Performance Specifications for Rapid Highway Renewal (2014)

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.

117 A p p e n d i x F introduction Current department of transportation (DOT) specifications for hydraulic cement concrete bridge decks are generally of the prescriptive type. In the design of the concrete mixtures, minimum cementitious material and maximum water– cementitious materials ratios (w/cm) are specified. Materials used in the mixtures are also covered in the specifications and are required to comply with the appropriate ASTM or AASHTO standards. The mixtures have a specified range of air content and slump, a maximum temperature tested at the fresh state, and a minimum design compressive strength of the hardened concrete tested at 28 days using standard curing. DOTs typically perform the tests. Decks with test results within the specifica- tion limits are paid for in full. Performance (or end-result) specifications require the con- tractor to assume more responsibility for supplying a product or an item of construction. The highway agency’s responsibility is either to accept or to reject the final product or to apply a pay adjustment commensurate with the degree of compliance with the specifications. Specifications that focus on the end- result properties of the product are more efficient and cost- effective than the prescriptive type of specification that places limits on the materials and proportions used. The objective of the Lake Anna Demonstration Project was to demonstrate a performance shadow specification for a hydraulic cement concrete bridge deck using construction parameters that relate to performance, including portland cement concrete (PCC) deck permeability, cracking, joint condition, skid, smoothness, and thickness and cover depth. A percent within limits (PWL) was developed for construc- tion parameters (e.g., cover depth, thickness, strength, and permeability), and pass-fail criteria were used for others (e.g., cracking, joint condition, and cross slope). The perfor- mance specification was shadowed to compare results with the Virginia Department of Transportation’s (VDOT) end-result specification, which incorporates a PWL with pay adjust- ments for strength and permeability. Overview During the Lake Anna Bridge Rehabilitation Project on Route 208, the deck was replaced with high-performance concrete with low permeability and corrosion resistant steel (MMFX2, low carbon chromium steel). Figure F.1 shows the bridge. The bridge has 13 spans and two lanes. The total length of the bridge is 929 ft 3 3⁄8 in. The length of each span is a little over 71 ft with the two end spans closer to 73 ft. In late 2011 the west- bound lane (WBL) and in mid 2012 the eastbound lane (EBL) were replaced. Because of the traffic control requirements, concrete was placed at night to allow one lane in both directions to be open to traffic at alternating times during the day. Westbound Lane Materials and Proportions The concrete mixture is given in Table F.1. Type II cement and slag cement were used as the cementitious material. Coarse aggregate was siliceous crushed rock, and fine aggregate was natural sand. Commercially available air entraining and water reducing admixtures were used in the mix. Mix2 was placed beginning with the second day of pumped concrete after the first three loads. Mix2 has 5% less coarse aggregate, compen- sated for by the addition of sand. The contractor requested the change to facilitate pumping. Pumping was done by the slick lines (10-ft-long steel pipes) laid on the deck. For the last day’s placement, the slick line had to cross the four spans already placed on the previous placement day. To accommo- date the long line, the change in the mix was made to improve the workability. Placement Traffic was allowed to use the EBL during the reconstruction of the WBL. The concrete placement started on November 8, 2011, Lake Anna Demonstration Project, Virginia Department of Transportation

118 and 2, the placement was made using the full extension of the chutes of the trucks. However, the chutes could not reach the whole width, and the deposited concrete had to be spread to the far side. Thus, loads had to be placed on the side closer to the EBL where the truck was located and then spread across toward the parapet. This method prolonged the placement, and the EBL had to be closed to traffic for about 15 minutes for each load. The traffic interruption was more than anticipated. Therefore, the second day, placement was done at night when fewer vehicles were on the road. Placement took a long time because of the need to spread the load to the outer edge with a “come-along” tool (a tool that looks like a hoe and has a long straight-edged blade). Concrete lost slump with time, so to facilitate finishing, water was Figure F.1. Route 208 bridge over Lake Anna. Table F.1. Mixture Proportions for WBL (lb/ft3) Ingredient Mix 1 Mix 2 Cement 381 381 Slag 254 254 Fine aggregate 1052 1105 Coarse aggregate 1857 1802 Water 286 286 Table F.2. Dates and Fresh Concrete Properties for WBL Day Batch Date Slump (in.) Air (%) Density (lb/ft3) Mix Temperature (F) Evaporation Rate (lb/ft2/hr) 1 1 2 3 11/8/2011 11/8/2011 11/8/2011 7.0 6.5 6.0 7.5 6.5 5.3 140.8 144.0 145.6 62 65 72 0.02 0.02 0.02 2 1 2 3 11/14/2011 11/14/2011 11/14/2011 5.8 6.5 7.0 6.2 7 6.7 143.2 142.8 142.8 70 69 70 0.06 0.05 0.07 3 1 1P 2 2P 3 3P 4 4P 12/1/2011 12/1/2011 12/1/2011 12/1/2011 12/1/2011 12/1/2011 12/1/2011 12/1/2011 7.0 2.5 5.5 5.5 7.0 5.5 7.0 7.0 7.6 6.7 6.3 11.5 6.8 4.5 6.7 7 142.0 144.0 144.8 135.2 143.6 146.8 144.0 142.4 65 65 68 67 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.03 4 1 1P 2 2P 3 3P 4 4P 12/13/2011 12/13/2011 12/13/2011 12/13/2011 12/13/2011 12/13/2011 12/13/2011 12/13/2011 7.0 6.0 7.0 5.5 6.8 5.0 6.8 7.0 7.5 7.5 7.2 7.9 6.9 7.3 7.3 6.8 143.2 142.8 144.8 142.6 144.0 143.2 142.8 143.6 63 64 63 65 69 70 66 61 0.03 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 Note: P indicates tested after pumping. and was completed in 4 days, as shown in Table F.2. Ready- mixed concrete trucks delivered the concrete in 10-yd3 loads from the plant, which was located about 15 miles away. Each span used about four truckloads of concrete. During the first 2 days, the concrete was placed by the chute of the truck stopped on the EBL. Concrete barriers separated the lanes. During the last 2 days of placement, concrete was pumped from the approach slab on the east end. On Days 1

119 sprayed on the concrete that was not yet finished, as shown in Figure F.2. In addition to the use of come-along tools, vibrators also were used to spread the concrete. Vibration was done in a random manner as the load was deposited on deck. Because vibration can cause segregation, the contractor was notified that a regular grid pattern should be used, with attention to the radius of action of the vibrators. The slump of the concrete was high as delivered (see Table F.2). Vibration tended to bring the paste to the surface, and the screed moved the fine material to the inside edge. Initially the extra paste was worked into the surface (Figure F.3), but later an attempt was made to pull the paste to the middle of the placement. After screeding, concrete was left uncovered for an extended period to accommodate the prolonged hand finishing along the edges. The contractor tried to keep the surface wet by fog misting. However, rather than misting, the water was sprayed and it ponded along the edge (see Figure F.4). Right after screeding, water was also sprayed to close the surface blemishes. The contractor was informed that cut grooves would hide such blemishes and surface should not be sprayed. It was apparent that due to mishandling the concrete could have properties that would provide poor performance. Recommended Improvements for Placement On the basis of observations during placement, the following improvements were recommended: • Deposit concrete where it is going to be used. Do not move concrete around, as that can cause segregation. • Do not overvibrate concrete, especially concrete that has high slump (>5 in.). Concretes with high slump have a tendency to segregate and settle when vibrated. Figure F.2. Water sprayed on concrete using the truck hose. Figure F.3. Extra paste worked into the surface. Figure F.4. Water ponding along the edge and hand finishing.

120 • Do not spray water in front of or behind the screed. Water increases the water-cementitious materials ratio and causes a weak layer at the surface. When fog misting, the nozzle should be directed upward; mist should fall down to increase the relative humidity (RH) on the surface and not wash the surface. Spraying concrete after the screed to aid in closing small blemishes as the pan moves is not necessary. Grooving will make those small blemishes unnoticeable. At no time should water be sprayed on concrete that has not been screeded. • Hand finishing should be minimized. Hand finishing brings fine material to the surface, and overfinishing removes air entrained voids near the surface. Time spent in hand finish- ing also delays the curing process. • Concrete should be covered with wet burlap immediately after screeding. Wet burlap laid on top of fresh concrete is not going to harm the surface. Walking or dropping heavy objects on fresh concrete can mar the surface and should be avoided. Wet burlap should be drained ahead of time so that water does not drip on the fresh concrete surface. Testing for Concrete Properties Concretes were tested randomly with a frequency of one sample per sublot, and each sublot was four loads, totaling 40 yd3. Each sample was tested at the fresh state from the truck as it arrived at the jobsite for air content, slump, density, and concrete temperature. For pumped concrete, samples were obtained and tested after pumping as well. Cylinders were cast for testing at the hardened state for compressive strength and permeability. (The results from the hardened concrete tests are given in the section, Method of Statistical Assessment.) Table F.2 summarizes the fresh concrete test results. The slump values were within the specifications for the concrete tested from the truck. However, the concrete tested after pumping did not meet the slump requirement of 4 in. to 7 in. on one occasion and the air content requirement of 5% to 8% on another occasion. eastbound Lane Materials and Proportions For the EBL, concrete placement started on June 20, 2012, and was completed in 3 days—as shown in Table F.3. Concrete from the same plant, using the materials and proportions listed in Table F.1 for Mix1, were used. Ready-mixed concrete trucks delivered the concrete in 10-yd3 loads as in the earlier placement for the WBL. Concretes were tested randomly with the same frequency as in WBL both from the truck as it arrived and after pumping. The concrete tested from the truck met the fresh concrete requirements. However, when tested after pumping, the values did not meet the requirements for slump on four occasions and air content on five occasions. Placement Concrete placement started on June 20, 2012, and five spans were completed. A week later, a second day of placement occurred, and six more spans were completed. The remaining two spans were placed on July 3, 2012. A small pump truck, as shown in Figure F.5, was used. The width of the lane did not permit a large pump truck. Recommended Improvements for Placement The following observations relate to the recommendations for placing concrete that were made after the EBL experience: • Deposit concrete where it is going to be used. The pump truck enabled depositing concrete where it was needed. However, because of the short pump lines of the small pump truck, the truck had to be moved several times to deliver the concrete. • Do not overvibrate concrete. Concrete was vibrated in a grid pattern. However, overvibration did occur. The slump values were high, and vibration brought the fine material to the surface—as shown in Figure F.6. The screed moved the paste to the side which was pulled manually into the middle. • Do not spray water in front of or behind the screed. Spraying of water on the surface before and after screeding continued as shown in Figure F.7. • Hand finishing should be minimized. Hand finishing contin- ued as shown in Figure F.8. Minimal time and effort should be spent covering the surface immediately. Prolonged finish- ing delays curing and causes low spots that can collect water. • Concrete should be covered with wet burlap immediately after screeding. In this phase, burlap was placed sooner than in the earlier phase. However, by further minimiz- ing hand finishing, wet burlap can be used to cover the surface right after the screed. In this project the rate of evaporation was minimal, which helped with the curing process. However, if the rate of evaporation was high, cracking would be an issue. Covering the surface with burlap immediately to avoid loss of surface moisture is the recommended procedure. Thus, in the placement of the EBL, improvements in depositing concrete and curing occurred. However, spraying water on the surface and overvibrating of the concrete con- tinued. Hand finishing was still an issue. The deficiency and

121 Table F.3. Dates and Fresh Concrete Properties for EBL Batch Date Slump (in.) Air (%) Density (lb/ft3) Mix Temperature (F) Evaporation Rate (lb/ft2/hr) Before Pumping 1 6/20/2012 6.50 5.4 145.6 82 0.01 2 6/20/2012 4.50 5.4 146.4 80 0.01 3 6/20/2012 6.50 5.0 147.6 79 0.01 4 6/20/2012 7.00 6.1 143.6 76 0.02 5 6/20/2012 6.75 5.2 144.8 75 0.01 6 6/27/2012 5.50 5.6 148.0 81 0.03 7 6/27/2012 8.00 7.6 144.8 80 0.02 8 6/27/2012 5.00 6.3 147.6 78 0.02 9 6/27/2012 5.75 6.9 146.8 79 0.02 10 6/27/2012 6.75 7.0 146.0 75 0.02 11 6/27/2012 6.00 7.5 145.2 81 0.03 12 7/3/2012 7.00 5.4 149.2 82 0.02 13 7/3/2012 5.75 4.9 141.6 84 0.05 After Pumping Batch Date Slump (in.) Air (%) Density (lb/ft3) Mix Temperature (F) Evaporation Rate (lb/ft2/hr) 1 6/20/2012 4.25 4.2 146.4 82 0.01 2 6/20/2012 3.50 4.7 146.4 83 0.02 3 6/20/2012 5.50 5.6 143.6 80 0.01 4 6/20/2012 7.00 6.5 142.8 76 0.01 5 6/20/2012 6.25 5.2 144.0 74 0.01 6 6/27/2012 2.0 4.6 146.4 86 0.04 7 6/27/2012 7.3 7.9 140.4 84 0.03 8 6/27/2012 5.5 7.1 141.2 81 0.03 9 6/27/2012 4.8 7.1 141.6 80 0.03 10 6/27/2012 6.0 6.2 144.0 80 0.03 11 6/27/2012 4.0 6.5 143.6 82 0.03 12 7/3/2012 2.0 4.9 146.4 82 0.02 13 7/3/2012 1.0 4.1 145.6 87 0.07

122 Figure F.5. Pump truck. Figure F.6. Vibration brought fine material to the surface. Figure F.7. Water being sprayed on surface. Figure F.8. Hand finishing. issues in the placement operation prompted the preparation of an inspection checklist (see Attachment D). Method of Statistical Assessment As part of the performance specification being developed, the performance parameters given in Table F.A.1 of Attachment A were evaluated. Two approaches were used to develop pay factors for the measured parameters. The VDOT approach is designed to measure compressive strength and permeability but was applied to all parameters. The other approach was developed by the R07 team for implementation under the design-build delivery approach. The SHRP 2 methodology features a higher reward to contractors for excellent work and a steeper penalty for poor quality work. Developing Pay Factors Using VDOT Approach This section presents VDOT’s current process for end-result specifications (ERS). (See Ozyildirim, C. 2011. End-Result Specifications for Hydraulic Cement Concrete: Phase II. VCTIR 12-R2. Virginia Center for Transportation Innovation and Research, Charlottesville, Va.) Acceptance Criteria Acceptance for compressive strength and permeability is based on the Quality Index (Q). The Q uses both the average and the standard deviation within each lot to estimate the population parameters and determine the percentage of the lot within specification limits. The acceptable quality level (AQL) is that quality of concrete for which the contractor will receive 100%.

123 The rejectable quality level (RQL) is that quality of concrete requiring removal and replacement by the contractor or for which the contractor will provide remedial action. The AQL has been established at 90 percent within limits (PWL) and the RQL at 50 PWL. If the rejectable product can be corrected, it may be accepted upon correction, at the engineer’s discretion. The Q is calculated using the following equations: ) )( (= − = −Q X s Q X sL ULSL USL where QL = Lower Quality Index; QU = Upper Quality Index; X – = average; s = standard deviation; LSL = lower specification limit shown in Table F.4; and USL = upper specification limit shown in Table F.4. QL is used for strength and QU shall be used for permeability. QL and QU are used for the estimation of the lot PWL from tables. The PWL, in turn, is used to determine the pay factor through the appropriate pay factor equation. Basis of Payment a. When the PWL for the 28-day minimum design compres- sive strength and design maximum permeability of the lot is equal to or exceeds 50, the pay factor shall be determined by the following equation: )(= +Pay factor for individual properties 82 0.2 PWL b. The lot pay factor is an average of the individual pay factors or can be a weighted average if any of the parameters need more emphasis. c. To receive a pay factor greater than 100%, all individual properties shall be 90 PWL or more for all lots in the project. The total pay quantity is determined by multiplying the average pay factor by the unit bid price and adding the price adjustment for deck thickness and ride quality. Developing Pay Factors Using SHRP 2 Approach The SHRP 2 approach is also based on the PWL determined for each lot. The research team recommends that payments be based on pay adjustments determined by PWL calculations for each pay item. Pay factor adjustments reward the contractor for providing superior product and penalize the contractor for providing product that is of lower quality than specified. Pay adjustments can be calculated using the multipliers given below. For example, if 100% of the product is within limits, the pay adjustment is 0.06 = 6%. Table F.5 lists the equations used to generate the pay factors on the basis of a given parameter’s PWL. