subcommittee on materials · pdf fileaashto t 22 allows for the ends of the cylinder to be...

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MATERIALS 2017 Annual Meeting – Phoenix, AZ

Wednesday August 9, 2017 10:15 – 12:00 AM MST

TECHNICAL SECTION 3C

Hardened Concrete

I. Call to Order and Opening Remarks Meeting called to order at 1016 A. Brief summary of activities

1. 2017 Group 1 release - 4 new standards published, 10 revised standards published 2. T23 and R39 transferred to TS 3B (Fresh Concrete) Making and curing of cylinders in field and in the lab, decided that these are fresh concrete standards, so they’ve been moved to TS 3b—has been approved by EC.

B. New Chairman- Brian Egan (TN), Vice-Chairmen- Andy Babish (VA)

II. Roll Call- (Voting Members Only) Voting member states present, highlighted below: Brian Egan

TN (Chair) Andy Babish VA (Vice Chair) Paul Burch AZ Robert Lauzon CT Wasi Khan DC Michael Bergin FL Brian Ikehara HI Michael Santi ID Brian Pfeifer IL John Grieco MA Woody Hood MD John Staton MI Brett Trautman MO Oak Metcalfe MT Mick Syslo NE Denis Boisvert NH Darin Tedford NV Donald Streeter NY Daniel Miller OH Kenny Seward OK Becca Lane ON – Carol Anne

McDonald as proxy

Greg Stellmach OR Timothy Ramirez PA

Tech Section 3C

of 7

Jose Lima RI – Mark Felag as proxy

Danny Lane TN Darren Hazlett TX Kurt Williams WA

III. Approval of Technical Section Minutes A. Approve Mid-year Meeting Webinar Minutes (November 21, 2016) ATTACHMENT 1

Motion to approve: NY Second: OK Discussion: None. No opposed.

IV. Old Business

A. SOM Ballot Items (From Rolling ballot 1- Fall 2016) 1. Item No. 11- Dual Ring Test Using Inner Concrete Ring- 3 Negative votes persuasive, yet to

receive revisions from original Author Three negatives were found persuasive, but nothing has been received from the original author yet. Jason Weiss (Oregon State U.) was the sponsor on that. After this meeting, the VC will follow up with the author on the status of addressing negatives.

2. Item No. 13- make PP 65 a Full Standard (Now R-80)- some edits to Table 6 and Figure 3 are not in the printed version and are still needed. TF 16-01 – to report on significant digits Voted affirmative with some edits; those edits were agreed except (1) Table 3, (2) some labeling on Figure 3, (3) even a discussion afterwards (not part of original comments) to include formula for the lines in Figure 3 or R80. Revisions (1) and (2) have already been balloted, they just weren’t made. Is (3) editorial or technical: there’s a comment from PennDOT about Figure 3 to show the equation of how those different zones 1, 2, and 3 delineate. Ahlstrom: there are currently no equations for those lines, so it won’t be easy to just add “the equations” that PennDOT is referring to. VC suggests forming a Task Force to look at PennDOT’s comments and seeing if there is some clarification that can be made and to bring findings to mid-year meeting. MO points out that ASTM does not have any equations here either. Task force is PA, MO, and FHWA who are also resolving significant digits to this standard

3. T365- published with incorrect title, being corrected. No discussion.

B. TS Ballots (Ballot: May 2017 Tech Section Ballot) ATTACHMENT 2 for Comments. 8 items went up for ballot.

Ballot Item

Standard Ballot Item Description Ballot Results

1 T23 Revise Section 5.3 to include allowable tolerances for beam molds.

0 negative votes - Ontario comment

2 T97 Revise sections 5.3, 5.4, 6.1, and various notes to be consistent /harmonious with ASTM.

0 negative votes -PA comment

3 T97 Revise section 10 to include updated precision and bias statements. The P&B statements were derived as a result of a multi-lab study completed in

0 negative votes -PA, VA, MO comments

Tech Section 3C

of 7

accordance with ASTM C670. 4 T24 -

regarding the curing and testing of cores

Revisions proposed to the moisture conditioning requirements to allow more flexibility in conditioning methods used with appropriate core strength correction factors based on ACI 214.

2 Negative votes (OK and NE) - CCRL, VA, PA, WA, AZ, FL, MO comments OK negative: factors for diameter of the core and factors for L/D are confusing—OK believes this standard is over-complicating the test; the formula is a problem for OK based on ACI 214 NE negative: uses moisture chamber, spec is not clear when to use the factors, exactly what is a wet cure? PA comments: this standard is based on research done with specimens kept completely immersed water so the standard doesn’t look at the moisture because everything was immersed in water; what do you do for specimens that come in non-airtight containers? This standard does not address this. PA will withdraw proposed changes to T24 as balloted. Chairman Comment: The negative votes would have been determined persuasive had PA not decided to withdraw the changes that were proposed and balloted.

5 PP84 Revisions to refine this new provisional standard (Cecil Jones Discussion/Comment on Future of Standard) Commentary is hard to follow because the first section is repeated in Section 6: the commentary is where it is for a few reasons:

(1) If it was a separate document, there may be issues of keeping both standards in sync with each other, and

(2) If it was in an appendix, people might miss it.

NY’s comment about producers/ready-mix: the pool fund is to allow people to learn more and determine if these test methods are things that we’ll end up with eventually… In the future: methods are being refined—hopefully in the spring, the method will move forward as a full standard

0 negative votes -SCA, PCA, PA, AZ, NY comments

Tech Section 3C

of 7

AZ’s comment on Table 4: square yards are from an FHWA publication based on a QA-suggested frequency; C indicates that that is subject HDT; should a note be put into the method that indicates that frequency should be state-specific? Ahlstrom: for now, this standard should stay a provisional method, but FHWA is working on a lot of implementation activities

6 T359 Standard was accidentally balloted to full SOM in Fall 2016 as new standard. Comments from 2016 ballot are incorporated in this Tech Section ballot for tech section to consider as revisions to current published standard.

0 negative votes -PA, AK comments No discussion.

7 Standard Practice for Concrete Cylinder Grinding

New standard practice for consideration. AASHTO T 22 allows for the ends of the cylinder to be sawed or ground to a planeness of 0.050 mm (0.002 in.), but it does not define how to grind the ends plane. This draft standard attempts to define the grinding procedure. If the Technical Section approves this standard, the next step will be to refer to it in AASHTO T 22 and C39/C39M.

0 negative votes -CCRL, PA, AZ, OK, MO comments No discussion.

8 V-Kelly Testing Standard

New standard for consideration. Current method is stated as Appendix X4 in PP84. Method is proposed for consideration as a stand alone standard that PP84 will then reference if passed.

1 negative vote (CT) -CCRL, PA, AZ, OK, MO comments CT negative: CT will withdraw negative with regards to the revisions that were made. Motion to make revisions and resubmit as concurrent ballot as a provisional standard with changes that were proposed and made: MO Second: CT No discussion. No opposed.

Motion to move ballot items 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 to a SOM full committee ballot with suggested edits (for a total of 6 SOM Ballots): OK Second: NY No discussion. No opposed.

B. Task Force Reports 1. TF 16-01- PP 65/R 80 Significant Digits (FHWA (Ahlstrom), PA (Horwart), MO

(Trautman))

Tech Section 3C

of 7

There’s a potential resolution with sig figs, but there needs to be a TF conference call before mid-year meeting so that a resolution can be brought to mid-year meeting.

V. New Business A. Research Proposals (Research Liaison: John Stanton (MI))

1. 20-7 RPS 2. Full NCHRP RPS – Amir Hanna

Proposal for “Rating Concrete Permeability Based on Resistivity Measurements” (see NCHRP Problem Statement) A more comprehensive study needed to cover the range of variability in materials. Water permeability is the factor that really effects the durability of concrete. Motion to endorse proposed research topic: RI Second: MI No discussion. No opposed.

3. ASR – benchmarking accelerated testing for field performance (see attached problem statement) • Trying to predict ASR at lower alkali loading—going from months to years • Andy (TX) will send Jack Springer a modified problem statement in the next week or so Motion to endorse proposed research topic upon editing as discussed here and in TS 3a meeting: RI Second: MA No discussion. No opposed.

B. AASHTO Re:source/CCRL - Observations from Assessments – Brian Johnson Observations from assessments/inspections: • Curing facilities and curing tanks are out of spec • Standardization of air pressure meters are not done correctly • Surveillance assessments were done on labs falsifying records indicated that some labs that

were falsifying records were unable to perform the standardizations/calibrations correctly (i.e., could not use Vernier calipers)

Other discussion: • Cali-can (Calibration canister) issue: 5% cali-can acceptance in ASTM? FL says that it wasn’t

clear, and now it’s not the only device on the market so what device should be used to standardize? If the TS feels that the ASTM version is unclear with this issue, then the TS should work on getting the AASHTO standard very clear about exactly what devices are acceptable to be used for calibration.

C. NCHRP Issues Reminders:

• Less than half of proposed projects are approved; and • experimental projects are very expensive. • Very clear and concise problem statements and research objectives

D. Correspondence, calls, meetings No discussion.

E. Presentation by Industry/Academia – Ahmad Ardani, PE, Program Manager, Concrete Research Center, FHWA Turner-Fairbanks -- T-97, smaller beam size and P&B test results

• Two goals of this project: (1) Examine the feasibility to miniaturize the flexural strength (also called Modulus of Rupture or MR) specimen size, and (2) to examine the precision of the test.

• Why use a smaller size specimen: the 4x4x14 beams weigh approximately 60 lbs. less than current 6x6x21 beams making the test easier and safer

• Conclusion: 4x4x14 beams are a viable option, but the beams yielded slightly higher MR, since MEPDG calibrated with standard beams—results can be correlated using an equation

• Changes were balloted and approved by AASHTO and ASTM • Compression machines must be modified to use this test—videos are available for both

Forney and Rainhart machines

Tech Section 3C

of 7

• Phase II: Interlaboratory Study (comprehensive round robin testing); 22 lab, 3 different mixes, and hundreds of beams (half standard and half miniature)

• A tech brief will be available soon on [email protected] F. Proposed New Standards No discussion. G. Proposed New Task Forces No discussion. H. Standards Requiring Reconfirmation

1. -TP 109-14(2016)- Nonlinear Impact Resonance Acoustic Spectroscopy (NIRAS) for Concrete Specimens with Damage from Alkali-Silica Reaction (ASR) 2. -TP 110-14(2016)- Potential Alkali Reactivity of Aggregates and Effectiveness of ASR Mitigation Measures (Miniature Concrete Prism Test, MCPT)

• RI: There’s no research or major changes to these methods, so should we make a motion to make these methods full standards.

• MN confirmed that TP110 is being used. Is anyone using TP109? OK suggested sending a survey out to see who is using these standards.

Motion made to send PP’s to full standards (for a total of 2 SOM Ballots): RI Second: VA Discussion:

• PA was contacted by the lead researcher and the data is based on only about 40 test points. The researcher indicated that these results correlated well with C1293.

• Collin will contact original researcher. No opposed.

I. SOM Ballot Items (including any ASTM changes/equivalencies) 1. See TS ballot results

J. Standard Stewards- Assignment of standards to State/Industry ii. Volunteers- ATTACHMENT 3

Volunteers will be confirmed after the TS meeting. Chairman comment: We are still in need of Stewards for most standards.

VI. Open Discussion

• T23 has been moved. • VC cannot find a list of standard stewards; VC encourages TS members to volunteer to

steward any standards that you are familiar with and/or know very well; volunteers are appreciated!

VII. Adjourn Meeting adjourned at 1154. List of Appendices: A- Meeting Summary B- Attendee List C- Technical Section Ballot Comments D- Presentation by Ahmad Ardani- T 97 E- Research Needs Statements (2)

Tech Section 3C

of 7

Tech Section 3C

of 7

Meeting Date:

Standard Designation

Summary of Proposed ChangesTS Only, Subcommittee Only or

Concurrent?(TS / S / C)

V-Kelly TestingStandard

Make revisions and resubmit as a Provisional Standard (TP xxx).

Concurrent

T23Revise Section 5.3 to include allowable tolerances for beam molds.

SOM

T97Revise Sections 5.3, 5.4, 6.1 and various notes to be consistent/hamonious with ASTM.

SOM

T97Revise Section 10 to include updated P&B statements.

SOM

PP84 Revisions to refine this new provisional standard. SOM

T359

Standard was accidentally balloted to full SOM in Fall 2016 as a new standard. Comments from the 2016 ballot are incorporated to consider as revision to current published standard.

SOM

Standard Practice for Concrete

New standard for consideration. SOM

TP109 Send to full standard. SOM

TP110 Send to full standard. SOM

Task Force Name Summary of Task Names of TF Members

TF for PP 65/R80Finalize significant digits and determine if equations for table 3 are needed.

PA (Horwhat), MO (Trautman), FHWA (Ahlstrom)

Research Liaison:

TS 3c 2017 Annual Meeting Summary

Items approved by the TS for TS/Subcommittee/Concurrent BallotWednesday, August 9, 2017

New Task Forces Formed:

Other Action Items:

None.

Appendix A

Christopher Abadie [email protected] Pine Bluff Sand and Technical Advisor AASHTO Non-Member (industry representative)Gina Ahlstrom [email protected] FHWA Team Leader AASHTO MemberScott Andrus [email protected] Utah Department oState Materials EngineAASHTO MemberAhmad Ardani [email protected] Federal Highway AdResearch Engineer AASHTO MemberTodd Arnold [email protected] Pine Test EquipmenGeneral Manager AASHTO Non-Member (industry representative)Andy Babish [email protected] Virginia DepartmenState Materials EngineAASHTO MemberWilliam Bailey [email protected] Virginia DepartmenAssistant State Materi AASHTO MemberRick Barezinsky [email protected] Kansas Department Asst Bureau Chief, ConAASHTO MemberSejal Barot [email protected] Maryland State Hig Director - Office of MaAASHTO MemberPaye Barry [email protected] Wisconsin DOT Chief Materials EngineAASHTO MemberDesna Bergold [email protected] WAQTC Coordinator AASHTO MemberJohn Bilderback [email protected] Idaho TransportatioEngineer Manager AASHTO MemberMichael Black [email protected] Kentucky TransportTransportation Engine AASHTO MemberLyndi Blackburn [email protected] Alabama DepartmeAssistant Bureau Chief AASHTO MemberMatthew Bluman [email protected] AASHTO Manager of Training a AASHTO MemberDenis Boisvert [email protected] NHDOT Chief of Materials Tec AASHTO MemberRichard Bradbury [email protected] Maine Department Director of Materials TAASHTO MemberKevins Burns [email protected] Washington State DAssistant Quality SysteAASHTO MemberEric Carleton [email protected] National Precast CoDirector of Codes and AASHTO Non-Member (industry representative)Richie Charoenpap [email protected] LA DOTD Materials Assistant Materials En AASHTO MemberNeoma Cole [email protected] Georgia DepartmenPhysical & Chemical TeAASHTO MemberJeffrey Curtis [email protected] MDOT State Materials EngineAASHTO MemberAmanda Dees [email protected] Kentucky TransportGeologist Supervisor-RAASHTO MemberIvan Diaz [email protected] Boral Resources Research Manager AASHTO Non-Member (industry representative)John Donahue [email protected] Missouri DOT Construction and Mat AASHTO MemberMichael Doran [email protected] TDOT Civil Manager 2 AASHTO MemberCharles Dusseault [email protected] New Hampshire DeM&R Bureau AdministAASHTO MemberBrian Egan [email protected] TN Dept of TranspoDirector AASHTO MemberMark Felag [email protected] Rhode Island Depa Managing Engineer AASHTO MemberAlex Fisher-Willis [email protected] AASHTO Transportation ManagAASHTO MemberMladen Gagulic [email protected] VTrans Vermont Materilas Manager AASHTO MemberGeorgene Geary [email protected] GGfGA Engineering Principal Engineer/OwAASHTO Non-Member (industry representative)Scott George [email protected] Alabama DepartmeMaterials and Tests EnAASHTO MemberTom Grannes [email protected] South Dakota Dept materials engineer AASHTO MemberRobin Graves [email protected] Vulcan Materials CoCorporate Manager, T AASHTO MemberJohn Grieco [email protected] MassDOT Director of Research a AASHTO MemberBRETT HAGGERTY [email protected] Texas Department Materials & Pavement AASHTO MemberCaleb Hammons [email protected] MS DOT Assistant State Materi AASHTO MemberJennifer Hanley [email protected] Gilson Guest/SpouseAmir Hanna [email protected] TRB/NCHRP Senior Program Office AASHTO MemberAmmon Heier [email protected] FHWA Area Engineer AASHTO MemberSheila Hines [email protected] Georgia DepartmenState Bituminous ConsAASHTO MemberAnne Holt [email protected] Ontario Ministry of Senior Bituminous EngAASHTO MemberWoodrow Hood [email protected] Maryland Departm Division Chief, MateriaAASHTO MemberRobert Horwhat [email protected] Pennsylvania Depa Chief Materials EngineAASHTO MemberBrian Ikehara [email protected] Hawaii DOT, Mater Engineer (Civil) AASHTO MemberSteven Ingram [email protected] Alabama DepartmeTesting Engineer AASHTO MemberBrian Johnson [email protected] AASHTO re:source AASHTO Accreditation AASHTO MemberCecil Jones [email protected] Diversified Enginee President AASHTO Non-Member (industry representative)Deborah Kim [email protected] AASHTO Assistant Director, PubAASHTO MemberDavid Kuniega [email protected] Pennsylvania Depa Chief Chemist AASHTO MemberJohn Lamond [email protected] Controls Group USAGeneral Manager Sponsor/ExhibitorRobert Lauzon [email protected] Connecticut DepartPrincipal Engineer (MaAASHTO MemberChristopher Leibrock [email protected] Kansas DOT Engineer of Tests AASHTO MemberSteven Lenker [email protected] AASHTO re:source Director, CMRL AASHTO MemberColin Lobo [email protected] NRMCA Sr. VP Engineering AASHTO Non-Member (industry representative)Carole Anne MacDonald [email protected] of TranspoPetrographer AASHTO MemberNye McCarty [email protected] Arizona DepartmenRegional Materials EngAASHTO MemberJohn Melander [email protected] John M Melander, CEO AASHTO Non-Member (industry representative)Ross "Oak" Metcalfe [email protected] Montana DepartmeTesting Engineer AASHTO MemberMisty Miner [email protected] WAQTC QAC AASHTO MemberWes Musgrove [email protected] Iowa DOT Director, Office of ConAASHTO MemberAllen Myers [email protected] Kentucky TransportDirector, Division of MAASHTO MemberMeysam Najimi [email protected] Iowa State UniversiDr. AcademiaAndy Naranjo [email protected] Texas Department Branch Manager AASHTO MemberDerek Nener-Plante [email protected] MaineDOT Asphalt Pavement EngAASHTO MemberGarth Newman [email protected] WAQTC QAC Chair AASHTO MemberAngela Pakes [email protected] Recycled Materials Technical Director AcademiaMario Paredes [email protected] TRI/Environmental Senior Research Engin AASHTO Non-Member (industry representative)Brian Pfeifer [email protected] Illinois Department Engineer of Materials AASHTO MemberMurari Pradhan [email protected] Arizona DepartmenRegional Materials EngAASHTO Member

Appendix B

Jan Prowell [email protected] CCRL Director AASHTO Non-Member (industry representative)Sonya Puterbaugh [email protected] Senior Laboratory AsseAASHTO MemberTimothy Ramirez [email protected] Pennsylvania Depa Engineer of Tests AASHTO MemberDoug Rhodes [email protected] Boral / Headwaters Facility Manager AASHTO MemberWill Rogers [email protected] Georgia Asphalt Pa Technical Director AASHTO Non-Member (industry representative)Timothy Ruelke [email protected] Florida DepartmentDirector, Office of MatAASHTO MemberStephen "ToddRumbuagh [email protected] West Virginia Depa Deputy State HIghway AASHTO MemberJesus Sandoval-Gil [email protected] Arizona DepartmenAssistant State Constr AASHTO MemberDavid Savage [email protected] CMEC Director of Accreditati AASHTO Non-Member (industry representative)Bill Schiebel [email protected] Colorado DepartmeMaterials/GeotechnicaAASHTO MemberLarry Scofield [email protected] IGGA Director of Engineerin AASHTO Non-Member (industry representative)Joe Seiders,Jr. [email protected] Raba Kistner InfrastVice President AASHTO Non-Member (industry representative)Scott Seiter [email protected] Oklahoma DepartmMaterials Engineer AASHTO MemberKenny Seward [email protected] Oklahoma DepartmAssistant Materials En AASHTO MemberBrett Smith [email protected] SAM-CS, LLC Vice President/Princip AASHTO Non-Member (industry representative)RON STANEVICH [email protected] WV DIVISION OF HI DIRECTOR AASHTO MemberJohn Staton [email protected] Michigan DepartmeMaterials Engineer AASHTO MemberDon Streeter [email protected] New York State DepStructural Materials anAASHTO MemberLarry Sutter [email protected] Michigan Technolo Professor AcademiaMick Syslo [email protected] Nebraska DepartmeEngineer, Materials anAASHTO MemberDarin Tedford [email protected] Nevada DOT Chief Materials EngineAASHTO MemberPaul Tennis [email protected] Portland Cement A Director, Product Stan AASHTO Non-Member (industry representative)Brett Trautman [email protected] Missouri Departme Physical Laboratory Di AASHTO MemberSteve Tritsch [email protected] National Concrete Associate Director AcademiaCurt Turgeon [email protected] Minnesota DOT State Pavement Engin AASHTO MemberNick Van Den Berg [email protected] Vermont DOT Concrete Materials MaAASHTO MemberTRAVIS WALBECK [email protected] West Virginia Divisi State Pavement Engin AASHTO MemberCraig Wallace [email protected] Headwaters ResourTechnical Manager AASHTO Non-Member (industry representative)Randy Weingart [email protected] National Stone, SanDirector: Engineering aAASHTO Non-Member (industry representative)Jack Youtcheff [email protected] Federal Highway AdTeam Leader, Paveme AASHTO MemberLisa Zigmund [email protected] Ohio Department oAdministrator of the OAASHTO MemberKarl Zipf [email protected] DelDOT Chief Chemist AASHTO Member

Appendix B

Appendix C

ATTACHMENT 2

Item Number: 1 Description: T23 Revisions - Revise Section 5.3 to include allowable tolerances for beam

molds.

Attachment(s): t 023- May 2017 redline ballot.docx

Decisions: Affirmative: 27 of 29 Negative: 0 of 29 No Vote: 2 of 29

Ontario Ministry Of Transportation (Becca Lane) ([email protected])

In section 5.3, the sentence describing the allowable tolerance for flexure molds is not clear. We suggest to revise the sentence to read: Except for flexure specimens, molds shall not vary from the nominal length by more than 1.6 mm (1/16 in.). Flexure molds shall not be shorter than 1.6 mm (1/16 in.) of the required length (greater length is allowed).

Item Number: 2 Description: T97 Revisions Part 1 - Revise sections 5.3, 5.4, 6.1, and various notes to be

consistent/harmonious with ASTM.

Attachment(s): t 097 May 2017 ballot 1.docx


Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (Timothy L Ramirez) ([email protected])

Affirmative with comments: 1) At end of standard where the list of superscript references is shown, should the superscript reference 1 and 2 be deleted since the language in Note 2 where these two references are noted has been deleted? If so, the remaining references should be renumbered throughout the standard and at the end of the standard.

Item Number: 3 Description: T97 Revisions Part 2 - Revise section 10 to include updated precision and

bias statements. The P&B statements were derived as a result of a multi-lab study completed in accordance with ASTM C670.

Attachment(s): t 097_ballot_2_2.docx



Affirmative with comments: 1) In Section 10.1.2, 5th line, the language indicates "modulus of rupture greater than 6.9 MPa [1000 psi]", but Table 1, 2nd column for Modulus of Rupture only indicates "6.9 MPa [1000 psi]" and the Table does not give any indication of "greater than". It seems that the text in Section 10.1.2, 5th line, and Table 1, column 2 should agree. In

http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=2106



Appendix C

addition, Note X below Table 1 indicates the precision data came from an ILS that looked at three cement concretes with strengths of 4.1 MPa [600 psi], 5.5 MPa, [800 psi], and 6.9 MPa [1000 psi]. In Table 1, 3rd row, for the 152 mm [ 6 in.] beam depth, the 2nd column indicates the Modulus of Rupture spans the entire range (i.e., 4.1 to 6.9 MPa [600 to 1000 psi] from the ILS study; however, for Table 1, 2nd row, for the 100 mm [4 in.] beam depth it only indicates a Modululs of rupture of 6.9 MPa [1000], which is very specific and limiting. Should Table 1, row 2, for the 100 mm [4 in.] beam depth, be revised to "5.5 to 6.9 MPa [800 to 1000 psi]" (i.e., providing a range as is done in 1st and 3rd rows? At any rate, the text in 10.1.2, 5th line, and the Table 1 text for the last two rows and the ranges in Table 1 column 2 (Modulus of Rupture) do not seem to all agree or be consistent with each other. 2) At end of the standard and directly under Section 11, there is a list of superscript numbered references; however, the proposed revisions are adding footnotes that are shown in the footer of pages T 97-6 and T 97-7 that seem to have the same numbered superscript. So, it is confusing as to which numbered superscript should be referred to when the user encounters a numbered superscript within the text of the standard; does the user refer to the numbered superscript footnotes in the footers of pages T 97-6 and T 97-7 or do they refer to the numbered superscript references directly below Section 11?

Virginia Department of Transportation (Charles A. Babish) ([email protected])

Suggested edits; ------------------------------------------------------------------- Section 5.1.3 - Insert a comma after "1.0". Reword the following sentence as follows, "The use of a pachometer is recommended, whenever possible, to identify the location of reinforcement to avoid obtaining cores." Section 7.8, Table 1 - the first correction factor should be "F' core" instead of "Fcore".

Missouri Department of Transportation (Brett Steven Trautman) ([email protected])

Affirmative vote with an editorial comment: 1) Under Section 10.1.2, in Table 1, can a greater than sign (>) be added in front of "6.9 MPa [1000psi]" so it reads ">6.9MPa [1000psi)".

Item Number: 4 Description: T24 Revisions - Revisions proposed to the moisture conditioning requirements to

allow more flexibility in conditioning methods used with appropriate core strength correction factors based on ACI 214.

Attachment(s): T24 - RDH edits - REV2.docx


Cement and Concrete Reference Laboratory (Jan Prowell) ([email protected])

Are you sure you want the temperature in 7.3.4 to be measured to 0.01 C (23 C +/- 1.66 C)? At minimum, it would be best to change it to 23 C +/- 1.7 C . It may be better to change it to match your moisture room temperature which is 23 C +/- 2.0 C.

Virginia Department of Transportation (William R Bailey) ([email protected])

An explanation on how the correction factor in Section 7.8 were arrived upon would be good information to share with the committee at the SOM meeting. Was there a research study? Is there a Section 7.9? Is Note 14 related to the correction factors in Section 7.8? Are the correction factors only for lightweight concrete?


Affirmative with comments: 1) In Section 3.4, revise from "Research has shown that the strength" back to "The strength" and then add numbered superscript(s) at the end of this sentence to reference the research to a numbered reference or references that should be added at the end of the standard. 2) In Section 3.4, it is noted that line 3 indicates "There is no standard procedure to


Appendix C

condition a specimen"; however, the proposed revisions to Section 7.3, line 2 and Section 7.3.1, line 1, now refer to a "standard moisture conditioning procedure" or "Standard Moisture Conditioning Treatment", respectively. This seems to be a little inconsistent and slightly confusing to user of the standard. 3) In Section 3.4, end of 6th line and 7th line, it indicates "and to reduce the effects of moisture induced during specimen preparation", which is now not fully accurate with proposed revision to add alternate conditioning procedure in Section 7.3.4 which is immersion for 48 hours in lime-saturated water. This sentence in Section 3.4, lines 6 and 7, should be revised to account for the alternate moisture conditioning procedure. 4) In Section 3.4, consider revising from "Two options are provided in this test method" to "Two moisture conditioning procedures are included in this test method" as it is not fully clear what "options" is referring to as written. 5) In Section 3.4, Note 4, 5th line, revise from "standard-cured cylinder" to "standard-cured cylinders" since the plural word "cores" is used earlier in same sentence. 6) In Section 3.4, Note 4, last two lines, consider revising from "provides for additional strength adjustment factors some of which" to "provides additional adjustment factors for cores tested for compressive strength; some of which" to more properly reference the "compressive strength". 7) In Section 3.7, 2nd line, consider revising from "core diameter, conditioning and damage" to "core diameter, moisture conditioning, and damage" to more clearly define "conditioning". 8) In Section 5.1.1, 3rd line, revise from "Note 5 and Note 6" to "Note 6 and Note 7" as the current referenced Note #'s seem incorrect. 9) In Section 5.1.1, Note 6, last line, revise from "constructions" to "construction". 10) In Section 5.1.3, the 1st sentence states "If it is not possible to prepare a test specimen that meets the requirements of Section 7.1 and 7.2 that is free of embedded reinforcement or other metal". Since 1st sentence indicates "prepare" which would include saw cutting, it seems redundant and unnecessary to add the proposed new sentence in Section 5.1.3, 5th and 6th lines, that begins "When reinforcement is present in the core but can be removed". In addition, the 1st sentence refers to Section 7.2 where the length-diameter ration (L/D) of 1.0 is already specified. 11) In Section 5.1.3, next to last sentence that begins "The use of a pachometer", consider moving this sentence to be a new Section placed before Section 5.1.2. Also, consider revising sentence to read "Use of a pachometer is recommended before core drilling to identify locations of embedded reinforcement or other metal to avoid the metal whenever possible." 12) In Section 5.1.3, last sentence that begins "Cores with diameters", consider deleting this sentence as Section 7.1 provides the criteria for core diameter (i.e., "shall be at least two times the maximum nominal size of the coarse aggregate") or consider moving this sentence that begins "Cores with diameters" to Section 7.1.1 since it is giving core diameter criteria which is covered under Section 7.1. If move sentence, revise from "50mm ( 2in.)" to "50 mm [2.00 in.]" for formatting and consistency with accuracy of measurement. 13) In Section 7.1.1, revise from "the diameters of core specimens for the determination" to "the diameter of a core specimen for determination". 14) In Section 7.1.1, last sentence, consider moving this sentence to a new Subsection 5.2.1 as it seems more related to Sampling and Core Drilling as covered in Section 5 and Section 5.2, respectively. 15) In Section 7.1.2, the referenced diameters of "94 mm [3.74 in]" are proposed to be revised to "101 [4.0 in.]" in one location and to "100 mm [4.0 in.]" in another location, but was the slightly smaller dimensions purposfully included here in case a nominal 4 in. diameter core barrel used for core drilling yielded a slightly undersized core specimen? Consider keeping the original core diameter size of "94 mm [3.74]" to account for slightly undersized core diameters due to a nominal 4 inch diameter core barrel. At a minimum, revise from "101 mm [4.0 in.]" and "100 mm [4.0 in.]" to "100 mm [4.00 in.]" to be consistent with the SI units in both locations and to keep accuracy of measurement if using U.S. customary units. 16) In Section 7.1.2, Note 10, proposed language indicates "cores less than or greater than 100 mm (4.0) require a correction factor". The use of the word "require" makes this a requirement and, thus, this language should not be included in a Note as a Note is non-mandatory. Also, revise from "100 mm (4.0)" to "100 mm [4.00 in.]" or "94 mm [3.70 in.]" as appropriate considering comment above. 17) In Section 7.2.1, 2nd line, consider revising from "between 1.9 to 2.01 times" to "from 1.9 to 2.0 times" for consistency in number of decimal places and clearly defining the from/to. Also, what is reason for revision from "2.1" to "2.01" yet keeping "1.9"?

