples were determined from the deepest section of the specimens (APPENDIX D), assuming that chloride s have not yet reached this depth.

PAGE 71

71 Table 4-1. Concrete Permeability Research Sample Matrix for Laboratory Mixtures. Total Number of Samples per Test (4x8 Cylinders) Mixture Name Strength (ASTM C39) RCP (AASHTO T277) Surface Resistivity (FM 5-578) Bulk Diffusion (NTBuild 443) Extra Cylinders 49_564 18 18 6 3 7 35_752 18 18 6 3 7 45_752 18 18 6 3 7 28_900_8SF_20F 18 18 6 3 7 35_752_20F 18 18 6 3 7 35_752_12CF 18 18 6 3 7 35_752_8SF 18 18 6 3 7 35_752_8SF_20F 18 18 6 3 7 35_752_10M 18 18 6 3 7 35_752_10M_20F 18 18 6 3 7 35_752_50Slag 18 18 6 3 7 Lab. Mixes 35_752_4.5CN 18 18 6 3 7 45_570 18 18 6 3 7 29_450_20F 18 18 6 3 7 33_658_18F 18 18 6 3 7 34_686_18F 18 18 6 3 7 30_673_20F 18 18 6 3 7 28_800_20F 18 18 6 3 7 Field Mixes 29_770_18F 18 18 6 3 7 Total 342 342 114 57 133 Table 4-2. Bridge Core Samples Profiling Scheme. Core Sample Identification Profile Penetration (mm) Profiling Method A 0 2 Milling B 2 4 Milling C 4 6 Milling D 6 8 Milling E 8 10 Milling F 10 12 Milling G 12 18.35 Slicing H 18.35 24.70 Slicing I 24.70 31.05 Slicing J 31.05 37.40 Slicing

PAGE 72

72 Figure 4-1. Cutting Bulk Diffusi on Samples into Two Halves. Figure 4-2. Bulk Diffusion Saline Solution Exposure.

PAGE 73

73 Figure 4-3. RCP test top surface removal of the sample preparation procedure. A B Figure 4-4. RCP Sample Preparation: A) Cutting of the 2-inch Sample for the Test and B) Preconditioning RCP Sample Surfaces to Receive Epoxy.

PAGE 74

74 Figure 4-5. RCP Sample Sealed with Epoxy. A B Figure 4-6. RCP Sample Preconditi oning Procedure: A) Reduction of Absolute Pressure and B) Sample Desiccation

PAGE 75

75 Figure 4-7. RCP Test Set-up. Figure 4-8. Surface Resistivity Measurements.

PAGE 76

76 A B Figure 4-9. Profile Grinding Us ing a Milling Machine. A) Milling Machine Set Up and B) Milling Process.

PAGE 77

77 CHAPTER 5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Fresh Properties Several quality control procedures were ex ecuted during mixing and casting of the test samples for the laboratory and field mixtures. Th e results obtained from the standard testing procedures for slump (ASTM C 143), air conten t (ASTM C 173), concrete temperature (ASTM C 1064), air temperature and unit weight of th e concrete (ASTM C 138) are included in Table 5-1. Due to natural variability of concrete work ability, a consistent concrete slump from mixture to mixture is difficult to obtai n. The laboratory concrete mixt ure slump measurements ranged between 2.25 to 9.75-inch (57 to 248-mm) and the field mixtures between 0.5 to 7.75-inch (13 to 197-mm). The laboratory mixture unit weight measur ements presented a coefficient of variation of 1.5% and the field mixtures vary by 2.3%. This indicates that there were no large variations in entrapped air or aggregate volume proportions am ong mixtures. The air content for all batches was within the target range of 1.0 to 6.0%. Th e laboratory concrete mixt ure air contents range from 1.25% to 6.0% and the fiel d mixtures from 1.5% to 4%. Mechanical Properties The compressive strength of each mixture was evaluated in accordance with ASTM C39. Though compressive strength is not a concrete perm eability indicator, it represents a helpful tool for checking the design compressive strength. Th erefore, the compressive strength changes caused by the mixture proportions and different added pozzolan can then be used as quality indicators of the corrected prep aration of the cast mixtures. Mo reover, the strength trend of change by time can be used as an indirect comparative reference to the electrical conductivity results tested at the same age. The electrical co nductivity of water satura ted concrete depends on

PAGE 78

78 part on its pore structure; as the pore structure of a concrete samples is reduced, the electrical conductivity will decrease and the co ncrete strength will increase. Compressive strengths were tested after 14, 28, 56, 91,182 and 364 days of continuous moist curing for all the concrete mi xtures. Detailed results are given in APPENDIX B. Maximum values of strength were achieved in mixtures with the lowest water-cementitious ratios. The effect on the mixtures by the addition of fly ash resulted in a slower gain of strength during the early ages of hydration. During the first 56 days after ca sting, compressive strength of fly ash mixes mixture was significantly le ss than those of th e control mixture (Figure 5-1). This lower early strength development is due to the low reactivity of the mineral admixture fly ash (Mindess,Young and Darwin 2002). Strength tests conducted betw een 56 and 180 days showed that the fly ash mixtures gained a compressive st rength comparably equal to those of the control mixture. Finally at 364 days after casting, th e fly ash mixtures developed higher compressive strength exceeding those of the control mixture. The effect on the mixtures by the addition of the highly reactive pozzolan silica fume contributed to the early development of compre ssive strength. During th e first 14 days after casting, compressive strengths of silica fume mixtures were less th an those of the control mixture (Figure 5-1). On the other hand, strength tests conducted between 28 and 182 days showed that the silica fume mixtures had higher compressive strengths than those of the control mixture. Finally at 364 days after casting, the effect of silica fume was stabilized and the compressive strength was comparably equal to those of the control mixture. The effect on the mixture by the addition of the pozzolan metakaolin e contributed to the early development of compressive strength. This beneficial effect was sustained until 364-days after casting (Figure 5-1). On the other hand, the addition of calcium nitrite reduced the concrete

PAGE 79

79 compressive strengths compared to the control mixture by about 30 percent for all the testing days. Similar concrete strength behavior was reported by previous researches (Berke 1987; Kondratova, Montes and Bremner 2003). They re ported that the calcium nitrite can reduce concrete compressive strength. However, other findings by Ann et al. (2 005) contradict this conclusion. They found that the ca lcium nitrite addition enhanced the concrete strength at early ages compared to a control mixture. Finally, Figure 5-2 shows some of the field mixtur es compressive strength compared to the laboratory control mixture. The compressive strengt hs are reduced compared to the control as the water-cementitious ratio is increased or the am ount of cementitious is reduced. Conversely, a noticeable increase in strength was observed on the field mixture 28_ 800_20F with lower watercementitious ratio and higher amount of cemen titious than the laboratory control mixture (35_752). Long-Term Chloride Penetration Procedures The Nordtest Bulk Diffusion (NTBuild 443) test results after a 1 and 3 years of exposure period were used as a benchmark to evaluate th e conductivity tests. Afte r their exposure period, each of the samples were profiled and tested us ing the FDOT standard test method FM5-516 to obtain their acid-soluble chloride ion content at varying depths. The Bulk Diffusion procedure represents the most common test method of determining chloride diffusion coefficients for concrete specim ens. This procedure is believed to simulate a diffusion only mechanism (Hooton, Thomas and Stanish 2001). The saturation of the samples, previous exposure to the chloride solution, eliminates the contribution by the absorption mechanism. Furthermore, the wicking effect is al so eliminated with the sealing of all specimen faces except the one exposed to the NaCl solution. The diffusion coefficients were determined by fitting the data obtained in the chloride prof iles analysis to Ficks Diffusion Second Law

PAGE 80

80 equation. The measured chloride contents at va rying depths were fitt ed to Ficks diffusion equation by means of a non-linear regression anal ysis in accordance with the method of least square fit. The computerized mathematical tool s of the program MathCad were used to fit the data to the non-linear regressions. Table 5-2 to Table 5-5 show the obtained chloride diffusion coefficients and surface concentration for 1 and 3 years of exposure. Moreover, chloride profiles and curve fitting results for each concrete mixture are summarized in APPENDIX C. The mixture proportions affect di rectly the rate of chloride diffusion into concrete. Several factors such as the water-cementitious ratios a nd the types and amounts of cementitious materials used for the mixture will change the rate of chloride diffusion. Figure 5-3 and Figure 5-4 show a comparison of the obtained chloride diffusion coe fficients for 1 and 3 years of exposure for the entire set of mixtures. Table 5-6 shows the relative decrease in diffusion from 1 to 3-years of exposure. Moreover, the effects on the diffusion coeffici ent by the addition of different pozzolans and corrosion inhibitor are compared in Table 5-7. Mixtures having the same water-cementitious ratios, cementitious contents and different pozzo lan combinations and corrosion inhibitor were compared. The chosen mixtures were cast under laboratory conditions with the same source of materials. Mixture 35_752 that did not contain pozzo lan was selected as the control to make the comparisons. The changes in diffusion from 1 to 3-years compared to the control mixture are also presented graphically in Figure 5-5. The results show th at the addition of metakaolin (35_752_10M) decreases the chloride diffusion comp ared to the control mixture by about 70 percent for the 1 and 3 years of exposure re sults. Moreover, the addition of silica fume (35_752_8SF), ground blast furnace slag (35_752_50Slag) and ternary blends of fly-ash with metakaolin (35_752_10M_20F) or silica fume (35_752_8SF_20F) decreases the chloride

PAGE 81

81 diffusion approximately 50 percent for the 1 a nd 3 years of exposure results. The chloride diffusion for samples containing fly-ash (35_752 _20F) and classified fly-ash (35_752_12CF) did not improve for samples exposed for a year. Ho wever, they improved for the longer exposure period of 3 year. These could be related to the slow pozzolanic reaction of the mineral admixture fly ash. Finally, the addition of calcium nitr ite (35_752_4.5CN) did not improve the concrete diffusion coefficient. The addition of calcium nitr ite increased the chloride diffusion compared to the control mixture by about 60 percent for the 1 y ear of exposure result s and 133 percent for the longer exposure of 3 years. Similar chloride diffusion behaviors were reported by previous researches (Berke 1987; Ma, Li and Peng 1998; Kondratova, Mont es and Bremner 2003). They reported that the calcium nitrite tends to increase concrete chloride permeability values. Ma, Li and Peng (1998) found that the addition of calcium nitrite influences the hydration process of cement paste. It appears that calcium nitrite ha s the function of accelera ting and stabilizing the formation of the crystal phase of calcium hydroxide. This leads to an increase in the micropore diameter in the hardened cement paste and thus to an increase in chloride permeability compared to concrete without inhibitor. Comparison of Conductivity and Long-Term Diffusion Tests Rapid Chloride Permeability Test (RCP) The results of the Rapid Chloride Permeability tests (RCP) (AASHTO T277) at ages 14, 28, 56, 91, 182 and 364 days were plotted with th eir respective 1 and 3 years Bulk Diffusion. It was found that a power regres sion provided the best repres entation of the trends (APPENDIX F). Other researchers (Hooton, Thomas and Stanish 2001) have also f ound this to be true in their work. As an example, Figure 5-6 shows the 28-day and 91-day RCP results against the 1-year Bulk Diffusion results for both the labor atory and field samples. Similarly, Figure 5-7 shows the same RCP results plotted against the 3-year Bulk Diffusion results.

PAGE 82

82 Previous research has shown that the RCP te st method presents some limitations when applied to concrete modified with chemical admi xtures as corrosion inhibitors (Shi, Stegemenn and Caldwell 1998). Concrete modified with a corro sion inhibitor such as cal cium nitrite exhibits a higher coulomb value than the same concrete w ithout the corrosion inhib itor when tested with the RCP test. Yet long-term chloride ponding tests have indicated that concrete with calcium nitrite is at least as resistant to chloride ion penetration as th e control mixture. Conversely, the RCP results compared with the 1 and 3 years Bulk Diffusion results tend to follow the same trend as the other concrete mixtures. The calcium nitrite effect, however, is represented by only one mixture on the entire specimen population. C onsequently, there is not enough information to draw a solid final conclusion from the available data results. Therefore, the concrete mixture containing calcium nitrite (35_752_4.5CN) was not included on the general correlations with long-term tests in order to establish a uniform leve l of comparison between a ll the electrical tests. General levels of agreement (R2) to references are presented in Table 5-8. Moreover, detailed graphs with their least-squares line-of-best fit for the complete set of data are presented in APPENDIX G. Surface Resistivity The electrical conductivity derived from the su rface resistivity test was also compared to their respective 1 and 3 years Bulk Diffusion. The surface resistivity test was conducted using two methods of curing, one at 100% humidity (mo ist cured) and the other in a saturated Ca(OH)2 solution (lime cured). Surface resistivity results fr om the two curing regimens at 14, 28, 56, 91, 182, 364, 455 and 546 days of age are compared to their respective diffusion test results. The data were then fit with a curv e to provide an empirical relatio nship between the short and long term tests. Power function was selected because it provided the best fit with the relationship between the two set of test results (APPENDIX F). Concrete modified with a corrosion inhibitor

PAGE 83

83 as calcium nitrite may exhibit misleading results in electrical resistivity tests (Shi, Stegemenn and Caldwell 1998). Consequently, these valu es were excluded from the curve fit. Figure 5-8 and Figure 5-9 show detailed graphs of the test correl ations with their respect ive derived least-square line-of-best fit. The surface resistivity correlation coefficients (R2) for the two curing regimens are compared in Figure 5-12 and Figure 5-13. The figures show the R2 results for the Bulk Diffusion correlation for the two exposure periods, respec tively. The comparison between the two curing procedures shows little difference. A relative gain in correlation, however, was observed for the moist cured regimen at 14 days of age. The differen ce in the number of samples tested at that age (Table 5-9) might explain the relative increase in the correlation. Fewer samples were tested for the moist cured regimen than for the lime cure d specimens. Consequently, the probability of fitting a set of data increases for fewer numbers of records. Therefore, it is concluded that either of the methods will derive on equal surface resist ivity behavior. General levels of agreement (R2) to references for both curing methods are presented in Table 5-9. Moreover, detailed graphs with their least-squares line-of-best fit for the complete set of data are presented in APPENDIX G. Relating Electrical Tests and Bulk Diffusion The standardized RCP test method, ASTM C1 202, is commonly required on construction project specifications for both precast and cast-in-place concrete Pfeifer, McDonald and Krauss (1994) indicate that the engineer or owner usua lly select an arbitrary limit of 1000 coulombs for concrete elements under extremely aggressive en vironments. This RCP coulomb limit for 28-day moist cured concrete is required by the Florid a Department of Transportation (FDOT) when Class V or Class V Special conc rete containing silica fume or metakaolin is specified (FDOT 346 2004). The typical application for this high performance concrete is piling to be installed in salt water.

PAGE 84

84 The commonly used 1000 coulomb limit at 28-da y RCP test has been chosen based on a scale reported in the standa rdized test procedure (Table 2-1). This scale presents a qualitative method that relates the equivalent measured charge in coulombs to the chloride ion permeability of the concrete. The original research program that derived the rating scale (Whiting 1981) was based upon a reduced amount of singl e core concrete samples that did not include pozzolans or corrosion inhibitors. The set of data results were linearly fitted (R2 of 0.83) and five qualitative ranges of chloride permeability were define d based on the long-term chloride ponding test AASHTO T259. These permeability ranges were se lected by grouping concrete mixture with similar AASHTO T259 and RCP results. The applicability of the RCP has been consid ered extensively in the literature (Whiting 1981; Whiting 1988; Whiting and Dziedzic 1989; Oz yildirim and Halstead 1988; Scanlon and Sherman 1996) with samples containing a wide variety of pozzolans a nd corrosion inhibitors. They have demonstrated no consistent correla tion between the RCP results and the rates of chloride permeability presented in standard proc edure. The electrical conductivity of the water saturated concrete depends on part on the chem istry of pore solution. Changes in pore solution chemistry generate considerable alterations in the el ectrical conductivity of the sample. These variations can be produced by th e presence of pozzolans or corro sion inhibitors that were not included on the original research th at developed the rating table. Ther efore, this indicates that the RCP test was never intended as a quantitative pred ictor of chloride permea bility into any given concrete (Pfeifer, McDonald and Krauss 1994). The test was designed as a quality control procedure that should be calibrate d with long-term tests. As st ated in the scope of the RCP standard method, the rapid test pr ocedure is applicable to types of concrete in which correlations have been established between this rapid test procedure and long-term chloride ponding tests.

PAGE 85

85 It has been argued by the industry that a RCP limit of 1000 coulombs to categorize very low chloride permeability concrete on a 28-day sample is unreasonably low. The original RCP coulomb limits were derived from correlations between 90-day RCP samples and 90-day AASHTO T259 ponding test. Therefore, the use of these restrictions on lower testing ages, as 28 days, represents a conservative approach to quality control. The el ectrical conductivity of concrete decreases with time as the process of hy dration takes place. This is particularly true of fly ash or other slower reacting pozzolans. Conversel y, silica fume is rather fast acting resulting in low apparently age RCP values. Figure 5-15 shows these effects on the electrical conductivity by the addition of fly ash and silica fume. Moreover, Figure 5-16 illustrate s the changes on RCP results for the complete set of mixtures. Results show a higher rate of RCP coulombs decrease for the first 91 days of curing, followed by a rela tive stable flat trend in most of the cases. Furthermore, the chloride ponding test used as a benchmark to derive the original RCP coulomb limits, AASHTO T259, presents several limitations. Chloride profiles obtained from the long-term chloride ponding test were analyzed us ing the total integral chloride method. This method calculates the total quantity of chloride s that has penetrated the samples during the exposure period of exposure. It is obtained by integrating the area under the chloride profile curve from the surface of exposure to the point where the chloride background is reached (Figure 5-14). Previous research findings (Hooton, Thom as and Stanish 2001; Vivas, Hamilton and Boyd 2007) have indicated that this chloride conten t measurement method is not a good indicator of diffusion of chlorides in concrete The method only takes into c onsideration the total amount of soluble chlorides for a particular depth. Significant information such as the shape of the chloride penetration curve is not reflected in this result.

PAGE 86

86 Diffusion mechanism is considered the principal mechanism that drives chloride ions into the pore structure of concrete (Tuutti 1982; Stanish and Thomas 2003). However, the AASHTO T259 test set up induces a combined effect of diffusion, adsorption and vapor conduction (wicking) mechanisms. Previous research (McG rath and Hooton 1999) has suggested that the relative importance of the abso rption effect is overestimated by the AASHTO T259 test set up. Hooton, Thomas and Stanish (2001) have indicated that the relative amounts of chloride ions drawn into the concrete by the absorption eff ect compared to the amount entering by diffusion will be greater when the test is run only for a short period of time compared to the relative amounts during the lifetime of a stru cture. Moreover, they exposed th at the wicking effect is also overestimated by the test procedure. The actual stru cture humidity gradient will likely be less, at least for part of the time, than the exposed duri ng the test. Therefore, th e use of a well-controlled diffusion only ponding test as Bu lk Diffusion test will improve the precision of the chloride penetration profile and may more accurately refl ect the extent of longterm penetration of chloride into concrete than the AASHTO T259 test. Consequently, a method to relate the equivalent measured charge in coulombs to th e chloride ion permeability of the concrete based on the Bulk Diffusion test is needed. Curve fitting of the relationship between RCP or SR and the 1 and 3-year Bulk Diffusion test results were previously presented. Figure 5-17 and Figure 5-18 shows the correlation coefficients (R2) of those fits as a function of the time at which the respective RCP test was conducted. The plots are for 1 and 3year Bulk Diffusion results. The R2 values for both Bulk Diffusion ages increase dramatically for approximately the first 91-days. The RCP R2 reaches plateau at 91 days when compared to those of 1-year Bulk Diffusion. This is believed to be related to the high variability on the different pozzolan internal re actions at early age concretes.

PAGE 87

87 Concrete mixtures containing highly reactive poz zolans as silica fume will react faster than mixtures containing slower reactin g pozzolans as fly ash. Howeve r, as the concrete internal hydration takes place, these reactio ns will be reduced. Consequently the short-term test results obtained from these more stable mixtures will correlate better to the long-term specimens. RCP samples compared to those of 3-year Bulk Diffusion achieve a maximum R2 value at 1 year of testing. R2 values from correlations of Surface Resistivity tests (Table 5-9) to the references were also included in the comparison with similar results. Even duo the maximum R2 value for the 3year Bulk Diffusion results is re ached at 1-year RCP, the 91-day R2 is considered also a reasonable correlation level. Therefore based on the reduced variability reached at 91-days, it is concluded that the earliest effective age at whic h the RCP and SR will correlate with the 1 or 3 year Bulk Diffusion test is 91 days. Furtherm ore, the relationship between the 91-day RCP results and the BD tests can be used to derive a target Bulk Diffusion coefficient for Florida concretes. This target is based on the 1000 c oulomb requirement that is commonly used to characterize durable concrete. The ultimate goal is to be able to predict a 1 or 3-year Bulk Diffusion from a test conducted at 91-days. The diffusion coefficient related to a given coulomb value can be obtained from the trend line e quation of the test correlations as shown in Figure 5-19 and Figure 5-20. Table 5-10 shows a complete scale for categorizing 91 day RCP results related to the chloride permeability measured by a 1 and 3 year Bulk Diffusion test. Refinement of the Long-Term Diffusion Co efficient Prediction Using Monte Carlo Simulation Closed form statistical solutions were used to develop the scale pres ented in the previous section. 91-days was found to be the earliest effec tive testing age to predic t the chloride diffusion penetration of a 1 and 3 year Bulk Diffusion te st when using either SR or RCP. The proposed diffusion coefficients related to a given coulomb value were obtained from a fit of the available

PAGE 88

88 experimental data (Figure 5-19 and Figure 5-20). Each of the data values used in the test correlations was a product of an average of three experimental results. Some of these results had high coefficient of variation with up to 15% on the RCP results (APPENDIX E) and 30% on the Bulk Diffusion (Table 5-2 and Table 5-4). To ensure that the variability in the data was accounted for appr opriately Monte Carlo simulation was conducted. This simulation wa s focused on obtain the respective diffusion coefficient results related to the standard RCP limits. The available RCP data and Bulk Diffusion test results at 1 and 3 years of chloride exposure were included in the analysis. Each of the Bulk Diffusion coefficients and RCP test results were simulated with separate independent random variables using a normal distributi on. The parameters required to define the shape of the normal distribution, mean and standard deviation, were calcu lated from the three available data points from each set of mixture test results. A comple te set of Bulk Diffusion and RCP results were randomly generated from the different normal dist ribution models. In some of the cases due to the high coefficient of variation of the variables, the RCP or Bulk Diffusion randomly generated values resulted on negative values, which was in correct. Therefore, these negative simulated results were replaced with new positive random results. The respective be st-fit-equation was then calculated based on the power func tion model. The diffusion coeffici ents related to the standard coulomb limit values were then obtained from the new trend line equation. This process was repeated many times and different diffusion co efficient results for each RCP limits were obtained. Finally, the average and standard devi ation of the obtained group of diffusion results were assembled in a histogram. Figure 5-21 shows a schematic of the corr elation process using the Monte Carlo simulation. Initially 100 simulations were run an d the average and standard deviation of each

PAGE 89

89 group was recorded. The coefficient of variation (C OV) of the obtained set of results for each of the number of samples was then calculated (Figure 5-22 and Figure 5-23). To ensure a low COV the selected number of intera ction was increased from 100 to 50000 samples which reduced the COV to less than 1%. The average and standard deviati on of the correlation coefficient (R2) obtained for each of RCP and Surface Resistivity curve-fitting using the simulation (Table 5-11) are compared in Figure 5-24 and Figure 5-25. The obtained results corrobor ated previous findings. The average of RCP and Surface Resistivity trend of agreem ent reaches a maximum value on samples tested at 91 days when compared to those of 1 and 3 y ear Bulk Diffusion. Therefore, it is concluded that the most effective RCP and Surface Resistivit y testing age to predict the chloride diffusion penetration of a 1 or 3 year Bulk Diffusion test is 91 days. More realistic diffusion coefficients associated with these test results can be deri ved. The average and sta ndard deviation of the chloride permeability measured by a 1 and 3 year Bulk Diffusion test related to 91 day RCP results including the grade of variability from the experimental data is presented in Table 5-12.

PAGE 90

90 Table 5-1. Fresh Concrete Properties. Mixture Name Slump (in) Air Content (%) Concrete Temperature (oF) Air Temperature (oF) Unit Weight (pcf) 49_564 7.5 3.5 76 72 140.62 35_752 3 2 79 72 144.62 45_752 9.75 2.5 80 75 140.40 28_900_8SF_20F 9 3 81 75 142.32 35_752_20F 2.25 1.5 80 72 144.32 35_752_12CF 6 4.5 80 73 140.52 35_752_8SF 3 2.5 76 72 143.72 35_752_8SF_20F 4 4.5 78 70 139.72 35_752_10M 5.5 4.5 76 78 145.22 35_752_10M_20F 8 1.25 80 80 144.02 35_752_50Slag 6 2 74 72 142.82 Lab. Mixes 35_752_4.5CN 9 6 76 72 140.49 45_570 0.5 4 94 81 140.49 29_450_20F 3 1.5 92 96 148.64 33_658_18F 7 3.5 88 98 145.01 34_686_18F 7 2 90 89 143.08 30_673_20F 6.5 1.7 96 99 148.77 28_800_20F 7.75 2.8 98 93 142.16 Field Mixes 29_770_18F 5.5 2 93 96 147.39

PAGE 91

91 Table 5-2. 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficients. 1-Year Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/sec) Mixture Name Sample A Sample B Sample C Average Standard Deviation Coefficient of Variation (%) 49_564 22.451 16.607 17.347 18.801 3.182 17 35_752 4.050 4.433 4.863 4.449 0.407 9 45_752 10.645 9.738 9.440 9.941 0.627 6 28_900_8SF_20F 1.345 1.175 1.254 1.258 0.085 7 35_752_20F 4.222 5.255 5.948 5.142 0.869 17 35_752_12CF 5.374 4.637 4.378 4.796 0.516 11 35_752_8SF 2.299 2.255 1.656 2.070 0.360 17 35_752_8SF_20F 2.351 2.729 3.562 2.881 0.619 21 35_752_10M 0.877 1.206 1.232 1.105 0.198 18 35_752_10M_20F 2.251 2.425 2.587 2.421 0.168 7 35_752_50Slag 2.994 2.100 3.151 2.748 0.567 21 35_752_4.5CN 6.644 8.406 6.622 7.224 1.024 14 45_570 11.703 9.155 9.404 10.087 1.405 14 29_450_20F 6.306 4.452 4.656 5.138 1.017 20 33_658_18F 5.829 5.723 5.851 5.801 0.068 1 34_686_18F 3.027 5.729 4.526 4.427 1.354 31 30_673_20F 2.231 2.169 2.366 2.255 0.101 4 28_800_20F 3.330 2.490 1.662 2.494 0.834 33 29_770_18F 2.212 3.361 1.756 2.443 0.827 34

PAGE 92

92 Table 5-3. 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Surface Concentration. 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Surface Concentration (lb/yd3) Mixture Name Sample A Sample B Sample C Average Standard Deviation Coefficient of Variation (%) 49_564 34.385 39.102 35.500 36.329 2.465 7 35_752 46.835 49.390 45.930 47.385 1.794 4 45_752 47.345 51.026 49.637 49.336 1.859 4 28_900_8SF_20F 53.651 59.521 49.262 54.145 5.147 10 35_752_20F 46.474 47.442 44.192 46.036 1.669 4 35_752_12CF 54.147 60.405 60.744 58.432 3.715 6 35_752_8SF 54.787 55.418 60.326 56.843 3.032 5 35_752_8SF_20F 55.771 66.298 57.763 59.944 5.592 9 35_752_10M 71.946 62.979 78.792 71.239 7.930 11 35_752_10M_20F 57.641 47.788 54.601 53.343 5.045 9 35_752_50Slag 55.913 75.667 61.852 64.477 10.135 16 35_752_4.5CN 73.541 53.329 60.400 62.424 10.257 16 45_570 47.348 53.144 56.449 52.314 4.607 9 29_450_20F 59.443 67.260 63.426 63.376 3.909 6 33_658_18F 58.558 51.562 44.124 51.415 7.218 14 34_686_18F 30.835 27.014 26.301 28.050 2.438 9 30_673_20F 31.105 30.618 33.343 31.688 1.453 5 28_800_20F 25.791 28.249 28.176 27.405 1.398 5 29_770_18F 43.569 31.820 34.043 36.477 6.242 17

PAGE 93

93 Table 5-4. 3-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficients. 3-Year Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/sec) Mixture Name Sample A Sample B Sample C Average Standard Deviation Coefficient of Variation (%) 49_564 29.829 25.367 24.146 26.448 2.991 11 35_752 5.371 4.383 5.034 4.929 0.502 10 45_752 9.706 8.962 13.232 10.633 2.281 21 28_900_8SF_20F 1.212 0.850 0.600 0.887 0.308 35 35_752_20F 2.160 2.240 2.224 2.208 0.042 2 35_752_12CF 3.806 3.711 3.606 3.708 0.100 3 35_752_8SF 1.796 2.126 1.951 1.958 0.165 8 35_752_8SF_20F 2.850 2.683 2.402 2.645 0.226 9 35_752_10M 1.601 1.227 1.392 1.407 0.187 13 35_752_10M_20F 2.168 2.108 2.172 2.149 0.036 2 35_752_50Slag 2.346 2.785 1.776 2.303 0.506 22 35_752_4.5CN 8.174 15.054 11.208 11.479 3.448 30 45_570 31.792 26.808 17.648 25.416 7.174 28 29_450_20F 10.036 10.012 11.394 10.481 0.791 8 33_658_18F 3.426 2.527 3.570 3.174 0.565 18 34_686_18F 2.305 2.265 3.013 2.528 0.421 17 30_673_20F 2.165 2.412 1.459 2.012 0.495 25 28_800_20F 3.004 1.891 1.730 2.208 0.694 31 29_770_18F 1.517 1.384 1.246 1.382 0.135 10

PAGE 94

94 Table 5-5. 3-Year Bulk Diffusion Surface Concentration. 3-Year Bulk Diffusion Surface Concentration (lb/yd3) Mixture Name Sample A Sample B Sample C Average Standard Deviation Coefficient of Variation (%) 49_564 42.142 37.922 35.642 38.569 3.298 9 35_752 38.149 42.069 45.607 41.942 3.730 9 45_752 32.424 42.464 36.961 37.283 5.028 13 28_900_8SF_20F 43.308 51.303 45.051 46.554 4.204 9 35_752_20F 48.987 49.661 47.854 48.834 0.913 2 35_752_12CF 44.462 47.510 49.098 47.023 2.356 5 35_752_8SF 43.873 41.652 40.450 41.991 1.737 4 35_752_8SF_20F 44.198 41.879 43.106 43.061 1.160 3 35_752_10M 48.341 58.918 53.198 53.486 5.295 10 35_752_10M_20F 54.117 48.665 51.317 51.367 2.726 5 35_752_50Slag 58.649 54.684 62.573 58.635 3.944 7 35_752_4.5CN 43.146 32.824 41.576 39.182 5.562 14 45_570 32.031 31.344 35.485 32.953 2.219 7 29_450_20F 28.404 38.815 38.552 35.257 5.936 17 33_658_18F 50.868 46.620 45.735 47.741 2.744 6 34_686_18F 52.297 55.521 60.245 56.021 3.998 7 30_673_20F 47.266 39.726 54.786 47.259 7.530 16 28_800_20F 48.184 58.766 68.012 58.320 9.922 17 29_770_18F 46.782 65.549 49.553 53.961 10.130 19

PAGE 95

95 Table 5-6. Bulk Diffusion Ratio of Change from 3-Years to 1-Year of Exposure. Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/sec) Mixture Name 1-Year Samples 3-Year Samples Bulk Diffusion Ratios (3-Years/1-Year) 49_564 18.801 26.448 1.41 35_752 4.449 4.929 1.11 45_752 9.941 10.633 1.07 28_900_8SF_20F 1.258 0.887 0.71 35_752_20F 5.142 2.208 0.43 35_752_12CF 4.796 3.708 0.77 35_752_8SF 2.070 1.958 0.95 35_752_8SF_20F 2.881 2.645 0.92 35_752_10M 1.105 1.407 1.27 35_752_10M_20F 2.421 2.149 0.89 35_752_50Slag 2.748 2.303 0.84 35_752_4.5CN 7.224 11.479 1.59 45_570 10.087 25.416 2.52 29_450_20F 5.138 10.481 2.04 33_658_18F 5.801 3.174 0.55 34_686_18F 4.427 2.528 0.57 30_673_20F 2.255 2.012 0.89 28_800_20F 2.494 2.208 0.89 29_770_18F 2.443 1.382 0.57 Table 5-7. Pozzolans and Corrosion Inhibito r Effects on Bulk Diffusion Coefficients. 1-Year Samples 3-Year Samples Mixture Name (a) Bulk Diff. (x10-12) (m2/sec) Ratio of Diff. to Control Mixture(c) Bulk Diff. (x10-12) (m2/sec) Ratio of Diff. to Control Mixture(c) 35_752(b) 4.449 1.00 4.929 1.00 35_752_20F 5.142 1.16 2.208 0.45 35_752_12CF 4.796 1.08 3.708 0.75 35_752_8SF 2.070 0.47 1.958 0.40 35_752_8SF_20F 2.881 0.65 2.645 0.54 35_752_10M 1.105 0.25 1.407 0.29 35_752_10M_20F 2.421 0.54 2.149 0.44 35_752_50Slag 2.748 0.62 2.303 0.47 35_752_4.5CN 7.224 1.62 11.479 2.33 (a) These mixtures were cast at the laborato ry with the same source of materials. (b) 35_752 is defined as the Control Mixture.

