Supplementary Cementitious Materials to Enhance Durability of Concrete Bridge Decks (2007)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

NCHRP Web-Only Document 110: Supplementary Cementitious Materials to Enhance Durability of Concrete Bridge Decks 42 APPENDIX: HYPOTHETICAL CASE STUDY Introduction Objective of Hypothetical Case Study A methodology for designing hydraulic cement concrete mixtures incorporating supplementary cementitious materials that will result in enhanced durability of cast-in-place concrete bridge decks was developed using a statistically based experimental design approach under NCHRP Project 18-08A. This process is detailed in NCHRP Report 566: Guidelines for Concrete Mixtures Containing Supplementary Cementitious Materials to Enhance Durability of Bridge Decks and consists of the following six steps: Step 1: Define Concrete Performance Requirements Step 2: Select Durable Raw Materials Step 3: Generate the Experimental Design Matrix Step 4: Perform Testing Step 5: Analyze Test Results and Predict the Optimum Mixture Proportions Step 6: Perform Confirmation Testing and Select Best Concrete To evaluate the effectiveness of this Methodology, a case study, called the Hypothetical Case Study, chosen as a bridge deck in a northern, Midwest environment subject to freezing and thawing and deicing salt exposure, was investigated. Hypothetical performance requirements were developed and materials locally available near Chicago, IL, were obtained and used to conduct an experimental study. This test program was conducted according to the process outlined in NCHRP Report 566 and the accuracy of the statistical analysis and modeling was evaluated based on these results. The step-by-step details of this study are provided in this appendix, to serve both as an example of how the Methodology may be applied and to provide a basis for evaluating its effectiveness. Organization of Document To distinguish table and figure numbers in NCHRP Report 566 from those in this document, NCHRP Report 566 table and figure numbers are prefaced by an “S” followed by the Step number. For example, Table S1.1 is the first table in Step 1 of NCHRP Report 566. All figures and tables discussed in this appendix are all prefaced by the letter “A”.

NCHRP Web-Only Document 110: Supplementary Cementitious Materials to Enhance Durability of Concrete Bridge Decks 43 Step 1: Define Concrete Performance Requirements Based on a bridge deck application in a northern climate, Figure S1.1 was used to characterize the design requirements and issues relevant to a freezing climate subjected to chemical deicers, where cracking was a concern. This environment was assumed to be neither coastal nor abrasive. Worksheet S1.1, completed for the Hypothetical Case Study, is presented as Table A-1. This was filled out according to the guidance provided in Step 1 of NCHRP Report 566. The recommended testing program based on the service environment of the Hypothetical Case Study have been summarized on this worksheet, which list the properties of interest, the test methods to measure each property, and optimum target values that will be used to develop the desirability functions. Categories that were not applicable to the Hypothetical Case Study environment were struck out. The recommended ranges of SCM contents expected to produce desirable performance were collected for each property and the columns were summarized in the row at the bottom of the worksheet. This summary row will serve as a reference point for selecting the ranges for testing over which each material may be optimized.

NCHRP Web-Only Document 110: Supplementary Cementitious Materials to Enhance Durability of Concrete Bridge Decks 44 Table A-1. Completed Worksheet S1.1 for the Hypothetical Case Study Environment Property/Test Method Target Value for Test Method Range of Class C Fly Ash Range of Class F Fly Ash Range of GGBFS Range of silica fume Range of other SCM w/cm Aggregate restrictions Specified aggregate top size Specified cement content Other requirements Compressive strength: AASTHO T 22, ASTM C 143 4,500 - 8,000 psi 0-30 0-30 15-50 5-8 0.44-0.37 f ' c > 4500 psi Flexural strength: AASTHO T 177, T 97, or T 198, ASTM C 293, C 78, or C 496 Slump and Slump loss: AASHTO T 119, ASTM C 143 Max 8-in.; Max. 4-in. after 45 min. 10-30 10-40 15-40 5-8 slump > 3 in. Time of setting: AASHTO T 197, ASTM C 403 Min 3 hrs. 0-30 0-25 15-40 5-8 Universal performance requirements Finishability Qualitative 0-25 0-25 10-30 0-8 Chloride penetration: AASHTO T 259, ASTM C 1566 D a < 2x10-12 m2/s 15-40 15-25 15-30 5-8 <0.40 slump > 3 in. Electrical Conductivity: AASHTO T 277, ASTM C 1202 <2000 at 56 days 15-40 15-25 15-30 5-8 <0.40 Freezing and thawing with chemical deicers Scaling Resistance: ASTM C 672 0-1 at 50 cycles; <500 g/m2 0-25 0-25 0-40 5-8 <0.45 Minimum amount of low density particles >564 lb/yd3 f ' c > 3500 psi Air content, %: ASTM C 457 6 ± 1.5% 0-25 0-25 0-40 0-8 Spacing factor: ASTM C 457 Min 600 in2/in3 0-25 0-25 0-40 0-8 Freezing and thawing without chemical deicers Freezing and Thawing Resistance: AASHTO T 161 A, ASTM C666 A DF > 90% at 300 cycles 0-25 0-25 0-40 5-8 <0.45 Good quality >564 lb/yd3 f ' c > 4000 psi prior to testing Chloride penetration: AASHTO T 259, ASTM C 1566 Coastal Electrical Conductivity: AASHTO T 277, ASTM C 1202 Abrasive Abrasion: ASTM C944 or C 779 Procedure B Cracking resistance: ASR Go to Raw Materials Flow Chart Restrained Ring Cracking: AASHTO PP 34-99, ASTM C 1581 Longer time to cracking 10-25 10-25 15-35 0-5 Cracking resistance: restrained shrinkage Free drying Shrinkage: AASHTO T 150, ASTM C 157 <0.06% at 90 d 0-25 0-25 0-35 0-5 Heat of Hydration Lowest temp. rise 0-25 25-35 30-60 0-8 Cracking resistance: thermal concerns Modulus of elasticity, ASTM C 469 3 to 5x106 psi at 28 days 0-30 10-30 15-35 0-5 Cracking resistance: plastic shrinkage Plastic Shrinkage Cracking: ICC AC32 Annex A Smaller cracking area 0-25 0-25 0-30 0-5 Other design requirements SUMMARY 15-25 25 30 5 <0.40 >564 lb/yd3 f ' c > 4500 psi

NCHRP Web-Only Document 110: Supplementary Cementitious Materials to Enhance Durability of Concrete Bridge Decks 45 Step 2: Select Durable Raw Materials The objective of Step 2 is the selection of suitable raw materials. The worksheets in Step 2 of NCHRP Report 566 were used to organize the available information regarding the locally available materials and facilitate these decisions. Completed worksheets are presented in Table A-1 through Table A-10 based on the actual data available for the local materials, though aliases were substituted for the names of the specific suppliers. Per Step 2 procedures, Worksheet S2.1 was completed (Table A-2) listing the potential materials. The properties of the cement sources that were identified, namely “Cemsource 1” and “Cemsource 2”, were listed in Worksheet S2.2 (Table A-3). The sources were then compared and a selection of that material type made. In this case, “Cemsource 2” was selected based on the comparatively lower alkali content and C3S content compared to “Cemsource 1”. This selection was denoted by a box drawn around the Source in Worksheet S2.1 (Table A-2). A similar process was performed for the fine aggregate using Worksheet S2.3 (Table A-4). “Fineagg manufacturer 2” was selected based on the higher fineness modulus and better soundness test results. This fine aggregate had larger amounts of potentially reactive particles, but both sources produced similar inconclusive results in ASTM C 1260 ASR testing. Since ASR may still be possible in this situation based on this data, the importance of the choice of a low-alkali cement is reinforced. This selection was recorded on Worksheet S2.1 (Table A-2). Completed versions of Worksheet S2.5 (Table A-6), Worksheet S2.6 (Table A-7), Worksheet S2.8 (Table A-8), Worksheet S2.9 (Table A-9), and Worksheet S2.10 (Table A-10) show how these worksheets can be used to select Class C fly ash sources, Class F fly ash sources, slag sources, silica fume sources and air-entraining agents and chemical admixtures, respectively.

NCHRP Web-Only Document 110: Supplementary Cementitious Materials to Enhance Durability of Concrete Bridge Decks 46 Table A-2. Completed Worksheet S2.1, list of available raw materials Raw Material Source 1 Source 2 Source 3 Source 4 Cement Cemsource 1 Cemsource 2 Fine aggregate Fineagg manufacturer 1 Fineagg manufacturer 2 Coarse aggregate Coarseagg manufacturer 1 Coarseagg manufacturer 2 Class C fly ash C-ashsource 1 C-ashsource 2 Class F fly ash F-ashsource 1 Ground granulated blast furnace slag Slagsource 1 Slagsource 2 Silica fume Silica fume source 1 Other SCM Air entraining admixture Air 1 Chemical admixture Super X Super Y Chemical admixture Other: Fffffff Selected for use

NCHRP Web-Only Document 110: Supplementary Cementitious Materials to Enhance Durability of Concrete Bridge Decks 47 Table A-3. Completed Worksheet S2.2, Cement data Test/Property AASHTO Limit Cement 1 Cement 2 Cement 3 Cement 4 Manufacturer Cemsource 1 Cemsource 2 Plant location Anytown Ourtown Mill report date Apr 03 Aug 01 AASHTO M 85 (ASTM C 150) Cements Type I I C3S (%)1 ≤ 58 for Type II 68 59 C2S (%)2 -- 15 C3A (%)3 ≤ 8 for Type II 8 9 Total alkalis (Na2Oeq ) (%)4 ≤ 0.60 for low alkali optional requirement 0.90 0.51 SO3 (%) 3.0 (unless C3A> 8%, then 3.5 for Type I)5 2.4 2.4 MgO (%)6 ≤ 6.0 2.3 3.9 Rapid stiffening (y/n)7 Workability restored upon remixing 48.5 mm penetration at 11 min. AASHTO M 240, ASTM C 595, or C 1157 Cements Type N/a N/a Portland cement, % N/a N/a Second constituent, % N/a N/a Third constituent, % N/a N/a Fourth constituent, % N/a N/a 1 Relates to early age strength gain 2 Higher contents indicate slower early-age strength gain, but may have higher ultimate strength 3 C3A reacts with sulfate to form ettringite; higher values indicate less resistance to external sulfate attack 4 This value is important if potentially reactive aggregates are being used in the mixture 5 These limits are for Type I and II cements; if SO3 exceeds these limits, request ASTM C 1038 backup data. The expansion in water according to ASTM C 1038 should not exceed 0.020% at 14 days. Type III cement has different limits; see ASTM C 150 for details. 6 Excessive amounts of MgO (periclase) can result in unsoundness (deleterious expansion) 7 Prescreening cements by ASTM C 359 Standard Test Method for Early Stiffening of Portland cement (Mortar Method) may be desirable to test for flash or false set or high water demand. The needle penetration at 11 minutes or on remix should be greater than 35 mm

NCHRP Web-Only Document 110: Supplementary Cementitious Materials to Enhance Durability of Concrete Bridge Decks 48 Table A-4. Completed Worksheet S2.3, Fine aggregate data Test/Property AASHTO M 6 Class A Limit Local Requirements Fine Agg. 1 Fine Agg. 2 Fine Agg. 3 Manufacturer Fineagg manufacturer 1 Fineagg manufacturer 2 Pit location Anytown Ourtown Date of last ASTM C 295 petrographic examination 2000 2000 Primary Mineralogy Limestone / quartz Limestone / quartz Specific gravity (SSD) 2.650 2.671 Absorption capacity (%) 0.7 1.1 Clay lumps and friable particles ≤ 3.0% max Details in Std. specs. N/a N/a ≤ 2.0% max, concrete subject to abrasion 3% max. N/a N/a Material finer than 75-μm (No. 200) sieve ≤ 3.0% max, all other concrete N/a N/a Coal and lignite, concrete where surface appearance is not important ≤ 0.25%, max N/a N/a Check meets standard gradation √ √ Fineness modulus 2.3-3.1 2.59 2.85 Organic impurities Lighter than color standard N/a N/a Soundness Weighted average loss ≤10%* Na2SO4: 10% max. MgSO4: 15% MgSO4: 9% Other deleterious substances Local requirements N/a N/a Types and amounts (%) of particles deleteriously reactive with alkalis 1.3% potentially reactive chert 4% pot. react. chert, amounts of opal ASTM C 1260 Expansion <0.10%† 0.17 0.16 ASTM C 1293 Expansion <0.04%† N/a N/a * When sodium sulfate is used; 15% when magnesium sulfate is used † ASTM C 33 requirements

NCHRP Web-Only Document 110: Supplementary Cementitious Materials to Enhance Durability of Concrete Bridge Decks 49 Table A-5. Completed Worksheet S2.4, Coarse aggregate data Test/Property AASHTO M 80 Class A Requirements† Local Requirement IDOT Class A Coarse Agg. 1 Coarse Agg. 2 Coarse Agg. 3 Manufacturer Coarseagg manufacturer 1 Coarseagg manufacturer 2 Pit location Anytown Ourtown Check meets standard gradation √ √ Date of last ASTM C 295 petrographic examination 2000 2000 Primary Mineralogy Limestone Limestone Grading size number CA11 CA7/11 Specific gravity (SSD) 2.719 2.690 Absorption capacity (%) 1.3 1.1 Clay lumps and friable particles ≤ 2.0% max. Details in specs N/a N/a Chert* ≤ 3.0% max. Trace N/a Sum of clay lumps, friable particles, and chert* ≤ 3.0% max. N/a N/a Material finer than 75-μm (No. 200) sieve ≤ 1.0% max. N/a N/a Coal and lignite ≤ 0.5% max. 0.25% max. N/a N/a Abrasion ≤ 50% max. 40% max 24 N/a Sodium sulfate soundness, 5 cycles ≤ 12% max. ** Na2SO4 15% max. MgSO4: 5.6 MgSO4: 14.3 Types and amounts (%) of particles deleteriously reactive with alkalis -- Trace chert 0 ASTM C 1260 Expansion <0.10%‡ 0.01 0.03 ASTM C 1293 Expansion <0.04%‡ 0.01 0.01 * Less than 2.40 specific gravity SSD ** 18% max. if magnesium sulfate is used. † These are the most stringent AASHTO M 80 values. ‡ ASTM C 33 recommendations

NCHRP Web-Only Document 110: Supplementary Cementitious Materials to Enhance Durability of Concrete Bridge Decks 50 Table A-6. Completed Worksheet S2.5, Class C fly ash data Test/Property AASHTO M 295 Requirement Fly Ash 1 Fly Ash 2 Fly Ash 3 Fly Ash 4 Manufacturer C-ashsource 1 C-ashsource 2 Source/plant location Anytown Ourtown SiO2+Al2O3+Fe2O3, % ≥ 50.0 59.9 59.2 CaO, % 27.7 27.4 SO3, % ≤ 5.0 2.01 1.99 Moisture content, % ≤ 3.0 0.06 0.06 Loss on ignition, % ≤ 5.0 0.21 0.40 Amt. retained when wet-sieved on 45 μm (No. 325) sieve, % ≤ 34 15.5 13.1 Strength activity index, 7-day, % of control ≥ 75 103.4 104.8 Strength activity index, 28-day, % of control ≥ 75 N/a N/a Water requirement, % of control ≤ 105 91.7 92.6 Soundness: autoclave expansion or contraction, % ≤ 0.8 0.11 0.11 Density, variation from average, % ≤ 5 0 1.44 Percent retained on 45-μm (No. 325) seive, percentage points from average ≤ 5 of variation 1.3 -0.7 Available alkalis, % ≤ 1.5 1.05 (total 2.13) (total 2.64)

NCHRP Web-Only Document 110: Supplementary Cementitious Materials to Enhance Durability of Concrete Bridge Decks 51 Table A-7. Completed Worksheet S2.6, Class F fly ash data Test/Property AASHTO M 295 Requirement Fly Ash 1 Fly Ash 2 Fly Ash 3 Fly Ash 4 Manufacturer F-ashsource 1 Source/plant location Anytown SiO2+Al2O3+Fe2O3, % ≥ 70.0 90.5 CaO, % 2.70 SO3, % ≤ 5.0 0.82 Moisture content, % ≤ 3.0 0.14 Loss on ignition, % ≤ 5.0 1.61 Amt. retained when wet-sieved on 45 μm (No. 325) sieve, % ≤ 34 22.1 Strength activity index, 7-day, % of control ≥ 75 79.1 Strength activity index, 28-day, % of control ≥ 75 81.9 Water requirement, % of control ≤ 105 97.5 Soundness: autoclave expansion or contraction, % ≤ 0.8 -0.03 Density, variation from average, % ≤ 5 N/a Percent retained on 45-μm (No. 325) seive, variation, percentage points from average ≤ 5 N/a Available alkalis, % ≤ 1.5 N/a

NCHRP Web-Only Document 110: Supplementary Cementitious Materials to Enhance Durability of Concrete Bridge Decks 52 Table A-8. Completed Worksheet S2.8, Ground granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBFS) data Test/Property AASHTO M 302 Value GGBFS 1 GGBFS 2 GGBFS 3 GGBFS 4 Manufacturer Slagsource 1 Slagsource 2 Source/plant location Anytown Ourtown Grade 120 120 Amt. retained when wet-sieved on 45 μm (No. 325) sieve, % ≤ 20 6.0 7.2 Specific surface by air permeability (Method C 204) 536 349 Air content of slag mortar, % ≤ 12 5.9 5.9 Grade 100: ≥ 75 7-day slag activity index, %* Grade 120: ≥ 95 N/a N/a Grade 80: ≥ 75 Grade 100: ≥ 95 28-day slag activity index, %* Grade 120: ≥ 115 133 125 Sulfide sulfur (S), % ≤ 2.5 1.6 1.00 Sulfate ion reported as SO3, % ≤ 4.0 2.7 0.00 * Any individual sample

NCHRP Web-Only Document 110: Supplementary Cementitious Materials to Enhance Durability of Concrete Bridge Decks 53 Table A-9. Completed Worksheet S2.9, Silica fume data Test/Property AASHTO M 307 Value Silica fume 1 Silica fume 2 Silica Fume 3 Silica fume 4 Manufacturer Silicafume source 1 Source/plant location Anytown SiO2, % ≥ 85.0 89.1 Moisture content, % ≤ 3.0 n/a Loss on ignition, % ≤ 6.0 1.16 Optional: moisture content of dry microsilica, % ≤ 3.0 Optional: available alkalis as Na2O, % ≤ 1.5 Strength activity index: With portland cement at 7 and 28 days, min. percent of control ≥ 100

NCHRP Web-Only Document 110: Supplementary Cementitious Materials to Enhance Durability of Concrete Bridge Decks 54 Table A-10. Completed Worksheet S2.10, air entraining agent (AEA) and chemical admixture data Test/Property ASSHTO M 154* or M 194** Value AEA 1 AEA 2 Chemical admixture 1 Chemical admixture 2 Chemical admixture 3 Brand Name -- Air 1 Super X Super Y Manufacturer -- Admix Co 1 Admix Co 1 Admix Co 2 Chemistry -- Vinsol resin Naphthalene sulfonate Polycarboxy- late AEA: Initial time of setting, allowable deviation from control, not more than (hr:min) 1:15 earlier nor 1:15 later Letter of compliance Final time of setting, allowable deviation from control, not more than (hr:min) 1:15 earlier nor 1:15 later Letter of compliance Compressive strength, % of control at 3, 7 and 28 days ≥ 90 Chemical admixtures: Type -- F F S setting time and other requirements See Table 1 of ASTM C 494 Letter of compliance Letter of compliance * Equivalent to ASTM C 260 ** Equivalent to ASTM C 494

NCHRP Web-Only Document 110: Supplementary Cementitious Materials to Enhance Durability of Concrete Bridge Decks 55 Step 3: Generate the Experimental Design Matrix The completed Worksheet S3.1 (Table A-11) shows the final choices made in Step 1 and 2 from the recommendations developed in Worksheets S1.1 and S2.1. The completed Worksheet S1.1 (Table A-1) lists a large number of tests necessary to characterize each mixture’s performance. As a result, the experimental program was constrained by the available budget to a 9-mixture experiment. This number of experiments controlled the possible number of Factors and Levels to be evaluated as listed in Table S3.1 of NCHRP Report 566. Given this constraint, the next step was to select which factors and levels to include. To actively test the Methodology relative to its intended use, the focus of the hypothetical experiment was to evaluate as a wide a range of SCMs as possible. Therefore, to maximize the number of SCMs while limiting the size of the experimental test program to nine mixtures, a design matrix consisting of three three-level factors and one two-level factor was selected from Table S3.1 (Table A-13). The specific factors for testing were chosen as “First SCM Type,” “First SCM Amount,” “Amount of Silica Fume,” and “w/cm.” The range (levels) of investigation for each of the factors was chosen to span the upper and lower bounds where the optimum level was expected. This was performed for the Hypothetical Case Study using Worksheet S1.1 (completed for Step 1 in Table A-1), which considered a wide range of exposure conditions. When the recommended ranges of silica fume were compiled for all the desired properties in the “Summary” row of this worksheet, one level resulted: 5%. The same was true for GGBFS (30%) and Class C Fly ash (25%). Since the objective of this research is to optimize SCMs, the test program was centered on the summary values shown in Table A-1. The levels for Amount of Silica Fume were chosen to be 0, 5, and 8% even though the summary row of Table A-1 (Worksheet S1.1) recommends a constant amount of 5%. Similarly, the summary of the level of w/cm from completed Worksheet S1.1 recommended that the w/cm be less than 0.40. However, it was decided to broaden this range to include w/cm’s of 0.37 and 0.45. Ordinarily, an Amount Factor such as “First SCM Amount” would have simple numerical values given as levels. However, since the appropriate ranges for types of SCMs are dependant on that type, a Compound Factor was used. This Compound Factor, which links the definition of the Amount Factor to a Type Factor, allowed additional freedom in the definition of SCM contents. The levels of the First SCM Type factor were defined as slag, Class C fly ash and Class F fly ash. Then, the first SCM amount factor were defined generically as Low, Medium and High, with different specific values of the SCM content associated with each slag or fly ash material. Despite the generic definition, the “Amount of SCM” is still an Amount Factor and the performance models are still capable of interpolating between the levels tested. The definitions of low, medium and high were determined with Worksheet S3.2, shown as Table A-12. Type, Source and Amount Constants are those characteristics of the mixture design that will be consistent throughout the experiment. These include single sources for each raw material type, and defining a constant cementitious (658 lb/yd3 [391 kg/m3]) content and coarse aggregate (1696 lb/yd3 [1007 kg/m3]) content. All SCM amounts were calculated as percentages by weight replacement of portland cement. Accordingly, changes in cementitious volumes were compensated by changes in fine aggregate content. Two control mixtures were also incorporated in this study. The control mixture was made with no SCMs at a w/cm of 0.40. The mixture includes 263 lb/yd3 (156 kg/m3) water, 658 lb/yd3 (391 kg/m3) cement, 1280 lb/yd3 (760 kg/m3) fine aggregate, and 1696 lb/yd3 (1007 kg/m3)

NCHRP Web-Only Document 110: Supplementary Cementitious Materials to Enhance Durability of Concrete Bridge Decks 56 Table A-11. Completed Worksheet S3.1, factors, levels, and constants to test for Hypothetical Case Study Factor Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 First SCM Type Class C fly ash Class F fly ash GGBFS Type Factors Source Factors First SCM Amount Low Medium High Amount of Silica fume 0 5 8 w/cm 0.45 0.37 Amount Factors Type Constants Cement Cemsource 2 Fine aggregate Fineagg manufacturer 2 Coarse aggregate Coarseagg manufacturer 1 Class C fly ash C-ashsource 1 Class F fly ash F-ashsource 1 GGBFS Slagsource 2 Silica fume Silica fume source 1 Air entraining agent Air 1 HRWR Super X Source Constants Cementitious Content 658 lb/yd3 Coarse aggregate amount 1696 lb/yd3 Air content 6.5 ± 1.5% Amount Constants

NCHRP Web-Only Document 110: Supplementary Cementitious Materials to Enhance Durability of Concrete Bridge Decks 57 Table A-12. Worksheet S3.2 completed for compound factor for Hypothetical Case Study Factor 1, Factor 2 Type of SCM Amount of SCM Type 1, Low level Class C fly ash 15% Type 1, Medium Level Class C fly ash 25% Type 1, High Level Class C fly ash 40% Type 2, Low level Class F fly ash 15% Type 2, Medium Level Class F fly ash 25% Type 2, High Level Class F fly ash 40% Type 3, Low level slag 25% Type 3, Medium Level slag 35% Type 3, High Level slag 50% Table A-13. Table S3.1 Number of mixtures required for an orthogonal design for various combinations of two- and three-level factors. The design selected for Hypothetical Case Study is highlighted. # of 3-level factors 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 # of 2-level factors 0 3 9 9 9 16 18 18 1 2 8 9 9 16 18 18 18 2 4 8 9 16 16 18 18 >18 3 4 8 16 16 16 18 >18 >18 4 8 8 16 16 18 >18 >18 >18 5 8 16 16 16 >18 >18 >18 >18 6 8 16 16 16 >18 >18 >18 >18 7 8 16 16 >18 >18 >18 >18 >18 8 12 16 16 >18 >18 >18 >18 >18 9 12 16 16 >18 >18 >18 >18 >18 10 12 16 >18 >18 >18 >18 >18 >18 11 12 16 >18 >18 >18 >18 >18 >18 12 16 16 >18 >18 >18 >18 >18 >18 13 16 >18 >18 >18 >18 >18 >18 >18 14 16 >18 >18 >18 >18 >18 >18 >18 15 16 >18 >18 >18 >18 >18 >18 >18

NCHRP Web-Only Document 110: Supplementary Cementitious Materials to Enhance Durability of Concrete Bridge Decks 58 coarse aggregate. The intent of this mixture was to provide a comparison to assess relative performance of mixtures with SCMs. A replicate of the control mixture was also added to provide an assessment of batch-to-batch variability for each test so that the significance of differences in test results can be evaluated. In summary, Table A-11 lists the factors and levels for the Hypothetical Case Study, and also defines the constant values selected for this experiment. Table A-12 defines the specific quantities for the generic descriptions “low,” “medium,” and “high” used in the Compound Factor. As mentioned, the orthogonal design requires nine specific mixtures be evaluated to provide sufficient information to optimize these factors and levels. These mixtures must be chosen according to the applicable table from the collected orthogonal experimental design matrices at the end of Step 3 of NCHRP Report 566. The generic design matrix that applies for the nine- mixture, three three-level factor and one two-level factor design is given in Table A-14. Table A- 15 lists the specific design matrix after the factor levels were substituted into this generic matrix. The mixtures and theoretical and actual batch weights per unit volume tested are listed in Table A-16. The actual batch weights per unit volume were calculated based on the unit weight measured for each batch according to ASTM C 138 Test Method for Unit Weight, Yield and Air Content (Gravimetric) of Concrete. Table A-14. The levels for the 9-mixture design matrix with 3 three-level and 1 two-level factor (The numbers in the columns refer to the levels indicated in Table 3.) Mixture # Factor 1 (3-Level) Factor 2 (3-Level) Factor 3 (3-Level) Factor 4 (2-Level) 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 3 1 3 3 2 4 2 1 2 2 5 2 2 3 1 6 2 3 1 2 7 3 1 3 2 8 3 2 1 2 9 3 3 2 1 (If the font is underlined and bold, the level chosen for that Factor should be the one expected to produce the best result.) Table A-15. Experimental design matrix for Hypothetical Case Study Mixture First SCM Type First SCM Amount Amount of Silica Fume w/cm 1 Fly Ash C Low (15%) 0 % 0.45 2 Fly Ash C Medium (25%) 5 % 0.37 3 Fly Ash C High (40%) 8 % 0.37 4 Fly Ash F Low (15%) 5 % 0.37 5 Fly Ash F Medium (25%) 8 % 0.45 6 Fly Ash F High (40%) 0 % 0.37 7 GGBFS Low (25%) 8 % 0.37 8 GGBFS Medium (35%) 0 % 0.37 9 GGBFS High (50%) 5 % 0.45

NCHRP Web-Only Document 110: Supplementary Cementitious Materials to Enhance Durability of Concrete Bridge Decks 59 Table A-16. Concrete test mixtures as batched Mixture ID C1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 C2 BTC (8) BPC w/cm 0.4 0.45 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.45 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.45 0.4 0.37 0.39 Percent replacement of cement (by wt.) Fly Ash (Class C) 15 25 40 Fly Ash (Class F) 15 25 40 Slag 25 35 50 35 35 Silica Fume 0 5 8 5 8 0 8 0 5 0 8 Theoretical weight per unit volume (lbs./cu. yd.) Water content 263 296 243 243 243 296 243 243 243 296 263 243 257 Cement 658 559 461 342 526 441 395 441 428 296 658 428 375 Fly Ash (Class C) 0 99 165 263 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fly Ash (Class F) 0 0 0 0 99 165 263 0 0 0 0 0 0 Slag 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 165 230 329 0 230 230 Silica Fume 0 0 33 53 33 53 0 53 0 33 0 0 53 Fine Aggregate 1280 1180 1300 1280 1294 1128 1261 1302 1316 1156 1280 1316 1262 Coarse Aggregate 1696 1696 1696 1696 1696 1696 1696 1696 1696 1696 1696 1696 1696 Admixture dosage (fl. oz./cwt.) AEA 1.70 2.32 3.10 3.83 2.61 3.89 3.35 2.33 2.64 4.78 1.28 2.43 4.01 Superplasticizer 9.07 4.87 25.50 36.60 22.70 16.01 12.59 33.49 24.27 14.81 8.74 18.33 34.15 Actual weight per unit volume as batched (lbs./cu. yd.) Water content 258 295 235 243 239 291 238 242 241 301 263 234 250 Cement 645 558 445 341 517 433 386 438 423 301 658 411 365 Fly Ash (Class C) 0 98 159 262 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fly Ash (Class F) 0 0 0 0 97 162 257 0 0 0 0 0 0 Slag 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 163 228 335 0 221 224 Silica Fume 0 0 32 52 32 52 0 52 0 33 0 0 51 Fine Aggregate 1255 1177 1256 1276 1271 1109 1233 1292 1303 1177 1280 1264 1227 Coarse Aggregate 1662 1693 1638 1690 1665 1667 1658 1684 1679 1727 1696 1629 1650

NCHRP Web-Only Document 110: Supplementary Cementitious Materials to Enhance Durability of Concrete Bridge Decks 60 Step 4: Perform Testing The test program outlined in Step 1 (as shown in Worksheet S1.1, Table A-1) was modified slightly in practice and the actual program is given in Table A-17. The plastic shrinkage cracking test was eliminated because the costs involved were thought to outweigh the value of the information gained through the available test method. This was conducted on the mixtures listed in Table A-15. Since the experimental program required many samples, a volume of approximately seven cubic feet was required for each batch. Before the full size batches were produced, smaller trial batches were made for each mixture to determine the necessary chemical admixture dosage to achieve the desired plastic properties. The amount of admixtures varied for each mixture since both the w/cm and the amount and types of SCMs varied as shown in Table A-14. The concrete was mixed in a drum mixer and the order of addition of materials was as follows: The air-entraining admixture and the water were mixed together and all but approximately 20% of this solution was added to the mixer along with the coarse aggregate. The fine aggregate, cement, and SCMs were then added gradually to the mixer with half of the superplasticizer dosage over approximately three minutes. When these materials had been added to the mixer, the remaining mixer water and any final dose of superplasticizer was added. The batch time for the timed test methods was recorded as the time that all the materials were added to the mixer, and following that time a standard protocol of three minutes mixing, three minutes rest and two minutes mixing, as laid out in ASTM C 192 Standard Practice for Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens in the Laboratory, was followed. Figure A-1 shows one of the full-scale concrete batches being produced. Plastic Properties The initial slump and the slump 45 minutes after all materials were added to the mixer were measured according to AASHTO T 119. The slump loss is the difference between these two measurements. The air content and initial set time was measured according to AASHTO T 152 and AASHTO T 197, respectively. The assessment of finishability was performed in the following manner. A 1 x 2 x 0.5 ft (300 x 600 x 150 mm) form was filled with concrete and moved into a room with 43-52% relative humidity. Starting one hour after batching, the concrete was evaluated by three people who each screeded the slab and then graded how the concrete rated across four scales: stickiness vs. creaminess, segregation vs. homogeneity, harshness vs. smoothness, and prone to tearing vs. tear resistant. These were assigned point values from 1 to 5, respectively. The grades assigned for each category were averaged for all finishers, and then summed to produce an overall finishability rating. Figure A-2 shows the test being conducted and Figure A-3 shows the worksheet used to collect the data. The data for the plastic properties for all the concrete mixtures are summarized in Table A-18.

NCHRP Web-Only Document 110: Supplementary Cementitious Materials to Enhance Durability of Concrete Bridge Decks 61 Table A-17. Program for testing of design matrix Property Target Values Test Methods Specimen Size and Number of Specimens Curing Total air content, plastic concrete 6.5 +/- 1.5% AASHTO T 152 _ N/A Max. slump after High Range Water Reducer (HRWR) addition 8 in. AASHTO T 119 _ N/A Slump, minimum after 45 minutes 4 in. AASHTO T 119 _ N/A Initial set time, minimum 3 hours AASHTO T 197 _ N/A Finishability Comparative scale Qualitative assessment _ N/A Cracking tendency (restrained shrinkage) Longer time-to-cracking is preferred AASHTO PP 34-99 Two 18-in. OD x 12-in. ID x 6-in. Wet for 7 days Thermal effects (heat of hydration) Lowest change in temperature is preferred Temperature rise in cylinder One 6x12-in. cylinder N/A Shrinkage (1, 3, 7, 14, 28, 56, 90 days after curing) < 0.06% at 90 days AASHTO T 160 Three at each age; 3x3x11.25-in. Wet for 7 days Compressive strength (at 3, 7, 28, 56 days) 28-day specified* range: 4,500 - 8,000 psi AASHTO T 22 Three at each age; 4x8-in. Wet Modulus of elasticity (at 7 and 28 days) 7-day target: < 4 x106 psi AASHTO T 22 Three at each age; 4x8-in. Wet Total air content: 6.5 +/- 1.5% Hardened air analysis (greater than 7 days) Max. air void spacing factor: 0.008 in ASTM C 457 One 4x8-in cylinder. Wet for 7 days Freeze/thaw resistance DF>90% at 300 cycles AASHTO T 161A Three 3x4x16-in. Wet for 14 days Electrical conductivity <2000 coulombs at 56 days AASHTO T 277 Two slices at 4x8-in. Wet for 56 days Chloride penetration resistance (one 3-in. core from each slab, evaluated at 6 mos.) Da<2x10-12 m2/s at 6 months* Modified AASHTO T 259/T 260 Three 12x12x3-in. 14 days moist, 28 days 50% RH Salt scaling resistance Visual rating of 0-1 at 50 cycles; Mass loss < 500 g/m2 at 50 cycles ASTM C 672 Three 12x12x3-in. 14 days moist, 14 days 50% RH * Note that the average strength must be higher than the minimum specified to account for natural variability in the concrete performance.

NCHRP Web-Only Document 110: Supplementary Cementitious Materials to Enhance Durability of Concrete Bridge Decks 62 Figure A-1. Batching of concrete Figure A-2. Performing finishability test on concrete mixture

NCHRP Web-Only Document 110: Supplementary Cementitious Materials to Enhance Durability of Concrete Bridge Decks 63 Finishing Data Worksheet 2002.2229 1D Mix Number ______________________ Date ____________________________ Concrete Temperature _______________ Air Temperature ___________________ Relative Humidity ___________________ 1 2 3 4 5 Stickiness Creaminess 1 2 3 4 5 Segregation Homogeneity 1 2 3 4 5 Harshness Smoothness 1 2 3 4 5 Prone to Tearing Tear Resistant Figure A-3. Finishability worksheet used to collect data

NCHRP Web-Only Document 110: Supplementary Cementitious Materials to Enhance Durability of Concrete Bridge Decks 64 Table A-18. Plastic concrete results Mixture Description * (% by wt.) SCM/SF/(w/cm) Cast date Slump (in.) Slump loss at 45 min. (in.) Plastic Air (%) Initial Set (hr:min) Final Set (hr:min) Finishability C1 Control (w/c 0.40) 2/26/04 6.25 2.5 7.0 4:05 5:35 17.7 1 15C/0/0.45 3/9/04 8 2 6.0 6:25 8:45 15.6 2 25C/5/0.37 3/18/04 8 4.25 7.8 6:40 8:45 9.4 3 40C/8/0.37 3/18/04 6 3.25 6.2 9:20 13:00 11.7 4 15F/5/0.37 4/13/04 6 1.25 6.9 4:40 6:10 10.3 5 25F/8/0.45 4/13/04 6.75 0.75 7.4 5:55 8:10 15.0 6 40F/0/0.37 4/13/04 6.5 0.75 6.8 6:10 8:25 15.9 7 25S/8/0.37 3/23/04 6.75 3.5 6.2 4:40 6:30 12.0 8 35S/0/0.37 3/30/04 7.75 1.75 6.1 5:30 7:05 11.3 9 50S/5/0.45 3/23/04 6 1.5 4.7 5:40 7:00 13.6 C2 Control (w/c 0.40) 3/30/04 5.5 3.5 5.2 3:55 5:15 15.3 BTC 35S/0/0.37 1/14/05 6.25 2.25 7.0 5:05 6:55 BPC 35S/8/0.39 1/14/05 7.25 3 6.7 6:25 9:05 * C = Class C Fly Ash F = Class F Fly Ash S = Blast Furnace Slag SF = Silica Fume