Appendix C

18) In Section 7.2.1, 3rd line, is the revised "2.01" correct? Should it be "2.0"? 19) In Section 7.2.2, last line, revise the reference to "Section 7.9.1" as Section 7.9.1 is proposed to be deleted. 20) For Section 7.3, consider the following format: "7.3 Moisture Conditioning--One of two different moisture conditioning procedures may be specified to condition cores before testing for compressive strength. If one of the two moisture conditioning procedures is not specifically specified, use Procedure A as the default moisture conditioning procedure. 7.3.1 Procedure A (Field Moisture)--This moisture conditioning procedure is intended to preserve the moisture in the drilled core and to provide a reproducible moisture condtion ... 7.3.1.1 After cores have been drilled... 7.3.1.2 If water is used during sawing or grinding... 7.3.1.3 Allow the cores to remain in the sealed plastic bags... 7.3.2 Procedure B (48-hour Soak)--This moisture conditioning procedure does not fully rely on diligent preservation of the field moisture in the drilled core. This procedure is intended to provide a consistent moisture condition in the drlled core throughout the entire core to provide a reproducible soaked moisture condition that minimizes the effects of moisture gradients introduced by wetting during drilling and specimen preparation and potentially introduced by improperly sealed plastic bags or nonabsorbant containers used to package drilled cores. This procedure may also reduce conditioning time before testing. 7.3.2.1 After cores have been drilled... 7.3.2.2 If water used during sawing or grinding... 7.3.2.3 Allow the cores to remain in the sealed plastic bags... 7.3.2.4 Submerge the cores in a lime-saturated water at..." 21) For comment #20) above, it is not clear if using moisture conditioning Procedure B (48-hour Soak) if all the same sampling, packaging, and conditioning in sealed plastic bags or nonabsorbant containers is required. Perhaps consider including language from Section 9.2 here regarding keeping sample wrapped in wet burlap. However, the suggested format above may need further revisions in the proposed Sections 7.3.2.1 to 7.3.2.3, if the sampling, packaging, sawing and griding and repackaging and 5 day conditioning can be different from the language in Procedure A. 22) In existing Section 7.3.2, consider revising from "in sealed plastic bags" to "in separate sealed plastic bags". 23) In Section 7.8, 1st & 2nd sentences, revise from "of the specimen. And any other" to "of the specimen and any other". 24) In Section 7.8, 5th line, revise from "If the ratio of length to diameter of the specimen exceeds 2.00" to "If the length-diameter ration exceeds 2.0" to be consistent with language, format, and decimal places of the ration in Section 7.1.2. 25) In Section 7.8, 6th line, revise from "close to 2.00 as practical" to "close to 2.0 as practicable" for consistency with ration decimal places specified in Section 7.1.2 and the use of the word "practicable" in Section 7.3.2. 26) In Section 7.8, where definitions, the definition for "F'c references "Equation 5-7", but no such equation number exists. It is assumed this equation # should be the equation # given to first equation under Section 7.8. 27) In Section 7.8, where definitions, revise from "Table 1.0" to "Table 1" in three where definitions. Also, revise "Table 1.0" to "Table 1" for table caption. 28) In Section 7.8, where definitions, where definition for "n", delete "averaged to nearest whole MPa (psi)" as this is not the units for "n". 29) In Table 1, Table footnotes should use superscript lower-case letters, not superscript numbers as these can be confused with raising to a power. In addition, the current Table footnotes seem to be in the wrong places. Table footnote 1, should be footnote a, located either in column 1 row 2 or column 3, row 2. The alpha character is only applicable to the equation in column 3 row 2, not all of column 3. Footnote 3 should be footnote c and should be located in column 1, row 3. Table 1 column 2 is confusing as to why the 3 sizes are listed as these sizes are also listed in Table 2 and should be deleted in favor of Table 2. Table 1 is confusing as it seems column 2 is unneccessary as items in column 2 could be deleted in favor of Table 2 or in favor of moving to column 1 (conditioning procedures). If keep column 2, the format of the SI and US customary units is different in row 3 vs. rows 4 and 5. The superscript 2 footnote in column 2 looks like a square inch. Consider referencing Procedure A and Procedure B for the moisture conditioning factors as commented on above. 30) In Table 2.0, revise from "Table 2.0" to "Table 2" and consider adding the mm core diameters in column 1. In Table 2, consider revising core diameters in column 2 from fractions to two decimal places (e.g., 2.12) for consistency with the way core diameters in

Appendix C

inches is used throughout the standard. 31) In Section 7.10.2, if the revisions in Section 7.1.2 remain as proposed, revise from "94 mm [3.70 in.]" to "100 mm [4.00 in.]" here also. 32) In Section 7.10.6, consider adding a new subsection to address how the Procedure B (48-hour Soak) moisture conditioing history is to be documented. 33) In Section 8.6, how is the precision affected by including Moisture Conditioning Procedure B (48-hour Soak)?

Arizona Department of Transportation (Paul Burch) ([email protected])

(1) “Length to Diameter Ratio” is referred to in many different ways throughout the document. It may be helpful to be consistent. Following are examples found throughout: length-diameter ratio (L/D), L/d ratio, length-diameter ration, ratio of the length to the diameter (L/D), length-diameter ratio, L/D, and ratio of length to diameter. (2) In the 3rd sentence of 5.1.3, a comma following “1.0” could make the sentence easier to understand. (3) In the 4th sentence of 5.1.3, “to avoid obtaining cores whenever possible” should likely be revised to say, “to avoid obtaining cores containing reinforcement whenever possible”. (4) In the 1st sentence of 7.1.2, are core diameters “less than 101 mm” not prohibited, or should it say “less than 100 mm”? (5) In Note 10, it should likely say “The compressive strengths of cores with diameters less than…” (6) In the 3rd sentence of 7.2.1, should it say, “Core specimens with length-diameter ratios other than 2.0 require corrections”? (7) In the 1st sentence of 7.2.1, it says, “Except as provided in 7.2.2…”. However, another exception to the L/D requirement of 2.0 would be in 5.1.3 since the L/D ratio is allowed to be 1.0 in the case of reinforcing steel. 7.2.1 could likely say, “Except as provided in 5.1.3 or 7.2.2…” (8) In the 1st and 2nd sentences of 7.2.1, it says “…the preferred length of the capped or ground specimen is between 1.9 and 2.01 times the diameter. If the ratio of the length to the diameter (L/D) of the core exceeds 2.01, reduce the length of the cores so that the ratio of the capped or ground specimen does not exceed 2.0”. However, in the proposed verbiage in 7.8 for Calculation, it says “If the ratio of length to diameter of the specimen exceeds 2.00, it shall be reduced to as close to 2.00 as practical without exceeding 2.00.” Doesn’t the wording in 7.2.1 already cover this, which would allow for a new core length that yields a L/D ratio of between 1.9-2.0? It may not be necessary to repeat this information in 7.8 because when calculation commences, the user should already have their measurements. If it is necessary to repeat this information, it could likely be worded the same way. Also, regardless of whether it is necessary to repeat this information, the limit should probably be defined as “2.00” in 7.2.1 to alleviate any rounding confusion. (9) In 7.3.4, is “48 Hour (Soaked in Water) Conditioning treatment” intended to be a subsection title, similar to other italicized text throughout the document? (10) In 7.3.4 it says “the cores shall be immersed in lime-saturated water at 23 C +/- 1.66 C”. AASHTO standards typically round the tolerance for requirements of 23 to +/- 2 C. Also, AASHTO standards do not repeat the “C” after both the requirement and the tolerance, it is typically only shown after the tolerance. And they also use a degree symbol before the C.

Florida Department of Transportation (Michael J Bergin) ([email protected])

7.1.2 end of the first line the term is ratio not ration. Note 10. The note assumes that we are talking about the diameter of the core sample but it does not state this.


Affirmative vote with several comments: 1) In Note 10, can the word "diameter" be added in front of the word "require" To read as "...of cores less than or greater than 100 mm (4.0 in.) diameter require a correction factor...". This would be for clarification purposes. 2) It looks like the section after 7.8 doesn't have a number in front of it. it should be Section 7.9. 3) The equations shown in Section 7.9 have not been assigned equation numbers (i.e. Equation XXX). 4) Recommend using the words 'corrected' and 'uncorrected' instead of the words 'factored' and 'unfactored' for the first two variables shown in Section 7.9.

Appendix C

5) In Section 7.9, recommend changing the name of the following variables for clarification purposes: - Change F'c to F'cc: corrected in-place concrete strength of each core as computed by Equation xxx (Note not Equation 5-7) - Change F' core to F'uc: uncorrected compressive strength of individual core - Change F' cores to F'avg: average computed in-place concrete strength 6) In Section 7.9, where the variables are defined, recommend that the letters following F and F' be subscript . 7) All references to Table 1.0 should be changed to Table 1. 8) In Table 1, the bottom two rows should be reversed to match the order the curing requirements are shown in the specification. Section 7.3.1 Standard Moisture Conditioning (mentioned first) Section 7.3.4 48-hr soak (mentioned second) 9) Should add information addressing how samples are handled prior to soaking for 48 hours. 10) Table 2.0 should be referenced as Table 2. Also need to add label describing what the table is showing. 11) Table 2 does not show SI units in the column provided. 12) In Table 1, it shows an equation for calculating the L/D correction factor. Calculating this factor could be problematic (i.e. determined incorrectly). 13) In Table 1, recommend merging the bottom two rows of the first column so 'F mc: core moisture content' is only shown once.