PAGE 96

96 Table 5-8. Correlation Coefficients (R2) of RCP to Reference Tests. Test Procedure Test Conducted Age (Days) 1-Year Bulk Diffusion (a) 3-Year Bulk Diffusion (a) Number of Sample Sets 14 0.59 0.39 18 28 0.67 0.47 18 56 0.81 0.70 18 91 0.80 0.76 18 182 0.79 0.78 18 RCP (AASHTO T277) 364 0.77 0.81 18 (a) Concrete Mixture Containing Calcium Nitrite (35_752_4.5CN) was not included in the correlation. Table 5-9. Correlation Coefficients (R2) of Surface Resistivity to Reference Tests. Test Procedure Test Conducted Age (Days) 1-Year Bulk Diffusion (a) 3-Year Bulk Diffusion (a) Number of Sample Sets 14 0.48 0.29 18 28 0.77 0.49 18 56 0.80 0.60 18 91 0.84 0.72 18 182 0.81 0.77 18 364 0.70 0.77 18 455 0.70 0.77 18 Surface Resistivity (Lime Cured) 546 0.68 0.73 18 14 0.76 0.50 13(b) 28 0.75 0.53 18 56 0.75 0.60 18 91 0.79 0.72 18 182 0.77 0.79 18 364 0.74 0.76 18 455 0.70 0.78 18 Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) 546 0.69 0.75 18 (a) Concrete Mixture Containing Calcium Nitrite (35_752_4.5CN) was not included in the correlation. (b) Fewer set of samples were available for this correlation. Table 5-10. 1 and 3 year Bulk Diffusion Relati ve to 91-Day RCP Charge Passed (Coulombs). 91-Day RCP Charge Passed (Coulombs) 1-Year Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s) 3-Year Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s) > 4,000 > 8.478 > 10.518 2,000 4,000 4.044 8.478 3.834 10.518 1,000 2,000 1.929 4.044 1.398 3.834 100 1,000 0.165 1.929 0.049 1.398 < 100 < 0.165 < 0.049

PAGE 97

97 Table 5-11. Correlation Coefficients (R2) of RCP and Surface Resistivity to Reference Tests by Monte Carlo Simulation Analysis. 1-Year Bulk Diffusion (a) 3-Year Bulk Diffusion (a) Test Procedure Test Conducted Age (Days) Average Standard Deviation Average Standard Deviation 14 0.54 0.07 0.37 0.04 28 0.61 0.08 0.46 0.05 56 0.75 0.06 0.66 0.05 91 0.74 0.05 0.73 0.04 182 0.73 0.05 0.75 0.04 RCP (AASHTO T277) 364 0.72 0.05 0.78 0.04 14 0.43 0.08 0.28 0.04 28 0.71 0.07 0.48 0.04 56 0.74 0.07 0.58 0.04 91 0.78 0.06 0.69 0.04 182 0.74 0.06 0.73 0.06 364 0.66 0.05 0.75 0.04 455 0.65 0.05 0.74 0.04 Surface Resistivity (Lime Cured) 546 0.64 0.05 0.71 0.04 14 0.73 0.04 0.48 0.03 28 0.69 0.06 0.51 0.04 56 0.69 0.07 0.58 0.05 91 0.73 0.06 0.70 0.04 182 0.72 0.05 0.76 0.04 364 0.70 0.05 0.73 0.04 455 0.65 0.05 0.75 0.04 Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) 546 0.64 0.05 0.72 0.04 (a) Concrete Mixture Containing Calcium Nitrite (35_752_4.5CN) was not included in the correlation. Table 5-12. 1 and 3 year Bulk Diffusion Relati ve to 91-Day RCP Charge Passed (Coulombs) by Monte Carlo Simulation Analysis. 1-Year Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s) 3-Year Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s) 91-Day RCP Charge Passed (Coulombs) Average Standard Deviation Average Standard Deviation > 4,000 > 8.924 > 0.676 > 10.866 > 0.969 2,000 4,000 4.020 8.924 0.196 0.676 3.814 10.866 0.204 0.969 1,000 2,000 1.820 4.020 0.170 0.196 1.345 3.814 0.115 0.204 100 1,000 0.162 1.820 0.039 0.170 0.044 1.345 0.013 0.115 < 100 < 0.162 < 0.039 < 0.044 < 0.013

PAGE 98

98 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0100200300400 Age (Days)Strength (psi) 35_752 (Control) 35_752_20FA 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0100200300400 Age (Days)Strength (psi) 35_752 (Control) 35_752_8SFB 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0100200300400 Age (Days)Strength (psi) 35_752 (Control) 35_752_4.5CNC 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0100200300400 Age (Days)Strength (psi) 35_752 (Control) 35_752_10MD Figure 5-1. Comparative Compre ssive Strength Development of Laboratory Control Mixture (35_752) and Laboratory Mixt ures Containing: A) Fl y Ash (35_752_20F), B) Silica Fume (35_752_8SF), C) Calcium Nitrite (35_752_4.5CN) and D) Metakaoline (35_752_10M).

PAGE 99

99 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0100200300400 Age (Days)Strength (psi) 35_752 (Control) 45_570A 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0100200300400 Age (Days)Strength (psi) 35_752 (Control) 34_686_18FB 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0100200300400 Age (Days)Strength (psi) 35_752 (Control) 28_800_20FC Figure 5-2. Comparative Compre ssive Strength Development of Laboratory Control Mixture (35_752) and Field Mixtures: A) 45_570, B) 34_686_18F and C) 28_800_20F.

PAGE 100

100 0 10 20 3049_564 45_570 45_752 35_752_4.5CN 33_658_18F 35_752_20F 29_450_20F 35_752_12CF 35_752 34_686_18F 35_752_8SF_20F 35_752_50Slag 28_800_20F 29_770_18F 35_752_10M_20F 30_673_20F 35_752_8SF 28_900_8SF_20F 35_752_10MMixture NameBulk Diff. Coef. (x10-12)(m2/s) 1-Year Samples N ote: Calicium Nitrite (CN), Fly-Ash (F), Classified Fly-Ash (CF), Silica Fume (SF) and Metakaolin (M). Figure 5-3. 1-Year Bulk Diffu sion Coefficient Comparisons. 0 10 20 3049_564 45_570 35_752_4.5CN 45_752 29_450_20F 35_752 35_752_12CF 33_658_18F 35_752_8SF_20F 34_686_18F 35_752_50Slag 28_800_20F 35_752_20F 35_752_10M_20F 30_673_20F 35_752_8SF 35_752_10M 29_770_18F 28_900_8SF_20FMixture NameBulk Diff. Coef. (x10-12)(m2/s) 3-Year Samples N ote: Calicium Nitrite (CN), Fly-Ash (F), Classified Fly-Ash (CF), Silica Fume (SF) and Metakaolin (M). Figure 5-4. 3-Year Bulk Diffu sion Coefficient Comparisons.

PAGE 101

101 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.535_752_4.5CN 35_752_20F 35_752_12CF 35_752 35_752_8SF_20F 35_752_50Slag 35_752_10M_20F 35_752_8SF 35_752_10MMixture NameRatio of Diff. Coeff. to Control Mix 1-Year Data 3-Year Data N ote: Calicium Nitrite (CN), Fly-Ash (F), Classified Fly-Ash (CF), Silica Fume (SF) and Metakaolin (M). Control Mixture Figure 5-5. Pozzolans and Corrosion Inhibito rs Effects on Bulk Diffusion Coefficients. y = 1042x0.862R2 = 0.669 0 5000 10000 15000 0102030 Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s)RCP (Coulombs) Calcium Nitrite MixA y = 541x0.936R2 = 0.802 0 5000 10000 15000 0102030 Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s)RCP (Coulombs) Calcium Nitrite MixB Figure 5-6. 1-Year Bulk Diffusion vs. RCP (AAS HTO T277) at A) 28 Days and B) 91 Days.

PAGE 102

102 y = 1647x0.549R2 = 0.474 0 5000 10000 15000 0102030 Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s)RCP (Coulombs) Calcium Nitrite MixA y = 795x0.687R2 = 0.755 0 5000 10000 15000 0102030 Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s)RCP (Coulombs) Calcium Nitrite MixB Figure 5-7. 3-Year Bulk Diffusion vs. RCP (AAS HTO T277) at A) 28 Days and B) 91 Days. y = 0.037x0.658R2 = 0.770 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0102030 Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s)SR Conductivit y (1/(kOhm-cm)) Calcium Nitrite MixA y = 0.019x0.803R2 = 0.840 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0102030 Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s)SR Conductivit y (1/(kOhm-cm)) Calcium Nitrite MixB Figure 5-8. 1-Year Bulk Diffusion vs. SR (Lim e Cured) Conductivity at: A) 28 Days and B) 91 Days.

PAGE 103

103 y = 0.054x0.397R2 = 0.492 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0102030 Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s)SR Conductivit y (1/(kOhm-cm)) Calcium Nitrite MixA y = 0.027x0.560R2 = 0.715 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0102030 Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s)SR Conductivit y (1/(kOhm-cm)) Calcium Nitrite MixB Figure 5-9. 3-Year Bulk Diffusion vs. SR (Lim e Cured) Conductivity at: A) 28 Days and B) 91 Days. y = 0.028x0.763R2 = 0.747 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0102030 Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s)SR Conductivit y (1/(kOhm-cm)) Calcium Nitrite MixA y = 0.016x0.848R2 = 0.787 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0102030 Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s)SR Conductivit y (1/(kOhm-cm)) Calcium Nitrite MixB Figure 5-10. 1-Year Bulk Diffusi on vs. SR (Moist Cured) Conductiv ity at: A) 28 Days and B) 91 Days.

PAGE 104

104 y = 0.042x0.487R2 = 0.533 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0102030 Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s)SR Conductivit y (1/(kOhm-cm)) Calcium Nitrite MixA y = 0.023x0.615R2 = 0.723 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0102030 Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s)SR Conductivit y (1/(kOhm-cm)) Calcium Nitrite MixB Figure 5-11. 3-Year Bulk Diffusi on vs. SR (Moist Cured) Conductiv ity at: A) 28 Days and B) 91 Days. 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 14285691182364454544 Age (Days)Correlation Coefficient (R2) SR (Lime Cured) SR (Moist Cured) Figure 5-12. Curing Method Comparison of Correlati on Coefficients with 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Test.

PAGE 105

105 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 14285691182364454544 Age (Days)Correlation Coefficient (R2) SR (Lime Cured) SR (Moist Cured) Figure 5-13. Curing Method Comparison of Correlati on Coefficients with 3-Year Bulk Diffusion Test. Depth of Penetration (mm)Chloride Concentratio n (%Concrete)Initial Chloride Background Total Integral Chloride Content Figure 5-14. AASHTO T259 Total Integr al Chloride Content Analysis.

PAGE 106

106 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 0100200300400 Testing Age (Days)RCP (Coulombs) 35_752 (Control) 35_752_20F 35_752_8SF Figure 5-15. RCP Test Coulomb Re sults Change With the Additi on of Fly Ash and Silica Fume.

PAGE 107

107 0 4000 8000 12000 0100200300400 Testing Age (Days)RCP (Coulombs) 49_564 35_752 45_752 28_900_8SF_20F 35_752_20F 35_752_12CFA 0 4000 8000 12000 0100200300400 Testing Age (Days)RCP (Coulombs) 35_752_8SF 35_752_8SF_20F 35_752_10M 35_752_10M_20F 35_752_50Slag 35_752_4.5CNB 0 4000 8000 12000 0100200300400 Testing Age (Days)RCP (Coulombs) 45_570 29_450_20F 33_658_18F 34_686_18FC 0 4000 8000 12000 0100200300400 Testing Age (Days)RCP (Coulombs) 30_673_20F 28_800_20F 29_770_18FD Figure 5-16. RCP Test Coulomb Re sults Change With Age for: A,B) Laboratory Mixtures and C,D) Field Mixtures.

PAGE 108

108 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0200400600 Age (Days)Correlation Coefficient (R2) RCP Surface Resistivity (Lime) Surface Resistivity (Moist) 91 Days Figure 5-17. General Correlation Coefficients (R2) of Electrical Tests by Testing Ages with 1Year Bulk Diffusion. 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0200400600 Age (Days)Correlation Coefficient (R2) RCP Surface Resistivity (Lime) Surface Resistivity (Moist) 91 Days Figure 5-18. General Correlation Coefficients (R2) of Electrical Tests by Testing Ages with 3Year Bulk Diffusion.

PAGE 109

109 y = 541x0.936R2 = 0.802 0 5000 10000 15000 0102030 Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s)RCP (Coulombs) Calcium Nitrite MixA 0 500 1000 1500 2000 01234 Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s)RCP (Coulombs) 1.929x10-12B Figure 5-19. Relating Electrical Tests and Bulk Di ffusion. A) 1-Year Bulk Diffusion vs. RCP at 91 Days and B) 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Co efficient Associated with a 91-Day RCP Test of a 1000 Coulombs. y = 795x0.687R2 = 0.755 0 5000 10000 15000 0102030 Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s)RCP (Coulombs) Calcium Nitrite MixA 0 500 1000 1500 2000 01234 Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s)RCP (Coulombs) 1.398x10-12B Figure 5-20. Relating Electrical Tests and Bulk Di ffusion. A) 3-Year Bulk Diffusion vs. RCP at 91 Days and B) 3-Year Bulk Diffusion Co efficient Associated with a 91-Day RCP Test of a 1000 Coulombs.

PAGE 110

110 R C P ( C o u l o m b s ) Bulk Diffusion (m /s) 2 A Bulk Diffusion (m /s)2R C P ( C o u l o m b s ) Best-fit-curve based on Power Function Model B R C P ( C o u l o m b s )Bulk Diffusion (m /s)2 Variables Generated Family of Curves Fitted to the Random C R C P ( C o u l o m b s ) Bulk Diffusion (m2/s) RCP LimitA s s o c i a t e d B u l k D i f f u s i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s D Figure 5-21. Schematic Process of Bulk Di ffusion Correlation to RCP Using Monte Carlo Simulation: A) Generating Data Paramete rs from Normal Random Variables, B) Curve Fitting of Generated Variables Base d on Power Function Model, C) Family of Curves Generated for each Set of Random Variables, D) Associated Bulk Diffusion Coefficients to the RCP Limits of each Fitted Curve and E) Bulk Diffusion Histogram for Simulated Data.

PAGE 111

111 0 200 400 600 3.33.84.24.7 Bulk Diffusion (x10-12)(m2/s)Frequenc y E Figure 5-21. Continued. 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 100100010000100000 Number of SamplesCOV (%) 100 Coulombs 1000 Coulombs 2000 Coulombs 4000 CoulombsA 0 2 4 6 8 10 100100010000100000 Number of SamplesCOV (%) 100 Coulombs 1000 Coulombs 2000 Coulombs 4000 CoulombsB Figure 5-22. 1-Year Bulk Diffusi on Coefficient of Variation Cha nge by the Number of Samples Used in Monte Carlo Simulation for the Diffe rent RCP Standard Limits. A) Mean and B) Standard Deviati on for 28-Day RCP Test.

PAGE 112

112 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 100100010000100000 Number of SamplesCOV (%) 100 Coulombs 1000 Coulombs 2000 Coulombs 4000 CoulombsA 0 2 4 6 8 10 100100010000100000 Number of SamplesCOV (%) 100 Coulombs 1000 Coulombs 2000 Coulombs 4000 CoulombsB Figure 5-23. 1-Year Bulk Diffusi on Coefficient of Variation Cha nge by the Number of Samples Used in Monte Carlo Simulation for the Diffe rent RCP Standard Limits. A) Mean and B) Standard Deviati on for 91-Day RCP Test. 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 0200400600 Age (Days)Correlation Coefficient (R2) RCP Surface Resistivity (Lime) Surface Resistivity (Moist) Figure 5-24. General Correlation Coefficients (R2) of Electrical Tests by Testing Ages with 1Year Bulk Diffusion by Monte Carlo Simulation Analysis.

PAGE 113

113 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 0200400600 Age (Days)Correlation Coefficient (R2) RCP Surface Resistivity (Lime) Surface Resistivity (Moist) Figure 5-25. General Correlation Coefficients (R2) of Electrical Tests by Testing Ages with 3Year Bulk Diffusion by Monte Carlo Simulation Analysis.

PAGE 114

114 CHAPTER 6 FIELD CORE SAMPLING Diffusion Coefficients of Cored Samples The chloride diffusion coefficients and surface chloride concentrations of the cored samples were obtained by fitting the obtained con centrations at varying depths and the initial chloride background levels to the non-linear Ficks Second Law of Diffusion solution (Table 6-1). The Ficks Second Law solution assumes that the unique chloride mechanism that transports the chloride ions through the concrete is diffusion. This is a reasonable assumption for tests conducted under controlled la boratory conditions, such as th e Bulk Diffusion test. Elements located in marine environments, however, are inte rmittently subjected to chloride exposure due to tidal fluctuations. Wetting and drying due to ti des encourages absorptio n, which is generated by capillary suction of the conc rete pulling seawater into the concrete. Moreover, the tidal fluctuations also induce leaching of unbonded sha llow surface chlorides. During concrete drying period, shallow surface water evaporates and chlori des are left either as chemically bonded to the pore walls or as unbonded crystal forms. Subsequen tly, when the concrete is again wetted, some of these unbonded crystals are leache d out of the concrete surface. Th erefore, chloride profiles of field cores can differ from that obtained under permanent chloride immersion, such as the laboratory test Bulk Diffusion. The chloride concentration near the exposed surface can be considerably less than deeper in to the concrete. However, previous research (Sags et al. 2001) has shown that diffusion coefficients can be approximately calculated by fitting the Ficks Second Law of Diffusion solution by excludi ng these misleading peaks in the regression analysis. The consequent chloride profile pe netrations, following the initial surface values affected by leaching and absorption, f it the pure diffusion trend behavior. Figure 6-1 shows

PAGE 115

115 some of the diffusion coefficient regression anal ysis of the bridge cored samples. Diffusion analyses for each of the cored sample are summarized in APPENDIX D. The chloride profile obtained from the Granada crash wall (Figure 6-2) was initially puzzling. The flat trend of ch loride ingress showing chloride levels barely above background levels indicated little chloride penetration. This low penetr ation was likely caused by the epoxy coating applied to the surface of the structural elements (Figure 3-12). Correlation of Long-Term Field Data to Laboratory Test Procedures The true aim of both the short and long-term chloride exposure testi ng is to capture the ability of the concrete in the field to resist ch loride intrusion. As the chloride concentration builds up in a concrete member, it approaches the ch loride threshold, which is the point at which the reinforcement begins to corrode. The longer th e chloride penetration is delayed, the longer the service life of the structure. Unfortunately the exposure conditions in the field are quite varied and do not really match those of the standa rd short or long term laboratory tests that have been discussed thus far. Some of the factors include chloride con centration of solution, absolute and variation in temperature, humidity and age of concrete among others. Additionally, mechanisms other than diffusion contribute to th e intrusion of chlorides. Nevertheless, it is common to take cores of field concrete, determin e chloride concentration at varying depths and calculate chloride diffusion coefficients. The diffusion coefficients obtained from a pile exposed to seawater are affected by the sampling locations. The FDOT Structures Desi gn Guidelines (FDOT SDG 2007) defines the splash zone as the vertical distance from 4 f eet below mean low water level (MLW) to 12 feet above mean high water level (MHW) for structural coastal crossings. This defined exposure zone is considered to be too wide for comparison purposes of diffusion coefficients. Previous researchers (Luping 2003; Sags et al. 2001) have shown that chloride sampling is very

PAGE 116

116 sensitive to the position within the splash zone where the concrete core is taken. Small differences in the core position have resulted in significant differences in the chloride profile. A common approach is to measure the location of the core sample in reference to MHW level. Moreover, additional subdivision of chloride exposure zone has been presented in previous literature (Tang and Andersen 2000; Tang, L. 2003; Cannon et al. 2006). Figure 6-3 shows these chloride exposure zones for a typical bridge p iling surrounded by seawater. The tidal zone is the exposed area defined between the MHW and MLW marks that is intermittently subjected to chloride exposure due to changes of water tides. The submerged zone, defined as that portion of the pile below the MLW mark, is continuously exposed to salt soluti on. The splash zone is above the MHW mark and is subjected to wetting and dr ying due to wave action. Finally, the dry zone is above the splash zone and is not directly e xposed to chlorides presen t in seawater but may receive occasional airborne chlorides. There is no general agreement in current literature that defines where the splash zone ends and the dry z one begins. The results pr esented in this section are based on samples obtained in the tidal zone of exposure. Diffusion is believed to be the predominant chloride ingress mechanism for samples obtained from the submerged zone because the conc rete is continuously ex posed to salt solution similar to the laboratory test Bulk Diffusion. The chloride concentration in the seawater surrounding the pile is usually rela tively constant. The chlorides ions will naturally migrate from the high concentration on the outside (high energy ) to the low concentration (low energy) in the inside with a constant moisture present along th e path of migration. When the pile is not continuously submerged, other chloride ingres s mechanisms tend to control the chloride penetration.

PAGE 117

117 Previous research (Tang and Andersen 2000; Tang 2003) that compared samples exposed to the different zones over a 5 year period showed that the diffusion coeffi cients were highest in the submerged zone followed by tidal, splash and dry zone. Tang (2003) showed, however, that when the exposure period was 10 years, the chlo ride ingress in the tid al zone significantly increased during the period from year 5 to year 10. Table 6-2 summarizes the results of this previous research. The table al so includes diffusion coefficients calculated from chloride sampling on 39-year old piles extracted during a bridge demolition (C annon et al., 2006). Diffusion analyses for each of these cored samples are summarized in APPENDIX H. The diffusion coefficients from the 39-year old piles appear to confirm the trend implied by Tangs work. Table 6-2 also includes the ratio of the diffusi on coefficient for the submerged zone to that of the tidal zone. These ratios are plotted in Figure 6-4 and show a decr easing trend over the life of the structure. Indeed the data from the 39year old piles constructed with a completely different mixture appears to confirm the de creasing trend that Tangs work implies. The trend illustrated in Figure 6-4 might be used to relate the results of bulk diffusion test to those of the field cores obtained from the bridges in service. If it is assumed that the environmental conditions of the bulk diffusion te st are similar to thos e of the completely submerged pile in service, then the diffusion coe fficients can be compared to give a reasonable correlation between laboratory tests and field conditions. From this viewpoint, the plot in Figure 6-4 indicates that the bulk diffusion test will likely give the highest diffusion coefficient for concretes less than about ten years old. As the concrete ages, however, the tidal zone diffusion coefficient appears to exceed that of the submer ged zone signifying that the bulk diffusion test might not give the most conservative results.

PAGE 118

118 This connection can be tested by comparing th e results of the 1 a nd 3 year bulk diffusion testing to the diffusion coefficients of the piles from which the samples were collected for this research, as long as the mixtur e proportions and constituents are comparable. The diffusion coefficients from mixture design 35_752_8SF_20F (Table 5-2 and Table 5-4) are compared to diffusion coefficients from extracted cores that were taken from p iles that used a similar mixture design (including the addition of silica fume). Th e comparison is based on the cores taken at the tidal zone. Additionally, available chloride profiles from FDOT research currently in progress (Paredes 2007) were incl uded in this analysis. Table 6-3 shows the summary of the calculated laboratory diffusion coefficients with the statisti cal parameters average and standard deviation. Detailed data on these calculations are presented in APPENDIX H. Figure 6-5 shows the diffusion coefficients of the selected laboratory and field samples plotted on a logarithmic scale. The field samples used in the plot were selected because they were extracted from tidal zone. There is nearly an order of magnitude difference between the diffusion coefficients from the bul k diffusion tests and those from the field-cored samples. This variation can be attributed to the several factors affecting chlori de diffusion under field conditions as the sampling locat ion and the concrete ageing. Assuming that the ratio of the submerged to tidal diffusion coeffi cients is controlled primarily by environment, then the ratios from Table 6-2 can be used to convert the tidal diffusion coefficient to a submer ged diffusion coefficient. Alt hough this assumption is probably not strictly correct since variation in concrete pe rmeability will likely affect the ratio as well, it makes a convenient method by which the laboratory results can be related to field results. Because the piles sampled for this research were approximately ten years in service, the highest calculated ratio of 1.52 for a co mparable age of exposure of 10 years will give the most

PAGE 119

119 conservative result. Applying this ratio to the fi eld results ostensibly converts those diffusion coefficients to a submerged condition as is shown in Figure 6-5. Comparing these diffusion coefficients to the laboratory di ffusion coefficients indicates th at the 1 and 3 year bulk diffusion coefficients are higher than the fi eld values for a ten year period. It is not clear why 1 and 3 year laboratory valu es are higher than the ten-year field values. This analysis considered only the diffusion coefficients and not the chloride content at the level of the steel. The diffusion coefficients are deri ved from fitting a curve to the chloride profile data. It perhaps gives a better indi cation of the shape of the curve rather than a direct indication of the chloride content at a certain depth. Further data are needed to better characterize this time dependency. One suggestion is to obtain shorter and longer exposure periods in the laboratory samples to establish time variations of the di ffusion for the laboratory sa mples. This trend can then be used to establish co rrelation with the longer-term re sults obtained from the field on comparable mixtures. Nevertheless, it appears that the 1 and 3-year bulk diffusion results overestimate the diffusion coefficients from ten-year old concrete in the field.

PAGE 120

120 Table 6-1. Calculated Diffusion Parameters of Cored Samples. Bridge Name Lab. # Exposure (Years) Initial Chloride Content (lb/yd3) Surface Chloride Content (lb/yd3) Diffusion Coefficient (x10-12) (m2/sec) Water Chloride Content (ppm) 5016 0.547(a) 20.336 0.050 5017 0.533 41.112 0.149 Hurricane Pass (HPB) 5018 15 0.561 44.904 0.151 19284 5054 0.467 33.012 0.585 Broadway Replacement (BRB) 5081 5 0.858(b) 32.401 0.358 14864(c)5082 0.467 42.497 0.628 Seabreeze West Bound (SWB) 5083 9 0.432 49.660 0.329 14864(c)Granada (GRB) 5084 9 0.637 0.942 0.051 14864(c)5078 0.556 26.791 0.185 5079 0.423 30.269 0.132 Turkey Creek (TCB) 5080 7 0.417 33.237 0.155 9608 5075 0.614 27.046 0.361 5076 0.432 28.700 0.540 New Roosevelt (NRB) 5077 9 0.382 29.696 0.373 31072 (a) Initial Chlorides were not tested for this sample. An average between Lab sample# 5017 and 5018 was reported. (b) Initial Chloride value was considered an erroneous valu e (too high). The value of initial chlorides from Lab sample# 5054 was used. (c) The Bridge Structures are exposed to the same body of water.

PAGE 121

121 Table 6-2. Time Dependent Changes in Diffusion Coefficients from Submerged and Tidal Zones. Diffusion Coefficient (x10-12) (m2/sec) Mixture Chloride Exposure Zone Exposed for 0.6-1.3 years Exposed for 5.1-5.4 years Exposed for 10.1-10.5 years Exposed for ~39 years Submerged 4.55 2.51 1.95 Tidal 1.98 1.31 1.43 1-40(a)(c) Ratio (Sub./Tidal) 2.30 1.92 1.36 Submerged 2.35 1.93 1.67 Tidal 0.54 0.91 1.10 2-40 (a) (c) Ratio (Sub./Tidal) 4.35 2.12 1.52 Submerged 3.78 1.26 1.25 Tidal 1.49 0.41 1.33 3-40(a) (d) Ratio (Sub./Tidal) 2.54 3.07 0.94 Submerged 11.48 Tidal 18.27 Pile 44-2(b) (c) Ratio (Sub./Tidal) 0.63(a) Tang, L. 2003. (b) Cannon et al. 2006. (c) Plain cement concrete mixture. No a dditional cementitious materials were added. (d) Concrete mixture containing silica fume. Table 6-3. Laboratory Bulk Diffusion Coefficients for Comparable Mixtures with an Expected Low Chloride Permeability Design. 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficient (x10-12) (m2/sec) 3-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficient (x10-12) (m2/sec) Mixture(a) Sample ID Results Average Standard Deviation Results Average Standard Deviation A 2.351 2.850 B 2.729 2.683 35_752 _8SF_20F C 3.562 2.402 2.645 0.226 A 1.691 -HRP3(b) B 1.782 -A 2.071 -HRP4(b) B 1.355 2.220 0.744 --(a) Mixture design: w/c: 0.35, Cementitious:752 pcy, 20% Fly Ash and 8% Silica Fume. (b) Samples obtained from FDOT research currently in progress (Paredes 2007).

PAGE 122

122 0 10 20 30 40 50 00.511.5 2 Mid-Layer from Surface (in)Chloride Content ( lb/yd3 ) Include in the Regression Not Include in the Regression Fitted RegressionA 0 10 20 30 40 50 00.511.52 Mid-Layer from Surface (in)Chloride Content ( lb/yd3 ) Include in the Regression Not Include in the Regression Fitted RegressionB Figure 6-1. Diffusion Regression Analysis for Cored Samples: A) NRB (Lab #5075) and B) HPB (Lab# 5017). 0 10 20 30 40 50 00.511.52 Mid-Layer from Surface (in)Chloride Content ( lb/yd3 ) Include in the Regression Fitted Regression Figure 6-2. Diffusion Regr ession Analysis for Cored Sample GRB (Lab #5084).

PAGE 123

123 Superstructure SubstructureWater Level MHW MLW Tidal Zone Submerged Zone Splash Zone Dry Zone Figure 6-3. Chloride Exposure Zones of a Typical Bridge Structure. 0 1 2 3 4 5 010203040 Cl Exposure Period (Years)Ratio of Cl Diffusion (Submerged/Tidal) 1-40(a) 2-40(a) 3-40(a) Pile 44-2(b)(a) Tang, L. 2003. (b) Cannon et al. 2006. Figure 6-4. Time Dependent Changes in Diffu sion Coefficients from Submerged and Tidal Zones.

PAGE 124

124 0.01 0.1 1 10 100100010000 Cl Exposure Period (Days)Diffusion Coefficients (x10-12) (m2/s) 35_752_8SF_20F (Sample A) 35_752_8SF_20F (Sample B) 35_752_8SF_20F (Sample C) HRP3 (Sample A) HRP3 (Sample B) HRP4 (Sample A) HRP4 (Sample B) HPB(LAB#5017) HPB(LAB#5018) BRB(LAB #5054) BRB(LAB #5081) SWB(LAB#5082) SWB(LAB#5083) TCB(LAB#5078) TCB(LAB#5079) TCB(LAB#5080) NRB(LAB#5075) NRB(LAB#5076) NRB(LAB#5077) Field Data Average 1-Year Laboratory Data Field Data Average x 1.52 (a) (b) (c) (a) Submerged Exposure (b) Tidal Exposure (c) Estimated Submerged Exposure Figure 6-5. Time Dependent Laboratory and Fi eld Diffusion Coefficien t Trend of Change.

PAGE 125

125 CHAPTER 7 RECOMMENDED APPROACH FOR DETERMINI NG LIMITS OF CONDUCTIVITY TESTS In the previous section, it was concluded th at 91 days was the earliest age at which the RCP and Surface Resistivity testing age correlated well with the ch loride diffusion penetration of a 1 or 3 year Bulk Diffusion test. More realistic diffusion coefficients associated with these test results can be derived. However, the pres ent FDOT specifications (FDOT 346 2004) require shorter time period of 28 days to predicted diffu sion rates for a specific mix design. Therefore, the following recommendations present a met hod by which RCP and Surface Resistivity rapid electrical tests can be calibrated so that, with reasonable conf idence, diffusion coefficients can be predicted from 28 days samples. It is anticipated that this approach would be used for quality control purpose and not for service life prediction. The original RCP coulomb limit standards (Table 2-1) are the staring point for the new recommendations. These coulomb limits were derive d in the original research from 91-day RCP samples. Therefore, to maintain consistency with the original method and because this age appears to be optimal for predicting the long-t erm chloride diffusion, the diffusion coefficient associated with the coulombs limits for a 91-day test were selected as the standards for which the allowable limits would be set when the RCP or SR test is conducted at 28 days after casting. The 1-year Bulk Diffusion results derived from th e Monte Carlo analysis were selected as the standard benchmark coefficients (Table 5-12) for the analysis. The fundamental assumption is that the selected diffusion coeffi cient is sufficiently low to give the desired service life with the associated concrete cover. RCP and Bulk Diffusion The coulomb limits associated with the standard diffusion coefficients (Table 5-12) are calculated from the trend line equation derived on the 28-day RCP correlation to the 1-year Bulk

PAGE 126

126 Diffusion test. A statistical study is included to ensure the vali dity of this new RCP limit. A confidence interval for the mean response of the test correlations was em ployed. This confidence interval represents the statistical probability that the next set of samples tested will fall within the specified acceptance range. It was found that a modified linear regressi on trend presented as a power function (APPENDIX F) provided the best represen tation of the relationship between the RCP and Bulk Diffusion test resu lts. Therefore, the confidence interval was calculated according to the analytical derivation presented as followed: ) (Y o o xy yo (7-1) xx o oS x x n s t y21 ) ( (7-2) 2 n bS S sxy yy (7-3) n i i xxx x S1 2 (7-4) n i i yyy y S1 2 (7-5) n i i i xyy y x x S1 (7-6) where ox Y is the mean confidence limit res ponse for an independent variable xo; yo: dependent variable from regression analysis equation;(yo) is the standard error of dependent variable; t: one-tailed Students t-distributi on value with n-2 degrees of fr eedom for an specific confidence level; yi: experimental dependent variables; y : mean of experimental dependent variables; xi: experimental independent variables; x : mean of experimental inde pendent variables; b: slope value from regression analysis; n: number of samples. Figure 7-1 shows the 90% confidence limit for the mean response of the 28-day RCP test correlation to the 1-year Bulk Diffusion referenc e test. The 28-day RCP test coulomb limit for concrete elements with very low chloride pe rmeability with 90% confidence on the correlated data is derived as shown in Figure 7-2. Moreover, several coulom b limits for concrete elements under extremely aggressive enviro nments at different levels of confidence are presented in Table

PAGE 127

127 7-1. The RCP coulomb limits were rounded to reflect the variability in th e data and for a more practical utilization. The different levels of confidence are provided to offer some flexibility to the Florida Department of Transportation to make a final decision specifically suitable to their standards. It is important to recognize th at the limits presented in Table 7-1 and in the following sections are based on the relatively limited data ga thered from the laboratory specimens prepared and tested as a part of this research project. For example, consider the 90% confidence level in the table. This indicates that if a random samp le is selected from the tests reported in this research that has an RCP value less than 1,422 c oulombs, then, with 90% confidence, that same concrete would have a 1-year bulk diffu sion coefficient that is less than 1.820x10-12 m2/s. Recall that this diffusion coefficient standard was established in the previous chapter to represent concrete that will have RCP test results of 1000 coulombs when tested at 91 days. In addition, the recommended RCP limits are ev aluated to corroborate their applicability to the standard FDOT specifications. These more fl exible proposed RCP limits still need to meet the basic rating criteria of the current FDOT sp ecification. Therefore, the recommended limits must discriminate between concrete samples that were designed as low chloride permeable and samples with higher permeability. FDOT categorizes Class V and Class V Special containing silica fume or metakaolin as a pozzolan as lo w permeable mixtures. The higher RCP associated with the lower confidence level showed in Table 7-1 is selected as the more representative limit for the evaluation. The project concrete mixtur es were divided into two groups. The first group included mixtures that were not design to meet FDOT standard specifications and the second group included samples designed to meet the minimum requirements. Table 7-2 shows the 28day RCP pass rates by FDOT standard specifications for the two groups of samples. All the RCP

PAGE 128

128 coulomb results from the first group of samp les exceed the current FDOT standard of 1000 coulombs as well as the limit of 1400 coulombs In the second group, less than half of the samples passed the current FDOT RCP limit. Data from field mixtures were also used to evaluate various RCP limits (Chini, Muszynski, and Hick s 2003). Data from the 491 samples collected on construction projects were included in the analysis (Table 7-2). The samples were collected from actual job sites of concrete pour s in the state of Florida. The diffusion coefficients presented in Table 7-1 were also used to derive the entire equivalent charges in coulombs for the differe nt chloride permeability ranges. The allowable coulomb limits for a 28-day RCP test response w ith a 90% of confidence on the correlated data are derived in Figure 7-3 to Figure 7-5. Coulomb limits for conc rete elements with different chloride permeability at different levels of confidence are summarized in Table 7-3 to Table 7-5. Moreover, the RCP coulomb limits were r ounded for a more practical utilization. SR and Bulk Diffusion Chini, Muszynski and Hicks (2003) evaluated the possible replacement of the widely used electrical RCP test (AASHTO T277, ASTM C1202) by the simple non-destructive Surface Resistivity test. A permeability rating table to aid the categorization of the equivalent Surface Resistivity results to the chloride pe rmeability of the concrete was proposed (Table 2-3). A minimum resistivity value of 37 KOhm-cm was repor ted to represent concrete with low chloride ion permeability. However, the pe rmeability interpretati on of the Surface Resis tivity test results was entirely based on correlations to the previ ous ranges provided in the standard RCP test (Table 2-1). As it was indicated in the previous sec tion, incorrect interpretation of electrical test results can be made when relying entirely on these RCP standard ranges. Therefore, a more rational approach to setting the limits of the Surface Resistivity results is needed.

PAGE 129

129 The Surface Resistivity test was conducted using two methods of curing, one at 100% humidity (moist cured) and th e other in a saturated Ca(OH)2 solution (lime cured). It was previously concluded that either of the met hods will derive an equal resistivity behavior. Consequently, Surface Resistivity results from the most commonly used curing method, moist cured, are used in this section. The long-term diffusion coefficients de rived in the previous section are also used as a benchmark for the interpretation of the Su rface Resistivity results (Table 5-12). These coefficients are believed to repr esent a realistic interpretation of low chloride permeability concrete. The 28-day Surface Resistivity limits associated with the standard diffusion are calculated from the trend line equa tion of correlation to the reference test. A statistical study is included to ensure the va lidity of these new Surface Resistivity limits. A confidence interval for the mean response of the test correlations was included. Figure 7-6 shows the 90% confidence interval for the mean re sponse of the 28-day Surface Resistivity test correlation to the 1-year Bulk Diffusion referenc e test. The allowable 28-day Surface Resistivity limit for concrete elements with very low chlo ride permeability with a 90% of confidence on the correlated data is derived in Figure 7-7. Moreover, several Surface Resistivity limits for concrete elements under extremely aggressive environmen ts at different levels of confidence are presented in Table 7-6. The limits were rounded for a mo re practical utilization. The different levels of confidence are provide d to offer some flexibility to the Florida Department of Transportation to make a final decision sp ecifically suitable to their standards. Additionally, the recommended Surface Resistivity limits are evaluated to corroborate their applicability to evaluate low chloride pe rmeability concrete. A low chloride permeability concrete is assumed as the FDOT standard to be a Class V or Cla ss V Special concrete containing silica fume or metakaolin as a pozzolan. Similar anal ysis as shown in Table 7-2 for

PAGE 130

130 the RCP limits evaluation is presented. The lowe r resistivity limit asso ciated with the lower confidence level (Table 7-6) is selected as the more representative for the evaluation. Furthermore, Surface Resistivity results reported by Chini, Muszynski and Hicks (2003) research are also included in the validation (Table 7-7). The diffusion coefficients presented in Table 7-1 were also used to derive the entire equivalent surface resistivity limits for the diffe rent chloride permeability ranges. The allowable Surface Resistivity limits for a 28-day SR te st response with a 90% of confidence on the correlated data are derived in Figure 7-8 to Figure 7-10. Resistivity limits for concrete elements with different chloride permeability at differe nt levels of confidence are summarized in Table 7-8 to Table 7-10. Moreover, the Surface Resistivity limits were rounded for a more practical utilization.

PAGE 131

131 Table 7-1. Allowable RCP Values for a 28-Day Test for Concrete Elements Under Extremely Aggressive Environments (Very Low Chloride Permeability) and Associated Confidence Levels. 28-Day RCP Limits Charge Passed (Coulombs) Charge Passed (Rounded Values) (Coulombs) Confidence Level 1,422 1,400 90% 1,335 1,300 95% 1,174 1,150 99% Table 7-2. 28-Day RCP Pass Rates of Seve ral Concrete Samples by FDOT Standard Specifications (FDOT 346 2004). 28-Day RCP Limits (Coulombs) Without Silica Fume or MK(3) With Silica Fume or MK(3) 1000 11501300140010001150 1300 1400 Total Number of Mixtures 14 1414145(1)5(1) 5(1) 5(1) Number of Passed Mixtures 0 00022 3 4Current Research Percentage of Passed Mixtures 0% 0% 0%0%40%40% 60% 80% Total Number of Mixtures (2) 455 4554554553636 36 36 Number of Passed Mixtures 4 813181518 21 23Chini, Muszynski, an d Hicks 2003Percentage of Passed Mixtures <1% 2%3%4%42%50% 58% 64%(1) All Mixtures were cast at the FDOT laboratory. (2) All Mixtures were coll ected from actual job sites. (3) Metakaolin.

PAGE 132

132 Table 7-3. Allowable RCP Values for a 28-Day Te st with a 90% Confiden ce Levels for Concrete Elements with Different Chloride Permeability. AASHTO T277 Standard Limits Current Research Allowable RCP Limits 90% Confidence Level 28-Day RCP Chloride Permeability 91-Day RCP Charge Passed (Coulombs) 1-Year Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s) Charge Passed (Coulombs) Charge Passed (Rounded Values) (Coulombs) High > 4,000 > 8.924 > 5,473> 5,450 Moderate 2,000 4,000 4.020 8.924 2,991 5,4732,950 5,450 Low 1,000 2,000 1.820 4.020 1,422 2,9911,400 2,950 Very Low 100 1,000 0.162 1.820 113 1,422110 1,400 Negligible < 100 < 0.162 < 113< 110 Table 7-4. Allowable RCP Values for a 28-Day Te st with a 95% Confiden ce Levels for Concrete Elements with Different Chloride Permeability. AASHTO T277 Standard Limits Current Research Allowable RCP Limits 95% Confidence Level 28-Day RCP Chloride Permeability 91-Day RCP Charge Passed (Coulombs) 1-Year Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s) Charge Passed (Coulombs) Charge Passed (Rounded Values) (Coulombs) High > 4,000 > 8.924 > 5,105> 5,100 Moderate 2,000 4,000 4.020 8.924 2,861 5,1052,850 5,100 Low 1,000 2,000 1.820 4.020 1,335 2,8611,300 2,850 Very Low 100 1,000 0.162 1.820 93 1,33590 1,300 Negligible < 100 < 0.162 < 93< 90 Table 7-5. Allowable RCP Values for a 28-Day Te st with a 99% Confiden ce Levels for Concrete Elements with Different Chloride Permeability. AASHTO T277 Standard Limits Current Research Allowable RCP Limits 99% Confidence Level 28-Day RCP Chloride Permeability 91-Day RCP Charge Passed (Coulombs) 1-Year Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s) Charge Passed (Coulombs) Charge Passed (Rounded Values) (Coulombs) High > 4,000 > 8.924 > 4,427> 4,400 Moderate 2,000 4,000 4.020 8.924 2,614 4,4272,600 4,400 Low 1,000 2,000 1.820 4.020 1,174 2,6141,150 2,600 Very Low 100 1,000 0.162 1.820 61 1,17460 1,150 Negligible < 100 < 0.162 < 61< 60

PAGE 133

133 Table 7-6. Allowable Surface Resistivity Values for a 28-Day Test for Concrete Elements Under Extremely Aggressive Environments. 28-Day Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) Conductivity (1/(kOhm-cm)) Resistivity (kOhm-cm) Resistivity (Rounded Values) (kOhm-cm) Confidence Level 0.0377 26.52 27 90% 0.0360 27.76 28 95% 0.0328 30.50 31 99% Table 7-7. 28-Day Surface Resistivity Pass Ra tes of Several Concrete Samples by FDOT Standard Specifica tions (FDOT 346 2004). 28-Day Surface Resistivity Limits (KOhm-cm) Without Silica Fume or MK(3) With Silica Fume or MK(3) 37 3128273731 28 27 Total Number of Mixtures 14 1414145(1)5(1) 5(1) 5(1) Number of Passed Mixtures 0 00013 4 4Current Research Percentage of Passed Mixtures 0% 0% 0%0%20%60% 80% 80% Total Number of Mixtures (2) 462 4624624624040 40 40 Number of Passed Mixtures 7 162528818 19 20Chini, Muszynski, an d Hicks 2003Percentage of Passed Mixtures 2% 4%5%6%20%45% 48% 50%(1) All Mixtures were cast at the FDOT laboratory. (2) All Mixtures were coll ected from actual job sites. (3) Metakaolin.

PAGE 134

134 Table 7-8. Allowable Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) Values for a 28-Day Test with a 90% Confidence Levels for Concrete Elements with Different Chloride Permeability. AASHTO T277 Standard Limits Current Research Allowable SR Limits 90% Confidence Level 28-Day Surface Resistivity Chloride Permeabilit y 91-Day RCP Charge Passed (Coulombs) 1-Year Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s) Conductivity (1/(kOhm-cm)) Resistivity (kOhm-cm) Resistivity (Rounded Values) (kOhm-cm) High > 4,000 > 8.924 > 0.1248< 8.01 < 8 Moderate 2,000-4,000 4.020 8.924 0.0722-0.12488.01-13.86 8 14 Low 1,000-2,000 1.820 4.020 0.0377-0.072213.86-26.52 14 27 Very Low 100-1,000 0.162 1.820 0.0043-0.037726.52-232.93 27 233 Negligible < 100 < 0.162 < 0.0043> 232.93 > 233 Table 7-9. Allowable Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) Values for a 28-Day Test with a 95% Confidence Levels for Concrete Elements with Different Chloride Permeability. AASHTO T277 Standard Limits Current Research Allowable SR Limits 95% Confidence Level 28-Day Surface Resistivity Chloride Permeabilit y 91-Day RCP Charge Passed (Coulombs) 1-Year Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s) Conductivity (1/(kOhm-cm)) Resistivity (kOhm-cm) Resistivity (Rounded Values) (kOhm-cm) High > 4,000 > 8.924 > 0.1186< 8.43 < 9 Moderate 2,000-4,000 4.020 8.924 0.0699-0.11868.43-14.31 9 15 Low 1,000-2,000 1.820 4.020 0.0360-0.069914.31-27.76 15 28 Very Low 100-1,000 0.162 1.820 0.0037-0.036027.76-269.58 28 270 Negligible < 100 < 0.162 < 0.0037> 269.58 > 270 Table 7-10. Allowable Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) Values for a 28-Day Test with a 99% Confidence Levels for Concrete Elements with Different Chloride Permeability. AASHTO T277 Standard Limits Current Research Allowable SR Limits 99% Confidence Level 28-Day Surface Resistivity Chloride Permeabilit y 91-Day RCP Charge Passed (Coulombs) 1-Year Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s) Conductivity (1/(kOhm-cm)) Resistivity (kOhm-cm) Resistivity (Rounded Values) (kOhm-cm) High > 4,000 > 8.924 > 0.1069< 9.36 < 10 Moderate 2,000-4,000 4.020 8.924 0.0654-0.10699.36-15.29 10 16 Low 1,000-2,000 1.820 4.020 0.0328-0.065415.29-30.50 16 31 Very Low 100-1,000 0.162 1.820 0.0028-0.032830.50-363.58 31 364 Negligible < 100 < 0.162 < 0.0028> 363.58 > 364

PAGE 135

135 y = 1042x0.862R2 = 0.669 0 5000 10000 15000 0102030 Bulk Diffusion (x10-12)(m2/s)RCP (Coulombs) 90% Confidence Limit Fitted Correlation Figure 7-1. 90% Confidence Limit for Mean Re sponse of 28-Day RCP Test vs. 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Test Correlation. 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 11.41.82.2 Bulk Diffusion (x10-12)(m2/s)RCP (Coulombs) Fitted Correlation 90% Confidence Limit 1.820x10-12 1422 Figure 7-2. 28-Day RCP Coulombs Limit with a 90% Confidence Level for Concrete Elements with a Very Low Chloride Permeability.

PAGE 136

136 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 024681012 Bulk Diffusion (x10-12)(m2/s)RCP (Coulombs) Fitted Correlation 90% Confidence Limit 8.924x10-12 5473 Figure 7-3. 28-Day RCP Coulombs Limit with a 90% Confidence Level for Concrete Elements with a Moderate Chloride Permeability. 0 2000 4000 6000 23456 Bulk Diffusion (x10-12)(m2/s)RCP (Coulombs) Fitted Correlation 90% Confidence Limit 4.020x10-12 2991 Figure 7-4. 28-Day RCP Coulombs Limit with a 90% Confidence Level for Concrete Elements with a Low Chloride Permeability.

PAGE 137

137 0 100 200 300 400 00.10.20.30.4 Bulk Diffusion (x10-12)(m2/s)RCP (Coulombs) Fitted Correlation 90% Confidence Limit 0.162x10-12 113 Figure 7-5. 28-Day RCP Coulombs Limit with a 90% Confidence Level for Concrete Elements with a Negligible Chloride Permeability. y = 0.028x0.763R2 = 0.747 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0102030 Bulk Diffusion (x10-12)(m2/s)SR Conductivity (1/(kOhm-cm) 90% Confidence Limit Fitted Correlation Figure 7-6. 90% Confidence Limit for Mean Res ponse of 28-Day Surface Resistivity Test (Moist Cured) vs. 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Test Correlation.

PAGE 138

138 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 11.52 Bulk Diffusion (x10-12)(m2/s)SR Conductivity (1/(kOhm-cm) Fitted Correlation 90% Confidence Limit 1.820x10-12 0.0377 Figure 7-7. 28-Day Surface Resis tivity (Moist Cured) Limit with a 90% Confidence Level for Concrete Elements with a Very Low Chloride Permeability. 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 024681012 Bulk Diffusion (x10-12)(m2/s)SR Conductivity (1/(kOhm-cm) Fitted Correlation 90% Confidence Limit 8.924x10-12 0.1248 Figure 7-8. 28-Day Surface Resis tivity (Moist Cured) Limit with a 90% Confidence Level for Concrete Elements with a Moderate Chloride Permeability.

PAGE 139

139 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 23456 Bulk Diffusion (x10-12)(m2/s)SR Conductivity (1/(kOhm-cm) Fitted Correlation 90% Confidence Limit 4.020x10-12 0.0722 Figure 7-9. 28-Day Surface Resis tivity (Moist Cured) Limit with a 90% Confidence Level for Concrete Elements with a Low Chloride Permeability. 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 00.10.20.30.4 Bulk Diffusion (x10-12)(m2/s)SR Conductivity (1/(kOhm-cm) Fitted Correlation 90% Confidence Limit 0.162x10-12 0.0043 Figure 7-10. 28-Day Surface Resistivity (Moist Cu red) Limit with a 90% Confidence Level for Concrete Elements with a Negligible Chloride Permeability.

PAGE 140

140 CHAPTER 8 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This work details results of a research pr oject aimed at evaluating currently available conductivity tests and compar e the results of these tests to th ose from long-term diffusion tests. Rapid Chloride Permeability (RCP) and Surface Resi stivity (SR) were evaluated. The long-term test Bulk Diffusion was selected as a benchmark to evaluate c onductivity tests. This test was conducted using 1 and 3 years chloride exposure. Diffusion coefficients fr om Bulk Diffusion test results were determined by fitting the data obtained in the chloride profiles analysis to Ficks Diffusion Second Law equation. The electrical results from the s hort-term tests RCP and SR at 14, 28, 56, 91, 182 and 364 days of continuous mo ist curing were then compared to the longterm diffusion reference test. Moreover, cored sa mples obtained at the tidal zone of marine exposure from several bridge structures around the st ate of Florida were obtained to be compared to the laboratory diffusion results. Conclusions were as follows: The SR test was conducted usi ng two methods of curing, one at 100% humidity (moist cured) and the other in a saturated Ca(OH)2 solution (lime cured). The comparison of results of the SR tests between the tw o curing procedures showed no significant differences. Therefore, it is concluded that either of the methods will provide similar results. The mixture proportions affected directly the rate of chloride diffusion into concrete. The mixture designs with the higher water-cementitious ratios, lower cementitious contents and without the presence of pozzolans showed significantl y higher diffusion coefficients compared with the rest of the samples. Furt hermore, the addition of metakaolin decreased the chloride diffusion compared to the cont rol mixture about 70 pe rcent for the 1 and 3 years of exposure results. Moreover, the a ddition of silica fume, ground blast furnace slag

PAGE 141

141 and ternary blends of fly-ash with metakao lin or silica fume decreased the chloride diffusion approximately 50 percent for the 1 a nd 3 years of exposure results. The chloride diffusion for samples containing fly-ash and classified fly-ash did not improve for samples exposed for a year. However, they improved for the longer exposure period of 3 year. These could be related to the slow po zzolanic reaction of the mineral admixture fly ash. Finally, the addition of calcium nitr ite did not improve the concrete diffusion coefficient. The calcium nitrite admixture re duces the tendency for reinforcing steel to undergo corrosion but not the penetra tion of chlorides through concrete. The correlation coefficients (R2) obtained for the short-term tests showed that the best testing age for an RCP and SR test to pred ict a 1 and 3 years Bulk Diffusion test was 91 days. Moreover, this finding was corroborated by the use of a Monte Carlo simulation. A simulation was used to obtain the re spective correlation coefficients (R2) for respective tests including the grade of variabi lity from the experimental data. A calibrated scale relating the equivalent RCP measured charge in coulombs to the chloride ion permeability of the concrete was developed. The proposed scale was based on the correlation of the 91-day RCP result s related to the chloride permeability measured by a 1-year Bulk Diffusion test. A method by which RCP and SR can be calibra ted so that, with reasonable confidence, diffusion coefficients can be predicted from 28 days samples was presented. The diffusion results obtained from the bridge cored samples obtained at the tidal zone with an average of ten-year of exposure showed considerable lower chloride penetration than the 1 and 3 year laboratory results. It appears that the laboratory methods overestimate the chloride ingress from concrete exposed in the field.

PAGE 142

142 APPENDIX A CONCRETE MIXTURE LABELING SYSTEM CONVERSION The names of the concrete mixtures in the pr evious main body sections are different than the presented in the followi ng Appendix sections. Therefore Table A-1 shows the respective mixture labeling conversions. Table A-1. Appendix C oncrete Mixture Labeling System Conversion. Main Body Mixture Name Labels Appendix Mixture Name Labels 49_564 CPR1 35_752 CPR2 45_752 CPR3 28_900_8SF_20F CPR4 35_752_20F CPR5 35_752_12CF CPR6 35_752_8SF CPR7 35_752_8SF_20F CPR8 35_752_10M CPR9 35_752_10M_20F CPR10 35_752_50Slag CPR11 35_752_4.5CN CPR12 45_570 CPR13 29_450_20F CPR15 33_658_18F CPR16 34_686_18F CPR17 30_673_20F CPR18 28_800_20F CPR20 29_770_18F CPR21

PAGE 143

143 APPENDIX B CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTHS Table B-1. Concrete Compressi ve Strength Data Results MIXCPR1Testing Age (Days)ABCAVG. 145442550257325559 285710574556905715 566214599263216176 916400620865106373 1826638624762176367 3646594614563146351 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (psi) MIXCPR2Testing Age (Days)ABCAVG. 147952791481047990 288462785780308116 568814857677038364 918681860881948494 1828371876887388626 3648842881788428834 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (psi) MIXCPR3Testing Age (Days)ABCAVG. 145869586657825839 286352628462196285 566293643164426389 916300641163906367 1827185699070237066 3646768729567796947 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (psi) MIXCPR4Testing Age (Days)ABCAVG. 148382843485318449 289122905887978992 569261919891739211 919475962094999531 1829406941690739298 3649077941699089467 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (psi) MIXCPR5Testing Age (Days)ABCAVG. 146797668670796854 287441735470237273 568376839379428237 918482839084718448 1829016860185338717 3649212932390899208 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (psi) MIXCPR6Testing Age (Days)ABCAVG. 145784605357225853 286163638663276292 566682700468896858 917505725172957350 1827745744474057531 3647670808676007785 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (psi) MIXCPR7Sample not included in Average Testing Age (Days)ABCAVG. 147709785070267528 288082834388618429 568995889681588683 918161941089248832 1829483842488918933 3648951911173799031 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (psi) MIXCPR8Testing Age (Days)ABCAVG. 146533653663426470 287106696971537076 566936749975157317 917072522474756590 1827535796980047836 3648007719877697658 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (psi) MIXCPR9Testing Age (Days)ABCAVG. 148493895787958748 288681854184438555 568792941889969069 918352811782258231 1829239902893359201 3649520901899629500 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (psi) MIXCPR10Testing Age (Days)ABCAVG. 147768772781957897 288098859881698288 568582893985938705 918964885990788967 1829573927793439398 3649050948992709270 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (psi)

PAGE 144

144 Table B-1. Continued. MIXCPR11Testing Age (Days)ABCAVG. 177251685880077372 287647810981017952 568021788384608121 917940801682368064 1828629803583238329 3648547875286498649 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (psi) MIXCPR12Testing Age (Days)ABCAVG. 145257589352645471 285824503556335497 566573637553736107 916323659856896203 1826351607258716098 3646562532077326538 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (psi) MIXCPR13Testing Age (Days)ABCAVG. 145710606559275901 286425643267056521 567550739867257224 917625739268627293 1827940731474217558 3648258799678798044 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (psi) MIXCPR15Testing Age (Days)ABCAVG. 144036327539043738 285069463337684490 565826498249615256 916208530958715796 1826070615167096310 3646094661466736460 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (psi) MIXCPR16Testing Age (Days)ABCAVG. 145926644857926055 286388562963036107 566942764567617116 917658642776877257 1827674823478547921 3647533790486838040 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (psi) MIXCPR17Testing Age (Days)ABCAVG. 146241552571986321 287052705676127240 567926798679797964 918024828483458218 1829808967884099298 36410314103081042510349 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (psi) MIXCPR18Testing Age (Days)ABCAVG. 145835612667926251 286709693469626868 567163695480767398 918112819682118173 1829137863487478839 3648644936693709127 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (psi) MIXCPR20Testing Age (Days)ABCAVG. 148889897689878951 2810125952195109719 5610116113091003610487 9111368107081169611257 18212044111591138311529 36412337116341122111731 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (psi) MIXCPR21Testing Age (Days)ABCAVG. 145298569756015532 285940625261126101 567138770772097351 917396869175127866 1828910833382948512 3648689927086918883 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (psi)

PAGE 145

145 CPR1-W/C=0.49, Plain 564 lb Cementitious 3000 6000 9000 12000 14285691182364 Age (Days)Strength (psi) CPR2-W/C=0.35, Plain 752 lb Cementitious 3000 6000 9000 12000 14285691182364 Age (Days)Strength (psi) CPR3-W/C=0.45, Plain 752 lb Cementitious 3000 6000 9000 12000 14285691182364 Age (Days)Strength (psi) CPR4-W/C=0.28, 20%FA, 8%SF 900 lb Cementitious 3000 6000 9000 12000 14285691182364 Age (Days)Strength (psi) CPR5-W/C=0.35, 20%FA 752 lb Cementitious 3000 6000 9000 12000 14285691182364 Age (Days)Strength (psi) CPR6-W/C=0.35, 12%CFA 752 lb Cementitious 3000 6000 9000 12000 14285691182364 Age (Days)Strength (psi) CPR7-W/C=0.35, 8%SF 752 lb Cementitious 3000 6000 9000 12000 14285691182364 Age (Days)Strength (psi) CPR8-W/C=0.35, 20%FA, 8%SF 752 lb Cementitious 3000 6000 9000 12000 14285691182364 Age (Days)Strength (psi) Figure B-1. Concrete Comp ression Strength Graphs.

PAGE 146

146 CPR9-W/C=0.35, 10%Meta 752 lb Cementitious 3000 6000 9000 12000 14285691182364 Age (Days)Strength (psi) CPR10-W/C=0.35, 10%Meta, 20%FA 752 lb Cementitious 3000 6000 9000 12000 14285691182364 Age (Days)Strength (psi) CPR11-W/C=0.35, 50%Slag 752 lb Cementitious 3000 6000 9000 12000 14285691182364 Age (Days)Strength (psi) CPR12-W/C=0.35, 4.5CN 752 lb Cementitious 3000 6000 9000 12000 14285691182364Age (Days)Strength (psi) CPR13-W/C=0.45, Plain 569.7 lb Cementitious 3000 6000 9000 12000 14285691182364 Age (Days)Strength (psi) CPR15-W/C=0.29, 20%FA 565 lb Cementitious 3000 6000 9000 12000 14285691182364 Age (Days)Strength (psi) CPR16-W/C=0.33, 18%FA 807.4 lb Cementitious 3000 6000 9000 12000 14285691182364 Age (Days)Strength (psi) CPR17-W/C=0.34, 18%FA 840 lb Cementitious 3000 6000 9000 12000 14285691182364 Age (Days)Strength (psi) Figure B-1. Continued.

PAGE 147

147 CPR18-W/C=0.30, 20%FA 842 lb Cementitious 3000 6000 9000 12000 14285691182364 Age (Days)Strength (psi) CPR20-W/C=0.28, 20%FA 1000 lb Cementitious 3000 6000 9000 12000 14285691182364 Age (Days)Strength (psi) CPR21-W/C=0.29, 18%FA 935 lb Cementitious 3000 6000 9000 12000 14285691182364 Age (Days)Strength (psi) Figure B-1. Continued.

PAGE 148

148 APPENDIX C LABORATORY LONG-TERM CHLORIDE PENETRATION TEST (BULK DIFFUSION) DATA AND ANALYSIS RESULTS Table C-1. Initial Chloride Backgr ound Level of Concrete Mixtures. Initial Chloride Background Level (lb/yd3) Mixture Name Sample A Sample B Sample C Average Standard Deviation Coefficient of Variation (%) CPR1 0.112 0.149 0.137 0.133 0.019 14 CPR2 0.097 0.053 0.087 0.079 0.023 29 CPR3 0.093 0.136 0.145 0.125 0.028 22 CPR4 0.192 0.130 0.130 0.151 0.036 24 CPR5 0.181 0.112 0.126 0.140 0.036 26 CPR6 0.097 0.114 0.110 0.107 0.009 8 CPR7 0.284 0.204 0.212 0.233 0.044 19 CPR8 0.077 0.111 0.101 0.096 0.017 18 CPR9 0.070 0.076 0.080 0.075 0.005 7 CPR10 0.087 0.070 0.066 0.074 0.011 15 CPR11 0.146 0.209 0.200 0.185 0.034 18 CPR12 0.147 0.139 0.136 0.141 0.006 4 CPR13 0.181 0.174 0.178 0.178 0.004 2 CPR15 0.467 0.546 0.533 0.515 0.042 8 CPR16 0.124 0.130 0.125 0.126 0.003 3 CPR17 0.187 0.212 0.139 0.179 0.037 21 CPR18 0.221 0.274 0.281 0.259 0.033 13 CPR20 0.146 0.100 0.112 0.119 0.024 20 CPR21 0.323 0.286 0.338 0.316 0.027 8

PAGE 149

149 Table C-2. 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Chloride Profile Testing Results. MIX CPR1 Depth (in.)ABCAVG 0.0 0.2534.54538.94136.22936.572 0.25 0.5026.32129.10523.78926.405 0.50 0.7523.14421.45221.00721.868 0.75 1.017.01018.18318.61017.934 1.0 1.2514.09014.49113.56714.049 1.25 1.512.54311.2610.12811.310 1.5 1.759.3949.1198.5199.011 1.75 2.06.8836.7686.2856.645 2.0 2.255.7414.5124.1694.807 2.25 2.54.9623.3462.7833.697 2.5 2.754.4172.2061.6932.772 2.75 3.03.8581.3510.9922.067 NaCl (lb/yd3) MIX CPR2 Depth (in.)ABCAVG 0.0 0.2539.65842.39739.40840.488 0.25 0.5024.82627.06427.00426.298 0.50 0.7516.31217.00415.94416.420 0.75 1.08.23010.62210.4229.758 1.0 1.252.4573.7325.0923.760 1.25 1.50.5971.1491.5751.107 1.5 1.750.2030.4490.4060.353 1.75 2.00.2080.4420.2610.304 2.0 2.25---2.25 2.5---2.5 2.75---2.75 3.0---NaCl (lb/yd3) MIX CPR3 Depth (in.)ABCAVG 0.0 0.2546.10648.04046.61546.920 0.25 0.5030.35035.38733.33833.025 0.50 0.7523.41922.51822.25922.732 0.75 1.018.89817.60418.46418.322 1.0 1.2512.99214.95113.15113.698 1.25 1.59.4839.7378.8009.340 1.5 1.756.7245.8645.6116.066 1.75 2.04.3263.5023.0113.613 2.0 2.252.1882.0981.2141.833 2.25 2.51.0051.2250.5060.912 2.5 2.75---2.75 3.0---NaCl (lb/yd3) MIX CPR4 Depth (in.)ABCAVG 0.0 0.2538.98542.38735.51038.961 0.25 0.5017.06616.19814.25115.838 0.50 0.753.5533.7013.3633.539 0.75 1.00.8610.9661.1951.007 1.0 1.250.5240.4750.5540.518 1.25 1.50.3380.3690.3480.352 1.5 1.750.3650.3800.3140.353 1.75 2.00.2970.3060.2850.296 2.0 2.25---2.25 2.5---2.5 2.75---2.75 3.0---NaCl (lb/yd3) MIX CPR5 Depth (in.)ABCAVG 0.0 0.2538.78040.82741.40140.336 0.25 0.5027.84329.10724.51727.156 0.50 0.7513.99918.21515.87316.029 0.75 1.07.2209.06010.5958.958 1.0 1.253.9555.2107.2675.477 1.25 1.52.6443.2875.6093.847 1.5 1.752.4753.2244.1413.280 1.75 2.02.1312.8884.2023.074 2.0 2.252.6163.2674.3753.419 2.25 2.52.4202.9524.1313.168 2.5 2.75---2.75 3.0---NaCl (lb/yd3) MIX CPR6 Depth (in.)ABCAVG 0.0 0.2546.15050.75252.24049.714 0.25 0.5033.31935.78533.16634.090 0.50 0.7521.56622.17020.22821.321 0.75 1.012.98511.79012.54312.439 1.0 1.255.9934.7135.5475.418 1.25 1.52.0601.4801.6231.721 1.5 1.750.6070.5510.5130.557 1.75 2.00.4230.3410.3500.371 2.0 2.25---2.25 2.5---2.5 2.75---2.75 3.0---NaCl (lb/yd3)

PAGE 150

150 Table C-2. Continued. MIX CPR7 Depth (in.)ABCAVG 0.0 0.2543.89943.25045.91544.355 0.25 0.5022.23825.09120.44122.590 0.50 0.7511.4189.7918.0959.768 0.75 1.04.1542.4052.6533.071 1.0 1.251.0830.9950.5400.873 1.25 1.50.4360.5200.3220.426 1.5 1.750.2960.4180.2760.330 1.75 2.00.3210.3500.2570.309 2.0 2.25---2.25 2.5---2.5 2.75---2.75 3.0---NaCl (lb/yd3) MIX CPR8 Depth (in.)ABCAVG 0.0 0.2543.41152.65447.41047.825 0.25 0.5026.43633.02331.47730.312 0.50 0.7510.18915.29317.02614.169 0.75 1.02.0724.1427.7354.650 1.0 1.250.4440.7802.2011.142 1.25 1.50.2850.2770.4850.349 1.5 1.750.2610.3280.3230.304 1.75 2.00.2300.2460.2540.243 2.0 2.25---2.25 2.5---2.5 2.75---2.75 3.0---NaCl (lb/yd3) MIX CPR9 Depth (in.)ABCAVG 0.0 0.2548.11345.02356.62749.921 0.25 0.5014.63517.55322.05818.082 0.50 0.751.9204.0085.6003.843 0.75 1.00.3090.7571.2580.775 1.0 1.250.1730.2950.3180.262 1.25 1.50.1560.2520.2640.224 1.5 1.750.2260.2550.2600.247 1.75 2.00.1930.2330.2870.238 2.0 2.25---2.25 2.5---2.5 2.75---2.75 3.0---NaCl (lb/yd3) MIX CPR10 Depth (in.)ABCAVG 0.0 0.2545.22437.53341.90741.555 0.25 0.5025.40322.54029.94725.963 0.50 0.759.6559.0299.3199.334 0.75 1.03.6482.5562.3182.841 1.0 1.251.0010.6970.5690.756 1.25 1.50.6290.3320.2390.400 1.5 1.750.3960.3430.2670.335 1.75 2.00.2970.1970.2520.249 2.0 2.25---2.25 2.5---2.5 2.75---2.75 3.0---NaCl (lb/yd3) MIX CPR11 Depth (in.)ABCAVG 0.0 0.2544.07658.04348.73250.284 0.25 0.5030.68434.26636.17033.707 0.50 0.7514.20110.89513.38512.827 0.75 1.03.5122.2166.4594.062 1.0 1.250.5090.7771.6210.969 1.25 1.50.2540.2570.8880.466 1.5 1.750.2620.2240.3210.269 1.75 2.00.2420.2730.2440.253 2.0 2.25---2.25 2.5---2.5 2.75---2.75 3.0---NaCl (lb/yd3) MIX CPR12 Depth (in.)ABCAVG 0.0 0.2569.23349.49457.56958.765 0.25 0.5040.86932.61831.39334.960 0.50 0.7529.82526.07125.37327.090 0.75 1.020.95418.91419.06619.645 1.0 1.2515.92513.83812.72014.161 1.25 1.58.2918.1496.4507.630 1.5 1.754.3411.5842.1192.681 1.75 2.01.8010.2790.4220.834 2.0 2.25---2.25 2.5---2.5 2.75---2.75 3.0---NaCl (lb/yd3)

PAGE 151

151 Table C-2. Continued. MIX CPR13 Depth (in.)ABCAVG 0.0 0.2543.62550.51853.27349.139 0.25 0.5032.30735.40535.10434.272 0.50 0.7525.69222.10428.52125.439 0.75 1.023.62818.67022.45721.585 1.0 1.2514.02215.14213.77314.312 1.25 1.59.5329.3689.1829.361 1.5 1.755.2036.0375.7505.663 1.75 2.02.8393.3412.9153.032 2.0 2.251.1501.2660.7401.052 2.25 2.50.7470.9530.6600.787 2.5 2.75---2.75 3.0---NaCl (lb/yd3) MIX CPR15 Depth (in.)ABCAVG 0.0 0.2546.51153.90753.38551.268 0.25 0.5037.70447.27541.11542.031 0.50 0.7532.42317.38916.61022.141 0.75 1.024.99911.27512.84516.373 1.0 1.2510.0277.6569.5609.081 1.25 1.55.2433.8894.2104.447 1.5 1.751.9562.1852.9292.357 1.75 2.00.8531.3791.2101.147 2.0 2.25---2.25 2.5---2.5 2.75---2.75 3.0---NaCl (lb/yd3) MIX CPR16 Depth (in.)ABCAVG 0.0 0.2551.16644.49237.76344.474 0.25 0.5033.77031.68227.84931.100 0.50 0.7526.83121.83218.55622.406 0.75 1.017.01112.56312.23113.935 1.0 1.255.3726.0334.4435.283 1.25 1.52.5263.3602.3432.743 1.5 1.750.7301.4381.1631.110 1.75 2.00.5520.8831.1110.849 2.0 2.25---2.25 2.5---2.5 2.75---2.75 3.0---NaCl (lb/yd3) MIX CPR17 Depth (in.)ABCAVG 0.0 0.2525.27123.57922.05023.633 0.25 0.5014.68516.79115.53915.672 0.50 0.759.35710.4929.7829.877 0.75 1.02.3956.1134.6344.381 1.0 1.250.8185.1942.3142.775 1.25 1.50.3181.7860.7400.948 1.5 1.750.3150.5850.3680.423 1.75 2.00.2720.3600.4780.370 2.0 2.25---2.25 2.5---2.5 2.75---2.75 3.0---NaCl (lb/yd3) MIX CPR18 Depth (in.)ABCAVG 0.0 0.2523.17523.33725.51524.009 0.25 0.5017.43815.20117.45616.698 0.50 0.752.4443.5565.0273.676 0.75 1.01.4711.7281.3531.517 1.0 1.250.5540.5250.5460.542 1.25 1.50.5370.5130.4890.513 1.5 1.750.5000.5140.4530.489 1.75 2.00.4750.4860.4510.471 2.0 2.25---2.25 2.5---2.5 2.75---2.75 3.0---NaCl (lb/yd3) MIX CPR20 Depth (in.)ABCAVG 0.0 0.2521.32122.30721.28821.639 0.25 0.5013.29913.69310.15812.383 0.50 0.756.9564.6683.2364.953 0.75 1.03.5112.8891.0522.484 1.0 1.251.1430.4320.2700.615 1.25 1.50.6830.2770.8720.611 1.5 1.750.3900.3050.2780.324 1.75 2.00.3860.2330.3170.312 2.0 2.25---2.25 2.5---2.5 2.75---2.75 3.0---NaCl (lb/yd3)

PAGE 152

152 Table C-2. Continued. MIX CPR21 Depth (in.)ABCAVG 0.0 0.2532.78224.57625.69827.685 0.25 0.5022.95320.16813.71718.946 0.50 0.755.2698.6193.7015.863 0.75 1.00.9372.4351.2341.535 1.0 1.250.4010.4670.3690.412 1.25 1.50.4160.3280.3040.349 1.5 1.750.3180.3130.3350.322 1.75 2.00.4550.3450.3260.375 2.0 2.25---2.25 2.5---2.5 2.75---2.75 3.0---NaCl (lb/yd3)

PAGE 153

153 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR1 (Sample A) 364-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.245E-11 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.133 Surface(lb/yd^3) 34.385 Sum(Error)^2 22.047 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR1 (Sample B) 364-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.661E-11 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.133 Surface(lb/yd^3) 39.102 Sum(Error)^2 23.577 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR1 (Sample C) 364-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.735E-11 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.133 Surface(lb/yd^3) 35.500 Sum(Error)^2 29.996 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR2 (Sample A) 364-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 4.050E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.079 Surface(lb/yd^3) 46.835 Sum(Error)^2 4.801 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR2 (Sample B) 364-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 4.433E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.079 Surface(lb/yd^3) 49.390 Sum(Error)^2 4.615 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR2 (Sample C) 364-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 4.863E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.079 Surface(lb/yd^3) 45.930 Sum(Error)^2 2.434 Figure C-1. 1-Year Bu lk Diffusion Coefficient Regression Analysis.

PAGE 154

154 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR3 (Sample A) 364-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.064E-11 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.125 Surface(lb/yd^3) 47.345 Sum(Error)^2 32.245 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR3 (Sample B) 364-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 9.738E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.125 Surface(lb/yd^3) 51.026 Sum(Error)^2 32.624 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR3 (Sample C) 364-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 9.440E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.125 Surface(lb/yd^3) 49.637 Sum(Error)^2 21.269 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR4 (Sample A) 364-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.345E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.151 Surface(lb/yd^3) 53.651 Sum(Error)^2 2.183 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR4 (Sample B) 364-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.175E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.151 Surface(lb/yd^3) 59.521 Sum(Error)^2 0.362 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR4 (Sample C) 364-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.254E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.151 Surface(lb/yd^3) 49.262 Sum(Error)^2 0.594 Figure C-1. Continued.

PAGE 155

155 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR5 (Sample A) 364-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 4.222E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.140 Surface(lb/yd^3) 46.474 Sum(Error)^2 25.196 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR5 (Sample B) 364-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 5.255E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.140 Surface(lb/yd^3) 47.442 Sum(Error)^2 29.211 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR5 (Sample C) 364-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 5.948E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.140 Surface(lb/yd^3) 44.192 Sum(Error)^2 80.317 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR6 (Sample A) 364-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 5.374E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.107 Surface(lb/yd^3) 54.147 Sum(Error)^2 3.729 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR6 (Sample B) 364-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 4.637E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.107 Surface(lb/yd^3) 60.405 Sum(Error)^2 4.615 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR6 (Sample C) 364-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 4.378E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.107 Surface(lb/yd^3) 60.744 Sum(Error)^2 5.089 Figure C-1. Continued.

PAGE 156

156 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR7 (Sample A) 364-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.299E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.233 Surface(lb/yd^3) 54.787 Sum(Error)^2 3.243 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR7 (Sample B) 364-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.255E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.233 Surface(lb/yd^3) 55.418 Sum(Error)^2 4.376 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR7 (Sample C) 364-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.656E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.233 Surface(lb/yd^3) 60.326 Sum(Error)^2 1.686 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR8 (Sample A) 364-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.351E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.096 Surface(lb/yd^3) 55.771 Sum(Error)^2 9.722 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR8 (Sample B) 364-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.729E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.096 Surface(lb/yd^3) 66.298 Sum(Error)^2 10.296 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR8 (Sample C) 364-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 3.562E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.096 Surface(lb/yd^3) 57.763 Sum(Error)^2 3.753 Figure C-1. Continued.

PAGE 157

157 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR9 (Sample A) 364-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 8.766E-13 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.075 Surface(lb/yd^3) 71.946 Sum(Error)^2 0.343 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR9 (Sample B) 364-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.206E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.075 Surface(lb/yd^3) 62.979 Sum(Error)^2 0.304 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR9 (Sample C) 364-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.232E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.075 Surface(lb/yd^3) 78.792 Sum(Error)^2 0.217 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR10 (Sample A) 364-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.251E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.074 Surface(lb/yd^3) 57.641 Sum(Error)^2 2.087 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR10 (Sample B) 364-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.425E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.074 Surface(lb/yd^3) 47.788 Sum(Error)^2 3.795 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR10 (Sample C) 364-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.587E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.074 Surface(lb/yd^3) 54.601 Sum(Error)^2 40.766 Figure C-1. Continued.

PAGE 158

158 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR11 (Sample A) 364-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.994E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.185 Surface(lb/yd^3) 55.913 Sum(Error)^2 23.644 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR11 (Sample B) 364-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.100E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.185 Surface(lb/yd^3) 75.667 Sum(Error)^2 20.332 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR11 (Sample C) 364-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 3.151E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.185 Surface(lb/yd^3) 61.852 Sum(Error)^2 41.728 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR12 (Sample A) 364-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 6.644E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.141 Surface(lb/yd^3) 73.541 Sum(Error)^2 87.970 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR12 (Sample B) 364-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 8.406E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.141 Surface(lb/yd^3) 53.329 Sum(Error)^2 34.381 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR12 (Sample C) 364-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 6.622E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.141 Surface(lb/yd^3) 60.400 Sum(Error)^2 92.280 Figure C-1. Continued.

PAGE 159

159 020406080100 0 20 40 60 80 CPR13 (Sample A) 364-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (mm)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.170E-11 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.178 Surface(lb/yd^3) 47.348 Sum(Error)^2 25.547 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR13 (Sample B) 364-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 9.155E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.178 Surface(lb/yd^3) 53.144 Sum(Error)^2 46.819 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR13 (Sample C) 364-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 9.404E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.178 Surface(lb/yd^3) 56.449 Sum(Error)^2 30.478 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR15 (Sample A) 364-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 6.306E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.515 Surface(lb/yd^3) 59.443 Sum(Error)^2 1.443 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR15 (Sample B) 364-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 4.452E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.515 Surface(lb/yd^3) 67.260 Sum(Error)^2 129.612 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR15 (Sample C) 364-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 4.656E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.515 Surface(lb/yd^3) 63.426 Sum(Error)^2 69.269 Figure C-1. Continued.

PAGE 160

160 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR16 (Sample A) 364-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 5.829E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.126 Surface(lb/yd^3) 58.558 Sum(Error)^2 32.588 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR16 (Sample B) 364-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 5.723E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.126 Surface(lb/yd^3) 51.562 Sum(Error)^2 1.914 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR16 (Sample C) 364-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 5.851E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.126 Surface(lb/yd^3) 44.124 Sum(Error)^2 6.116 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR17 (Sample A) 364-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 3.027E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.179 Surface(lb/yd^3) 30.835 Sum(Error)^2 4.053 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR17 (Sample B) 364-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 5.729E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.179 Surface(lb/yd^3) 27.014 Sum(Error)^2 2.928 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR17 (Sample C) 364-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 4.526E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.179 Surface(lb/yd^3) 26.301 Sum(Error)^2 1.103 Figure C-1. Continued.

PAGE 161

161 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR18 (Sample A) 364-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.231E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.259 Surface(lb/yd^3) 31.105 Sum(Error)^2 31.462 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR18 (Sample B) 364-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.169E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.259 Surface(lb/yd^3) 30.618 Sum(Error)^2 10.314 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR18 (Sample C) 364-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.366E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.259 Surface(lb/yd^3) 33.343 Sum(Error)^2 13.152 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR20 (Sample A) 364-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 3.330E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.119 Surface(lb/yd^3) 25.791 Sum(Error)^2 0.225 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR20 (Sample B) 364-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.490E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.119 Surface(lb/yd^3) 28.249 Sum(Error)^2 3.121 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR20 (Sample C) 364-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.662E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.119 Surface(lb/yd^3) 28.176 Sum(Error)^2 0.717 Figure C-1. Continued.

PAGE 162

162 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR21 (Sample A) 364-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.212E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.316 Surface(lb/yd^3) 43.569 Sum(Error)^2 34.620 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR21 (Sample B) 364-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 3.361E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.316 Surface(lb/yd^3) 31.820 Sum(Error)^2 22.834 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR21 (Sample C) 364-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.756E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.316 Surface(lb/yd^3) 34.043 Sum(Error)^2 2.471 Figure C-1. Continued.

PAGE 163

163 Table C-3. 3-Year Bulk Diffusion Chloride Profile Testing Results. MIX CPR1 Depth (in.)ABCAVG 0.0 0.2545.27833.45234.58837.773 0.25 0.5038.01735.22634.82836.024 0.50 0.7537.82533.21428.13833.059 0.75 1.026.81827.24328.07727.379 1.0 1.2527.61626.47422.32725.472 1.25 1.524.40125.65814.60921.556 1.5 1.7524.72822.33920.01222.360 1.75 2.021.51317.23519.11619.288 2.0 2.2519.50114.14614.47716.041 2.25 2.517.30813.99412.99414.765 2.5 2.7517.81212.69612.88014.463 2.75 3.010.40111.25811.35811.006 3.0 3.2513.90510.2528.38610.848 3.25 3.512.9478.3066.8499.367 3.5 4.012.709-8.00610.358 NaCl (lb/yd3) MIX CPR2 Depth (in.)ABCAVG 0.0 0.2537.15439.35742.33939.617 0.25 0.5027.53729.15534.62130.438 0.50 0.7523.16025.10727.15025.139 0.75 1.016.86219.34920.44018.884 1.0 1.2514.38712.61015.92714.308 1.25 1.59.82910.45913.71011.333 1.5 1.7510.3405.8638.5758.259 1.75 2.0-5.6974.8665.282 2.0 2.254.1301.298-2.714 2.25 2.51.9810.844-1.413 2.5 2.751.1460.917-1.032 2.75 3.00.6070.773-0.690 3.0 3.25---3.25 3.5---3.5 4.0---NaCl (lb/yd3) MIX CPR3 Depth (in.)ABCAVG 0.0 0.2530.18041.42936.77936.129 0.25 0.5028.31234.03830.97331.108 0.50 0.7521.31629.45325.80925.526 0.75 1.020.95025.21222.98023.047 1.0 1.2513.41118.94421.05517.803 1.25 1.515.24515.55019.72916.841 1.5 1.7511.00313.63114.76213.132 1.75 2.09.06311.47713.92711.489 2.0 2.258.2658.16510.2568.895 2.25 2.55.5237.7069.1207.450 2.5 2.753.9165.4317.4375.595 2.75 3.01.5313.1565.4363.374 3.0 3.251.3512.5843.4252.453 3.25 3.51.1751.6972.3631.745 3.5 4.01.2141.3191.4741.336 NaCl (lb/yd3) MIX CPR4 Depth (in.)ABCAVG 0.0 0.2536.04641.03234.36137.146 0.25 0.5022.62923.51517.39921.181 0.50 0.7514.12111.2955.29210.236 0.75 1.05.9753.1722.3863.844 1.0 1.251.3171.3710.4821.057 1.25 1.5-1.3570.5760.967 1.5 1.750.3850.3710.4660.407 1.75 2.00.3680.8560.3720.532 2.0 2.25---2.25 2.5---2.5 2.75---2.75 3.0---3.0 3.25---3.25 3.5---3.5 4.0---NaCl (lb/yd3) MIX CPR5 Depth (in.)ABCAVG 0.0 0.2542.96039.26642.14941.458 0.25 0.5028.96238.66629.56332.397 0.50 0.7524.60422.81123.24423.553 0.75 1.015.36512.89612.38713.549 1.0 1.255.2005.7118.1406.350 1.25 1.52.0832.5373.2222.614 1.5 1.751.5342.1131.7911.813 1.75 2.01.1682.0391.7561.654 2.0 2.251.2951.3601.6211.425 2.25 2.51.4521.2061.5461.401 2.5 2.751.7891.5311.7911.704 2.75 3.01.8771.6422.0411.853 3.0 3.252.0592.7301.7192.169 3.25 3.51.8842.4702.0302.128 3.5 4.0---NaCl (lb/yd3) MIX CPR6 Depth (in.)ABCAVG 0.0 0.2538.23239.90343.05340.396 0.25 0.5033.88634.92534.93234.581 0.50 0.7527.43429.75928.63428.609 0.75 1.015.26721.66321.05119.327 1.0 1.2513.72013.35513.40813.494 1.25 1.59.6218.0288.8318.827 1.5 1.755.2102.9324.4164.186 1.75 2.02.3091.3671.6811.786 2.0 2.250.6560.2740.5980.509 2.25 2.50.3490.2850.6120.415 2.5 2.75---2.75 3.0---3.0 3.25---3.25 3.5---3.5 4.0---NaCl (lb/yd3)

PAGE 164

164 Table C-3. Continued. MIX CPR7 Depth (in.)ABCAVG 0.0 0.2537.60235.22136.54536.456 0.25 0.5025.02026.58022.89124.830 0.50 0.7521.45720.61515.84919.307 0.75 1.09.61212.82311.79011.408 1.0 1.254.0645.0547.0545.391 1.25 1.50.8860.9752.7021.521 1.5 1.750.4660.2680.4400.391 1.75 2.00.2910.2540.2020.249 2.0 2.25---2.25 2.5---2.5 2.75---2.75 3.0---3.0 3.25---3.25 3.5---3.5 4.0---NaCl (lb/yd3) MIX CPR8 Depth (in.)ABCAVG 0.0 0.2536.68135.87237.24336.599 0.25 0.5031.88726.63028.03728.851 0.50 0.7524.10425.11321.11023.442 0.75 1.017.64715.45514.30015.801 1.0 1.259.1097.6728.6218.467 1.25 1.53.1622.0941.6982.318 1.5 1.750.6150.4800.4060.500 1.75 2.00.2400.2550.2960.264 2.0 2.25---2.25 2.5---2.5 2.75---2.75 3.0---3.0 3.25---3.25 3.5---3.5 4.0---NaCl (lb/yd3) MIX CPR9 Depth (in.)ABCAVG 0.0 0.2539.43449.43945.28744.720 0.25 0.5030.80030.57928.55729.979 0.50 0.7518.88118.32518.28818.498 0.75 1.09.9138.5289.8349.425 1.0 1.251.9033.1193.7352.919 1.25 1.50.7611.5510.7221.011 1.5 1.750.3160.7590.4220.499 1.75 2.00.2940.2120.3950.300 2.0 2.25---2.25 2.5---2.5 2.75---2.75 3.0---3.0 3.25---3.25 3.5---3.5 4.0---NaCl (lb/yd3) MIX CPR10 Depth (in.)ABCAVG 0.0 0.2543.99439.01941.45641.490 0.25 0.5038.62635.12635.99336.582 0.50 0.7522.47222.84726.47023.930 0.75 1.022.92213.24114.80016.988 1.0 1.252.2515.5916.1174.653 1.25 1.50.5520.6041.3370.831 1.5 1.750.2630.3030.2040.257 1.75 2.00.1730.7200.3100.401 2.0 2.25---2.25 2.5---2.5 2.75---2.75 3.0---3.0 3.25---3.25 3.5---3.5 4.0---NaCl (lb/yd3) MIX CPR11 Depth (in.)ABCAVG 0.0 0.2550.26142.96653.80049.009 0.25 0.5038.14944.93838.00340.363 0.50 0.7529.26426.98923.56326.605 0.75 1.019.07119.62616.03218.243 1.0 1.2510.17611.1567.7559.696 1.25 1.52.5324.7701.9613.088 1.5 1.750.6030.9900.4500.681 1.75 2.00.2350.1620.3900.262 2.0 2.25---2.25 2.5---2.5 2.75---2.75 3.0---3.0 3.25---3.25 3.5---3.5 4.0---NaCl (lb/yd3) MIX CPR12 Depth (in.)ABCAVG 0.0 0.2547.51936.71644.52642.920 0.25 0.5030.46724.30733.42829.401 0.50 0.7526.04922.35425.77824.727 0.75 1.024.14118.09724.90722.382 1.0 1.2520.60419.30921.90020.604 1.25 1.511.86019.18318.65416.566 1.5 1.7511.79017.11613.32014.075 1.75 2.012.30116.03613.35113.896 2.0 2.257.34011.69312.55510.529 2.25 2.59.6988.21110.1709.360 2.5 2.756.6665.5727.1736.470 2.75 3.05.3684.4475.2005.005 3.0 3.251.8203.6614.1533.211 3.25 3.50.7401.8651.7521.452 3.5 4.00.5082.5600.9361.335 NaCl (lb/yd3)

PAGE 165

165 Table C-3. Continued. MIX CPR13 Depth (in.)ABCAVG 0.0 0.2534.93033.65936.59735.062 0.25 0.5029.76430.21332.68730.888 0.50 0.7528.12826.01126.82626.988 0.75 1.023.02522.11323.23022.789 1.0 1.2520.79818.83320.67020.100 1.25 1.518.27516.90316.82917.336 1.5 1.7516.27314.01215.17315.153 1.75 2.014.50813.16212.89113.520 2.0 2.2514.76413.85912.88913.837 2.25 2.514.57913.89012.09913.523 2.5 2.7514.28714.66410.59713.183 2.75 3.012.31911.3829.22710.976 3.0 3.2511.4939.5325.9528.992 3.25 3.510.3037.9976.5588.286 3.5 4.09.0786.7005.0176.932 NaCl (lb/yd3) MIX CPR15 Depth (in.)ABCAVG 0.0 0.2525.83034.63536.06232.176 0.25 0.5022.79930.03131.16928.000 0.50 0.7520.58829.28429.64026.504 0.75 1.020.33728.95924.30424.533 1.0 1.2515.97819.97422.32619.426 1.25 1.512.25618.06019.88216.733 1.5 1.758.53413.63014.74012.301 1.75 2.06.89611.75511.0209.890 2.0 2.25-5.8617.4556.658 2.25 2.5-3.8896.5945.242 2.5 2.75-3.5364.4573.997 2.75 3.0-3.0874.6083.848 3.0 3.25-3.5224.4844.003 3.25 3.5-3.4594.7314.095 3.5 4.0-4.6885.8515.270 NaCl (lb/yd3) MIX CPR16 Depth (in.)ABCAVG 0.0 0.2546.39439.54240.10442.013 0.25 0.5033.45932.95533.20333.206 0.50 0.7528.50623.56825.58525.886 0.75 1.021.67813.28419.10818.023 1.0 1.2513.5467.70613.50611.586 1.25 1.58.6324.9687.1046.901 1.5 1.754.0263.0913.7733.630 1.75 2.01.3871.3202.3241.677 2.0 2.25--1.3221.322 2.25 2.5--0.8820.882 2.5 2.75---2.75 3.0---3.0 3.25---3.25 3.5---3.5 4.0---NaCl (lb/yd3) MIX CPR17 Depth (in.)ABCAVG 0.0 0.2543.95145.94451.95147.282 0.25 0.5035.44037.45544.94239.279 0.50 0.7525.86728.42928.55827.618 0.75 1.016.00318.82521.20918.679 1.0 1.258.0105.83817.92210.590 1.25 1.52.8131.5847.8984.098 1.5 1.750.7700.4692.6251.288 1.75 2.00.4420.2931.2090.648 2.0 2.250.3090.3060.4530.356 2.25 2.50.3590.3170.3270.334 2.5 2.75---2.75 3.0---3.0 3.25---3.25 3.5---3.5 4.0---NaCl (lb/yd3) MIX CPR18 Depth (in.)ABCAVG 0.0 0.2534.94429.51943.41435.959 0.25 0.5036.96630.59135.49834.352 0.50 0.7528.34626.11921.90625.457 0.75 1.09.75911.0176.7819.186 1.0 1.253.0102.7131.7312.485 1.25 1.50.5570.6240.5260.569 1.5 1.750.4250.4850.4090.440 1.75 2.00.5350.6440.6590.613 2.0 2.250.6440.4260.3290.466 2.25 2.50.5290.4580.3870.458 2.5 2.75---2.75 3.0---3.0 3.25---3.25 3.5---3.5 4.0---NaCl (lb/yd3) MIX CPR20 Depth (in.)ABCAVG 0.0 0.2541.52549.32058.42049.755 0.25 0.5033.76037.40139.89437.018 0.50 0.7526.66426.42127.46926.851 0.75 1.017.16713.62415.99915.597 1.0 1.2511.9776.0436.8538.291 1.25 1.56.4022.0832.0793.521 1.5 1.751.7750.8780.5641.072 1.75 2.00.9130.8480.5000.754 2.0 2.250.2210.1800.2090.203 2.25 2.50.1430.1710.1640.159 2.5 2.75---2.75 3.0---3.0 3.25---3.25 3.5---3.5 4.0---NaCl (lb/yd3)

PAGE 166

166 Table C-3. Continued. MIX CPR21 Depth (in.)ABCAVG 0.0 0.2536.26551.99538.73842.333 0.25 0.5032.55141.47631.85835.295 0.50 0.7518.98125.40015.37719.919 0.75 1.05.2636.4564.5305.416 1.0 1.252.0842.4111.5132.003 1.25 1.50.7290.5540.7220.668 1.5 1.750.4710.5600.5820.538 1.75 2.00.5540.8890.5960.680 2.0 2.250.4590.3790.4630.434 2.25 2.50.4730.4280.4140.438 2.5 2.75---2.75 3.0---3.0 3.25---3.25 3.5---3.5 4.0---NaCl (lb/yd3)

PAGE 167

167 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR1 (Sample A) 1092-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.983E-11 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.133 Surface(lb/yd^3) 42.142 Sum(Error)^2 111.39 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR1 (Sample B) 1092-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.537E-11 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.133 Surface(lb/yd^3) 37.922 Sum(Error)^2 34.265 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR1 (Sample C) 1092-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.415E-11 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.133 Surface(lb/yd^3) 35.642 Sum(Error)^2 78.827 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR2 (Sample A) 1092-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 5.371E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.079 Surface(lb/yd^3) 38.149 Sum(Error)^2 19.129 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR2 (Sample B) 1092-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 4.383E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.079 Surface(lb/yd^3) 42.069 Sum(Error)^2 12.811 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR2 (Sample C) 1092-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 5.034E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.079 Surface(lb/yd^3) 45.607 Sum(Error)^2 6.129 Figure C-2. 3-Year Bu lk Diffusion Coefficient Regression Analysis.

PAGE 168

168 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR3 (Sample A) 1092-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 9.706E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.125 Surface(lb/yd^3) 32.424 Sum(Error)^2 24.778 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR3 (Sample B) 1092-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 8.962E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.125 Surface(lb/yd^3) 42.464 Sum(Error)^2 12.215 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR3 (Sample C) 1092-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.323E-11 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.125 Surface(lb/yd^3) 36.961 Sum(Error)^2 16.389 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR4 (Sample A) 1092-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.212E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.151 Surface(lb/yd^3) 43.308 Sum(Error)^2 3.777 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR4 (Sample B) 1092-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 8.501E-13 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.151 Surface(lb/yd^3) 51.303 Sum(Error)^2 2.647 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR4 (Sample C) 1092-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 5.998E-13 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.151 Surface(lb/yd^3) 45.051 Sum(Error)^2 1.928 Figure C-2. Continued.

PAGE 169

169 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR5 (Sample A) 1092-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.160E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.140 Surface(lb/yd^3) 48.987 Sum(Error)^2 46.661 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR5 (Sample B) 1092-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.240E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.140 Surface(lb/yd^3) 49.661 Sum(Error)^2 94.298 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR5 (Sample C) 1092-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.224E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.140 Surface(lb/yd^3) 47.854 Sum(Error)^2 24.127 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR6 (Sample A) 1092-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 3.806E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.107 Surface(lb/yd^3) 44.462 Sum(Error)^2 29.179 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR6 (Sample B) 1092-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 3.711E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.107 Surface(lb/yd^3) 47.510 Sum(Error)^2 47.238 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR6 (Sample C) 1092-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 3.606E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.107 Surface(lb/yd^3) 49.098 Sum(Error)^2 15.013 Figure C-2. Continued.

PAGE 170

170 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR7 (Sample A) 1092-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.796E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.233 Surface(lb/yd^3) 43.873 Sum(Error)^2 27.617 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR7 (Sample B) 1092-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.126E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.233 Surface(lb/yd^3) 41.652 Sum(Error)^2 23.136 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR7 (Sample C) 1092-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.951E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.233 Surface(lb/yd^3) 40.450 Sum(Error)^2 13.613 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR8 (Sample A) 1092-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.850E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.096 Surface(lb/yd^3) 44.198 Sum(Error)^2 40.838 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR8 (Sample B) 364-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.683E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.096 Surface(lb/yd^3) 41.879 Sum(Error)^2 49.509 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR8 (Sample C) 1092-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.402E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.096 Surface(lb/yd^3) 43.106 Sum(Error)^2 17.445 Figure C-2. Continued.

PAGE 171

171 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR9 (Sample A) 1092-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.601E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.075 Surface(lb/yd^3) 48.341 Sum(Error)^2 23.642 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR9 (Sample B) 1092-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.227E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.075 Surface(lb/yd^3) 58.918 Sum(Error)^2 1.641 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR9 (Sample C) 1092-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.392E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.075 Surface(lb/yd^3) 53.198 Sum(Error)^2 3.818 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR10 (Sample A) 1092-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (mm)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.168E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.074 Surface(lb/yd^3) 54.117 Sum(Error)^2 157.50 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR10 (Sample B) 1092-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.108E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.074 Surface(lb/yd^3) 48.665 Sum(Error)^2 52.531 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR10 (Sample C) 1092-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.172E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.074 Surface(lb/yd^3) 51.317 Sum(Error)^2 67.296 Figure C-2. Continued.

PAGE 172

172 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR11 (Sample A) 1092-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.346E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.185 Surface(lb/yd^3) 58.649 Sum(Error)^2 31.993 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR11 (Sample B) 1092-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.785E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.185 Surface(lb/yd^3) 54.684 Sum(Error)^2 115.51 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR11 (Sample C) 1092-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.776E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.185 Surface(lb/yd^3) 62.573 Sum(Error)^2 8.648 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR12 (Sample A) 1092-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 8.174E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.141 Surface(lb/yd^3) 43.146 Sum(Error)^2 141.87 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR12 (Sample B) 1092-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.505E-11 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.141 Surface(lb/yd^3) 32.824 Sum(Error)^2 106.19 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR12 (Sample C) 1092-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.121E-11 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.141 Surface(lb/yd^3) 41.576 Sum(Error)^2 70.944 Figure C-2. Continued.

PAGE 173

173 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR13 (Sample A) 1092-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 3.179E-11 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.178 Surface(lb/yd^3) 32.031 Sum(Error)^2 62.519 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR13 (Sample B) 1092-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.681E-11 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.178 Surface(lb/yd^3) 31.344 Sum(Error)^2 75.405 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR13 (Sample C) 1092-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.765E-11 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.178 Surface(lb/yd^3) 35.485 Sum(Error)^2 41.517 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR15 (Sample A) 1092-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.004E-11 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.515 Surface(lb/yd^3) 28.404 Sum(Error)^2 14.883 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR15 (Sample B) 1092-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.001E-11 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.515 Surface(lb/yd^3) 38.815 Sum(Error)^2 70.888 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR15 (Sample C) 1092-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.139E-11 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.515 Surface(lb/yd^3) 38.552 Sum(Error)^2 39.657 Figure C-2. Continued.

PAGE 174

174 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR16 (Sample A) 1092-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 3.426E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.126 Surface(lb/yd^3) 50.868 Sum(Error)^2 18.967 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR16 (Sample B) 1092-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.527E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.126 Surface(lb/yd^3) 46.620 Sum(Error)^2 13.162 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR16 (Sample C) 1092-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 3.570E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.126 Surface(lb/yd^3) 45.735 Sum(Error)^2 9.054 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR17 (Sample A) 1092-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.305E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.179 Surface(lb/yd^3) 52.297 Sum(Error)^2 23.848 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR17 (Sample B) 1092-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.265E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.179 Surface(lb/yd^3) 55.521 Sum(Error)^2 66.084 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR17 (Sample C) 1092-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 3.013E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.179 Surface(lb/yd^3) 60.245 Sum(Error)^2 45.841 Figure C-2. Continued.

PAGE 175

175 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR18 (Sample A) 1092-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.165E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.259 Surface(lb/yd^3) 47.266 Sum(Error)^2 196.58 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR18 (Sample B) 1092-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.412E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.259 Surface(lb/yd^3) 39.726 Sum(Error)^2 151.98 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR18 (Sample C) 1092-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.459E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.259 Surface(lb/yd^3) 54.786 Sum(Error)^2 62.999 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR20 (Sample A) 1092-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 3.004E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.119 Surface(lb/yd^3) 48.184 Sum(Error)^2 17.569 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR20 (Sample B) 1092-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.891E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.119 Surface(lb/yd^3) 58.766 Sum(Error)^2 19.541 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR20 (Sample C) 1092-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.730E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.119 Surface(lb/yd^3) 68.012 Sum(Error)^2 9.173 Figure C-2. Continued.

PAGE 176

176 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR21 (Sample A) 1092-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.517E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.316 Surface(lb/yd^3) 46.782 Sum(Error)^2 73.470 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR21 (Sample B) 1092-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.384E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.316 Surface(lb/yd^3) 65.549 Sum(Error)^2 86.231 01234 0 20 40 60 80 CPR21 (Sample C) 1092-Day Bulk DiffusionDepth (mm)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.246E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.316 Surface(lb/yd^3) 49.553 Sum(Error)^2 48.177 Figure C-2. Continued.

PAGE 177

177 APPENDIX D FIELD CORE SAMPLING DATA AND ANALYSIS RESULTS Table D-1. Initial Chloride Background Level of Cored Samples. Initial Chloride Samples (lb/yd3) Bridge Name Lab. # A B C Average 5016 0.547(a) 5017 0.515 0.514 0.570 0.533 Hurricane Pass (HPB) 5018 0.529 0.594 0.560 0.561 5054 0.426 0.483 0.492 0.467 Broadway Replacement (BRB) 5081 0.843 0.904 0.828 0.858(b) 5082 0.435 0.508 0.458 0.467 Seabreeze West Bound (SWB) 5083 0.390 0.441 0.465 0.432 Granada (GRB) 5084 0.669 0.649 0.594 0.637 5078 0.550 0.574 0.544 0.556 5079 0.423 0.420 0.427 0.423 Turkey Creek (TCB) 5080 0.414 0.415 0.423 0.417 5075 0.623 0.609 0.609 0.614 5076 0.445 0.423 0.427 0.432 New Roosevelt (NRB) 5077 0.332 0.407 0.408 0.382 (a) Initial Chlorides were not tested for this sample. An average between Lab sample# 5017 and 5018 was reported. (b) Initial Chloride value was considered an erroneous valu e (too high). The value of initial chlorides from Lab sample# 5054 was used.

PAGE 178

178 Table D-2. Chloride Profile Test ing Results of Cored Samples. Brid g e Hurricane (HPB) Lab # 5016 Depth (in)ABCAVG 0.0 0.2513.32713.28513.45213.355 0.25 0.503.1103.5123.5553.392 0.50 0.752.1552.2012.1762.177 0.75 1.00.6770.6880.6870.684 1.0 1.250.5640.4900.4950.516 1.25 1.500.4400.4410.4220.434 1.50 1.750.3570.3410.3490.349 1.75 2.00.3730.4350.3600.389 2.0 2.250.3490.3500.3450.348 NaCl (lb/yd3) Brid g e Hurricane (HPB) Lab # 5017 Depth (in)ABCAVG 0.0 0.0832.32932.18631.93632.150 0.08 0.1633.48533.62932.96933.361 0.16 0.2426.49926.95226.84426.765 0.24 0.3222.56122.30122.30522.389 0.32 0.4020.41220.57520.58520.524 0.40 0.4815.27515.26015.25915.265 0.48 0.727.9108.0058.1498.021 0.72 0.972.7662.7372.7742.759 0.97 1.220.7730.7950.8020.790 1.22 1.470.3170.3660.3590.347 NaCl (lb/yd3) Brid g e Hurricane (HPB) Lab # 5018 Depth (in)ABCAVG 0.0 0.0837.61837.62738.20137.815 0.08 0.1634.59934.44034.80434.614 0.16 0.2430.44030.43130.55630.476 0.24 0.3225.69625.93626.04625.893 0.32 0.4022.94223.07322.98022.998 0.40 0.4819.04217.17917.25217.824 0.48 0.727.7288.2637.9447.978 0.72 0.971.7441.7721.7831.766 0.97 1.220.4540.5040.4690.476 1.22 1.470.5920.6030.5480.581 NaCl (lb/yd3) Brid g e Broadway Replacement (BRB) Lab # 5054 Depth (in)ABCAVG 0.0 0.0820.12820.78520.92020.611 0.08 0.1626.40725.67426.31126.131 0.16 0.2423.06322.69922.62422.795 0.24 0.3219.44520.02619.30219.591 0.32 0.4019.56119.90619.90619.791 0.40 0.4816.88116.90417.25417.013 0.48 0.727.4978.0017.8577.785 0.72 0.971.1751.2221.2171.205 0.97 1.220.5530.5890.5960.579 1.22 1.470.4530.4750.5010.476 NaCl (lb/yd3) Brid g e Broadway Replacement (BRB) Lab # 5081 Depth (in)ABCAVG 0.0 0.0830.61430.39930.52130.511 0.08 0.1624.60824.69324.62824.643 0.16 0.2420.43820.16619.77320.126 0.24 0.3216.36016.01615.94916.108 0.32 0.4014.17713.89514.07914.050 0.40 0.4812.66512.31812.65712.547 0.48 0.723.6493.7113.5863.649 0.72 0.970.2480.2640.2360.249 0.97 1.220.2520.2650.2680.262 1.22 1.470.2880.3000.2660.285 NaCl (lb/yd3) Brid g e Seabreeze (SWB) Lab # 5082 Depth (in)ABCAVG 0.0 0.0840.65840.64540.06240.455 0.08 0.1638.18737.86338.17538.075 0.16 0.2431.93731.98031.83631.918 0.24 0.3229.02628.97829.29729.100 0.32 0.4027.54127.76027.11427.472 0.40 0.4826.47026.29026.27826.346 0.48 0.7220.98020.70120.33020.670 0.72 0.977.6247.3768.1237.708 0.97 1.22---1.22 1.47---NaCl (lb/yd3)

PAGE 179

179 Table D-2. Continued. Brid g e Seabreeze (SWB) Lab # 5083 Depth (in)ABCAVG 0.0 0.0839.84139.84139.86839.850 0.08 0.1638.94839.14838.48838.861 0.16 0.2434.42635.01534.54534.662 0.24 0.3232.31532.97232.72032.669 0.32 0.4026.69726.80127.00926.836 0.40 0.4822.87123.33023.32723.176 0.48 0.7213.86914.01114.20114.027 0.72 0.971.6231.9902.3821.998 0.97 1.220.4590.4590.4360.451 1.22 1.470.4660.4950.4520.471 NaCl (lb/yd3) Brid g e Granada Crashwall (GRB) Lab # 5084 Depth (in)ABCAVG 0.0 0.080.9180.8690.8580.882 0.08 0.160.6710.6760.6940.680 0.16 0.240.5600.5950.6160.590 0.24 0.320.4780.5010.4900.490 0.32 0.400.4500.4720.4840.469 0.40 0.480.5040.4430.4370.461 0.48 0.720.4450.4590.4080.437 0.72 0.970.3850.4020.3810.389 0.97 1.220.4530.3980.3770.409 1.22 1.470.3540.3970.4040.385 NaCl (lb/yd3) Brid g e Turkey Creek (TCB) Lab # 5078 Depth (in)ABCAVG 0.0 0.0826.03825.61825.96525.874 0.08 0.1619.10119.20519.27719.194 0.16 0.2414.34114.27514.24214.286 0.24 0.3211.83812.02811.49011.785 0.32 0.409.3819.3819.3039.355 0.40 0.486.4696.4476.3636.426 0.48 0.724.4104.3284.3384.359 0.72 0.971.6051.6161.5991.607 0.97 1.222.257--2.257 1.22 1.470.7700.8160.7430.776 NaCl (lb/yd3) Brid g e Turkey Creek (TCB) Lab # 5079 Depth (in)ABCAVG 0.0 0.0828.19427.83727.90827.980 0.08 0.1621.14321.02321.02321.063 0.16 0.2414.08914.08913.96214.047 0.24 0.3210.70710.48910.43010.542 0.32 0.408.3368.1227.7898.082 0.40 0.485.8695.7485.9865.868 0.48 0.722.6992.6812.7142.698 0.72 0.970.7480.7730.7360.752 0.97 1.220.3990.4070.4040.403 1.22 1.470.3590.3880.4110.386 NaCl (lb/yd3) Brid g e Turkey Creek (TCB) Lab # 5080 Depth (in)ABCAVG 0.0 0.0830.19430.47430.03930.236 0.08 0.1624.93934.46425.21928.207 0.16 0.2416.42516.25716.66316.448 0.24 0.3213.37813.39813.06013.279 0.32 0.409.99010.33110.37210.231 0.40 0.486.6996.7906.7466.745 0.48 0.722.8932.9302.9022.908 0.72 0.970.6650.6730.6790.672 0.97 1.220.3050.3460.3290.327 1.22 1.470.2760.2600.2630.266 NaCl (lb/yd3) Brid g e New Roosevelt (NRB) Lab # 5075 Depth (in)ABCAVG 0.0 0.0815.41014.87214.67414.985 0.08 0.1621.57022.26221.92621.919 0.16 0.2419.27919.27919.57519.378 0.24 0.3216.98917.21317.14417.115 0.32 0.4015.69415.59315.78415.690 0.40 0.4813.35313.48113.53013.455 0.48 0.728.3308.4658.4978.431 0.72 0.972.9732.8563.1723.000 0.97 1.220.4670.4200.4900.459 1.22 1.470.3150.3270.3430.328 NaCl (lb/yd3)

PAGE 180

180 Table D-2. Continued. Brid g e New Roosevelt (NRB) Lab # 5076 Depth (in)ABCAVG 0.0 0.0814.95414.83315.16114.983 0.08 0.1614.04914.16514.16214.125 0.16 0.2413.67613.81413.71213.734 0.24 0.3214.50414.61214.60314.573 0.32 0.4016.21316.18616.35816.252 0.40 0.4815.56215.59515.43815.532 0.48 0.7213.96013.93414.24014.045 0.72 0.975.1975.8765.9865.686 0.97 1.223.2653.2883.2523.268 1.22 1.470.4010.4160.4170.411 NaCl (lb/yd3) Brid g e New Roosevelt (NRB) Lab # 5077 Depth (in)ABCAVG 0.0 0.0817.90317.90317.81617.874 0.08 0.1623.95923.88824.03523.961 0.16 0.2421.33421.87221.37421.527 0.24 0.3219.25719.14019.13419.177 0.32 0.4016.46316.65216.57616.564 0.40 0.4814.47414.92614.78914.730 0.48 0.7210.24310.3989.95510.199 0.72 0.972.5282.5762.5882.564 0.97 1.220.5130.5260.5070.515 1.22 1.470.2460.2700.2560.257 NaCl (lb/yd3)

PAGE 181

181 0123 0 20 40 60 Hurricane Bay Bridge #120089 LAB#5016Depth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 4.994E-14 Back g round(lb/ y d^3 ) 0.547 Surface(lb/yd^3) 20.336 Sum(Error)^2 1.803 0123 0 20 40 60 Hurricane Bay Bridge #120089 LAB#5017Depth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.487E-13 Back g round(lb/ y d^3 ) 0.533 Surface(lb/yd^3) 41.112 Sum(Error)^2 6.3507 0123 0 20 40 60 Hurricane Bay Bridge #120089 LAB#5018Depth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.511E-13 Back g round(lb/ y d^3 ) 0.561 Surface(lb/yd^3) 44.904 Sum(Error)^2 16.542 0123 0 20 40 60 Broadway Replac. Bridge #790187 LAB#5054Depth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 5.854E-13 Back g round(lb/ y d^3 ) 0.467 Surface(lb/yd^3) 33.012 Sum(Error)^2 30.891 0123 0 20 40 60 Broadway Replac. Bridge #790187 LAB#5081Depth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 3.578E-13 Back g round(lb/ y d^3 ) 0.467 Surface(lb/yd^3) 32.401 Sum(Error)^2 14.315 0123 0 20 40 60 Seabreeze Bridge #790174 LAB#5082Depth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 6.280E-13 Back g round(lb/ y d^3 ) 0.467 Surface(lb/yd^3) 42.497 Sum(Error)^2 29.283 Figure D-1. Cored Samples Chloride Diffusion Coefficient Regression Analysis.

PAGE 182

182 0123 0 20 40 60 Seabreeze Bridge #790174 LAB#5083Depth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 3.291E-13 Back g round(lb/ y d^3 ) 0.432 Surface(lb/yd^3) 49.660 Sum(Error)^2 38.365 0123 0 20 40 60 Granada Crashwall #790132 LAB#5084Depth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 5.077E-14 Back g round(lb/ y d^3 ) 0.400 Surface(lb/yd^3) 0.942 Sum(Error)^2 0.005 0123 0 20 40 60 Turkey Creek Bridge #700203 LAB#5078Depth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.854E-13 Back g round(lb/ y d^3 ) 0.556 Surface(lb/yd^3) 26.791 Sum(Error)^2 9.983 0123 0 20 40 60 Turkey Creek Bridge #700203 LAB#5079Depth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.316E-13 Back g round(lb/ y d^3 ) 0.423 Surface(lb/yd^3) 30.269 Sum(Error)^2 5.892 0123 0 20 40 60 Turkey Creek Bridge #700203 LAB#5080Depth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.553E-13 Back g round(lb/ y d^3 ) 0.417 Surface(lb/yd^3) 33.237 Sum(Error)^2 5.199 0123 0 20 40 60 New Roosevelt Bridge #890152 LAB#5075Depth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 3.606E-13 Back g round(lb/ y d^3 ) 0.614 Surface(lb/yd^3) 27.046 Sum(Error)^2 7.356 Figure D-1. Continued.

PAGE 183

183 0123 0 20 40 60 New Roosevelt Bridge #890152 LAB#5076Depth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 5.404E-13 Back g round(lb/ y d^3 ) 0.432 Surface(lb/yd^3) 28.700 Sum(Error)^2 12.185 0123 0 20 40 60 New Roosevelt Bridge #890152 LAB#5077Depth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 3.727E-13 Back g round(lb/ y d^3 ) 0.382 Surface(lb/yd^3) 29.696 Sum(Error)^2 10.147 Figure D-1. Continued.

PAGE 184

184 APPENDIX E SHORT-TERM ELECTRICA L TEST DATA RESULTS Table E-1. RCP Coulombs Testing Results. Sample ASample BSample CAverageStd CPR1 8719896587808821128.101.45 CPR2 5054500152915115154.423.02 CPR3 11689125681353512597923.357.33 CPR4 1450124813801359102.577.55 CPR5 7348726988777831906.4311.57 CPR6 8244803367857687788.5310.26 CPR7 2065194221452051102.264.99 CPR8 237324082426240226.951.12 CPR9 109011698961052140.4813.36 CPR10 136213621318134725.401.89 CPR11 2610298829792859215.697.54 CPR12 12217138871274412949853.726.59 CPR13 8288705874277591631.198.31 CPR15 91417761-8451975.8111.55 CPR16 3964570450014890875.3317.90 CPR17 50105423-5217292.045.60 CPR18 66807277-6979422.146.05 CPR20 42014904-4553497.1010.92 CPR21 74277708-7568198.702.63 MIX COV (%) 14-Day RCP Data (Coulomb) Sample ASample BSample CAverageStd CPR1 6917664468476803141.802.08 CPR2 3753433337793955327.628.28 CPR3 9580914191139278261.912.82 CPR4 78180675778124.503.14 CPR5 5537568654145546136.212.46 CPR6 65488648769976321051.6213.78 CPR7 1371148512481368118.538.66 CPR8 158213971468148293.336.30 CPR9 1063821949944121.0712.82 CPR10 117813621213125197.717.81 CPR11 2215249619692227263.6911.84 CPR12 51866363863167271751.0626.03 CPR13 5669583668206108621.9510.18 CPR15 70148156-7585807.5210.65 CPR16 3894426337273961274.276.92 CPR17 5036354232343937963.8624.48 CPR18 32523032-3142155.564.95 CPR20 3173369129973287360.7710.98 CPR21 43775502-4940795.5016.10 MIX COV (%) 28-Day RCP Data (Coulomb) Sample ASample BSample CAverageStd CPR1 6952841172077523779.2410.36 CPR2 3779385842633967259.656.55 CPR3 864010107697885751565.5118.26 CPR4 54051444850147.439.47 CPR5 2645264524262572126.444.92 CPR6 4184436843954316114.822.66 CPR7 98410551055103140.993.97 CPR8 101110021090103448.424.68 CPR9 83483088885132.393.81 CPR10 92390583888944.795.04 CPR11 167917401723171431.481.84 CPR12 5871591560645950101.151.70 CPR13 5098571355375449316.735.81 CPR15 57745115282145701550.1033.92 CPR16 3261274226102871344.1411.99 CPR17 230322682162224473.423.27 CPR18 159117401652166174.914.51 CPR20 2250186319602024201.369.95 CPR21 2347257524612461114.004.63 56-Day RCP Data (Coulomb) MIX COV (%) Sample ASample BSample CAverageStd CPR1 4676505455995110464.019.08 CPR2 3076377041313659536.1914.65 CPR3 8042718171107444518.816.97 CPR4 40846038841937.178.88 CPR5 177517231749174926.001.49 CPR6 2979312029003000111.453.72 CPR7 858719976851128.6415.12 CPR8 96710371099103466.046.38 CPR9 81978692384371.508.49 CPR10 80587894987772.008.21 CPR11 1564163518541684151.168.97 CPR12 5655448452075115590.8611.55 CPR13 4421491347204685247.905.29 CPR15 3568414844124043431.7510.68 CPR16 209222062224217471.583.29 CPR17 1793234721182086278.3813.35 CPR18 11601134984109395.008.69 CPR20 1477130115471442126.758.79 CPR21 151016461529156273.654.72 91-Day RCP Data (Coulomb) MIX COV (%) Sample ASample BSample CAverageStd CPR1 6047580160565968144.702.42 CPR2 2883288325842783172.636.20 CPR3 6759600359336232458.027.35 CPR4 38635939638019.145.03 CPR5 121311951283123046.493.78 CPR6 4400299243343909794.5420.33 CPR7 1027887-95798.9910.34 CPR8 814989-902123.7413.73 CPR9 719738-72913.441.84 CPR10 577657-61756.579.17 CPR11 12221325-127472.835.72 CPR12 46044436-4520118.792.63 CPR13 4166418439554102127.343.10 CPR15 2769232925662555220.228.62 CPR16 1538119510901274234.3018.39 CPR17 1644128316261518203.4313.40 CPR18 54462158858438.636.61 CPR20 86792391490130.073.34 CPR21 712914888838109.8913.11 182-day RCP Data (Coulomb) MIX COV (%) Sample ASample BSample CAverageStd CPR1 49224660-4791185.263.87 CPR2 2684301130602918204.417.00 CPR3 4627511140504596531.1811.56 CPR4 30930026829221.557.37 CPR5 86279275380255.236.88 CPR6 1371152015641485101.156.81 CPR7 791721-75649.506.55 CPR8 863797-83046.675.62 CPR9 490533-51230.415.94 CPR10 349393-37131.118.39 CPR11 1103983-104384.858.14 CPR12 36183727-367377.072.10 CPR13 41924488-4340209.304.82 CPR15 181417941839181622.551.24 CPR16 11801031-1106105.369.53 CPR17 1175157915081421215.7015.18 CPR18 32935730633125.547.72 CPR20 89173288283589.3110.70 CPR21 39043245342532.087.55 364-day RCP Data (Coulomb) MIX COV (%)