NCHRP Web-Only Document 110: Supplementary Cementitious Materials to Enhance Durability of Concrete Bridge Decks 65 Measurement of Cracking Potential Three tests were conducted to assess cracking potential. The first was cracking tendency, AASHTO PP34-99 (the restrained shrinkage test). Two rings were cast for each mixture, vibrated in the forms, and, wet cured for seven days. They were then stripped and moved to a 73°F (23ºC), 50% relative humidity room. The strain in the steel ring was measured with four strain gauges bonded to the interior steel surface. The rings were visually examined at regular interval for the presence of cracks and the strain gage output was logged throughout the test. The age of cracking was noted by a sudden change in strain. Steel rings of 3/4- and 1-in. (19- and 25-mm) thickness were used. All mixtures were tested with one ring of each thickness except for the first two mixtures batched, which were Mixture C1 (two 3/4-in. [19-mm] thick rings) and Mixture 1 (two 1-in. [25-mm] thick rings). Figure A-4 shows typical casting procedure for the rings and Figure A-5 shows the climate control room with the rings connected to the data logger. Figure A-6 shows the strain versus time for a specimen that cracked at just over 80 days of age. The cracking tendency of these mixtures was low and the first observed crack in any of the mixtures occurred at an age of 43 days. As a result, the age to first crack was measured in terms of weeks rather than days. Many rings did not crack through 36 weeks of drying, but since a numerical result is required for calculating the desirability for this response based on the desirability function, the samples that did not crack were assigned a value of 36 weeks. In general, all mixtures were forgiving with respect to cracking tendency. This may be related to the limestone coarse aggregate, which has been seen to produce concretes that are less likely to crack than most in previous testing conducted by the researchers. The ages (in weeks, including curing) of the rings that cracked are listed in Table A-19. Figure A-4. Rings being cast and vibrated for cracking tendency test

NCHRP Web-Only Document 110: Supplementary Cementitious Materials to Enhance Durability of Concrete Bridge Decks 66 Figure A-5. Ring storage and data collection in 50% RH laboratory environment -150 -130 -110 -90 -70 -50 -30 -10 10 30 50 0 20 40 60 80 100 Drying time (days) St ra in (x 10 -6 ) #1 #2 #3 #4 Crack Figure A-6. Strain versus drying time for a typical cracking tendency test where cracking occurred

NCHRP Web-Only Document 110: Supplementary Cementitious Materials to Enhance Durability of Concrete Bridge Decks 67 Table A-19. Cracking potential test results Mixture Description (% by wt.) SCM/SF/(w/cm) Cracking Tendency* (Weeks) Temperature Rise due to Hydration (ºF) Shrinkage at 90 days (µε) C1 Control (w/c 0.40) 24 55 -0.0621 1 15C/0/0.45 36 49 -0.0684 2 25C/5/0.37 36 47 -0.0521 3 40C/8/0.37 36 41 -0.0474 4 15F/5/0.37 36 43 -0.0501 5 25F/8/0.45 23 37 -0.0633 6 40F/0/0.37 22 32 -0.0512 7 25S/8/0.37 36 45 -0.0442 8 35S/0/0.37 8 46 -0.0389 9 50S/5/0.45 36 41 -0.0457 C2 Control (w/c 0.40) 16 56 BTC 35S/0/0.37 46 -0.0452 BPC 35S/8/0.39 44 -0.0476 *Average age to first crack calculated using 36 weeks for rings that did not crack. A second test was developed to comparatively assess the heat of hydration of each concrete batch, with the idea that larger increases in temperature indicate that a concrete is more susceptible to thermal cracking. A 6 x 12-in. (150 x 300 mm) cylinder of concrete was cast, and a thermocouple was placed into the center of the cylinder as shown in Figure A-7. The cylinder was placed into a box of insulating foam and a cover of foam was placed over the sample as shown in Figure A-8. The thermocouple was attached to a data logger that recorded temperature over a period of more than 100 hrs. Figure A-9 shows the data from each concrete mixture. Table A-19 summarizes the increase in temperature each concrete mixture experienced due to hydration. The final assessment of cracking potential was the free drying shrinkage test, AASHTO T 160. Three prisms, 3 x 3 x 11.25-in. (75 x 75 x 281 mm), were cast, cured for seven days, placed in a 73ºF (23ºC), 50% RH room, and their lengths were periodically measured. Figure A-10 shows the drying shrinkage behavior over time. The shrinkage at 91 days was used in calculations of the BTC and BPC. Table A-19 summarizes the shrinkage of each mixture at 91 days. Measurement of Hardened Concrete Properties An analysis of the air void system was performed on each concrete according to ASTM C 457. The total air content and air void spacing factors are presented in Table A-20. The compressive strength was measured according to AASHTO T 22. Three cylinders were broken at each of the following ages: 3, 7, 28, and 56 days. The results are shown in Figure A-11 and Table A-20. The modulus of elasticity was also measured for each concrete at 7 and 28 days according to AASHTO T 22 on three cylinders. The average results are presented in Table A-20.

NCHRP Web-Only Document 110: Supplementary Cementitious Materials to Enhance Durability of Concrete Bridge Decks 68 Figure A-7. A thermocouple was placed in the center of each concrete cylinder Figure A-8. An insulating foam cover was placed over the cylinder

NCHRP Web-Only Document 110: Supplementary Cementitious Materials to Enhance Durability of Concrete Bridge Decks 69 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Elapsed Time (hrs.) In cr ea se in T em pe ra tu re (' F) C1 C2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 BTC BPC C1 C2 1 2 4 7 BTC BPC 8 9 5 6 3 Figure A-9. Comparison of temperature rise for each concrete batch -0.0700 -0.0600 -0.0500 -0.0400 -0.0300 -0.0200 -0.0100 0.0000 0 20 40 60 80 100 Age (Days) Le ng th C ha ng e (% ) C1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 BTC BPC Figure A-10. Comparison of shrinkage curves for each concrete batch

NCHRP Web-Only Document 110: Supplementary Cementitious Materials to Enhance Durability of Concrete Bridge Decks 70 Table A-20. Hardened concrete properties Mix- ture Description (% by wt.) SCM/SF/(w/cm) Hardened Air (%) Spacing Factor (in.) Specific Surface (in2/in3) Compressive Str.- 3-day (psi) Compressive Str.- 7-day (psi) Compressive Str.- 28-day (psi) Compressive Str.- 56-day (psi) Modulus E - 7-day (x106 psi) Modulus E - 28-day (x106 psi) C1 Control (w/c 0.40) 5.9 0.0069 668 4030 5000 5950 6190 3.48 4.06 1 15C/0/0.45 7.0 0.0058 657 2960 3780 4700 5280 3.32 3.52 2 25C/5/0.37 9.2 0.0052 463 3960* 4730 6300 6750 3.73 4.58 3 40C/8/0.37 7.2 0.0059 583 2790* 3530 6090 7080 3.36 4.80 4 15F/5/0.37 7.9 0.0068 424 3720 5010 6430 7230 3.63 4.37 5 25F/8/0.45 10.5 0.0045 563 1750 2730 4120 4770 3.17 3.67 6 40F/0/0.37 8.6 0.0054 594 1610 2290 3620 4490 3.10 3.43 7 25S/8/0.37 6.1 0.0090 418 4240 6460 7800 8720 4.40 4.49 8 35S/0/0.37 5.7 0.0108 408 3940 5710 7890 8460 4.26 4.82 9 50S/5/0.45 5.2 0.0070 646 2140 4380 6300 7000 3.65 4.36 C2 Control (w/c 0.40) 7.1 0.0078 437 6620 6490 4.37 BTC 35S/0/0.37 7.5 0.0090 381 4000 6020 7970 8520 BPC 35S/8/0.39 6.3 0.0075 524 3250 5570 7710 8560 *4-day tests

NCHRP Web-Only Document 110: Supplementary Cementitious Materials to Enhance Durability of Concrete Bridge Decks 71 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Age (Days) C om pr es si ve S tr en gt h (p si ) C1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 BTC BPC Figure A-11. Comparison of compressive strength curves for each concrete batch Assessment of Durability Four separate properties were assessed to determine the durability of the concrete. The first was freezing and thawing resistance, which was performed according to AASHTO T 161 Method A. Three 3 x 4 x 16-in. (75 x 100 x 400 mm) prisms were cast and cured for 14 days prior to being subjected to rapid freezing and thawing. The durability factor, mass loss, and length change were measured periodically during the 300 cycle test. All the concrete performed well with durability factors exceeding 100% after 300 cycles. Some scaling of the surfaces occurred. Figure A-12 and Figure A-13 show photographs of the samples after exposure. The different faces (formed, finished) behaved differently as shown. Table A-21 summarizes the data. The salt scaling resistance was tested according to ASTM C 672. Three 12 x 12 x 6-in. (300 x 300 x 150 mm) slabs were cast for each mixture and finished with a wooden float. They were moist cured for 14 days and dried for 14 days at 50% RH. They were ponded with calcium chloride solution and cycled 50 times between freezing and thawing. Every five cycles the slabs were visually rated, the surfaces were rinsed, the scaled material collected, dried, and weighed and the number of popouts was recorded. The results are presented in Table A-21, which includes the average scaling visual rating, the average total mass loss, and the average number of small and large aggregate popouts noted. Figure A-14 shows the progression of mass loss with each five cycles. Figure A-15 and Figure A-16 are close-up photographs of the surfaces of one slab from each mixture.