Oklahoma Department of Transportation (Kenny R Seward) ([email protected]) NEGATIVE VOTE

There are major changes to this specification that fundamentally change the way the L/D ratio is handled. How can we just abandon the way we handle none standard lengths and diameters without researching these changes. Changes this extensive usually are the result of an NCHRP study. These changes will make this specification overly complicated for a highly variable test. Let’s not even talk about what this will mean when an AASHTO State is being evaluated by CCRL because of the difference between this specification and ASTM C42. Also, these changes to the specification will place it in conflict with AASHTO T22, section 8.2.

That being said here are some items that need to be addressed:

5.1.3 …obtaining cores with reinforcement whenever possible.

7.2.1 Does this section mean that everything we have done over the years for L/D was wrong? The way I read this section L/D does not matter if it is 1 to 1, because it says “Core specimens with length-diameter ratios other than 1.0 require corrections as indicated in equation xxxx.” This section says that the core L/D ratio can be between 1.9 and 2.01 while the second newly added sentence to 7.8 says it can’t exceed 2.00 without correction.

7.3.4 Time to cap the core needs to be addressed in this section because there will be a time when the core can’t be kept moist.

7.8 Where do I start? The changes to this section will result in a difference between it and AASHTO T22, section 8.2. In the first new equation you determine F’c using F’core. In the second equation you determine F’cores using F’core. Shouldn’t you be using F’c in the second equation? The equation for the correction factor of L/D uses the term Fcore which is not defined. Also the terms that are defined are poorly defined. Also when I input numbers into the L/D equation I seem to get an increase in strength when the L/D gets close to 1.0. This seems wrong.

mailto:[email protected]

Appendix C

On a different note the first few sentences of section 7.7 differ from ASTM C42, section 7.7, in a way that can make the two specifications read differently when it comes to the procedure for measuring length. Which is right?

Nebraska Department of Roads (Mick Syslo) ([email protected]) NEGATIVE VOTE

We believe more explanation needs to be incorporated for how to use the factors when using a moisture room. Should that be considered the same factor as wet? We often have our cores in the moist room for over a week.

Item Number: 5 Description: PP84 Revisions - Revisions to refine this new provisional standard

Attachment(s): pp 084 Revisions to AASHTO final 5May2017.pdf


Slag Cement Association (John Melander) ([email protected])

The Commentary for this document indicates that it's goal is to provide "tools to prepare a specification for pavement mixtures that moves closer to measuring and basing acceptance on parameters that are truly critical to the long-term performance of the system." That goal has broad support within the cement and concrete industry. However, additional work is needed to validate the relevance, reliability, and practicality of many of the new "performance options" to predicting concrete durability. Some that come to mind are the SAM air meter, the Formation Factor, and the Oxychloride content test limits. As a specific comment, I found the format of Appendix X6 Commentary hard to follow as it includes a mixture of provisions copied from the body of the standard Practice along with commentary on those provisions. That format is not only confusing, it increases the likelihood of having conflicting information in Appendix X6 as revisions are made to the Practice. Suggest considering deleting provisions from commentary that are copied from body of the Practice, and limiting X6 content to just commentary.

Portland Cement Association (Paul D Tennis) ([email protected])

Since about 40% of SHAs reference ASTM concrete material specifications, equivalent ASTM specifications should be listed in Section 4. Please see attachment for specific suggestions


Affirmative with comments: 1) In Section 6.5.1.3, revise from "between 4 and 8 percent" to "from 4 to 8 percent" to make the range more clear. Between 4 and 8 is from 5 to 7. Is 5 to 7 the intent? If not, use from X to X to clearly establish the range. Also, Table 3 revision shows ">/=4 to 8" 2) In Section 7.2.1, revise from "27.54 MPa" to "27.5 MPa". 3) In X6.5.1.2, revise from "between 5 and 8 percent" to "from 5 to 8 percent" (See Table X6.6). 4) In X6.5.1.3, revise from "between 4 and 8 percent" to "from 4 to 8 percent" (See Table X6.6).


Should Table 4 express the testing frequencies in volume rather than surface area? Testing quantity could change significantly depending on the thickness of a concrete pavement.

New York State Department of Transportation (Donald Streeter) ([email protected])

Excellent document with much technical improvement with regard to PCC mix design and development, as compared to current practice. This procedure makes sense for implementation on individual / larger projects with a specific PCC need. Use on a broader spectrum of mixtures and applications may be more difficult. It is unclear if practitioners, especially Ready Mix producers, will have the time or experience to be able to understand and achieve some of the new "sophisticated" performance measures, such as the Transport properties. This however, may come with time and experience.


Appendix C

Item Number: 6 Description: T359 Revisions - Standard was accidentally balloted to full SOM in Fall 2016 as

new standard. Comments from 2016 ballot are incorporated in this Tech Section ballot for tech section to consider as revisions to current published standard.

Attachment(s): t 359M-t 359_2017 ballot draft.docx



Affirmative with comments: 1) In Section 7.4, last line, consider revising from "the thickness of pavement" to "the thickness result of the pavement". 2) In Section 7.5, 1st line, consider revising from "record the results. No result at a single location should" to "record each individual thickness result. No individual thickness result at a single location reference should". 3) In Section 7.5, 2nd line, consider revising from "than the other two results" to "than the other two individual thickness results". 4) In Section 7.5, 3rd line, consider revising from "more tests" to "more individual thickness results at the same single location reference" 5) In Section 7.6, consider revising from "remaining locations" to "remaining location references" to match language/text "location reference" used in Section 7.1. 6) In Section 8.1, consider revising the text to provide more clarity regarding the average. Consider revising from "Average the 3 readings and express the result to" to "Average the 3 individual thickness results at each location reference and express the average result rounded to". 7) In Section 8.2, 1st line, consider revising "first set of results is" to "first set of individual thickness results at a single location reference is" and consider revising from "second set of test results" to "second set of individual thickness results from the same single location reference". 8) In Section 8.2, 2nd line, consider revising from "between any results" to "between any two individual thickness results". 7) in Section 8.2, 3rd line, consider revising from "location could" to "location reference could". 8) In Section 8.2, last line, consider revising from "average the 3 results and express the result to" to "average the 3 individual thickness results from a single location reference and express the average result rounded to" to match text in Section 9.1.3.. 9) In Section 9.1.1, consider revising from "Location and" to "Location Reference and". 10) In Section 10.1.1, 3rd line, language refers to "conducted test", but what is a "test"? Is a test one single thickness result at a single location reference or is it a rounded average result of 3 individual thickness results at a single location reference? It is not clear due to other parts of standard referring to a "result" or "average result", but not a "test". 11) In Section 10.1.2, 2nd line, it refers to "two properly conducted tests", but is this 2 individual thickness results at a single reference location or is this two average results of 3 individual thickness results at a single location reference?

Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (Richard S. Giessel) ([email protected])

Typo in T 359, Section 7.5 Repeat 10.4 should read "Repeat 7.4"

Item Number: 7 Description: New standard practice for consideration. AASHTO T 22 allows for the ends

of the cylinder to be sawed or ground to a planeness of 0.050 mm (0.002 in.), but it does not define how to grind the ends plane. This draft standard


Appendix C

attempts to define the grinding procedure. If the Technical Section approves this standard, the next step will be to refer to it in AASHTO T 22 and C39/C39M.

Attachment(s): Standard Practice on Cylinder Grinding - TS ballot...



A glass plate may or may not be suitable for this test. Surface condition will have an effect upon how plane it will be. A plate that is used for gypsum capping may have enough surface problems that would negatively impact this check without showing a problem for capping. There should also be the provision for using a reference straightedge for verifying the working straightedge.


Affirmative with comments: 1) In Section 3.1, consider revising from "any anticipated strength for compressive strength testing including high-strength concrete" to "any anticipated strength, including high-strength concrete, for compressive strength testing". 2) In Section 3.2, revise from "need for use of capping systems as described in T 321, C617/C617M, and C1231/C1231M" to "need to use other practices for capping including T 321 or ASTM C617/C617M or use of unbonded caps in accordance with ASTM C1231/C1231M". 3) In Section 3, add a Note stating that many concrete cores are obtained that are not of a diameter that can be fitted into an a end-grinder. For example, many of the cores we receive for compression testing have a diameter a little less than 4 in. in diameter. These cores cannot be end-ground and, as a result, they must be cut on a water saw and then capped with sulfur mortar. These cores must be capped with one of the more traditional methods in order to be tested for compressive strength. 4) In Section 5.1, consider revising from "The thickness of the feeler gages specified in 4.4 shall be checked for conformance before being placed" to "Check the thickness of feeler gages specified in Section 4.4 for conformance before the gages are placed". 5) In Section 5.1, 2nd line, consider revising from "The thickness of the feeler gage shall be no" to "Ensure the thickness of the feeler gage is no". 6) In Section 5.1, 4th line, consider revising from "in 4.4. A record of the check shall be documented and maintained in" to "in Section 4.4. Document and maintain a record of the check in". 7) In Section 5.2, 1st line, consider revising from "The straightedge shall be checked for" to "Check the straightedge for" and revise from "of 4.2" to "of Section 4.2". 8) In Section 5.2, 3rd line, revise from "in 4.3" to "in Section 4.3" and from "in 4.4" to "in Section 4.4". 9) In Section 5.2, 5th line, revise from "time, the straightedge shall be replaced or machined to" to "time, replace or machine the straightedge to" and revise from "in 4.4" to "in Section 4.4". 10) In Section 5.2, 6th line, revise from "before being placed back" to "before placing the straightedge back" and revise from "The check records shall be documented and retained in" to "Document and retain a record of the checks in". 11) In Section 5.3, revise from "The user shall establish" to "Establish" and revise from "Maintenance shall be conducted at" to "Conduct grinder maintenance" and revise from "The maintenance schedule, procedure, and records shall be documented and retained in" to "Document and retain the maintenance schedule, procedures, and records in". 12) In Section 6.1, revise from "cured as specified in" to "cured in accordance with" and revise from "cored as specified in T 24M/T24" to "cored in accordance with T 24M/T 24". 13) In Section 6.5.1, revise from "the height of" to "the length of" and revise from "beyond the height requirements for" to "beyond the length requirements of". 14) In Section 6.6, 4th line, revise from "for storage or curing prior" to "for moisture conditioning prior" and revise from "testing in either" to "testing in accordance with".


“RM” is not a typical designation for a Provisional Practice. The appropriate designation would likely be “PP”.


Appendix C

Oklahoma Department of Transportation (Kenny R Seward) ([email protected])

Note 2 has waring parts, shouldn't that be wearing parts


Affirmative vote with an editorial comment: 1) In Section 4.2, replace the word 'longer' with the word 'greater' so it reads, 'A stiff steel bar that is greater than the diameter of...'.