PAGE 185

185 Table E-2. SR (Lime Cured) Testing Results. 090180270090180270 A5.45.95.45.65.35.65.45.75.54 B5.155.35.155.15.35.15.13 C4.65.35.45.44.65.25.55.45.18 A7.87.78.37.97.77.88.787.99 B7.77.66.877.77.66.87.17.29 C77.86.16.57.16.566.46.68 A55.25.15.655.15.35.55.23 B54.64.64.64.84.54.64.84.69 C5.64.94.84.75.64.64.64.74.94 A1917.119.519.717.317.719.119.618.6 B19.517.617.319.819.517.719.71918.8 C17.520.415.517.117.319.115.917.417.5 A5.76.36.25.85.56.26.25.65.94 B6.16.26.55.86.166.35.56.06 C5.45.86.25.65.25.75.85.75.68 A65.65.76.25.95.75.965.88 B6.46.36.35.95.866.266.11 C6.665.86.76.75.75.76.66.23 A10.89.91010.510.210.49.610.610.3 B9.710.210.611.89.810.410.511.810.6 C9.610.210.511.810.510.810.411.810.7 A8.498.28.27.89.18.38.38.41 B8.58.97.97.98.68.88.17.88.31 C8.49.18.7888.68.688.43 A31.228.427.627.131.628.428.327.528.8 B27.724.127.926.827.724.828.227.226.8 C26.528.229.929.626.628.230.429.628.6 A21.824.424.219.922.321.320.622.722.2 B21.823.623.121.721.623.823.421.922.6 C24.219.923.724.924.421.324.322.523.2 5.30.23 CPR1 0.66 28.11.10 CPR8 14-Day Surface Resistivity (Lime Cured) (k .cm) Sample MIX COV (%) Std. Dev. Reading Locations (Deg.) Average 4.26 5.00.275.43 18.30.683.71 7.3 8.40.060.74 8.98 5.90.203.36 6.10.182.94 CPR10 CPR9 3.90 22.60.502.21 CPR6 CPR7 2.25 10.50.24 CPR2 CPR3 CPR4 CPR5 090180270090180270 A12.211.11111.111.310.910.912.111.3 B10.71011.110.110.89.810.910.110.4 C11.710.210.910.611.69.89.810.910.7 A8.28.31010.18.58.49.99.89.15 B8.78.79.610.39.29.810.19.99.54 C8.18.78.18.58.28.28.58.58.35 A6.57.16.76.76.86.96.67.26.81 B6.36.46.26.36.46.46.16.46.31 C6.577.16.86.96.86.66.66.79 A4.544.34.64.644.34.74.38 B3.24.33.83.93.74.143.83.85 C2.73.73.34.63.33.74.55.13.86 A6.46.8776.56.56.976.76 B6.27.26.37.56.57.36.27.56.84 C6.77.17.57.86.76.77.57.87.23 A6.26.16.76.166.26.36.66.28 B55.65.75.55.25.765.25.49 C5.55.35.76.16.35.455.75.63 A8.27.67887.57.28.17.7 B7.27.47.47.17.37.77.26.97.28 C6.56.46.87.86.477.37.66.98 A5.16.34.86.1564.86.65.59 B5.44.35.16.25.46.46.15.35.53 C7.77.16.96.677.26.86.36.95 A5.7555.25.24.94.84.95.09 B5.455.355.44.95.455.18 C5.24.84.75.25.25.14.55.24.99 MIXSample 14-Day Surface Resistivity (Lime Cured) (k .cm) COV (%) Reading Locations (Deg.) Std. Dev. Average CPR20 CPR21 10.80.464.23 9.00.616.72 6.60.284.24 4.00.307.43 6.90.253.58 5.80.427.26 7.30.364.98 6.00.8113.38 5.10.091.85 CPR11 CPR12 CPR13 CPR15 CPR16 CPR17 CPR18 090180270090180270 A5.66.366.55.75.95.76.15.98 B5.75.865.665.865.95.85 C5.45.96.26.15.55.76.26.15.89 A8.78.89.88.87.68.89.78.88.88 B8.98.888.28.99.17.68.18.45 C88.36.878.17.46.87.17.44 A5.65.66.16.25.45.55.66.45.8 B5.655.255.555.25.25.21 C6.35.35.25.165.65.25.15.48 A3330.834.234.635.431.934.532.433.4 B36.233.131.435.435.832.131.740.234.5 C33.637.527.827.133.934.729.327.731.5 A7.57.87.67.57.28.187.17.6 B7.67.88.67.57.58.48.48.17.99 C6.87.37.676.66.97.57.17.1 A7.17.76.87.277.17.16.77.09 B7.17.57.37.17.27.37.37.17.24 C7.96.97.17.77.76.877.87.36 A21.220.91920.420.319.219.420.220.1 B18.419.520.320.918.219.72020.619.7 C20.621.120.122.51922.120.622.721.1 A14.716.116.317.115.816.815.815.916.1 B15.617.41515.815.817.515.715.316 C16.116.716.516.216.317.216.716.116.5 A34.629.427.928.233.430.728.729.630.3 B27.927.931.427.530.427.230.32628.6 C2828.43134.928.127.730.634.730.4 A21.322.71923.220.621.319.420.821 B21.624.124.322.221.823.923.522.523 C24.122.126.125.125.12025.923.824 CPR10 22.71.526.69 CPR9 29.81.043.48 CPR8 16.20.251.57 CPR7 20.30.723.54 CPR6 7.20.141.90 CPR5 7.60.445.88 CPR4 33.11.534.64 CPR3 5.50.295.36 CPR2 8.30.748.95 CPR1 5.90.061.09 COV (%) Reading Locations (Deg.) Std. Dev. Average MIXSample 28-Day Surface Resistivity (Lime Cured) (k .cm) 090180270090180270 A16.315.415.416.117.117.115.415.216 B14.713.815.314.714.613.915.313.914.5 C15.713.314.314.215.813.414.114.314.4 A9.59.811.410.79.69.610.611.210.3 B1111.51011.310.711.69.911.210.9 C9.49.69.59.69.59.89.79.49.56 A7.37.57.27.17.37.47.17.17.25 B6.86.66.66.66.86.66.56.66.64 C7.17.577.17.17.47.577.21 A8.69.27.688.99.27.98.68.5 B7.88.89.698.88.89.19.38.9 C8.68.810.37.18.69.29.87.28.7 A7.27.37.27.377.27.27.47.23 B7.27.76.88.27.87.86.987.55 C7.27.98.47.778.88.37.77.88 A8.18.59.69.58.28.49.68.98.85 B8.37.99.28.6989.48.28.58 C8.48.58.98.697.99.18.78.64 A13.110.410.110.812.410.39.910.611 B11.110.91110.910.912.911.61111.3 C1011.410.711.810.111.310.511.310.9 A10.412.610.910.910.910.51010.110.8 B11.412.611.812.711.411.411.412.211.9 C12.911.911.215.514.712.612.315.313.3 A9.79.18.89.4109.19.710.19.49 B9.69.7109.810.19.39.39.59.66 C8.99.78.411.310.59.69.610.79.84 MIXSample 28-Day Surface Resistivity (Lime Cured) (k .cm) COV (%) Reading Locations (Deg.) Std. Dev. Average CPR21 9.70.181.81 CPR20 12.01.2610.52 CPR18 11.00.221.95 CPR17 8.70.141.66 CPR16 7.60.334.30 CPR15 8.70.202.30 CPR13 7.00.344.88 CPR12 10.30.676.53 CPR11 15.00.895.97

PAGE 186

186 Table E-2. Continued. 090180270090180270 A6.576.77.16.47.26.47.16.8 B6.86.47.16.56.56.36.86.56.61 C6.16.97.2766.97.26.96.78 A9.61010.99.9109.610.810.310.1 B9.89.79.399.79.198.99.31 C8.98.87.788.39.37.988.36 A6.26.56.36.86.666.36.56.4 B6.25.85.85.85.95.75.75.85.84 C7.36.36.15.86.765.95.66.21 A48.244.45253.44744.952.650.449.1 B55.953.350.548.157.449.552.148.551.9 C44.648.441.742.544.947.543.840.744.3 A10.511.111.610.610.712.711.41011.1 B11.811.712.310.911.312.312.210.611.6 C10.410.710.110.610.211.110.410.310.5 A9.49.28.89.99.58.88.79.69.24 B9.69.49.49.19.29.69.49.89.44 C10.28.89.310.210.39.19.410.49.71 A36.737.934.934.136.336.235.135.135.8 B35.335.136.436.7343736.337.636.1 C36.43737.140.935.738.33739.137.7 A24.129.22927.527.32927.827.327.7 B26.828.926.527.226.429.426.927.127.4 C29.130.42927.328.328.629.32728.6 A39.83735.934.640.637.13335.136.6 B37.233.839.232.836.43438.734.635.8 C34.83541.545.336.336.541.445.139.5 A28.531.727.430.230.632.225.730.929.7 B29.132.229.729.625.230.631.730.629.8 C35.231.43331.134.130.534.531.732.7 CPR4 CPR5 0.585.26 CPR10 CPR6 CPR7 CPR8 CPR9 30.71.705.54 37.3 27.90.652.32 9.58 1.51 0.10 11.1 1.925.14 9.50.242.52 36.51.032.82 4.66 48.43.877.99 CPR1 6.7 6.20.29 9.30.89 CPR2 CPR3 MIXSample 56-Day Surface Resistivity (Lime Cured) (k .cm) COV (%) Reading Locations (Deg.) Std. Dev. Average 090180270090180270 A20.72020.120.321.519.719.82120.4 B1817.719.618.118.917.819.418.418.5 C20.117.418.918.320.417.217.818.118.5 A10.510.211.711.21010.211.611.210.8 B12.212.912.212.211.712.711.112.212.2 C11.51110.610.210.511.110.79.810.7 A8.18.28.18.48.17.97.98.68.16 B7.57.67.47.57.67.57.37.77.51 C7.78.38.37.87.78.38.67.88.06 A8.68.77.98.48.28.489.18.41 B8.18.39.18.58.588.98.88.53 C8.48.29.37.88.68.58.87.98.44 A8.99.18.99.78.89.19.110.19.21 B9.39.78.610.49.89.88.510.69.59 C8.81010.39.68.81010.49.99.73 A12.112.313.113.41212.412.812.612.6 B12.21212.611.912.812.512.512.112.3 C11.811.712.212.112.112.211.91212 A19.818.217.618.419.918.617.718.618.6 B19.918.619.719.219.119.717.419.419.1 C18.519.118.619.818.719.218.819.819.1 A14.616.215.814.814.715.715.31515.3 B13.815.916.516.214.615.315.815.715.5 C1616.1151516.115.915.515.315.6 A1614.814.715.516.214.715.31615.4 B15.31415.414.114.81414.91414.6 C13.313.713.61513.113.91314.913.8 CPR17 CPR18 CPR12 CPR13 CPR20 CPR21 14.60.79 2.39 5.44 18.90.291.51 15.50.181.14 12.30.29 0.70 9.50.272.79 7.24 7.90.354.42 11.20.81 8.50.06 CPR15 CPR16 CPR11 19.11.095.68 MIXSample 56-Day Surface Resistivity (Lime Cured) (k .cm) COV (%) Reading Locations (Deg.) Std. Dev. Average 090180270090180270 A7.38.37.78.37.28.27.68.57.89 B7.17.37.57.67.17.47.97.57.43 C7.17.37.87.66.67.37.87.67.39 A11.210.911.210.511.210.811.61111.1 B10.1109.99.810.21010.89.210 C10.49.79.712.210.19.89.711.510.4 A8.77.17.68.27.17.16.97.77.55 B6.475.96.76.46.55.56.26.33 C7.57.47.25.86.96.86.85.76.76 A63.85263.261.458.55659.164.659.8 B64.959.46662.756.562.971.960.863.1 C55.760.855.349.754.154.757.151.954.9 A14.916.114.613.71416.315.813.814.9 B16.315.716.114.615.316.215.714.215.5 C13.413.71614.613.314.215.613.614.3 A11.611.610.811.611.710.911.611.411.4 B12.311.510.711.611.611.511.211.311.5 C11.410.511.512.312.510.711.512.811.7 A37.843.138.338.140.240.136.839.739.3 B36.640.142.441.337.441.640.841.540.2 C37.743.24347.443.443.244.64743.7 A35.23833.633.433.736.933.633.834.8 B34.83833.835.135.636.432.63334.9 C34.433.535.133.334.333.535.633.234.1 A42.236.935.836.344.539.338.935.538.7 B35.836.241.236.435.334.741.735.837.1 C36.640.641.44938.440.742.746.642 A31.233.228.43130.732.727.430.730.7 B3030.831.831.530.629.931.931.931.1 C3628.536.335.136.833.736.934.334.7 CPR2 CPR3 CPR4 CPR5 59.34.146.98 10.5 CPR6 CPR7 CPR8 3.68 0.28 7.6 CPR1 6.90.629.02 CPR10 CPR9 0.131.13 32.12.236.93 39.32.496.33 41.12.335.67 34.6 0.535.07 0.431.24 14.90.614.07 11.5 Average MIXSample 91-Day Surface Resistivity (Lime Cured) (k .cm) COV (%) Reading Locations (Deg.) Std. Dev. 090180270090180270 A23.422.621.82322.821.821.122.722.4 B19.518.722.12018.618.620.819.819.8 C21.419.220.419.822.120.220.619.820.4 A11.11112.612.110.810.512.712.411.7 B12.413.111.513.311.911.611.512.912.3 C111111.110.911.110.91110.911 A8.99.18.99.38.99.18.78.68.94 B8.28.28.38.78.28.58.48.38.35 C8.69.19.18.58.49.48.98.68.83 A9.810.19.610.110.410.39.810.510.1 B9.810.510.79.810.710.310.39.810.2 C10.7101110.310.610.111.610.110.6 A12.913.812.214.412.413.21314.513.3 B14.213.913.615.915.614.514.214.614.6 C12.514.114.211.212.314.113.512.813.1 A15.116.317.71715.816.817.716.416.6 B17.616.617.515.817.216.415.914.916.5 C15.616.316.215.916.715.816.11616.1 A31.228.528.73031.429.329.529.429.8 B31.532.230.929.229.330.229.728.930.2 C25.528.228.529.326.628.92729.127.9 A20.420.320.62020.92019.420.320.2 B19.220.619.221.520.819.621.421.120.4 C20.12221.718.920.620.820.220.420.6 A24.725.322.921.922.525.223.222.923.6 B22.222.522.921.422.322.923.42122.3 C25.226.323.524.425.925.923.622.724.7 CPR21 CPR15 CPR16 CPR17 CPR18 11.60.645.53 CPR20 CPR12 CPR13 8.70.313.58 10.30.242.35 13.70.805.84 16.40.281.69 23.51.185.02 29.31.244.23 20.40.180.86 20.91.376.57 MIX CPR11 Sample 91-Day Surface Resistivity (Lime Cured) (k .cm) COV (%) Reading Locations (Deg.) Std. Dev. Average

PAGE 187

187 Table E-2. Continued. 090180270090180270 A8.89.48.69.5119.78.59.29.34 B8.78.59.28.48.68.59.48.58.73 C8.98.510.310.28.68.1109.89.3 A13.416.713.512.312.112.714.312.713.5 B14.412.912.712.312.814.413.212.213.1 C11.415.510.612.412.611.410.910.611.9 A910.18.29.18.38.48.38.58.74 B8.69.28.87.99.399.27.78.71 C8.110.68.56.999.28.47.28.49 A72.575.579.785.670.376.378.679.277.2 B79.278.477.683.488.476.285.88281.4 C82.679.761.862.671.782.567.169.472.2 A25.426.531.325.626.226.127.923.526.6 B23.627.327.631.124.326.628.523.726.6 C21.522.324.222.323.323.123.822.222.8 A16.315.815.11616.315.515.115.315.7 B14.715.415.41514.315.515.415.815.2 C17.614.715.516.91815.315.716.916.3 A41.647.244.244.743.651.640.14144.3 B42.74550.247.743.444.144.747.345.6 C48.747.746.450.245.544.747.651.647.8 A43.644.5443942.348.143.239.443 B44.644.440.241.241.844.141.141.642.4 C41.145.245.443.741.249.743.644.144.3 A45.643.642.642.347.344.641.742.443.8 B42.840.544.23940.839.645.740.341.6 C41.640.945.848.442.844.845.348.644.8 A4041.934.54139.440.735.531.538.1 B37.94041.737.842.242.542.340.240.6 C44.442.547.345.446.942.545.946.545.2 Average 1.613.72 41.33.618.74 CPR2 CPR1 3.76 0.34 9.1 CPR3 CPR4 CPR5 43.4 45.9 8.6 76.9 CPR7 CPR8 CPR9 1.793.90 43.20.952.21 0.141.59 12.80.816.28 5.99 CPR6 25.32.168.52 15.70.573.63 CPR10 MIXSample 182-Day Surface Resistivity (Lime Cured) (k .cm) COV (%) Reading Locations (Deg.) 4.61 Std. Dev. 090180270090180270 A2826.526.125.62925.925.42526.4 B24.322.425.923.623.422.325.623.923.9 C26.322.722.623.726.222.522.923.123.8 A12.111.913.413.511.811.613.713.412.7 B13.315.413.913.614.113.414.214.114 C12.613.311.812.113.412.211.812.112.4 A11.112.110.510.810.41110.210.810.9 B10.611.410.110.710.79.910.110.410.5 C11.112.811.310.61111.210.310.711.1 A14.815.514.115.213.215.28.515.214 B16.516.116.916.116.515.415.916.516.2 C13.415.615.81515.415.416.715.815.4 A20.721.521.224.320.120.620.724.621.7 B24.123.721.426.724.823.320.426.923.9 C20.725.222.121.41822.622.420.721.6 A22.523.924.924.622.424.425.32424 B25.225.123.424.826.725.223.924.324.8 C24.522.823.423.324.523.923.622.723.6 A59.851.159.261.458.355.755.55757.3 B565755.656.355.162.258.255.657 C51.25352.852.650.45451.755.852.7 A34.831.729.330.731.531.9312931.2 B31.132.529.433.332.229.229.631.531.1 C29.63430.127.832.129.731.928.130.4 A42.724.414.123.72112.215.713.420.9 B10.740.340.239.742.143.142.137.637 C46.942.640.242.845.441.340.941.742.7 Average 24.1 CPR13 CPR15 CPR16 CPR17 CPR18 0.44 CPR20 CPR21 0.632.61 33.511.3133.73 55.62.574.61 30.91.43 1.157.56 22.41.295.76 15.2 0.856.53 10.80.322.96 13.0 24.71.506.09 CPR11 CPR12 MIXSample 182-Day Surface Resistivity (Lime Cured) (k .cm) COV (%) Reading Locations (Deg.) Std. Dev. 090180270090180270 A14.313.4109.71211.710.110.311.4 B9.713.412.611.414.29.815.510.712.2 C12.513.29.914.69.31610.414.312.5 A14.714.414.814.313.316.214.514.414.6 B14.712.716.212.113.713.114.212.413.6 C13.412.610.212.313.313.49.912.912.3 A11.238.311.11198.39.78.95 B9.112.39.279.28.76.86.88.64 C9.19.29.87.98.810.310.67.69.16 A83.592.996.310487.182.699.110093.3 B97.98592.882.510290.896.78591.6 C85.295.874.67688.892.475.877.483.3 A34.141.842.430.73640.840.43437.5 B4443.638.243.639.536.735.641.440.3 C36.443.635.734.537.832.838.334.636.7 A22.421.821.323.122.622.421.223.822.3 B20.623.221.52222.522.122.422.122.1 C23.419.922.822.124.521.222.222.222.3 A47.341.933.643.540.743.641.944.542.1 B55.442.340.547.246.54245.647.345.9 C43.346.544.250.140.646.943.852.346 A48.453.443.847.545.95145.146.647.7 B48.251.448.143.639.844.745.741.145.3 C47.849.339.746.450.149.648.747.347.4 A51.855.745.74854.547.353.14650.3 B70.242.550.645.447.746.150.945.349.8 C5259.754.346.848.950.451.153.352.1 A55.856.451.353.255.255.252.653.554.2 B51.852.356.552.351.652.753.452.552.9 C61.455.25763.158.357.257.457.258.4 Average CPR2 CPR3 CPR4 CPR5 CPR6 CPR7 CPR8 38.2 CPR9 50.71.18 CPR10 CPR1 89.45.36 2.96 13.51.178.67 8.90.26 1.90 22.20.150.67 6.00 4.60 0.55 12.0 2.33 55.12.865.19 46.81.292.75 4.96 44.62.184.89 Reading Locations (Deg.) Std. Dev. MIXSample 364-Day Surface Resistivity (Lime Cured) (k .cm) COV (%) 090180270090180270 A32.830.626.932.729.229.427.72829.7 B26.227.330.529.825.82531.127.827.9 C37.227.226.126.932.428.525.128.229 A12.612.515.614.112.912.215.314.713.7 B15.816.71616.415.216.315.316.316 C15.515.913.613.414.215.61313.314.3 A10.411.61111.410.511.210.611.311 B1010.610.210.210.510.910.110.110.3 C11.411.810.810.810.811.211.311.111.2 A20.520.720.320.420.220.42120.420.5 B22.723.723.62224.722.325.922.523.4 C20.321.822.922.62723.725.323.723.4 A29.229.526.735.731.329.728.63330.5 B3834.74640.347.445.735.738.140.7 C34.438.749.843.632.63945.136.940 A29.532.732.931.531.131.329.831.231.3 B35.434.432.432.338.432.734.831.534 C37.939.932.735.734.337.637.333.336.1 A10190.387.792.397.694.989.589.992.9 B87.210284.291.795.288.888.289.590.8 C82.786.284.885.280.283.782.382.483.4 A54.844.644.143.639.141.539.842.243.7 B41.642.444.244.237.342.644.245.242.7 C4846.845.550.247.553.646.244.347.8 A64.169.763.861.567.969.56365.865.7 B64.162.363.862.264.862.767.561.263.6 C73.16863.665.27167.563.965.167.2 Average CPR21 CPR15 CPR16 CPR17 CPR18 14.71.188.01 CPR20 CPR12 CPR13 10.80.444.06 22.41.697.54 37.15.7315.47 33.82.437.18 65.51.812.76 89.14.975.58 44.72.675.98 CPR11 28.90.873.00 Reading Locations (Deg.) MIXSample 364-Day Surface Resistivity (Lime Cured) (k .cm) COV (%) Std. Dev.

PAGE 188

188 Table E-2. Continued. 090180270090180270 A10.812.210.810.513.211.410.510.311.2 B12.112.215.312.211.211.113.311.912.4 C14.810.714.413.81014.111.817.813.4 A18.515.514.114.514.222.114.513.315.8 B13.326.916.414.115.427.517.912.718 C14.31721.520.714.215.712.512.216 A15.89.810.59.28.98.58.49.410.1 B8.17.414.69.211.587.78.69.39 C9.58.410.28.41011.17.78.39.2 A10710895.31219612292.1115107 B104100135109130111112121115 C10910896.896.310510810293.1102 A47.345.868.434.147.841.246.83345.6 B38.752.847.140.937.443.244.54143.2 C39.334.839.837.733.937.937.635.237 A23.622.820.722.223.222.421.224.522.6 B21.222.422.321.822.821.921.923.822.3 C23.724.822.920.923.524.123.220.823 A39.53938.846.638.739.139.445.940.9 B39.542.342.340.738.441.942.241.941.2 C41.745.739.942.740.14540.242.242.2 A46.947.249.851.346.545.849.449.948.4 B47.448.444.651.248.544.745.151.947.7 C47.245.151.451.148.743.54950.748.3 A46.542.744.643.545.245.244.643.244.4 B40.942.845.638.140.841.347.239.642 C41.750.155.545.848.95651.845.849.5 A5557.850.257.255.655.950.856.154.8 B50.354.453.453.651.753.35555.753.4 C55.860.160.857.460.964.863.756.660 CPR2 CPR3 CPR4 CPR5 CPR6 CPR7 CPR8 CPR9 108.26.596.09 7.31 9.60.454.75 8.35 56.13.476.19 1.67 48.10.360.74 22.60.361.61 41.9 8.97 1.11 12.4 10.50 CPR10 16.61.22 4.40 41.40.69 45.33.78 CPR1 MIXSample 455-Day Surface Resistivity (Lime Cured) (k .cm) COV (%) Reading Locations (Deg.) Std. Dev. Average 090180270090180270 A31.333.53228.532.133.329.527.631 B26.826.830.426.326.727.430.725.327.6 C33.928.728.727.431.626.828.425.728.9 A1315.514.813.313.115.214.813.614.2 B14.515.715.116.514.316.415.316.315.5 C14.213.213.815.614.213.314.815.814.4 A11.613.31312.312.412.311.211.512.2 B10.910.911.610.710.510.911.110.810.9 C11.612.110.111.610.912.11110.411.2 A24.423.423.624.223.722.723.722.923.6 B25.326.624.325.226.626.123.224.125.2 C25.825.427.524.125.724.528.126.425.9 A27.231.128.233.231.432.827.133.230.5 B35.144.534.738.143.837.933.138.638.2 C27.333.939.632.530.830.137.834.433.3 A31.434.333.533.233.233.834.83233.3 B34.933.133.333.536.433.33334.134 C33.633.231.933.7343331.933.233.1 A10791.198.29998.192.394.310097.5 B91.198.697.592.610097.192.391.595.1 C83.289.690.797.793.188.992.492.391 A46.646.745.545.146.548.245.644.646.1 B43.446.648.345.846.349.448.344.346.6 C42.746.242.94241.645.744.843.343.7 A69.269.172.170.468.971.866.973.270.2 B59.664.264.262.566.16070.164.463.9 C71.366.564.471.472.362.970.168.868.5 1.39 67.53.264.83 94.53.313.50 45.4 24.91.214.84 1.563.44 34.03.9011.46 33.40.46 4.96 11.50.675.82 CPR12 CPR13 14.70.73 CPR20 CPR21 CPR15 CPR16 CPR17 CPR18 1.735.92 29.1 CPR11 MIXSample 455-Day Surface Resistivity (Lime Cured) (k .cm) COV (%) Reading Locations (Deg.) Std. Dev. Average 090180270090180270 A12.211.810.511.39.711.29.512.411.1 B9.77.21211.99.29.611.111.610.3 C9.210.110.610.38.810.11010.69.96 A12.113.41413.31312.914.613.213.3 B14.712.615.818.312.712.314.816.214.7 C14.614.611.812.818.311.512.711.913.5 A8.88.28.78.88.78.58.78.98.66 B9.28.27.17.28.87.86.87.37.8 C8.79.487.58.3107.77.88.43 A83.711598.785.284.710192.586.993.5 B95.49710390.299.110210989.298.1 C87.886.673.994.190.186.383.694.687.1 A36.932.940.637.937.734.641.838.837.7 B37.935.640.440.838.539.8464240.1 C33.636.232.837.234.536.835.23535.2 A25.626.823.223.525.527.122.324.624.8 B22.324.424.923.922.624.223.124.423.7 C26.42624.121.926.526.424.722.324.8 A39.743.338.939.340.142.839.938.840.4 B38.641.442.640.541.942.139.339.540.7 C39.541.337.839.836.144.241.14941.1 A5151.651.94749.452.95349.550.8 B54.2524750.353.754.446.449.450.9 C50.552.754.249.849.752.253.148.651.4 A45.651.24849.853.350.447.945.348.9 B44.645.248.345.345.144.951.448.846.7 C51.951.355.758.64950.254.658.553.7 A60.360.151.957.561.563.5546158.7 B60.159.960.26058.360.164.569.461.6 C70.668.671.869.170.561.564.166.867.9 CPR10 CPR6 CPR7 CPR8 CPR9 CPR2 CPR3 5.37 CPR4 CPR5 13.80.73 2.48 92.95.49 0.622.55 37.6 CPR1 5.48 0.57 10.4 5.30 8.30.45 4.687.47 0.380.92 0.290.57 3.597.21 62.7 5.91 40.7 51.0 49.8 6.59 24.4 MIXSample 546-Day Surface Resistivity (Lime Cured) (k .cm) COV (%) Reading Locations (Deg.) Std. Dev. Average 090180270090180270 A33.830.23031.431.232.531.134.331.8 B2827.33031.127.926.231.929.229 C372930.634.331.629.324.430.930.9 A13.212.515.915.613.112.71514.414.1 B14.916.114.816.214.616.314.216.215.4 C14.313.51312.814.414.414.410.313.4 A16.215.913.313.91416.411.511.214.1 B14.413.213.512.211.310.710.112.312.2 C11.618.314.312.811.212.712.311.213.1 A26.523.724.626.626.52424.42324.9 B27.329.628.629.329.227.53025.428.4 C26.725.225.626.726.228.125.524.726.1 A32.13833.339.835.638.133.53735.9 B38.542.254.148.445.254.850.745.947.5 C34.743.54937.836.544.152.133.241.4 A31.132.53331.533.234.332.63132.4 B35.735.634.133.739.135.633.837.235.6 C32.64133.934.736.233.833.131.634.6 A11498.799.6109114104106106106 B96.892.410293.310211298.497.999.3 C10899.594.210310310893.697.1101 A47.448.543.142.546.345.148.44645.9 B44.741.943.247.144.644.346.248.545.1 C47.541.840.338.842.449.143.144.243.4 A81.183.574.879.576.378.772.573.877.5 B72.569.574.171.472.370.573.467.271.4 C84.977.275.375.279.379.772.678.777.9 CPR13 CPR20 CPR21 CPR15 CPR16 CPR17 CPR18 14.31.037.23 CPR12 13.10.927.02 26.51.756.63 41.65.7813.89 34.21.644.79 4.84 102.13.753.67 44.81.282.85 CPR11 75.63.66 30.61.464.78 MIXSample 546-Day Surface Resistivity (Lime Cured) (k .cm) COV (%) Reading Locations (Deg.) Std. Dev. Average