NCHRP Web-Only Document 110: Supplementary Cementitious Materials to Enhance Durability of Concrete Bridge Decks 72 Mixture C1 Mixture 1 Mixture 2 Mixture 3 Mixture 4 Mixture 5 Figure A-12. Freeze/thaw specimens for Mixture C1 and Mixtures 1 to 5 after 300 cycles. The top prism shows a finished face, the center prism shows one of the side faces, and the bottom prism is a bottom face

NCHRP Web-Only Document 110: Supplementary Cementitious Materials to Enhance Durability of Concrete Bridge Decks 73 Mixture 6 Mixture 7 Mixture 8 Mixture 9 Figure A-13. Freeze/thaw specimens for Mixtures 6 to 9 after 300 cycles. The top prism shows a finished face, the center prism shows one of the side faces, and the bottom prism is a bottom face

NCHRP Web-Only Document 110: Supplementary Cementitious Materials to Enhance Durability of Concrete Bridge Decks 74 Table A-21. Durability assessment test results: freeze/thaw and salt scaling tests Mixture Description (% by wt.) SCM/SF/(w/cm) Average scaling rating after 50 cycles Average number of popouts (#small:#lg) Salt scaling mass loss (g/m2) F/T: Ave. DF after 300 cyc. (%) F/T: Ave. mass loss after 300 cyc. (%) F/T: Ave. length change after 300 cyc. (%) C1 Control (w/c 0.40) 0.0 8:3 50.42 100.1 -3.38 0.0033 1 15C/0/0.45 0.0 9:2 42.12 102.5 -2.01 0.0056 2 25C/5/0.37 1.0 - 273.56 100.5 -1.59 0.0192 3 40C/8/0.37 1.5 - 788.52 102.3 -2.16 0.0159 4 15F/5/0.37 0.3 12:- 75.42 102.1 -0.13 0.0194 5 25F/8/0.45 1.2 - 231.32 105.8 -0.91 0.0130 6 40F/0/0.37 2.2 - 531.58 106.3 -0.56 0.0024 7 25S/8/0.37 0.0 - 77.57 104.3 0.13 0.0094 8 35S/0/0.37 0.0 7:0.3 100.29 106.4 0.20 0.0169 9 50S/5/0.45 1.5 - 824.51 103.4 -0.11 0.0323 C2 Control (w/c 0.40) -- -- -- BTC 35S/0/0.37 0 - 24.99 BPC 35S/8/0.39 0 - 52.78 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 0 10 20 30 40 50 Cycle Number A ve . M as s Lo st p er S la b (g /m 2 ) Mix C1 Mix 1 Mix 2 Mix 3 Mix 4 Mix 5 Mix 6 Mix 7 Mix 8 Mix 9 BTC BPC Figure A-14. Comparison of salt scaling mass loss for each concrete batch

NCHRP Web-Only Document 110: Supplementary Cementitious Materials to Enhance Durability of Concrete Bridge Decks 75 Mixture C1 Mixture 1 Mixture 2 Mixture 3 Mixture 4 Mixture 5 Figure A-15. Salt scaling slabs for Mixture C1 and Mixtures 1 to 5 after 50 cycles

NCHRP Web-Only Document 110: Supplementary Cementitious Materials to Enhance Durability of Concrete Bridge Decks 76 Mixture 6 Mixture 7 Mixture 8 Mixture 9 BTC BPC Figure A-16. Salt scaling slabs for Mixtures 6 to 9, BTC and BPC after 50 cycles

NCHRP Web-Only Document 110: Supplementary Cementitious Materials to Enhance Durability of Concrete Bridge Decks 77 The resistance of the concrete to chloride permeability was estimated using AASHTO T 277 (the electrical conductivity test or RCP test). One top slice of two 4 x 8-in. (100 x 200 mm) cylinders were tested over six hours at an age of 56 days, and the charge passed in coulombs was recorded. The results were averaged and are given in Table A-22. Table A-22. Durability assessment test results: chloride-related tests Mixture Description (% by wt.) SCM/SF/(w/cm) Charge passed @ 56 days (Coulombs) Surface Chloride (%) Diffusion Coefficient (x10-12 m2/s) C1 Control (w/c 0.40) 2878 1.03 7.879 1 15C/0/0.45 3398 1.26 7.022 2 25C/5/0.37 812 1.17 3.039 3 40C/8/0.37 684 1.14 2.743 4 15F/5/0.37 834 1.18 3.015 5 25F/8/0.45 912 1.35 3.983 6 40F/0/0.37 2072 1.18 7.134 7 25S/8/0.37 399 1.32 1.919 8 35S/0/0.37 1136 1.84 1.617 9 50S/5/0.45 694 1.40 2.822 C2 Control (w/c 0.40) 3307 BTC 35S/0/0.37 778 1.28 1.879 BPC 35S/8/0.39 244 1.36 1.283 A second and more reliable method of assessing resistance to chloride penetration was by ponding or exposure to chloride solutions. For the original test matrix, this was conducted using a modified AASHTO T 259/T 260 test. Three 12 x 12 x 6-in. (300 x 300 x 150 mm) slabs were cast for each mixture and finished with a wooden float. They were moist cured for 14 days and dried for 28 days in a 50% R.H. room prior to ponding with a 15% NaCl solution for 6 months. The solution was topped off every week, and once a month the solution was replaced. At 6 months of age, one 3-in. core was removed from each slab, and five slices were cut from each core at specific depths. These slices were ground into powders, and the acid-soluble chloride was measured according to ASTM C 1152. The apparent diffusion coefficient was determined using the well-known one-dimensional solution (Equation 1) of Fick’s second law, which predicts diffusion rate in a uniform, homogeneous medium. The terms in Equation 1 are defined as follows: depth into a medium (x), chloride concentration at depth x (Cx), residual (background) chloride concentration within the concrete (Co), surface chloride concentration (Cs), apparent chloride diffusion coefficient (Da), and time in years (t). The erf(x) is the Gaussian error function. An iterative solution process was employed to yield the values for Cs and Da that produces the profile giving the least sum of squares of error at each depth. The background chloride concentration, Co, was assumed to be 0.08%, which is the chloride content measured in unexposed concrete and is due to chloride bound in the aggregate source. The exposure time, t, is the age of exposure, or 6 months. ⎟⎟⎠ ⎞ ⎜⎜⎝ ⎛ ⋅−=− − tD xerf CC CC aos ox 2 1 (1)

NCHRP Web-Only Document 110: Supplementary Cementitious Materials to Enhance Durability of Concrete Bridge Decks 78 Diffusion fits were generated for each of the three cores individually and the average apparent diffusion coefficient for each mixture was calculated from these values. A brief discussion of how this fitting is performed is provided in NCHRP Report 566. Examples of the chloride content data and the profile fits for this data based on the apparent diffusion coefficient are given in Figure A-17 for Mixture #8. The calculated surface chloride concentration and apparent diffusion coefficient from the chloride diffusion testing for all mixtures are presented in Table A-22. 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 Depth (in) C l- C on ce nt ra io n (% b y w t.) 8-1 8-1 Fit 8-2 8-2 Fit 8-3 8-3 Fit BTC-1 BTC-1 Fit BTC-2 BTC-2 Fit BTC-3 BTC-3 Fit Figure A-17. Chloride profiles and fit based on calculated surface concentration and apparent diffusion coefficient for Mixture #8 and for BTC measured on samples conditioned according to AASHTO T 259 and ASTM C 1556, respectively

NCHRP Web-Only Document 110: Supplementary Cementitious Materials to Enhance Durability of Concrete Bridge Decks 79 Step 5: Analyze Test Results and Predict the Optimum Mixture Proportions After the tests were conducted in Step 4, the responses were tabulated and converted into individual desirability values based on the initially assumed desirability functions. The results of this analysis were reviewed and the responses to be included in the overall desirability calculations were re-evaluated. The initial assumptions for the desirability functions were also re-evaluated to ensure that they accurately interpreted the performance of the mixtures. This is an important step to make sure that the desirabilities properly reflect differences or similarities in performance. Every experiment will have different considerations depending on the performance objectives and the results obtained. The results of the Hypothetical Case Study were interpreted relative to the objective of a durable bridge deck in a northern climate. What follows is a description of how the particular test data was reconciled with this objective. Analysis of Results and the BTC Table A-23 lists the individual responses that were initially planned in Step 1 and tested in Step 4 and those that were actually used to calculate the overall desirability for the mixtures in Step 5. Recall that the overall desirability is the geometric mean of individual response desirabilities. The plastic properties (slump, slump loss, plastic air content, and air content of hardened concrete) were eliminated from consideration in the calculation of the Overall Desirability. This was done since these properties can be adjusted by the concrete producer based on admixture dosage and were not uniquely determined by the mixture itself. Also, no measure of the hardened air parameters was included since cyclic freezing resistance was tested directly. Another change that was made was the inclusion of 56-day strength in place of 28-day strength. This was necessary because Mixture #6, containing a high content of Class F fly ash, had 28-day strength of 3620 psi (25.0 MPa), which was well below the target minimum for the average compressive strength of 5000 psi (34.5 MPa) used to develop the desirability function. This resulted in a low individual desirability for this test (Figure A-18) that produced a low overall desirability for this mixture. This was dragging down all mixtures containing Class F fly ash, since the influence of a type factor is based on the average response for all mixtures containing that type. While our desirability function for the 28-day strength was reasonable for the targeted performance, a designer may be willing to wait for the concrete to reach a 56-day design strength, if that means that a more durable concrete with a lower diffusion coefficient and other more desirable responses can be achieved. Using the 56-day strength, which was 4490 psi (31.0 MPa) for the high-content Class F fly ash mixture (#6), instead of 28-day strength, gave a much more acceptable individual (Figure A-19) and overall desirability for that mixture. Finally, scaling resistance was evaluated in two ways: visually and by mass loss. To limit the emphasis applied to scaling relative to the other performance measures, the measure deemed to be most definitive, mass loss, was included and the visually rating was not. Modifications to the individual desirability functions were made in some cases after the data was examined. For example, the desirability function for temperature rise due to heat of hydration was adjusted based on the test results. It was initially assumed, based on the insulation