Item Number: 8 Description: New standard for consideration. Current method is stated as an appendix in

PP84. Method is proposed for consideration as a stand alone standard that PP84 will then reference if passed.

Attachment(s): VKelly Test for AASHTO SOM.docx



5.1.3.6 needs to be written in mandatory language


Affirmative with comments: 1) In Section 2.1, revise from "T183" to "T 183-XX". 2) In Section 2.2, revise from "C360 Ball" to "C360-92, Ball" 3) In Section 3.3, Note 1, revise from "of formally standardized test method in AASHTO Designation T 183, and in ASTM Designation C360" to "of T 183-XX and ASTM C360-92." 4) In Section 5.1.3, adjust formatting to move to left. 5) In Section 6.1, revise from "R60" to "R 60". 6) In Section 6.2, revise from "Fresh, unconsolidated concrete should be gently placed in the tub" to "Gently place fresh, unconsolidated concrete in the tub".


(1) Would this likely start out as a Provisional Test Method, in which case the appropriate designation would be “TP”? (2) There should be spacing between the paragraphs in the Scope section (3) Subsection alignment in the Apparatus section is inconsistent with other subsection alignment throughout the document (4) In 6.1, there should be a space between “R” and “60”. AASHTO Test Methods appear with a space between the letter and the number in the designation (5) 7.1 states to “Gently lower the ball onto the concrete and let it sink under its own weight in accordance with CTM533". CTM533 says “Gradually lower the ball penetrator into the concrete, maintaining enough restraint on the handle so that penetration is due to the dead load of the ball only and not to any force generated by acceleration of the mass.” It might assist the reader if this sentenced in 7.1 were revised to read, “Gently lower the ball onto the concrete and let it sink under its own weight so that penetration is due to the dead load of the ball only and not to any force generated by acceleration of the mass.” If this sentence were revised it would alleviate the reader from having to refer to a separate document.

Oklahoma Department of Transportation (Kenny R Seward) ([email protected])

Note 1 "... of 'a' formally..." 7.1 references CTM533. Should AASHTO be referencing a California standard?

Missouri Department of Transportation (Brett Steven

Affirmative vote with a few comments: 1) Recommend making this a provisional test method before making it a full specification.


Appendix C

Trautman) ([email protected])

2) Add a space between sections 1.1 & 1.2, 1.2 & 1.3, and 1.3 & 1.4.

Connecticut Department of Transportation (Robert G Lauzon) ([email protected]) NEGATIVE VOTE

Figure 1 has questionable value, and the other figures need annotation to be understood and linked to the text. This Standard Method of Test lacks the information necessary to perform this test without the equipment from NCPTC. Procedure: lacks clarity, for example time period for the static test is not defined, remix time in the lab is imprecise. Calculation and Report: lacks clarity, for example Formula 1 defines "t" as the elapsed time of vibration and defines x as the square root of "t". Figure 5 shows the x axis as the square root of "s" (undefined) that appears to be the elapsed time of testing including the static test. Precision and Bias: Does a differentiation between lab and field testing need to be mentioned here? Does remixing in the lab have an impact on the results? R60 states to start testing of plastic properties within 5 minutes after obtaining the composite sample, yet the limit in this method is 45 minutes? It is also unclear how often or how long this period is extended by remixing.

1

TURNER-FAIRBANK HIGHWAY RESEARCH CENTERTURNER-FAIRBANK HIGHWAY RESEARCH CENTER

I- Miniaturization of MR Specimen SizeII- Determination of the Test PrecisionI- Miniaturization of MR Specimen SizeII- Determination of the Test Precision

Ahmad Ardani, PE – TFHRC Concrete Research Program

SOM- August 9, 2017

6x6x21in

4x4x14in


Research TeamResearch Team

• Jussara Tanesi, PhD., FACI - SES & Associates

• Haejin Kim, PhD - SES & Associates

• John Leavitt - SES & Associates

• Acknowledgement:– ASTM ILS program

– 22 Participating laboratories


OutlineOutline

• Project BackgroundObjectives

Why this study?

What is the problem?

• Data acquisition/analysis

• Conclusions

• Questions


Flexural Strength (MR)Flexural Strength (MR)


Influence of MR on Cracking, MEPDGInfluence of MR on Cracking, MEPDG

Adequate MR is extremely important

Courtesy: ARA, 2004


So Why this study?So Why this study?

• AASHTO MEPDG requires MR

• Problems:Standard beam 6”x6”x21” = 66 lbs.

Beam + molding frame > 100 lbs.

Cumbersome, too heavy and unsafe

State DOTs prefer cylinders for QA!

Concrete fails in bending!

Appendix D

2


ObjectivesObjectives• Feasibility of using 4”x4”x14”

Specimen weighs 19 lbs.

Molding frame weighs 15-20 lbs.

Total weight < 40 lbs., much lighter!

• Recommend adoption by AASHTO and ASTM

4x4x14in = 19 lbs.

6x6x21in = 66 lbs.


Experimental Design & ConstituentsExperimental Design & Constituents

• 22 mixtures - w/cm = 0.37-0.47

• 4 aggregates: NMS:¾” (67), 1” (57) and 1.5” (467)

• Aggregates: DB, GV, LS & GT,

• Cementitious materials: Type: I/II, fly ash F


Specimens Cast/MixSpecimens Cast/Mix

• 6 - 4”x4”x14 beams

• 6 - 6”x6”x21” Std. beams

• Total = 264 beams (132 small and 132 Standard)


ResultsResults

Flexural Strengths, Third Point Loading Compressive Strength of 4x8 inch

specimens(psi)6x6x21 inch specimens 4x4x14 inch specimens

Mix ID Average (psi)Stdv (psi)

COV (%) Average (psi)Stdv (psi)

COV (%)

57LS37 935 56 6.0 940 46 4.9 665057LS42 828 34 4.1 908 53 5.8 614557LS47 775 23 2.9 805 35 4.3 522057GV37 689 20 2.8 755 30 4.0 548557GV42 675 27 4.0 727 29 3.9 470957GV47 586 17 2.8 616 45 7.3 426057DB37 880 33 3.8 935 40 4.2 692357DB42 743 21 2.8 821 45 5.5 535457DB47 674 8 1.2 706 41 5.9 5128467LS37 1013 44 4.3 1003 60 6.0 7864467LS42 794 19 2.3 795 69 8.7 5421467LS47 720 24 3.3 703 26 3.7 459167GV37 794 19 2.5 813 70 8.6 626467GV42 747 32 4.3 743 46 6.2 517467GV45 670 24 3.5 710 33 4.7 444667LS37 1112 23 2.1 1042 38 3.7 771367LS42 893 33 3.7 908 25 2.8 561267LS45 840 39 4.6 850 57 6.7 501867DB37 921 36 3.9 904 62 6.9 753667DB42 801 20 2.5 801 34 4.3 557167DB45 801 25 3.1 811 41 5.0 573257GT45 636 32 5.1 667 27 4.1 5038


Smaller Size - Standard Size CorrelationCombined Aggregate

Smaller Size - Standard Size CorrelationCombined Aggregate

y = 1.11x - 110R² = 0.9345

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100

6" x

6"

x 21

" be

ams

4" x 4" x 14" beams


Smaller Size - Standard Size CorrelationIndividual Aggregates

Smaller Size - Standard Size CorrelationIndividual Aggregates

Appendix D

3


ConclusionsConclusions

• 4”x 4” x 14” beams are a viable option:Much lighter, easier and safer to handle

• 4”x 4” x 14” beams yielded slightly higher MR,since MEPDG calibrated with standard beamsܴܯ ൌ ൈܴܯସ௫ସ

Where A and B depend on the NMS of the aggregate


ImplementationImplementation Changes were balloted and approved by

AASHTO & ASTM

Modification of the testing apparatus (videos)

Forney

Rainhart


Interlaboratory StudyInterlaboratory StudyEquipment modification

Support blocks are brought

closer (12 in.)

2 in. thick spacers

Loading blocks are brought closer (4 in.)


Phase II: ASTM/TFHRC Collaboration -Interlab Study

Phase II: ASTM/TFHRC Collaboration -Interlab Study

• Comprehensive round robin testing (22 labs)

4 DOTs (MNDOT, NCDOT, ODOT, WisDOT)

3 Federal: FAA, TF & MCL

15 Commercial

• 3 Mixes with varying MOR as required by ASTM C802: 450, 600 and 800 psi

• Total of 658 beams


Precision is ImportantPrecision is Important

• Guidelines on type of variabilityRepeatability: Variability within a single lab

Reproducibility: Variability among different labs

• Useful in establishing specification limits:QA: Acceptance/rejection criteria

• PBS requires precision of a test


Appendix D

4

TURNER-FAIRBANK HIGHWAY RESEARCH CENTERTURNER-FAIRBANK HIGHWAY RESEARCH CENTER TURNER-FAIRBANK HIGHWAY RESEARCH CENTERTURNER-FAIRBANK HIGHWAY RESEARCH CENTER

TURNER-FAIRBANK HIGHWAY RESEARCH CENTERTURNER-FAIRBANK HIGHWAY RESEARCH CENTER TURNER-FAIRBANK HIGHWAY RESEARCH CENTERTURNER-FAIRBANK HIGHWAY RESEARCH CENTER

Current StatusCurrent Status

• Testing is complete, data analyzed

• Submitted a report to ASTM & AASHTO for ballot.

• Addressing negatives

22

174 Beams In 1 min.mp4


• TechBrief will be available soon

• [email protected] 202-493-3422

Questions!

Appendix D

AASHTO STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS

NCHRP Problem Statement

I. PROBLEM NUMBER

To be assigned by NCHRP staff.