PAGE 189

189 Table E-3. SR (Moist Cured) Testing Results. 090180270090180270 A66.16.66.866.26.87.16.5 B5.95.25.965.95.45.965.8 C6.45.96.95.76.366.25.66.1 A8.89.29.48.78.19.69.28.89.0 B7.88.17.987.98.18.18.18.0 C7.78.98.78.87.59.38.98.78.6 A5.75.45.35.55.15.45.15.65.4 B5.76.15.96.25.75.95.96.15.9 C5.55.25.54.95.45.15.555.3 A27.724.125.324.627.223.625.124.625.3 B24.225.12526.625.325.824.727.625.5 C24.125.928.828.124.723.629.126.926.4 A6.26.26.16.25.966.56.16.2 B6.36.55.96.56.16.566.86.3 C6.26.366.56.36.26.66.86.4 A5.95.75.76.15.965.26.25.8 B5.85.95.75.75.865.55.95.8 C6.26.65.95.96.26.85.76.26.2 A16.516.114.918.516.515.317.219.416.8 B16.41716.91516.316.515.81716.4 C17.616.616.316.816.916.2161716.7 A1514.414.614.614.814.314.714.214.6 B14.414.813.913.51415.113.613.414.1 C11.813.113.113.312.91313.312.412.9 A38.740.939.336.136.941.339.43538.5 B35.43642.43534.936.642.135.437.2 C41.240.339.238.84343.539.937.640.4 A36.434.136.838.836.435.438.137.436.7 B34.73537.234.434.437.536.133.935.4 C3132.732.830.531.430.733.630.231.6 MIXSample 14-Day Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) (k .cm) COV (%) Reading Locations (Deg.) Average Std. Dev. CPR1 6.10.345.52 CPR2 8.50.495.75 CPR3 5.50.366.49 CPR4 25.70.592.29 CPR5 6.30.111.81 CPR6 5.90.223.67 CPR7 16.60.231.36 CPR8 13.80.886.37 CPR9 38.71.624.19 CPR10 34.62.637.62 090180270090180270 A13.214.414.113.613.414.41413.513.8 B14.913.51317.114.31414.815.414.6 C11.113.39.911.210.91310.310.911.3 A8.67.97.68.18.57.98.28.28.13 B8.48.79.19.38.67.88.38.98.64 C7.27.67.67.67.47.17.67.57.45 A6.76.66.65.96.46.56.45.66.34 B5.76.36.665.95.96.56.36.15 C5.36.15.95.85.875.96.76.06 A000000000 B000000000 C000000000 A8.28.67.38.188.478.17.96 B7.56.16.66.27.76.46.56.16.64 C7.67.47.66.77.37.46.97.97.35 A000000000 B000000000 C000000000 A000000000 B000000000 C000000000 A000000000 B000000000 C000000000 A000000000 B000000000 C000000000 CPR21 0.00.000.00 CPR20 0.00.000.00 CPR18 0.00.000.00 CPR17 0.00.000.00 CPR16 7.30.669.06 CPR15 0.00.000.00 CPR13 6.20.142.27 CPR12 8.10.607.38 CPR11 13.31.7212.98 MIXSample 14-Day Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) (k .cm) COV (%) Reading Locations (Deg.) Average Std. Dev. 090180270090180270 A6.37.27.486.16.77.88.17.2 B6.36.276.66.166.96.66.46 C7.46.97.26.56.77.46.86.56.93 A9.39.810.51099.510.610.19.85 B98.99.298.88.79.499 C8.910.39.99.78.910.710.29.79.79 A5.55.85.75.95.45.75.45.85.65 B6.166.86.56.16.26.76.66.38 C5.95.75.85.35.95.65.75.55.68 A46.44444.344.448.44143.744.244.6 B45.647.54447.542.34643.944.945.2 C47.440.146.64641.638.649.347.844.7 A8.27.67.98.37.97.987.87.95 B8.18.27.68.28.38.27.58.48.06 C88.48.39888.28.98.35 A7.47.16.87.27.26.86.77.17.04 B6.87.16.976.77.36.76.86.91 C7.48.27.27.57.28.37.17.27.51 A28.225.429.831.428.628.531.831.629.4 B28.528.628.725.929.828.4282728.1 C31.627.227.629.829.626.527.728.928.6 A25.423.825.625.626.224.525.224.925.2 B24.327.323.623.423.525.423.723.624.4 C24.22323.92323.921.923.823.623.4 A33.436.632.432.13535.533.732.733.9 B27.534.532.633.229.233.934.432.732.3 C36.334.935.532.534.234.634.631.634.3 A35.933.632.733.932.233.531.435.233.6 B33.632.732.934.232.23631.533.133.3 C29.528.730.225.73025.530.826.828.4 33.51.083.23 31.72.909.13 28.70.662.28 24.30.873.58 8.10.212.54 7.20.324.42 44.80.350.79 9.50.474.96 5.90.416.98 5.43 0.37 6.9 CPR5 CPR10 CPR1 CPR8 CPR9 CPR2 CPR3 CPR6 CPR7 CPR4 MIXSample 28-Day Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) (k .cm) COV (%) Reading Locations (Deg.) Average Std. Dev. 090180270090180270 A19.318.218.520.518.718.517.720.319 B1818.91816.817.819.518.117.118 C15.318.71314.815.217.71314.715.3 A10.18.87.310.19.29.27.910.49.13 B9.48.8109.29.69.18.39.99.29 C8.28.48.57.98.17.98.57.98.18 A6.86.86.566.86.76.56.36.55 B6.76.56.46.56.26.46.86.36.48 C5.96.46.17.35.96.56.37.36.46 A9.37.788.17.67.67.17.97.91 B97.58.27.68.77.28.47.68.03 C87.587.2107.67.67.37.9 A8.59.27.27.58.88.97.47.18.08 B8.16.76.76.38.26.46.96.36.95 C8.88.27.97.98.687.87.98.14 A11.510.81312.911.510.411.512.711.8 B9.69.910.510.89.61010.110.810.2 C12.512.913.612.212.21313.511.712.7 A14.814.814.613.814.614.815.614.814.7 B13.614.613.514.913.813.613.213.713.9 C12.613.713.61412.813.712.913.613.4 A12.312.81414.112.712.913.913.113.2 B14.113.412.611.813.412.913.512.113 C1313.214.112.214.112.813.412.713.2 A12.917.415.71412.713.511.813.814 B13.613.610.711.811.211.711.511.211.9 C14.613.110.912.61512.311.911.712.8 1.048.05 14.00.694.93 13.10.131.03 0.678.66 11.61.2911.13 0.050.73 7.90.070.87 1.9010.92 8.90.606.78 CPR21 CPR17 CPR18 17.4 6.5 7.7 12.9 CPR20 CPR15 CPR16 CPR11 CPR12 CPR13 MIXSample 28-Day Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) (k .cm) COV (%) Reading Locations (Deg.) Average Std. Dev.

PAGE 190

190 Table E-3. Continued. 090180270090180270 A7.47.37.98.87.37.588.87.88 B6.66.77.17.36.86.577.26.9 C8.47.58.67.27.97.38.67.37.85 A10.21111.1119.71010.610.810.6 B9.69.69.89.49.79.49.99.69.63 C9.610.810.3109.711.110.110.310.2 A5.75.95.85.85.65.85.765.79 B6.86.6776.46.5776.79 C6.25.96.45.96.366.266.11 A68.358.16263.868.557.163.765.163.3 B62.464.454.86761.265.463.269.263.5 C57.163.770.464.560.359.872.569.764.8 A11.612.812.613.411.912.21212.412.4 B13.512.511.912.7131311.812.612.6 C12.611.612.713.212.213.212.413.712.7 A9.69.49.310.19.89.69.29.69.58 B9.210.199.49.39.39.49.19.35 C9.710.79.99.79.810.79.210.19.98 A38.637.341.242.237.934.945.44340.1 B34.234.34137.837.44039.336.337.5 C4138.637.642.541.234.936.638.938.9 A35.232.633.834.63734.535.633.634.6 B32.734.131.532.332.933.132.132.932.7 C30.932.230.331.332.932.934.831.632.1 A37.741.439.23538.640.940.736.438.7 B35.438.342.737.835.138.539.236.938 C41.239.738.436.739.44649.638.641.2 A37.738.539.638.637.93937.341.638.8 B38.8433939.838.942.238.537.939.8 C36.333.135.831.537.132.434.532.234.1 CPR10 37.63.028.04 CPR9 39.31.684.28 CPR8 33.11.313.94 CPR7 38.81.263.26 CPR6 9.60.323.29 CPR5 12.60.181.41 CPR4 63.80.791.24 CPR3 6.20.518.19 CPR2 10.10.474.64 CPR1 7.50.567.37 MIXSample 56-Day Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) (k .cm) COV (%) Reading Locations (Deg.) Average Std. Dev. 090180270090180270 A21.522.221.220.522.422.122.619.821.5 B22.523.520.925.723.622.720.226.523.2 C17.620.7151717.821.414.717.317.7 A1010.89.611.110.49.69.111.110.2 B10.29.49.210.810.49.610.910.110.1 C98.49.18.38.98.598.78.74 A7.87.87.58.16.887.78.27.74 B7.37.17.47.17.47.17.77.47.31 C7.47.387.48.37.98.27.67.76 A8.68.98.89.48.69.1898.8 B9.898.899.78.48.88.99.05 C8.88.698.18.88.598.28.63 A8.112.79.811.311.112.610.811.311 B11.18.910.18.711.399.89.19.75 C11.910.211.210.911.710.310.811.111 A16.715.717.317.616.215.817.817.516.8 B13.512.914.213.5131314.113.413.5 C16.917.418.415.616.611.518.41616.4 A1817.414.616.518.213.519.115.716.6 B13.714.813.617.814.317.517.315.715.6 C16.116.81717.218.715.918.116.717.1 A11.416.511.411.315.516.811.216.813.9 B11.816.111.315.211.216.316.913.714.1 C16.916.816.61816.615.716.716.116.7 A15.317.615.516.317.217.815.616.116.4 B16.315.115.614.81515.31614.815.4 C17.717.516.117.416.917.51616.917 20.82.8313.59 9.70.818.42 7.60.253.33 8.80.212.42 10.60.716.76 15.51.8311.76 16.40.764.61 14.91.5710.56 CPR21 16.30.835.11 CPR16 CPR17 CPR18 CPR20 CPR11 CPR12 CPR13 CPR15 MIXSample 56-Day Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) (k .cm) COV (%) Reading Locations (Deg.) Average Std. Dev. 090180270090180270 A6.47.57.98.48.17.18.48.67.8 B7.37.37.47.77.57.37.37.67.43 C8.97.997.78.87.78.37.68.24 A10.712.111.510.910.311.311.111.711.2 B9.210.81110.410.511.110.810.510.5 C10.410.810.910.410.110.710.610.910.6 A6.36.26.66.26.46.46.26.76.38 B7.17.17.17.56.977.27.27.14 C6.76.26.76.26.55.976.16.41 A79.674.977.7789272.579.978.179.1 B70.377788171.375.576.578.976.1 C65.581.488.179.273.679.587.875.778.9 A17.21718201617.918.718.217.9 B18.72017.417.718.419.817.218.418.5 C1818.31920.818.119.81920.619.2 A1312.212.112.213.11211.612.512.3 B1212.81211.91212.911.711.912.2 C1314.613.313.713.514.412.613.313.6 A43.938.445.645.942.438.642.148.443.2 B41.138.640.836.940.140.638.237.139.2 C43.938.33841.540.837.638.739.839.8 A43.639.642.338.743.541.739.439.241 B38.438.238.137.338.344.635.138.538.6 C36.636.538.537.233.938.438.437.437.1 A38.135.536.137.84145.838.837.138.8 B3741.838.636.834.84039.235.838 C42.142.639.236.84140.339.537.439.9 A4543.847.246.547.145.345.546.145.8 B42.947.141.642.542.648.347.744.944.7 C40.939.441.135.341.241.141.238.839.9 38.90.942.41 43.53.167.26 40.72.145.25 38.91.965.05 18.50.663.59 12.70.765.99 78.01.682.16 10.80.373.39 6.60.436.47 5.20 0.41 7.8 CPR5 CPR10 CPR1 CPR8 CPR9 CPR2 CPR3 CPR6 CPR7 CPR4 MIXSample 91-Day Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) (k .cm) COV (%) Reading Locations (Deg.) Average Std. Dev. 090180270090180270 A25.823.224.522.324.824.424.923.324.2 B25.422.822.626.524.723.823.625.924.4 C18.321.215.41918.624.115.718.618.9 A11108.410.811.110.18.410.710.1 B10.91111.611.511.110.711.911.111.2 C09.69.29.79.79.699.58.29 A8.58.48.87.78.48.58.27.78.28 B7.88.588.58.487.98.18.15 C7.88.58.47.68.18.48.58.38.2 A12.110.48.99.69.49.87.59.89.69 B11.615.38.78.811.911.39.38.710.7 C9.89.79.39.28.810.110.1109.63 A17.718.213.415.818.118.513.715.516.4 B16.613.113.513.314.913.313.312.313.8 C16.414.413.516.117.116.616.815.415.8 A20.821.423.223.320.821.322.523.222.1 B1818.119.417.618.317.319.617.918.3 C2121.323.120.721.622.324.120.721.9 A36.539.637.136.835.94036.236.437.3 B34.535.235.137.53434.735.137.235.4 C34.335.836.336.934.735.734.936.635.7 A21.421.924.724.222.422.124.92323.1 B24.223.924.820.52423.223.421.923.2 C20.820.722.623.821.821.223.321.922 A2421.120.221.223.120.72221.421.7 B19.618.617.620.520.319.118.419.719.2 C17.519.619.820.118.419.61820.519.2 1.457.22 36.11.042.87 22.80.672.92 1.358.83 20.72.1310.27 0.060.77 10.00.606.03 3.1313.93 9.91.4815.01 CPR21 CPR17 CPR18 22.5 8.2 15.3 20.0 CPR20 CPR15 CPR16 CPR11 CPR12 CPR13 MIXSample 91-Day Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) (k .cm) COV (%) Reading Locations (Deg.) Average Std. Dev.

PAGE 191

191 Table E-3. Continued. 090180270090180270 A8.37.89.79.48.18.910.410.39.11 B8.78.58.98.77.78.79.68.38.64 C9.48.910.89.49.49.79.89.79.64 A11.112.612.912.411.312.512.611.812.2 B11.510.411.211.110.910.810.811.111 C1112.711.911.910.612.512.111.911.8 A6.56.76.86.56.36.86.66.76.61 B7.77.87.68.287.57.47.37.69 C777.76.86.777.46.87.05 A89.179.780.277.588.476.181.177.381.2 B75.78479.78771.178.677.486.980.1 C72.970.299.177.278.574.497.687.282.1 A2727.327.626.826.926.329.23027.6 B29.231.227.328.328.830.92828.629 C27.429.829.131.827.127.828.331.929.2 A17.917.516.718.218.417.816.618.517.7 B1717.217.218.616.81817.418.617.6 C19.222.318.218.719.521.619.718.619.7 A45.743.145.64344.83944.439.543.1 B4137.542.139.538.441.142.739.440.2 C4239.240.640.240.639.341.241.240.5 A50.744.947.94845.84748.447.447.5 B4449.643.842.744.255.543.648.546.5 C44.341.448.143.244.146.144.445.344.6 A42.346.941.741.438.748.742.439.242.7 B39.142.247.341.235.642.847.241.242.1 C44.751.444.741.447.654.441.341.345.9 A58.259.260.659.55559.361.16259.4 B55.963575953.362.756.356.958 C55.548.552.851.456.950.456.746.752.4 CPR7 CPR8 CPR9 CPR10 81.11.041.29 CPR6 28.60.842.95 18.31.206.54 CPR1 7.10.547.60 11.70.615.21 5.48 0.50 9.1 41.31.603.88 46.21.473.18 43.52.034.67 56.63.716.56 CPR2 CPR3 CPR4 CPR5 MIXSample 182-Day Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) (k .cm) COV (%) Reading Locations (Deg.) Average Std. Dev. 090180270090180270 A25.527.627.723.723.926.12724.925.8 B27.927.925.331.227.328.225.132.328.2 C21.825.418.420.821.725.519.120.821.7 A13.410.310.612.311.611.110.412.311.5 B12.310.911.51110.910.611.911.511.3 C10.59.89.69.710.99.4109.49.91 A9.28.69.28.28.99.19.38.28.84 B8.68.38.89.28.38.79.18.88.73 C7.68.88.38.47.88.88.29.48.41 A15.916.614.917.315.516.814.917.316.2 B19.517.117.617.31916.516.816.917.6 C16.516.716.315.717.11616.415.616.3 A25.827.921.222.126.127.719.92224.1 B23.418.619.117.523.218.41917.419.6 C24.221.520.521.823.719.722.822.122 A29.830.929.832.730.627.431.332.230.6 B25.92426.224.823.424.924.724.224.8 C29.93131.430.429.23032.829.430.5 A63.867.965.562.157.861.460.959.862.4 B55.26261.354.85264.86065.659.5 C64.259.660.864.360.361.864.867.462.9 A29.431.234.631.231.529.631.633.431.6 B35.538.332.431.634.73531.32833.4 C33.231.634.136.232.830.835.232.133.3 A45.245.339.441.14240.342.243.942.4 B45.844.641.840.638.73943.341.241.9 C6740.236.437.342.938.23637.642 CPR21 CPR16 CPR17 CPR18 CPR20 CPR11 CPR12 CPR13 CPR15 25.23.2712.97 10.90.877.98 8.70.222.54 16.70.794.76 21.92.2610.32 28.63.3411.68 42.10.300.71 61.61.863.02 32.71.003.07 MIXSample 182-Day Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) (k .cm) COV (%) Reading Locations (Deg.) Average Std. Dev. 090180270090180270 A108.79.711.88.98.710.911.410 B8.97.59.79.58.88.18.89.78.88 C9.810.310.89.210.39.59.89.39.88 A11.713.613.812.812.513.714.212.813.1 B11.711.31211.312.311.211.611.811.7 C11.614.113.112.711.613.91313.412.9 A698.37.168.97.37.67.53 B7.58.28.66.68.48.76.97.27.76 C8.16.46.18.65.94.95.94.86.34 A95.275.989.292.397.779.792.687.188.7 B91.689.486.395.585.69387.596.490.7 C81.497.695.597.881.284.289.889.689.6 A38.329.125.839.536.934.928.534.233.4 B3531.244.334.638.436.733.63335.9 C34.639.935.43333.233.833.642.335.7 A20.123.722.522.823.721.620.222.222.1 B23.722.821.923.324.424.522.122.923.2 C24.527.826.627.624.625.424.724.125.7 A4439.341.638.246.541.742.148.342.7 B43.349.340.738.740.540.940.24041.7 C43.633.940.842.445.541.242.744.341.8 A66.357.557.858.956.356.960.257.959 B52.558.753.856.458.360.55356.156.2 C53.65757.2515451.356.655.354.5 A57.464.864.251.955.652.550.349.855.8 B6257.462.162.754.959.878.653.461.4 C69.268.963.359.861.358.962.55862.7 A8790.987.18886.588.474.986.786.2 B92.782.360.884.970.510482.299.484.6 C83.8879272.397.682.383.783.585.3 85.30.820.96 3.67 56.52.264.00 6.11 23.71.827.71 1.33 CPR1 89.70.981.09 6.48 0.62 9.6 6.40 7.20.76 CPR10 10.59 12.60.80 35.01.38 42.10.56 60.0 3.94 CPR6 CPR7 CPR8 CPR9 CPR2 CPR3 CPR4 CPR5 MIXSample 364-Day Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) (k .cm) COV (%) Reading Locations (Deg.) Average Std. Dev. 090180270090180270 A36.734.235.435.632.534.835.230.834.4 B33.131.332.634.732.931.13236.933.1 C28.527.725.225.326.830.524.724.326.6 A13.411.810.713.11311.810.614.212.3 B12.412.61413.512.512.813.714.113.2 C12.71111.41111.11112.211.411.5 A9.99.79.58.61010.19.58.79.5 B99.29.610.19.49.29.79.29.43 C8.29.38.910.18.49.18.810.59.16 A25.923.821.225.925.723.81924.623.7 B26.223.624.521.526.522.724.722.624 C22.822.121.921.621.722.922.821.722.2 A30.139.626.828.834.140.328.230.232.3 B31.334.226.325.828.627.825.524.728 C29.125.228.529.231.928.627.128.328.5 A29.334.240.243.438.636.838.136.837.2 B29.428.733.12827.327.630.728.429.2 C31.836.536.232.733.732.136.532.534 A94.196.310693.998.996.210010198.2 B88.292.490.391.293.890.188.693.191 C90.397.790.592.49695.392.691.893.3 A38.63736.54535.439.841.343.339.6 B44.443.245.536.641.844.442.943.242.8 C47.24344.844.742.642.443.144.144 A82.372.471.870.579.566.46866.172.1 B68.267.164.862.969.162.268.165.165.9 C6259.558.664.760.459.559.164.461 2.265.35 33.44.0412.09 66.45.568.38 94.23.693.92 42.1 23.30.994.26 29.62.327.86 CPR21 31.44.1613.26 12.30.866.99 9.40.181.89 CPR16 CPR17 CPR18 CPR20 CPR11 CPR12 CPR13 CPR15 MIXSample 364-Day Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) (k .cm) COV (%) Reading Locations (Deg.) Average Std. Dev.

PAGE 192

192 Table E-3. Continued. 090180270090180270 A11.310.812.512.6111013.312.511.8 B10.19.810.410.29.89.810.410.910.2 C11.911.613.110.812.211.812.510.711.8 A14.61616.21614.416.416.415.915.7 B13.813.313.314.213.113.71413.313.6 C12.85.914.814.613.91615.115.213.5 A8.29.38.79.38.19.59.610.19.1 B9.79.79.710.49.79.810.210.49.95 C9.599.88.99.28.810.199.29 A11698.211910811998.2112113110 B111112106115115122114117114 C96.4103132120105101127113112 A44.444.947.646.34345.647.445.445.6 B47.954.145.644.347.648.846.54447.4 C49.745.450.852.646.346.247.653.849.1 A25.827.525.827.826.929.426.928.627.3 B25.625.225.830.82722.525.830.226.6 C26.326.627.227.12725.827.526.326.7 A50.652.450.647.948.950.349.746.149.6 B45.840.744.747.145.341.74547.844.8 C47.947.744.145.447.547.444.744.546.2 A64.258.861.857.260.657.460.761.260.2 B60.266.567.261.562.767.668.161.864.5 C47.451.65059.855.651.955.761.454.2 A49.547.650.856.851.347.853.356.651.7 B45.548.354.449.847.54954.249.949.8 C54.85052.854.351.450.153.257.253 A82.885.988.284.580.385.684.886.284.8 B76.38584.392.376.785.879.893.784.2 C80.272.383.676.381.577.187.274.979.1 CPR10 8.79 9.40.454.73 82.73.123.77 46.82.475.28 59.65.178.66 1.56 51.51.593.08 1.743.67 26.90.391.45 47.3 CPR8 CPR9 112.11.75 CPR4 CPR5 CPR6 CPR7 CPR2 CPR3 CPR1 8.28 0.93 11.3 14.31.26 Reading Locations (Deg.) Average Std. Dev. MIXSample 455-Day Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) (k .cm) COV (%) 090180270090180270 A36.434.137.535.735.535.636.737.736.2 B37.54133.135.737.54233.935.737.1 C28.627.324.535.229.827.324.734.529 A13.812.711.213.713.912.212.113.812.9 B13.112.913.714.513.112.714.614.313.6 C12.511.911.712.412.11212.112.512.2 A11.211.611.310.811.911.711.61111.4 B10.610.610.510.610.911.110.511.110.7 C9.911.91110.79.711.310.811.510.9 A29.125.620.927.127.824.918.428.125.2 B32.322.123.822.226.425.625.522.825.1 C26.921.623.223.123.522.624.522.323.5 A42.748.334.640.548.94935.435.341.8 B37.335.832.429.534.835.235.730.833.9 C38.432.935.63640.535.333.834.635.9 A39.833.838.236.533.833.736.235.836 B36.328.529.626.425.23031.42829.4 C3432.333.832.934.834.237.535.134.3 A10811410110492.11151030.191.9 B89.686.788.59391.391.591.794.490.8 C10885.485.710492.998.495.692.995.3 A3742.936.646.936.839.938.742.440.2 B47.539.542.232.542.539.641.232.439.7 C44.641.239.242.537.837.441.841.740.8 A83.271.469.570.476.768.275.570.273.1 B7770.370.569.972.775.269.773.872.4 C71.272.264.466.562.261.861.765.765.7 CPR11 CPR12 CPR13 CPR20 CPR15 CPR16 CPR17 CPR18 34.14.4212.97 12.90.735.67 11.00.353.16 24.60.984.00 37.24.1211.06 33.23.4110.25 92.72.332.51 40.20.551.37 70.44.095.81 CPR21 Average Std. Dev. Reading Locations (Deg.) MIXSample 455-Day Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) (k .cm) COV (%) 090180270090180270 A10.41211.710.110.311.311.69.410.9 B9.510.310.299.710.6109.49.84 C1110.112.111.211.310.312.110.311.1 A13.814.215.214.913.514.81614.814.7 B13.112.6131313.612.612.812.412.9 C12.913.813.515.413.714.31415.714.2 A7.78.58.18.77.88.88.48.98.36 B9.49.39.69.59.39.29.79.79.46 C8.88.798.68.88.698.58.75 A113107103102117110106102108 B10411410210910211799.6107107 C94.111111993.498.211211895.5105 A44.742.44843.545.443.844.342.144.3 B44.844.844.243.845.146.346.146.545.2 C43.151.246.943.745.452.545.946.146.9 A28.128.531.728.729.330.230.830.529.7 B27.825.227.331.328.626.527.531.628.2 C26.826.527.6292727.127.529.127.6 A47.344.147.248.747.341.745.248.146.2 B43.245.740.337.143.838.841.240.541.3 C44.543.142.843.543.540.243.644.743.2 A64.461.163.462.764.462.561.360.962.6 B66.668.374.76768.169.672.658.168.1 C61.159.259.574.271.372.359.960.564.8 A55.655.95351.955.4645453.755.4 B49.653.657.852.548.75455.554.853.3 C57.56059.553.856.462.559.155.858.1 A91.794.283.892.887.79590.993.791.2 B87.194.193.110786.496.192.110695.3 C89.978.588.987.380.882.981.285.284.3 106.51.231.15 55.62.394.29 90.35.536.13 43.62.465.64 65.22.794.28 1.302.87 28.51.103.87 45.4 CPR1 6.14 0.65 10.6 13.90.916.55 8.90.566.30 CPR2 CPR3 CPR4 CPR5 CPR10 CPR6 CPR7 CPR8 CPR9 MIXSample 546-Day Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) (k .cm) COV (%) Reading Locations (Deg.) Average Std. Dev. 090180270090180270 A33.538.343.336.834.535.442.935.337.5 B3829.236.640.737.532.434.839.136 C2935.72827.330.836.426.229.730.4 A11.513.612.812.813.314.911.512.212.8 B12.111.61111.113.61110.611.611.6 C13.413.614.413.814.613.516.314.714.3 A11.311.511.710.610.611.211.710.411.1 B10.610.71111.410.610.710.81110.9 C10.511.410.41110.510.811.310.110.8 A26.727.822.830.526.227.522.930.826.9 B33.331.529.627.433.23130.427.930.5 C26.827.229.328.528.726.728.427.727.9 A46.846.535.736.44549.235.33641.4 B36.732.43637.938.137.235.838.536.6 C3535.332.536.339.734.934.235.135.4 A38.143.145.841.342.74144.545.342.7 B3537.638.136.136.339.140.236.337.3 C41.732.332.938.939.340.244.141.238.8 A127126128121139139126113127 B109114114116109113110118113 C110119125114119114121117117 A44.846.748.751.844.645.250.951.448 B53.555.153.442.356.953.752.444.451.5 C50.147.248.953.250.347.152.552.850.3 A10385.393.487.110288.489.489.392.3 B8786.686.593.286.783.982.490.887.1 C77.387.874.888.277.278.277.283.580.5 86.65.886.79 119.27.436.23 49.91.753.51 37.83.178.39 39.62.787.02 0.191.78 28.51.886.60 3.7610.84 12.91.3610.53 CPR11 CPR12 CPR13 34.6 10.9 CPR21 CPR15 CPR16 CPR17 CPR18 CPR20 MIXSample 546-Day Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) (k .cm) COV (%) Reading Locations (Deg.) Average Std. Dev.

PAGE 193

193 APPENDIX F REGRESSION FIT OF CONDUCTIVITY AND LONG-TERM DIFFUSION TESTS The results of the short-term test RCP and SR were compared to the Bulk Diffusion test results. Bulk Diffusion test (independent variab le) results after a 1 and 3 years of chloride exposure period were used as a benchmark to evaluate the conductiv ity tests (dependent variable) at different concrete ag es. It was found that a modified linear regression (Equation F-2) expressed as a power function provi ded the best representation of the trends. Other researchers (Hooton, Thomas and Stanish 2001) have also found this to be true in their work. The scatter plots of the data (APPENDIX G) showed that the relationship of the test results followed an increasing rate and variability around the trend as the dependent variable increases. This behavior can be simulated by the use of a power function. Therefore, the dependent (y-axis) and independent (x-axis) variable of the general linear regression equation (Equation F-1) can be modified as followed: b mx y (F-1) b m x y ) log( ) log( b x ym ) log( ) log( b mx y 10 max y (F-2) where: y is the dependent variable (electrical tests); x is the independent variable (diffusion tests); m is the slope of the linear regression analysis; b is the intersect to the y-axis of the linear regression analysis; a is 10b. Figure F-1 and Figure F-2 show the effec tiveness of the modified linear regression model assumption for some of the tests. The modified axis data tend to follow the linear trend. Moreover, the pattern of residuals ( yi-yi_pred ; where: yi are the experimental dependent variables and yi_pred are the dependent variables from the regr ession analysis) showed homogeneous error variances across the independent va riable axis (constant variance).

PAGE 194

194 RCP (91 Days) vs. 364-Day BD y = 0.936x + 2.733 R2 = 0.802 0 1 2 3 4 5 00.511.5 Log(BD(x10-12) (m2/s))Log(RCP (Coul.)) RCP (91 Days) vs. 364-Day BD -0.8 -0.4 0 0.4 0.8 00.511.5 Log(BD(x10-12) (m2/s))Residual (yi-yi_pred) SR(Moist) (91 Da y s) vs. 364-Da y BD y = 0.848x 1.787 R2 = 0.787 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 00.511.5 Log(BD(x10-12) (m2/s))Log(SR (1/(kOhm-cm)) ) SR(Moist) (91 Da y s) vs. 364-Da y BD -0.8 -0.4 0 0.4 0.8 00.511.5 Log(BD(x10-12) (m2/s))Residual (yi-yi_pred) SR(Lime) (91 Da y s) vs. 364-Da y BD y = 0.803x 1.725 R2 = 0.840 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 00.511.5 Log(BD(x10-12) (m2/s))Log(SR (1/(kOhm-cm)) ) SR(Lime) (91 Da y s) vs. 364-Da y BD -0.8 -0.4 0 0.4 0.8 00.511.5 Log(BD(x10-12) (m2/s))Residual (yi-yi_pred) Figure F-1. Electrical Test Modifi ed Linear Regression Analysis to 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Data ( Concrete mixture contai ning Calcium Nitrite (CPR12). It was not include in the general correlation calculations).