NCHRP Web-Only Document 110: Supplementary Cementitious Materials to Enhance Durability of Concrete Bridge Decks 80 Table A-23. Responses used for calculation of overall desirabilities Proposed Responses from Step 1 Selected Responses for Step 5 Design Matrix Analysis Selected Responses for Step 6 Confirmation Analysis 1. Slump 2. Slump Loss 3. Plastic Air Content 4. Air Content of Hardened Concrete 5. Initial Set 1. Initial set 1. Initial set 6. Finishability 2. Finishability 7. Cracking Tendency 3. Cracking Tendency 8. Heat of Hydration - Temperature rise 4. Heat of Hydration - Temperature rise 2. Heat of Hydration - Temperature rise 9. Shrinkage 5. Shrinkage 3. Shrinkage 10. Specific Surface Area 11. Compressive Strength, 7-Day 6. Compressive Strength, 7-day 4. Compressive Strength, 7-day 12. Compressive Strength, 28-Day 13. Compressive Strength, 56-Day 7. Compressive Strength, 56-day 5. Compressive Strength, 56-day 14. Modulus of Elasticity 8. Modulus of Elasticity, 28-day 15. Electrical Conductivity 9. Electrical Conductivity 6. Electrical Conductivity 16. Scaling (visual rating) 17. Scaling (mass loss) 10. Scaling (mass loss) 7. Scaling (mass loss) 18. Freezing and Thawing Resistance (durability factor) 11. Freezing and Thawing Resistance (durability factor) 19. Chloride Penetration Resistance (diffusion coefficient) 12. Chloride Penetration Resistance (diffusion coefficient) 8. Chloride Penetration Resistance (diffusion coefficient) 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 Compressive Strength (psi) D es ira bi lit y Desirability Function Actual Data Controls Mix #6 D es ira bi lit y Figure A-18. Desirability function for 28-day compressive strength originally proposed. Note low desirability for Mixture #6

NCHRP Web-Only Document 110: Supplementary Cementitious Materials to Enhance Durability of Concrete Bridge Decks 81 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 Compressive Strength (psi) D es ira bi lit y Desirability Function Actual Data Controls Mix #6 D es ira bi lit y Figure A-19. Desirability function for 56-day compressive strength selected for Design Matrix testing vessels, that the temperature rise would not be above 30°F (17ºC), and the desirability function was designed accordingly. However, the actual test results ranged from 30 to 50°F (17 to 29ºC). Therefore, the desirability function was adjusted to give some credit to those mixtures that produced a lower temperature rise but not to overly punish the mixtures at the higher end of the scale. Figure A-20 shows the original desirability function and the adjusted function with the test data. Such changes should be based on engineering judgment and may be necessary to provide a realistic prediction and appropriately reflect the importance of the test result. The individual response and overall desirabilities of all mixtures based on the test data are shown in Table A-24. The Best Tested Concrete (BTC) is the mixture which had the highest overall desirability. Therefore, the BTC is Mixture #8.

NCHRP Web-Only Document 110: Supplementary Cementitious Materials to Enhance Durability of Concrete Bridge Decks 82 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 Temperature Rise ('F) D es ira bi lit y Original Desirability Function Revised Desirability Function Actual Data Controls Figure A-20. Example of modification to temperature rise desirability function Response Modeling and the BPC By definition, the Best Predicted Concrete (BPC) is the combination of the factors that maximize the overall desirability. This was identified based on empirical models for each of the responses. Using the approach discussed in NCHRP Report 566, each response was modeled using Equation 2 44 2 33333 2 22222 2 11111 xbxbxbxbxbxbxbboey +++++++= (2) where e is the natural constant such that ln(e) =1, y represents the response, x1 represents the Level of Factor 1, x2 represents the Level of Factor 2 and so forth, and the parameters, b0, b1, and b11 are selected for each factor by standard linear regression analysis to allow the function to fit the data. Note that since there were only two levels for Factor 4 (w/cm) in the Hypothetical Case Study, the squared term for x4 cannot be used. These model parameters were fit by first taking the natural log of the observed responses and then fitting the simple quadratic model to that transformed data using standard regression analysis: 44 2 33333 2 22222 2 11111)ln( xbxbxbxbxbxbxbby o +++++++= (3) Once the values for the parameters, b0, b1, b11, b2, .., b4 were chosen to make the function fit the natural log of the data, the response for any factor settings x1, x2, x3, x4, can be predicted using Equation 2.

NCHRP Web-Only Document 110: Supplementary Cementitious Materials to Enhance Durability of Concrete Bridge Decks 83 Table A-24. Individual response desirabilities and overall desirabilities for design matrix testing Mixture Property C1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 C2 Initial Set 1 1 1 0.8340 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Finishability 0.9856 0.9725 0.8850 0.9425 0.9075 0.9688 0.9744 0.9500 0.9325 0.9600 0.9706 Cracking Tendency 0.9889 1 1 1 1 0.9833 0.9722 1 0.9556 1 0.9889 Heat of Hydration Temp. Rise 0.8917 0.9517 0.9550 0.9650 0.9617 0.9717 0.9800 0.9583 0.9567 0.9650 0.8800 Shrinkage 0.9105 0.7938 0.9585 0.9690 0.9650 0.9085 0.9580 0.9850 0.9795 0.9645 N/A Compressive Strength - 7 Day 1 1 1 1 1 0.8608 0.6304 0.9040 0.9795 1 N/A Compressive Strength - 56 Day 1 0.9711 1 1 1 0.9020 0.8655 0.9707 1 1 1 Modulus of Elasticity 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N/A Electrical Conductivity 0.5366 0.3806 0.9594 0.9658 0.9583 0.9544 0.7784 0.9801 0.9296 0.9653 0.4079 Scaling - Mass Loss 0.9849 0.9874 0.9304 0.7491 0.9838 0.9365 0.8889 0.9820 0.9740 0.7082 N/A Freeze- Thaw Durability Factor 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N/A Chloride Diffusion Coefficient 0.1030 0.1245 0.6682 0.7199 0.6723 0.5029 0.1216 0.8561 0.8787 0.7062 N/A Overall Desirability 0.7695 0.7532 0.9412 0.9231 0.9490 0.9029 0.7660 0.9645 0.9648 0.9323 0.8373 Desirability Rank 8 10 4 6 3 7 9 2 1 5 * * Control Mixture 2 has missing data and was not considered for BTC.

NCHRP Web-Only Document 110: Supplementary Cementitious Materials to Enhance Durability of Concrete Bridge Decks 84 The BPC was found by evaluating the overall desirability, calculated based on the desirabilities for the individual predicted responses, for many combinations of factor levels until the specific combination that produced the highest overall desirability was identified. These combinations were generated by increasing each factor successively by a small increment to fully describe the test range. In this way, the observed data, the desirability function, and the response models were used together to predict a BPC expected to perform better than the BTC. The predicted overall desirability based on the response models and the Mixture ID number from the Step 4 test program is given in Table A-25. The models predict that for the materials tested, using the same amount of slag tested as the medium level in the previous matrix is, in fact, optimum but that the amount of silica fume should be increased to 8% and that the w/cm should be increased by 0.02, from 0.37 to 0.39. The prediction of the performance of the BTC and BPC in each of the individual test responses is given in Table A-26. Predicted responses are given for all properties tested and predicted desirabilities are given for those responses used to determine the overall desirabilities. A review of this table, specifically where the individual desirabilities of the BPC are greater than those of the BTC, identifies of the responses that were most significant in the selection of the BPC. Despite a slightly lower individual desirability for finishability and scaling-mass loss, the predicted individual desirabilities for the BPC for the chloride diffusion, electrical conductivity, and cracking tendency were all higher. This led to the greater overall desirability and the selection of this mixture as the BPC. Table A-25. Selection of Best Tested (BTC) and Best Predicted Concrete (BPC) based on overall desirabilities Mixture Type of SCM1 Amount of SCM1 (%) Amount of silica fume (%) w/cm Actual Overall Desirability Predicted Overall Desirability Mix No. BTC GGBFS 35 0 0.37 0.9648 0.9653 8 BPC GGBFS 35 8 0.39 - 0.9744 -

NCHRP Web-Only Document 110: Supplementary Cementitious Materials to Enhance Durability of Concrete Bridge Decks 85 Table A-26. Predicted responses of Best Tested (BTC) and Best Predicted Concrete (BPC) Predicted Response Predicted Desirability Property BTC BPC BTC BPC Slump (in) 8.05 7.10 Slump Loss (in) 1.89 2.49 Plastic Air (%) 6.34 6.44 Hardened Air (%) 6.09 6.70 Initial Set (hr) 5.33 5.66 1.00 1.00 Finishability 11.83 11.41 0.95 0.94 Cracking Tendency (wks) 7.43 15.67 0.96 1.00 Heat of Hydration (°F) 44.63 43.83 0.96 0.96 Shrinkage (%) -0.0445 -0.0434 0.98 0.98 Specific Surface Area (in-1) 417 424 Compressive Strength - 7 Day (psi) 5366 5503 1.00 1.00 Compressive Strength - 28 Day (psi) 7193 7730 Compressive Strength - 56 Day (psi) 7792 8383 1.00 1.00 Modulus of Elasticity (x106 psi) 4.25 4.24 1.00 1.00 Electrical Conductivity (Coulombs) 1144 397 0.93 0.98 Scaling - Visual 0.00 0.01 Scaling - Mass Loss (g/m2) 93.4 183.0 0.97 0.95 Freeze- Thaw Durability Factor (%) 103.7 104.0 1.00 1.00 Chloride Diffusion (x 10-12 m2/s) 1.95 1.38 0.85 0.90

NCHRP Web-Only Document 110: Supplementary Cementitious Materials to Enhance Durability of Concrete Bridge Decks 86 Step 6: Perform Confirmation Testing and Select Best Concrete In Step 6, the BPC and BTC were tested according to a revised list of test methods outlined in Table A-27. Table A-23 lists the responses that were included in the calculation of the overall desirability for the Confirmation Testing. The test program varied from the program used in Step 4 in that it was limited only to those responses that showed significant performance differences and that could be completed in the available timeframe. Therefore, the finishability, modulus of elasticity, and freezing and thawing tests were eliminated, since in all of these tests, the BTC and BPC mixtures were predicted to perform such that a similar desirability would be assigned for that response. The cracking tendency test was eliminated because this test could not be completed. One additional modification to the testing procedure was made because of time constraints; the method used to evaluate the chloride penetration was changed to ASTM C 1556 tested at 56 days. However, since both of the chloride penetration test methods used measure similar performance, and no other changes in the testing procedures were made, the initial and Confirmation Test programs were considered essentially comparable and the results from both rounds of testing fairly compared. The mixture proportions and the results of the Confirmation Testing program are given in Table A-16 and in Table A-18 to Table A-22, respectively. The mixing procedures, test methods and all experimental details were consistent with the Step 4 testing program. As noted, the recently adopted ASTM C 1556 method was used to evaluate the chloride penetration resistance. In this test, 4 x 8-in. (100 x 200 mm) concrete cylinders are wet-cured for 28-days before they are cut to a length of approximately 3 in. (75 mm). All surfaces but the finished surface were sealed and the cylinders submerged in 15% NaCl solution for 56 days. At the end of the exposure time, five layers of the concrete surface were sampled at successive depths, all within 1/2 in. (13 Table A-27. Verification testing of BPC and BTC Property Test Method Specimen Size and Number of Specimens Curing Compressive strength (at 3, 7, 28, 56 days) AASHTO T 22 Three 4x8-in. Moist Electrical Conductivity test (56 days) AASHTO T 277 Two 4x8-in. Moist Shrinkage (1, 3, 7, 14, 28, 56, 90 days after curing) AASHTO T 160 Three 3x3x11.25-in. 7 days wet Thermal effects (heat of hydration) Temperature Rise in Cylinder One 6x12-in. cylinder N/A Chloride diffusion (to 56 days) ASTM C 1556 Two 4 x8 in. cylinders 28 days Scaling (mass loss) ASTM C 672 Three 3x12x12-in. 14 days wet + 14 days dry Hardened air analysis (at greater than 7 days) ASTM C 457 One 4x8-in. cylinder Moist for 7 days

NCHRP Web-Only Document 110: Supplementary Cementitious Materials to Enhance Durability of Concrete Bridge Decks 87 mm) of the surface, using a machinist’s lathe and cutter as shown in Figure A-21. Examples of the chloride content data and the profile fits for the BTC from the Confirmation Testing based on the apparent diffusion coefficient are compared in Figure A-17 with that of Mixture #8 from the initial round of testing. The results of the chloride diffusion testing for all mixtures are presented in Table A-22. Note that the average apparent diffusion coefficients are very similar for Mixture #8 and the BTC, which were batched with identical mixture proportions, despite the different method used to determine the apparent diffusion coefficient. The overall desirabilities of these mixtures were determined using the same individual desirability functions used to evaluate the Design Matrix Mixtures. The measured overall desirabilities are compared with the predicted overall desirabilities in Table A-28, which also includes the overall desirability from the original BTC batch calculated based on the Confirmation Testing program. Note that the overall desirabilities based on the Confirmation round of testing are slightly different than those calculated in Step 5, since the responses included in this calculation has been modified. Figure A-21. Lathe used to mill surface of concrete cylinder Table A-28. Comparison of actual and predicted overall desirabilities from Confirmation testing Mixture Actual Overall Desirability Predicted Overall Desirability % Difference BTC Original Batch (Mixture #8) 0.9615 0.9601 0.1% BTC Confirmation Batch 0.9601 0.9601 0.0% BPC Confirmation Batch 0.9724 0.9700 0.2%

NCHRP Web-Only Document 110: Supplementary Cementitious Materials to Enhance Durability of Concrete Bridge Decks 88 For the Hypothetical Case Study, the actual and predicted performances of the Confirmation BTC and BPC agreed very well. The difference between the actual BPC and BTC performance is nearly nine times greater than the difference between the Original and Confirmation Batch of the BTC. This provides confidence that the test program produced repeatable results and that the increase in desirability measured in the BPC is a significant and measurable improvement. Table A-29 and Table A-30 present the actual and predicted individual responses and corresponding desirabilities for the Confirmation Testing for the BTC and BPC. These tables provide an opportunity to evaluate the accuracy of the predictions and the corresponding desirabilities for each response. The mixture responses that were least well-predicted, i.e., that showed the greatest percent difference, for the BTC and BPC were the electrical conductivity and scaling-mass loss tests. However, the corresponding desirability values varied only slightly since the desirability functions placed only limited significance on these differences. In fact, only one desirability prediction was different by more than 5% and that was the 7-day strength prediction for the BTC which was off by 5.2%. The Confirmation test results and the good agreement between the test responses and the model predictions used to select the BPC contribute to the confidence in the accuracy of this statistical analysis. The result of this program justifies the selection of the BPC as the Best Concrete (BC), the mixture recommended for use. With this selection, the objective of this Methodology, which is the identification of an optimum mixture based on the available raw materials, has been achieved.

NCHRP Web-Only Document 110: Supplementary Cementitious Materials to Enhance Durability of Concrete Bridge Decks 89 Table A-29. Comparison of individual responses and desirabilities for BTC Individual Responses Individual Desirabilities Property Original BTC Batch (Mixture #8) BTC Confirmation Test BTC Prediction BTC % Difference Response BTC Confirmation Test BTC Prediction BTC % Difference Desirability Included in Confirmation Test? Slump (in) 7.75 6.25 8.05 -22.4% No Slump Loss (in) 1.75 2.25 1.89 19.3% No Plastic Air (%) 6.10 7.00 6.34 10.4% No Hardened Air (%) 5.70 7.50 6.09 23.1% No Initial Set (hr) 5.50 5.08 5.33 -4.8% 1.000 1.000 0.0% Yes Finishability 11.3 No test 11.8 - No Cracking Tendency (wks) 7.0 No test 7.4 - No Heat of Hydration Temp. Rise ('F) 46 46 45 3.1% 0.957 0.959 -0.2% Yes Shrinkage (% ) (negative) -0.0441 -0.0452 -0.0445 1.7% 0.974 0.978 -0.4% Yes Specific Surface Area (in-1) 408 No test 417 - No Compressive Strength - 7 Day (psi) 5705 6020 5367 12.2% 0.948 1.000 -5.2% Yes Compressive Strength - 28 Day (psi) 7888 7970 7194 10.8% No Compressive Strength - 56 Day (psi) 8460 8520 7793 9.3% 0.997 1.000 -0.3% Yes Modulus of Elasticity (x 106 psi) 4.26 No test 4.25 - No Electrical Conductivity (Coulombs) 1136 778 1143 -31.9% 0.961 0.929 3.5% Yes Scaling - Visual 0.0 0.0 0.1 - No Scaling - Mass Loss (g/m2) 86.7 25.0 93.4 -73.3% 0.993 0.972 2.1% Yes Freeze- Thaw Durability Factor (%) 103.8 No test 103.7 - No Chloride Diffusion Coefficient (x10-12 m2/s) 1.62 1.88 1.95 -3.8% 0.859 0.853 0.7% Yes

NCHRP Web-Only Document 110: Supplementary Cementitious Materials to Enhance Durability of Concrete Bridge Decks 90 Table A-30. Comparison of individual responses and desirabilities for BPC Individual Responses Individual Desirabilities Property BPC Confirmation Test BPC Prediction BPC% Difference Response BPC Confirmation Test BPC Prediction BPC % Difference Desirability Included in Confirmation Test? Slump (in) 7.25 7.10 22.0% No Slump Loss (in) 3.00 2.49 20.4% No Plastic Air (%) 6.7 6.4 4.0% No Hardened Air (%) 6.3 6.7 -6.0% No Initial Set (hr) 6.42 5.66 13.5% 1.000 1.000 0.0% Yes Finishability No test 11.4 - No Cracking Tendency (wks) No test 15.7 - No Heat of Hydration Temp. Rise ('F) 44 44 0.4% 0.960 0.960 0.0% Yes Shrinkage (% ) -0.0476 -0.0434 9.6% 0.962 0.983 -2.1% Yes Specific Surface Area (in-1) No test 424 - No Compressive Strength - 7 Day (psi) 5570 5504 1.2% 0.993 1.000 -0.7% Yes Compressive Strength - 28 Day (psi) 7710 7731 - No Compressive Strength - 56 Day (psi) 8560 8383 2.1% 0.992 1.000 -0.8% Yes Modulus of Elasticity (x 106 psi) No test 4.24 - No Electrical Conductivity (Coulombs) 244 397 -38.5% 0.988 0.980 0.8% Yes Scaling - Visual 0.0 0.3 No Scaling - Mass Loss (g/m2) 52.8 183.0 -71.2% 0.984 0.945 4.1% Yes Freeze- Thaw Durability Factor (%) No test 104.0 - No Chloride Diffusion Coefficient (x10-12 m2/s) 1.28 1.38 -6.8% 0.904 0.897 0.8% Yes