II. PROBLEM TITLE

Benchmarking Accelerated Laboratory Tests for ASR to Field Performance: Considerationof Cement and Alkali Contents and Influence of SCMs

III. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT

Developing new test methods and bench-marking existing laboratory test methods aimed atassessing alkali-aggregate reactivity and preventive measures remain central challenges to theconcrete and aggregate industry. The so-called perfect test method to assess the potential foralkali-silica reaction (ASR) would be capable of assessing actual job concrete mixtures, in arelatively short period of time (e.g. 1-6 months or less) and would accurately predict true fieldperformance. Unfortunately, we do not have such a test method. The recently developed AASHTOR 80-17 Practice (previously AASHTO PP 65) and ASTM C 1778-16 Guide have significantimproved the way the concrete industry assesses aggregates for potential alkali-silica reactivity and,subsequently, selects appropriate mitigation methods to use potentially alkali-silica reactiveaggregates in new concrete construction. These documents were a result of several FHWA- andDOT-funded research projects on evaluating the potential for and the prevention of alkali-silicareaction1,2,3 together with consideration of the existing approach by the Canadian StandardsAssociation (CSA).4 A unique feature of these projects was the use of long-term outdoor exposuresites to bench-mark accelerated laboratory tests to concrete exposed to actual environmentalfluctuations. The concrete mixtures that were investigated primarily followed mixture proportionsspecified in ASTM C 1293 including cement contents and alkali contents. This is often consideredour most reliable test method for assessing aggregate reactivity. As a result, the current guidancedocuments (AASHTO PP 65 and ASTM C 1778) are based on mixtures that have high cementcontents (708 lb/yd3 (420 kg/m3)) and high alkali contents (0.95% or 1.25% Na2Oeq). These havebeen criticized as not properly capturing concrete mixtures with lower cement contents (e.g. < 708lb/yd3 (420 kg/m3)) and/or lower alkali loadings. Furthermore, recent results from long-termexposure sites have indicated that the amount of SCM required to control ASR expansion in theconcrete prism test (ASTM C 1293) or that required when following the AASHTO R 80-17 practiceor ASTM C 1778 guide may not be sufficient to control expansion in outdoor exposure blocks withhigh contents of high-alkali cements.5,6 Testing SCM mixtures in exposure blocks with moremoderate (and realistic) alkali levels is required to determine if this is merely an artifact of thesevere alkali loadings used in previous exposure-block studies.

The goal of this research is to cast concrete exposure blocks that will be exposed to realenvironmental exposure conditions with moderate alkali loadings and lower cement contents toprovide the crucial long-term bench-marking for the development of ASR test methods for jobmixtures and to validate and/or calibrate the prescriptive measures in AASHTO R 80-17 andASTM C 1778. Several modified accelerated test methods that show promise to assess aggregatereactivity and potential mitigation options will also be investigated. While this represents animportant long-term investment, the results from the exposure blocks cast in this research are the

Page 1 of 6

Appendix E

ONLY way to build confidence within the concrete and aggregate industry for modifications to the current guidelines in regard to assessing alkali-aggregate reactivity. The researchers on this proposal are intimately involved in the key committees at ASTM and AASHTO responsible for ASR standards development and were the key players in getting the current AASHTO R 80-17 and ASTM 1778 standards adopted. They are ideally positioned to further modifications to these methods and to directly implement results of this research effort into such documents.

IV. LITERATURE SEARCH SUMMARY

Data from long-term exposure blocks located in Austin, Texas; Ottawa, Ontario, Canada;Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada; Treat Island, Maine and most recently Corvallis, Oregonprovide the most representative samples for bench-marking ASR in field concrete to acceleratedlaboratory tests within North America. In fact, the current prescriptive approach for assessing anddetermining preventive measures for ASR in AASHTO R 80-17 and ASTM C 1778 is based onresults of laboratory and field investigations at these sites. A significant challenge however is thatthe cement content and concrete alkali loading (total alkalis in kg/m3) in these evaluation methodsare higher than what would be found in most concrete elements in the field. The reason behind thisis due to the alkali leaching that occurs in the ASTM C 1293 method. In this test method the highrelative humidity (95-100%) and elevated temperature (38°C) produced around the specimenspromotes leaching of ions, namely alkali ions (Na and K) and calcium from the prisms. Over thecourse of the test, this essentially reduces the “fuel for the fire” of ASR. As a result the ASTM C1293 method requires a high cement and high alkali content to combat this issue and to ensure thetest method is capable of evaluating a full range of potentially reactive aggregates from slow andlow expanding aggregates to fast and high expanding aggregates. This of course is a criticaldeparture from concrete in service where typically larger elements will only suffer leaching in theouter skin of the concrete element.7

Our collective data shows that ASTM C 1293 provides the best correlation for determiningaggregate reactivity while the ultra-accelerated ASTM C 1260 is marginal at best for aggregatereactivity. In the past few years, these test methods have been shown to have shortcomings withregards to properly assessing mitigation measures, specifically in predicting the dosage required tocontrol reactivity below expansion limits of 0.04% in field blocks. A large number of exposureblocks are failing in the field, despite showing passing ASTM C 1293 two-year prism results or 2-week ASTM C 1567 results.8,9 The main issue with the C 1293 test is the leaching of alkalis. One ofthe problems with ASTM C 1567 is the supply of an inexhaustible reservoir of alkalis throughoutthe test which tends to mask the influence that SCMs may have on the availability of alkalis. Alsowith ASTM C 1567 the need to process aggregate (crushing and grading) may alter the outcome.Further, in the ASTM C 1293 test method with SCMs, a lower initial alkali loading may be usedsince only the Portland cement portion is augmented to 1.25% Na2Oeq. These are three key featuresto address in new test methods. New methods that are currently under investigation include:

• the miniature concrete prism test (MCPT)10, 11,12

• the concrete cylinder test (CCT)13

Establishing correlations between the accelerated tests and actual field exposure remain a critical research need.

V. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE

Page 2 of 6

Appendix E

The primary objective of this research is to improve the accuracy of accelerated ASR test methods through the benchmarking of data from exposure blocks cast and stored on outdoor exposure sites across the United States.

Tasks: Accomplishment of the project objective will require at least the following tasks. Phase I: Task 1. Review existing literature, ongoing research findings from existing exposure sites, and current practices relevant to AAR. Task 2. Identify concrete mixtures and develop a research plan for an experimental investigation for Phase II. Phase II:

Task 3. Casting of exposure blocks to meet the objective of this research project. It is anticipated at least 150 additional mixtures will be cast to supplement the existing database from outdoor exposure sites; the variables to be considered will include:

• A wide range of reactive aggregates with an emphasis on low to moderately reactive aggregates as much of the existing data has been gathered from highly or extremely reactive aggregates

• Cement contents in the range used in pavements and highway structures (300 – 400 kg/m3)

• Various cement alkali levels especially cements of low (0.4 to 0.6% Na2Oeq) and moderate (0.6 to 0.8% Na2Oeq) alkali content

• A wide range of SCM types and contents with focus on moderate levels typically used in pavements (e.g. 15 to 25% fly ash, 25 to 35% slag)

• Environmental exposure - blocks from each mixture will be placed in three locations to represent various temperature/humidity ranges.

Task 4. In addition to exposure blocks, samples will also be cast from each mixture for laboratory testing using the currently most-promising performance tests. Task 5. It is anticipated that the principal outcomes/products from this research program will include the following:

• Draft revisions to the prescriptive measures that are currently in ASTM R 80-17 and ASTM C 1778.

• Recommendations for improving ASTM and/or AASHTO performance tests and a draft standard(s) for the most promising test(s)

• Prepare a draft final deliverable that documents the entire research effort, and submit for NCHRP review.

VI. ESTIMATE OF PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD

Page 3 of 6

Appendix E

Recommended Funding: $650,000

Research Period: 39 months

VII. URGENCY, PAYOFF POTENTIAL, AND IMPLEMENTATION

Currently, there is great deal of excitement surrounding the now unified approach in dealing with alkali-aggregate reactivity in North America. Some of that excitement is positive and some of it is skeptical. One of the biggest challenges that aggregate, cement and concrete producers are raising questions about is the aggressive nature of the laboratory testing and field exposure sites in regard to high cement contents and high alkali contents. As outlined in this proposal there is a significant need to increase the breadth of our laboratory and especially exposure block repository from which modifications to the requisite standards will be made. There is a call from the industry to provide critical benchmarking data from exposure sites on moderate alkali content and moderate cement contents in regard to impacts on alkali-silica reactivity. This proposed research will provide this crucial missing data and represents an important and needed effort to increase the reliability of our methods for determining susceptibility to ASR and appropriate mitigation techniques to avoid the reaction. It is also clear that modifications to our laboratory tests are needed to capture the performance of SCMs in regard to controlling ASR. Certainly, a logical question is “why were these types of mixtures not investigated initially”? Producing large-scale exposure blocks is an incredibly time- and labor-intensive task and it took great effort to convince funding agencies to invest in large-scale and long-term investigations such as this. As a result, not every possible scenario could be realized. In addition, what we have learned from the existing exposure sites is that there is a disconnect between our laboratory and field testing. This justifies the need for continued study as outlined in this proposal. From an urgency standpoint, it is critical to start the exposure outdoors as soon as possible, as time is working against us. It is common that we say, “we should do this, or we should start this” and then five years or ten years in the future nothing was started and we have the same questions. The time to initiate this work is now so that we can start realizing the beneficial knowledge it will provide as soon as we possibly can. If the work is not started now (e.g. the project is not funded) the industry will continue to have these same questions and we will be further and further from answering this critical questions that will ultimately improve the AASHTO R 80-17 and ASTM C 1778 guidance documents. The target audience for the findings of this research are incredibly broad as ASR can affect nearly every structure that is exposed to the elements. In particular the audience would include: FHWA, AASHTO Subcommittee on Materials (SOM), ASTM Subcommittees C09.26 Chemical Reactions and C09.50 Risk Management for Alkali Aggregate Reactions, all State DOTs, concrete, aggregate, cement and ready-mix producers and owners of transportation structures (e.g. pavements, bridges, ports, airports) and other important concrete structures including dams, foundations, mass concrete, nuclear power structures, etc. The key decision-makers who can approve, influence or champion implementation of the research products would be:

• Collin Lobo – NRMCA • Gina Ahlstrom – FHWA

The AASHTO committees and other individuals/organizations with responsibly of adoption of the results would include:

• Chair of AASHTO SOM

Page 4 of 6

Appendix E

• Chair of ASTM C 09.26 • Chair of ASTM C09.50 • Chair of ACI 201 – Guide to Durable Concrete

Several State DOTs that would be willing to evaluate the research products in their agency would include:

• Texas • Maryland • Pennsylvania • Wyoming • California • Massachusetts • South Dakota

VIII. PERSON(S) DEVELOPING THE PROBLEM

Dr. Michael Thomas, Professor of Civil Engineering, University of New Brunswick, T - 506 458 7789, E- [email protected]

Dr. Kevin Folliard, Professor, Civil Engineering, Architectural and Environmental Engineering, University of Texas at Austin, T - 512 232-3591, E- [email protected]

Dr. Thano Drimalas, Research Associate, University of Texas at Austin, T - 512 471 1630, E- [email protected]

Dr. Jason Ideker, Associate Professor, School of Civil and Construction Engineering, Oregon State University, T – 541-737-9571, [email protected]

IX. PROBLEM MONITOR

Andy Naranjo, Rigid Pavements and Concrete Materials Branch Manager, Construction Division, TxDOT, T-512-506-5858, [email protected]

X. DATE AND SUBMITTED BY Date: 8/16/17

Submitted by: Andy Naranjo, Rigid Pavements and Concrete Materials Branch Manager, Construction Division, TxDOT, T-512-506-5858, [email protected]

REFERENCES 1 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), “Report on Determining the Reactivity of Concrete

Aggregates and Selecting Appropriate Measures for Preventing Deleterious Expansion in New Concrete Construction,” FHWA-HIF-09- 001, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC, 2008.