PAGE 195

195 RCP (91 Days) vs. 1092-Day BD y = 0.687x + 2.900 R2 = 0.755 0 1 2 3 4 5 00.511.5 Log(BD(x10-12) (m2/s))Log(RCP (Coul.)) RCP (91 Days) vs. 1092-Day BD -0.8 -0.4 0 0.4 0.8 00.511.5 Log(BD(x10-12) (m2/s))Residual (yi-yi_pred) SR(Moist) (91 Da y s) vs. 1092-Da y BD y = 0.615x 1.632 R2 = 0.723 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 00.511.5 Log(BD(x10-12) (m2/s))Log(SR (1/(kOhm-cm)) ) SR(Moist) (91 Da y s) vs. 1092-Da y BD -0.8 -0.4 0 0.4 0.8 00.511.5 Log(BD(x10-12) (m2/s))Residual (yi-yi_pred) SR(Lime) (91 Da y s) vs. 1092-Da y BD y = 0.560x 1.566 R2 = 0.715 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 00.511.5 Log(BD(x10-12) (m2/s))Log(SR (1/(kOhm-cm)) ) SR(Lime) (91 Da y s) vs. 1092-Da y BD -0.8 -0.4 0 0.4 0.8 00.511.5 Log(BD(x10-12) (m2/s))Residual (yi-yi_pred) Figure F-2. Electrical Test Modifi ed Linear Regression Analysis to 3-Year Bulk Diffusion Data ( Concrete mixture contai ning Calcium Nitrite (CPR12). It was not include in the general correlation calculations).

PAGE 196

196 APPENDIX G COMPARISON OF CONDUCTIVITY AND LONG-TERM LABORATORY DIFFUSION TESTS RCP (14 Days) vs. 364-Day BD y = 1550.771x0.788R2 = 0.592 0 5000 10000 15000 05101520 Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s)RCP (Coulombs) RCP (28 Days) vs. 364-Day BD y = 1041.691x0.862R2 = 0.669 0 5000 10000 15000 05101520 Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s)RCP (Coulombs) RCP (56 Days) vs. 364-Day BD y = 619.604x0.985R2 = 0.810 0 5000 10000 15000 05101520 Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s)RCP (Coulombs) RCP (91 Days) vs. 364-Day BD y = 540.534x0.936R2 = 0.802 0 5000 10000 15000 05101520 Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s)RCP (Coulombs) RCP (182 Days) vs. 364-Day BD y = 382.517x1.012R2 = 0.787 0 5000 10000 15000 05101520 Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s)RCP (Coulombs) RCP (364 Days) vs. 364-Day BD y = 259.604x1.081R2 = 0.770 0 5000 10000 15000 05101520 Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s)RCP (Coulombs) Figure G-1. RCP Coulombs vs. 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficients ( Concrete mixture containing Calcium Nitrite (CPR12). It wa s not include in th e general correlation calculations).

PAGE 197

197 RCP (14 Days) vs. 1092-Day BD y = 2415.106x0.482R2 = 0.388 0 5000 10000 15000 0102030 Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s)RCP (Coulombs) RCP (28 Days) vs. 1092-Day BD y = 1647.192x0.549R2 = 0.474 0 5000 10000 15000 0102030 Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s)RCP (Coulombs) RCP (56 Days) vs. 1092-Day BD y = 966.545x0.690R2 = 0.698 0 5000 10000 15000 0102030 Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s)RCP (Coulombs) RCP (91 Days) vs. 1092-Day BD y = 794.546x0.687R2 = 0.755 0 5000 10000 15000 0102030 Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s)RCP (Coulombs) RCP (182 Days) vs. 1092-Day BD y = 565.798x0.762R2 = 0.782 0 5000 10000 15000 0102030 Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s)RCP (Coulombs) RCP (364 Days) vs. 1092-Day BD y = 382.249x0.839R2 = 0.813 0 5000 10000 15000 0102030 Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s)RCP (Coulombs) Figure G-2. RCP Coulombs vs. 3-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficients ( Concrete mixture containing Calcium Nitrite (CPR12). It wa s not include in th e general correlation calculations).

PAGE 198

198 SR (Lime) (14 Da y s) vs. 364-Da y Bulk Diffusion y = 0.063x0.513R2 = 0.475 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 05101520 Bulk Diffusion (m2/s)SR Conductivit y (1/(kOhm-cm)) SR (Lime) (28 Da y s) vs. 364-Da y Bulk Diffusion y = 0.037x0.658R2 = 0.770 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 05101520 Bulk Diffusion (m2/s)SR Conductivit y (1/(kOhm-cm)) SR (Lime) (56 Da y s) vs. 364-Da y Bulk Diffusion y = 0.024x0.785R2 = 0.799 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 05101520 Bulk Diffusion (m2/s)SR Conductivit y (1/(kOhm-cm)) SR (Lime) (91 Da y s) vs. 364-Da y Bulk Diffusion y = 0.019x0.803R2 = 0.840 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 05101520 Bulk Diffusion (m2/s)SR Conductivit y (1/(kOhm-cm)) SR (Lime) (182 Da y s) vs. 364-Da y Bulk Diffusion y = 0.014x0.792R2 = 0.808 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 05101520 Bulk Diffusion (m2/s)SR Conductivit y (1/(kOhm-cm)) SR (Lime) (364 Da y s) vs. 364-Da y Bulk Diffusion y = 0.011x0.804R2 = 0.702 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 05101520 Bulk Diffusion (m2/s)SR Conductivit y (1/(kOhm-cm)) Figure G-3. SR (Lime Cured) vs. 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficients ( Concrete mixture containing Calcium Nitrite (CPR12). It wa s not include in th e general correlation calculations).

PAGE 199

199 SR (Lime) (455 Da y s) vs. 364-Da y Bulk Diffusion y = 0.011x0.789R2 = 0.695 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 05101520 Bulk Diffusion (m2/s)SR Conductivit y (1/(kOhm-cm)) SR (Lime) (546 Da y s) vs. 364-Da y Bulk Diffusion y = 0.010x0.823R2 = 0.682 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 05101520 Bulk Diffusion (m2/s)SR Conductivit y (1/(kOhm-cm)) Figure G-3. Continued.

PAGE 200

200 SR (Lime) (14 Da y s) vs. 1092-Da y Bulk Diffusion y = 0.086x0.301R2 = 0.286 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0102030 Bulk Diffusion (m2/s)SR Conductivit y (1/(kOhm-cm)) SR (Lime) (28 Da y s) vs. 1092-Da y Bulk Diffusion y = 0.054x0.397R2 = 0.492 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0102030 Bulk Diffusion (m2/s)SR Conductivit y (1/(kOhm-cm)) SR (Lime) (56 Da y s) vs. 1092-Da y Bulk Diffusion y = 0.035x0.515R2 = 0.602 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0102030 Bulk Diffusion (m2/s)SR Conductivit y (1/(kOhm-cm)) SR (Lime) (91 Da y s) vs. 1092-Da y Bulk Diffusion y = 0.027x0.560R2 = 0.715 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0102030 Bulk Diffusion (m2/s)SR Conductivit y (1/(kOhm-cm)) SR (Lime) (182 Da y s) vs. 1092-Da y Bulk Diffusion y = 0.019x0.586R2 = 0.773 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0102030 Bulk Diffusion (m2/s)SR Conductivit y (1/(kOhm-cm)) SR (Lime) (364 Da y s) vs. 1092-Da y Bulk Diffusion y = 0.014x0.638R2 = 0.774 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0102030 Bulk Diffusion (m2/s)SR Conductivit y (1/(kOhm-cm)) Figure G-4. SR (Lime Cured) vs. 3-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficients ( Concrete mixture containing Calcium Nitrite (CPR12). It wa s not include in th e general correlation calculations).

PAGE 201

201 SR (Lime) (455 Da y s) vs. 1092-Da y Bulk Diffusion y = 0.014x0.626R2 = 0.765 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0102030 Bulk Diffusion (m2/s)SR Conductivit y (1/(kOhm-cm)) SR (Lime) (546 Da y s) vs. 1092-Da y Bulk Diffusion y = 0.013x0.644R2 = 0.731 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0102030 Bulk Diffusion (m2/s)SR Conductivit y (1/(kOhm-cm)) Figure G-4. Continued.

PAGE 202

202 SR (Moist) (14 Da y s) vs. 364-Da y Bulk Diffusion y = 0.032x0.738R2 = 0.757 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 05101520 Bulk Diffusion (m2/s)SR Conductivit y (1/(kOhm-cm)) SR (Moist) (28 Da y s) vs. 364-Da y Bulk Diffusion y = 0.028x0.763R2 = 0.747 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 05101520 Bulk Diffusion (m2/s)SR Conductivit y (1/(kOhm-cm)) SR (Moist) (56 Da y s) vs. 364-Da y Bulk Diffusion y = 0.021x0.807R2 = 0.745 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 05101520 Bulk Diffusion (m2/s)SR Conductivit y (1/(kOhm-cm)) SR (Moist) (91 Da y s) vs. 364-Da y Bulk Diffusion y = 0.016x0.848R2 = 0.787 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 05101520 Bulk Diffusion (m2/s)SR Conductivit y (1/(kOhm-cm)) SR (Moist) (182 Da y s) vs. 364-Da y Bulk Diffusion y = 0.012x0.863R2 = 0.770 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 05101520 Bulk Diffusion (m2/s)SR Conductivit y (1/(kOhm-cm)) SR (Moist) (364 Da y s) vs. 364-Da y Bulk Diffusion y = 0.009x0.945R2 = 0.744 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 05101520 Bulk Diffusion (m2/s)SR Conductivit y (1/(kOhm-cm)) Figure G-5. SR (Moist Cured) vs. 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficients ( Concrete mixture containing Calcium Nitrite (CPR12). It wa s not include in th e general correlation calculations).

PAGE 203

203 SR (Moist) (455 Da y s) vs. 364-Da y Bulk Diffusion y = 0.009x0.857R2 = 0.698 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 05101520 Bulk Diffusion (m2/s)SR Conductivit y (1/(kOhm-cm)) SR (Moist) (546 Da y s) vs. 364-Da y Bulk Diffusion y = 0.008x0.907R2 = 0.685 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 05101520 Bulk Diffusion (m2/s)SR Conductivit y (1/(kOhm-cm)) Figure G-5. Continued.

PAGE 204

204 SR (Moist) (14 Days) vs. 1092Day Bulk Diffusion y = 0.047x0.474R2 = 0.495 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0102030 Bulk Diffusion (m2/s)SR Conductivit y (1/(kOhm-cm)) SR (Moist) (28 Days) vs. 1092Day Bulk Diffusion y = 0.042x0.487R2 = 0.533 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0102030 Bulk Diffusion (m2/s)SR Conductivit y (1/(kOhm-cm)) SR (Moist) (56 Da y s) vs. 1092-Da y Bulk Diffusion y = 0.031x0.548R2 = 0.602 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0102030 Bulk Diffusion (m2/s)SR Conductivit y (1/(kOhm-cm)) SR (Moist) (91 Da y s) vs. 1092-Da y Bulk Diffusion y = 0.023x0.615R2 = 0.723 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0102030 Bulk Diffusion (m2/s)SR Conductivit y (1/(kOhm-cm)) SR (Moist) (182 Days) vs. 1092Day Bulk Diffusion y = 0.017x0.659R2 = 0.788 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0102030 Bulk Diffusion (m2/s)SR Conductivit y (1/(kOhm-cm)) SR (Moist) (364 Days) vs. 1092Day Bulk Diffusion y = 0.013x0.723R2 = 0.761 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0102030 Bulk Diffusion (m2/s)SR Conductivit y (1/(kOhm-cm)) Figure G-6. SR (Moist Cured) vs. 3-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficients ( Concrete mixture containing Calcium Nitrite (CPR12). It wa s not include in th e general correlation calculations).

PAGE 205

205 SR (Moist) (455 Days) vs. 1092Day Bulk Diffusion y = 0.012x0.683R2 = 0.777 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0102030 Bulk Diffusion (m2/s)SR Conductivit y (1/(kOhm-cm)) SR (Moist) (546 Days) vs. 1092Day Bulk Diffusion y = 0.011x0.717R2 = 0.750 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0102030 Bulk Diffusion (m2/s)SR Conductivit y (1/(kOhm-cm)) Figure G-6. Continued.

PAGE 206

206 APPENDIX H ANALYSIS OF DATA OBTAINED FROM OTHER PROJECTS Table H-1. HRP Project (Paredes 2007) Concrete Mixture Designs. Materials and Specifications Mixture Name FDOT Class W/C Cementicious (pcy) Pozzolan (%Cement.) Pozzolan (%Cement.) Coarse Aggregate HRP3 V 0.35 752 Fly-Ash (20%) Silica Fume Slurry (8%) 89 Limestone HRP4 V 0.35 752 Fly-Ash (20%) Silica Fume Densified (8%) 89 Limestone Table H-2. Initial Chloride Background Levels from HRP Proj ect (Paredes 2007). TESTInitial Chloride Background Levels ABCAVG HRP30.4260.4260.4350.429 HRP40.3100.3680.3440.341 NaCl (lb/yd3) MIX Table H-3. 1-Year Bulk Diffu sion Chloride Profile Testing from HRP Project (Paredes 2007). MIXHRP3TESTBulk Diffusio n Depth (in)ABCAVG 0.1336.51837.006-36.762 0.3822.11121.579-21.845 0.633.6395.450-4.545 0.881.6651.858-1.762 1.130.3530.346-0.350 1.380.3100.325-0.318 1.630.3260.308-0.317 1.880.3050.329-0.317 NaCl (lb/yd3) MIXHRP4TESTBulk Diffusio n Depth (in)ABCAVG 0.1339.78037.705-38.743 0.3824.55717.593-21.075 0.638.9624.097-6.530 0.881.0521.396-1.224 1.130.3750.404-0.390 1.380.3700.411-0.391 1.630.3680.400-0.384 1.880.3820.397-0.390 NaCl (lb/yd3)

PAGE 207

207 00.511.52 0 20 40 60 HRP3-Sample A(20% Fly-Ash, 8% SF Slurry)Depth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.691E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.429 Surface(lb/yd^3) 49.517 Sum(Error)^2 26.813 00.511.52 0 20 40 60 HRP3-Sample B(20% Fly-Ash, 8% SF Slurry)Depth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.782E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.429 Surface(lb/yd^3) 49.372 Sum(Error)^2 12.318 00.511.52 0 20 40 60 HRP4-Sample A(20% Fly-Ash, 8% SF Densified)Depth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.071E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.429 Surface(lb/yd^3) 52.171 Sum(Error)^2 15.161 00.511.52 0 20 40 60 HRP4-Sample B(20% Fly-Ash, 8% SF Densified)Depth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.355E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.429 Surface(lb/yd^3) 51.815 Sum(Error)^2 2.640 Figure H-1. Diffusion Coefficient Results from HRP Project (Paredes 2007).

PAGE 208

208 Table H-4. St. George Island Br idge Pile Testing Project Chlo ride Profile Testing of Cored Samples (Cannon et al. 2006). Pile44-2LoactionSUBMERGED ZONE (6-ft below MHW)Depth (in)ABCAVG 0.2530.23930.74630.04230.342 0.7524.31024.33924.33924.329 1.5020.43620.04120.26120.246 2.5019.45119.16119.58519.399 3.5014.73214.61014.70314.682 4.5013.60413.63013.77713.670 5.5014.54914.29814.40414.417 NaCl (lb/yd3) Pile44-2LoactionTIDAL ZONE (1-ft below MHW)Depth (in)ABCAVG 0.2518.56918.98518.88418.813 0.7516.49216.92717.01716.812 1.5017.06216.86117.24717.057 2.5014.01814.11114.35514.161 3.5012.43512.63012.79412.620 4.5011.06710.96110.95710.995 5.5010.26010.5969.96310.273 NaCl (lb/yd3) Pile44-2LoactionSPLASH ZONE (3-ft above MHW)Depth (in)ABCAVG 0.2520.06219.93319.80119.932 0.7516.96616.97317.25817.066 1.5013.27713.44713.32013.348 2.508.9798.8799.0268.961 3.505.9995.8665.8665.910 4.503.7393.5503.3743.554 5.501.6521.6481.6551.652 NaCl (lb/yd3) Pile44-2LoactionDRY ZONE (7-ft above MHW)Depth (in)ABCAVG 0.255.1225.1155.1985.145 0.757.3107.2036.7717.095 1.505.2235.1755.1915.196 2.503.5363.4623.4543.484 3.501.6721.7451.6661.694 4.501.0130.9581.0210.997 5.500.3710.3840.3550.370 NaCl (lb/yd3)

PAGE 209

209 05101520 0 10 20 30 PILE 44-2 (6ft below MHW)(SUBMERGED)Depth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.148E-11 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.400 Surface(lb/yd^3) 27.738 Sum(Error)^2 32.192 05101520 0 10 20 30 PILE 44-2 (1ft below MHW))(TIDAL)Depth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.827E-11 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.400 Surface(lb/yd^3) 18.879 Sum(Error)^2 1.849 05101520 0 10 20 30 PILE 44-2 (3ft above MHW)(SPLASH)Depth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.495E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.400 Surface(lb/yd^3) 21.163 Sum(Error)^2 0.184 05101520 0 10 20 30 PILE 44-2 (7ft above MHW)(DRY)Depth (in)Chloride Content (lb/yd^3) Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.646E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.400 Surface(lb/yd^3) 9.219 Sum(Error)^2 0.179 Figure H-2. St. George Island Brid ge Pile Testing Project Diffusion Coefficients (Cannon et al. 2006) (Initial chloride background levels information was not available in this project. It was assumed a minimum value of 0.40 lb/yd3 for all the samples).

PAGE 210

210 LIST OF REFERENCES AASHTO T 23 (1993). Standard Method of Test for Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens. American Association of Stat es Highway and Transportation Officials. AASHTO T 259-80 (1993). Standard Method of Test for Resistance of Concrete to Chloride Ion Penetration. American Association of St ates Highway and Transportation Officials. AASHTO T 260 (1997). Standard Met hod of Test for Sampling and Testing for Chloride Ion in Concrete and Concrete Raw Materials. Amer ican Association of States Highway and Transportation Officials. AASHTO T 277-86 (1990). Rapid Determination of the Chloride Permeability of Concrete. American Association of States Hi ghway and Transpor tation Officials. ASTM C 39 (1999). Standard Test Method for Compressive Streng th of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens. American Society for Testing and Materials. ASTM C 138 (2001). Standard Test Method for De nsity (Unit Weight), Yi eld, and Air Content (Gravimetric) of Concrete. American Society for Testing and Materials. ASTM C 143 (2000). Standard Test Method fo r Slump of Hydraulic Cement Concrete. American Society for Testing and Materials. ASTM C 173 (2001). Standard Test Method for Ai r Content of Freshly Mixed Concrete by the Volumetric Method. American Soci ety for Testing and Materials. ASTM C 1064 (1999). Standard Test Method fo r Temperature of Freshly Mixed Portland Cement Concrete. American Society for Testing and Materials. ASTM C1152/C1152M (1990). Standa rd Test Method for Acid-Solubl e Chloride in Mortar and Concrete. American Society for Testing and Materials. ASTM C 1202 (1997). Standard Test Method for El ectrical Indication of Concretes Ability to Resist Chloride Ion Penetration. Americ an Society for Testing and Materials. Andrade, C. (1993). Calculation of chloride di ffusion coefficients in concrete from ionic migration measurements. Cement and Concrete Research, 23(3), 724-742. Ann, K.Y., Jung, H.S., Kim, H.S. and Moon,H. Y. (2005). Effect of Calcium Nitrite-Based Corrosion Inhibitor in Preventi ng Corrosion of Embedded Steel in Concrete. Cement and Concrete Research, 36(3), 530-535.

PAGE 211

211 Berke, N.S. (1987). Effect of Calcium Nitrite and Mix Design on the Corrosion Resistance of Steel in Concrete (Part 2 Long-Term Re sults). Proceedings of the Corrosion-87 Symposium on Corrosion of Metals in Conc rete. Houston: National Association of Corrosion Engineers, 134. Broomfield, J. and Millard, S. (2002). Measuring concrete resistiv ity to assess corrosion rates. A report from The Concrete Society/Instit ute of Corrosion liaison committee, Current Practice Sheet (128), 37-39. Boddy, A., Bentz, E., Thomas, M.D.A. and Hoot on, R.D. (1999). An overview and sensitivity study of a multimechanistic chloride transport model. Cement and Concrete Research, 29(6), 827-837. Boddy, A., Hooton, R.D. and Gruber K.A. ( 2001). Long-term Testing of the ChloridePenetration Resistance of Concrete Containi ng High-Reactivity Metakaolin. Cement and Concrete Research, 31(5), 759-765. Cannon, E., Lewinger, C., Abi, C. and Hamilton, H. R. (2006). St. George Island Bridge Pile Testing. Final Report No. BD545, Flor ida Department of Transportation. Chini, A.R, Muszynski, L.C. and Hicks, J. (2003). Determination of Acceptance Permeability Characteristics for Performance-Related Speci fications for Portland Cement Concrete. Final Report No. BC 354-41, Florida Department of Transportation. Dhir, R.K., and Byars, E.A. (1993). PFA conc rete: Chloride diffusion rates. Magazine of Concrete Research, 45(162), 1-9. Feldman, R.F., Chan, G.W., Brousseau, R.J. and Tumidajski, P.J. (1994). Investigation of the Rapid Chloride Permeability Test. AC I Materials Journal, 91(3), 246-255. FDOT 346 (2004). Florida Department of Trans portation Standard Specification for Road and Bridge Construction. Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). 346-3.1(d). FDOT SDG (2007). Structures Design Guidelines Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). FM 5-516 (2005). Florida Method of Test For Dete rmining Low-Levels of Chloride in Concrete and Raw Materials. Florida Depart ment of Transportation (FDOT). FM 5-578 (2004). Florida Method of Test for Concre te Resistivity as an Electrical Indicator of its Permeability. Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT).

PAGE 212

212 Glass, G.K., and Buenfeld, N.R. (1995). Chlor ide threshold levels for corrosion induced deterioration of steel in concrete International RILEM Workshop. Gowers, K.R. and Millard, S.G. (1999). Measurem ent of Concrete Resistivity for Assessment of Corrosion Severity of Steel Using Wenner T echnique. ACI Material s Journal, 96(5), 536541. Hooton, R.D. (1997). Discussion of the rapid chlori de permeability test and its correlation to the 90-day chloride ponding test. PCI Journal, 42(3), 65-66. Hooton, R.D.,Thomas, M.D.A. and Stanish, K. ( 2001). Prediction of Chloride Penetration in Concrete. Final Report No. FHWA/RD-00/ 142, Federal Highway Administration. Hughes, B.P., Soleit, A.K.O. and Brierly, R. W. (1985). New Technique for Determining the Electrical Resistivity of Conc rete. Magazine of Concre te Research, 37(133), 243-248. Kirkpatricka, T., Weyers, R.E., Anderson-Cook, C.M. and Sprinkel, M.M. (2002). Probabilistic Model for the Chloride-Induced Corrosion Serv ice Life of Bridge Decks. Cement and Concrete Research 32(12), 1943-1960. Kranc, S.C. and Sags, A.A. (2003). Advanced Analysis of Chloride Ion Penetration Profiles in Marine Substructure. Final Report No. BB 880, Florida Department of Transportation. Kondratova, I.L., Montes, P. and Bremner, T.W. (2003). Natural Marine Exposure Results for Reinforced Concrete Slabs with Corrosion In hibitors. Cement and Concrete Composites, 25(4), 483-490. Li, Z., Peng, J., and Ma, B. (1999). Investiga tion of chloride diffusion for high-performance concrete containing fly ash, microsilica, and ch emical admixtures. AC I Materials Journal, 96(3), 391-396. Luping, T. and Nilson, L.O. (1992). Chloride Diff usivity in High-Strength Concrete at Different Ages. Nordic Concrete Research, Publication No. 11. Ma, B., Li, Z. and Peng, J. (1998). Effect of Calcium Nitrite on High Performance Concrete Containing Fly Ash. Supplementary Proceedin gs of the Six CANMET/ACI International Conference on Fly Ash, Silica Fume, Slag a nd Natural Pozzolans in Concrete. Bangkok, 113. Mangat, P.S. and Molloy, B.T. (1994). Predic tion of Long Term Chloride Concentration in Concrete. Materials an d Structures, 27, 338-346.

PAGE 213

213 McGrath, P.F. and Hooton, R.D. (1999). R e-evaluation of the AASHTO T259 90-day salt ponding test. Cement and Concre te Research, 29(8), 1239-1248. Mindess, S., Young, J.F and Darwin, D. (2002). Concrete. Second Edition, Prentice-Hall. Monfore, G.E. (1968). The Electrical Resistivit y of Concrete. Journal of the PCA Research and Development Laboratories, 10(2), 35-48. Morris, W., Moreno, E.I. and Sages, A.A. ( 1996). Practical evaluati on of resistivity of concrete in test cylinders using a Wenner array probe. Cement and Concrete Research, 26(12), 1779-1787. Nokken, M., Boddy, A., Hooton, R.D. and Thom as, M.D.A. (2006). Time Dependent Diffusion in ConcreteThree Laboratory Studies. Ceme nt and Concrete Research, 36(1), 200-207. NT BUILD 443 (1995). Concrete, hardened: Accel erated chloride penetration. Nordtest method. Ozyildirim, C., and Halstead, W.J. (1988). Use of Admixtures to Attain Low Permeability Concretes Final Repor t No. FHWA/VA-88-R11. Page, C.L., Short, N.R., and El Tarras, A. (1981). Diffusion of chloride ions in hardened cement pastes. Cement and Concre te Research, 11(3), 395-406. Paredes, M. (2007). High Reactive Pozzolans Pr oject (HRP). Project in Progress. Florida Department of Transportation. Pfeifer, D.W., McDonald, D.B. and Krauss, P.D. (1994). The rapid chloride permeability test and its correlation to the 90-day chloride ponding test. PCI Journal, 41(4), 82. Sags, A.A. (1994). Corrosion of Epoxy Coated Rebar in Florida Brid ges. Final Report No. 99700-7556-010, WPI 0510603, Florida Depa rtment of Transportation. Sags, A.A., Kranc, S.C., Presuel-Moreno, F., Rey, D., Torres-Acosta, A. and Yao, L. (2001). Corrosion Forecasting for 75-Year Durability Design of Reinforced Concrete. Final Report No. BA 502, Florida Depa rtment of Transportation. Scanlon, J.M. and Sherman, M.R. (1996). Fly ash concrete: An evaluation of chloride penetration testing methods. Conc rete International, 18(6), 57-62.

PAGE 214

214 Shi, C., Stegemenn, J.A. and Caldwell, R. (1998). Effect of Supplementary Cementing Materials on the Specific Conductivity of Pore Solution and Its Implications on the Rapid Chloride Permeability Test (AASHTO T277 a nd ASTM C1202) Results. ACI Materials Journal, 95(4), 389-394. Shi, C. (2003). Another look at the Rapid Chloride Permeab ility Test (ASTM C1202 or AASHTO T277). Snyder, K.A., Ferraris, C., Martys, N.S. a nd Garboczi, E.J. (2000). Using Impedance Spectroscopy to Assess the Viability of the Ra pid Chloride Test for determining Concrete Conductivity. Journal of Research of the Na tional Institute of St andars and Technology, 105(4), 497-509. Sohanghpurwala, A.A (2006). Manual on Service Life of Corrosion Damaged Reinforced Concrete Bridge Superstructure Elements. CONCORR, Inc. Stanish, K. and Thomas, M. (2003). The use of bulk diffusion tests to establish time-dependent concrete chloride diffusion coefficients. Cement and Concrete Research, 33(1), 55-62. Streicher, P.E and Alexander, M.G. (1995). A Ch loride Conduction Test for Concrete. Cement and Concrete Research, 25(6), 1284-1294. Tang, L. and Andersen, A. (2000) Chloride ingress data from five years field exposure in a Swedish marine environment. Proceedings of the 2nd International RILEM Workshop on Testing and Modelling the Chloride Ingre ss into Concrete, Paris, 11-12, pp. 105-119. Tang, L. (2003). Chloride Ingress in Concrete E xposed to Marine EnvironmentField data up to 10 years exposure. SP Swedish National Testing and Research Institute Building Technology and Mechanics. SP REPORT 2003:16. Thomas, M.D.A., Pantazopoulou, S.J. and Martn-P rez, B. (1995). Service Life Modelling of Reinforced Concrete Structures Exposed to Ch lorides: A Literature Review. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, 45. Thomas, M.D.A. and Bamforth, P.B. (1999). Modell ing Chloride Diffusion in Concrete Effect of Fly Ash and Slag. Cement and Concrete Research, 29(4), 487-495. Thomas, M.D.A., Shehata, M.H., Shashiprakash, S. G., Hopkins, D.S. and Cail, K. (1999). Use of Ternary Cementitious Systems Containing Silica Fume and Fly Ash in Concrete. Cement and Concrete Re search, 29(8), 1207-1214. Tuutti, K. (1982). Corrosion of steel in concre te. Swedish Cement and Concrete Research Institute, 469.

PAGE 215

215 Vivas, E., Boyd, A. and Hamilton, H. R. ( 2007). Permeability of Concrete Comparison of Conductivity and Diffusion Methods. Final Repo rt No. BD 536, Florida Department of Transportation. Whiting, D. (1981). Rapid determination of the chloride ion permeability of concrete. Federal Highway Administration, Fina l Report No. FHWA/RD-81/119. Whiting, D. (1988). Permeability of Selected Concretes. Permeability of Concrete, SP-108, American Concrete Institute. 195-222. Whiting, D., and Dziedzic, W. (1989). Resistance to Chloride Infiltration of Superplasticized Concrete as Compared With Currently Used Concrete Overlay Systems. Final Report No. FHWA/OH-89/009. Whiting, D. and Mohamad, N. (2003). Electrical Re sistivity of Concrete-A Literature Review. Portland Cement Associati on, R&D Serial No. 2457. Wee, T.H., Suryavanshi, A.K. and Tin, S.S. (2000). Evaluation of Rapid Chloride Permeability Test (RCPT) Results for Concrete Contai ning Mineral Admixtures. ACI Materials Journal, 97(2), 221-232. Yang, C.C., Cho, S.W. and Huang, R. (2002). T he relationship between charge passed and the chloride-ion concentration in concrete using steady-state chloride mi gration test. Cement and Concrete Research, 32(2), 217-22.

PAGE 216

216 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Enrique A. Vivas was born in 1976 in Valencia Venezuela, to Yolanda and Pedro Vivas. He graduated from La Salle High School in Valenc ia Venezuela in July of 1993. He received his Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering in the Fall of 1999 from the University of Carabobo, Venezuela. While attending the University of Carabobo full time, Enrique worked part time for the Department of Civil Engineering, for three year as an Assistant Engineer at the Physical Plant Office. Enrique continued his education by entering graduate school to pursue a Master of Engineering in the Structural Group of the Civ il and Coastal Engineering Department at the University of Florida in the Spring 2002. He recei ved his Master of Engine ering in the Spring of 2004.