2 Folliard, K. J., Barborak, R., Drimalas, T., Du, L., Garber, S., Ideker, J., Ley, T., Williams, S.,Juenger, Thomas, M.D.A., and Fournier, B. “Preventing ASR/DEF in New Concrete: Final Report,” The University of Texas at Austin, Center for Transportation Research (CTR), CTR 4085-5, 2006.

3 Thomas, M., Fournier, B., Folliard, K., Ideker, J. and Shehata, M., “Test Methods for Evaluating Preventive Measures for Controlling Expansion Due to Alkali-silica Reaction in Concrete,” International Center for Aggregates Research (ICAR) 302-1, December 2016, 62 pp.

Page 5 of 6

Appendix E







4 Canadian Standards Association (CSA), “Standard Practice to Identify Degree of Alkali-Reactivity of Aggregates and to Identify Measures to Avoid Deleterious Expansion in Concrete.” CSA A23.2- 27A, Canadian Standards Association, Mississauga, ON, 2014.

5 Stacey, S., Folliard, K., Drimalas, T. and Thomas, M.D.A. 2016. “An Accelerated and more Accurate Test Method to ASTM C1293: The Concrete Cylinder Test.” Proceedings in the 15th International Conference on Alkali Aggregate Reaction in Concrete. Sao Paulo, Brazil, July 2016, Paper 130.

6 Fournier, B., Chevrier, R., Bilodeau, A., Nkinamubanzi, P-C.and Bouzoubaa, N. 2016. “Comparative Field and Laboratory Investigations on the use of Supplementary Cementing Materials to Control Alkali-silica Reaction (ASR) in Concrete.” Proceedings in the 15th International Conference on Alkali Aggregate Reactions in Concrete, Sao Paulo, Brazil, July 2016, Paper 271.

7 Thomas, M. D. A., B. Fournier, K. J. Folliard, M. Shehata, J. Ideker, and C. A. Rogers. Performance Limits for Evaluating Supplementary Cementing Materials using the Accelerated Mortar Bar Test. ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 104 (2), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2007, pp. 115–122.

8 Ideker, J.H., Drimalas, T., Fournier, B., Folliard, K.J., Hooton, D., and Thomas, M.D.A., “Managing Alkali-Aggregate Reactivity: North American Approach,” Proceedings in the 15th International Conference on Alkali Aggregate Reactions in Concrete, Sao Paulo, Brazil, July 2016, Paper 156

9 Ideker, J.H., Drimalas, T., Bentivegna, A.F., Folliard, K.J., Fournier, B., Thomas, M.D.A., Hooton, R.D. and Rogers, C.A., “The Importance of Outdoor Exposure Site Testing,” In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Alkali-Aggregate Reactions in Concrete, Drimalas, T., Ideker J.H. and Fournier, B. Eds., Austin, Texas, USA, 2012, 10 pp.

10 Latifee, Enamur, "Miniature Concrete Prism Test - a New Test Method for Evaluating the ASR Potential of Aggregates, the Effectiveness of ASR Mitigation and the Job Mixture" (2013). All Dissertations. Paper 1176.

11 Latifee, E.R. and Rangaraju, P.R., “Miniature Concrete Prism Test: Rapid Test Method for Evaluating Alkali-Silica Reactivity of Aggregates,” Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, V 27 [7], 2015.

12 AASHTO TP 110-14 (2016), Standard Method of Test for Potential Alkali Reactivity of Aggregates and Effectiveness of ASR Mitigation Measures (Miniature Concrete Prism Test, MCPT).

13 Stacey, S.M., Folliard, J.M., Drimalas, T., and Thomas, M.D.A., 2016. “An Accelerated and more accurate test method to ASTM C1293: The Concrete Cylinder Test.” International Conference on Alkali Aggregate Reaction (ICAAR), Sao Paulo, Brazil, July.

Page 6 of 6

Appendix E

AASHTO STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS

NCHRP Problem Statement

I. PROBLEM NUMBER

To be assigned by NCHRP staff.

II. PROBLEM TITLE

Rating Concrete Permeability Based on Resistivity Measurements

III. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT

The AASHTO T 277/ASTM C 1202, Electrical Indication of Concrete Ability to Resist ChlorideIon Penetration, has been widely accepted for assessing durability of concrete. The test providesan indication of the concrete’s ability to resist chloride ion penetration but it has manyshortcomings: it is slow and time consuming, destructive, prone to errors caused by sampleheating, and fails to adequately capture features associated with supplementary cementitiousmaterials (SCMs). Electrical resistivity measurements (AASHTO T 358, Standard Method ofTest for Surface Resistivity Indication of Concrete’s Ability to Resist Chloride Ion Penetration)have the potential of providing performance-based evaluation of concrete although they may notalways yield accurate results. However, the data obtained from these measurements do not relateto concrete water permeability. It is suggested that a formation factor that incorporates the ratioof the resistivity (ρ) of the bulk concrete to the resistivity (ρ

o) of the pore solution or other

approaches can be used to provide a better assessment of transport properties. There is need toevaluate the feasibility of using this or other approaches as a tool for rating concrete permeabilitybased on resistivity measurements.

IV. LITERATURE SEARCH SUMMARY

Literature search revealed numerous publications related to concrete air and water permeability butnone that explicitly relate concrete water permeability to resistivity properties.

V. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE

The objective of this project is to develop recommendations for rating concrete water permeabilitybased on electrical resistivity measurements.

Tasks: Accomplishment of the project objective will require at least the following tasks.

Phase I:

Task 1. Review literature, ongoing research findings, and current practices relevant to thecharacterization and measurement of concrete water permeability and its relationship to electricalresistivity. This information may be assembled from published and unpublished reports, contactswith academia, transportation agencies, industry organization, and other sources.

Page 1 of 3

Appendix E

Task 2. Identify and evaluate concrete mixture and test parameters that influence concrete water permeability (e.g., aggregate sources, including lightweight aggregates, cementitious materials, water to cementitious materials ratios, age of concrete, and curing regimen) and the methods currently used in the United States and other countries for measuring concrete water permeability and relating it to resistivity measurements. Discuss the merits and deficiencies of these methods, and recommend potential methods for use in laboratory evaluations, for further evaluation in Phase II. Task 3. Develop a research plan for an experimental investigation, to be executed in Phase II, for (1) developing and demonstrating test methods for measuring water permeability, (2) evaluating the effects of a range of the concrete mixture parameters (aggregate source, combinations of portland cement and different supplementary cementitious materials, water/cementitious materials ratios, age of concrete, etc.) identified in Task 2 on concrete water permeability and consider the range of CaO/(Al2O3+SiO2) ratios obtained for mixtures made with 100% portland cement to those made with commonly used SCM types and proportions, and (3) relating concrete water permeability to electrical resistivity measuremets.

Note: The research plan must provide detail on the work proposed for Phase II. The work proposed for Task 5 must be divided into subtasks, and the work proposed in each subtask (e.g., details of the experimental investigation, including proposed test procedures, test variables, specimen details and materials, replication; the rationale for proposed experimental plan; data analysis procedures; and other information to illustrate relevance of the proposed work to achieving project objective) must be described in detail. The proposed research plan must be free from any aspects that could be perceived as jeopardizing the objectivity of the research. Task 4. Prepare an interim report that documents the research performed in Tasks 1 through 3. Following review of the interim report by the NCHRP, the research team will be required to make a presentation to the project panel. Work on Phase II of the project will not begin until the interim report is approved and the Phase II work plan is authorized by the NCHRP. The decision on proceeding with Phase II will be based on the contractor’s documented justification of the updated work plan. Phase II: Task 5. Execute the plan approved in Task 4. Based on the results of this work recommend (1) a test method for measuring concrete water permeability, and (2) a means for rating concrete as very low, low, moderate, and high permeability based on resistivity values. If a protocol for the recommended test method is not currently available, it should be developed and presented in AASHTO format. The recommendations for rating concrete permeability based on resistivity measurements shall be prepared in the form of a recommended practice in AASHTO format. Task 6. Prepare a draft final deliverable that documents the entire research effort, and submit for NCHRP review. The test protocol and recommended practice shall be prepared as stand-alone documents appropriate for incorporation into the AASHTO Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing.

VI. ESTIMATE OF PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD

Recommended Funding: $500,000

Page 2 of 3

Appendix E

Research Period: 30 months

VII. URGENCY, PAYOFF POTENTIAL, AND IMPLEMENTATION

Concrete durability and service life is greatly influenced by its water permeability. However, measuring water permeability of concrete is difficult. By relating water permeability to electrical resistance that can be easily measured, durability can be easily assessed and if necessary and adjustment be made to achieve the level of permeability required for the desired service life. The developed test protocol and recommended practice will be prepared for incorporation into the AASHTO Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing. Limited work on this topic was approved under NCHRP Project 20-07/Task 381. However, the Advisory Panel agreed on the need for a more comprehensive research effort to consider the relevant mixture parameters and test conditions needed for producing well-supported findings. The panel prepared a draft research problem statement and provided it to the AASHTO Highway Subcommittee on Materials (SOM) Tech Sections 3a, 3b, and 3c to seek endorsement and SOM approval and submittal to the NCHRP for funding from NCHRP FY 2019 Program.

VIII. PERSON(S) DEVELOPING THE PROBLEM Advisory Panel for NCHRP Project 20-07(381) in cooperation with SOM Tech Sections 3a, 3b, and 3c (John Stanton, Mick Syslo, and Brian Eagan, Chairs) IX. PROBLEM MONITOR X. DATE AND SUBMITTED BY Date: Submitted by the AASHTO Highway Subcommittee on Materials

Page 3 of 3

Appendix E

subcommittee on materials · pdf fileaashto t 22 allows for the ends of the cylinder to be...

Documents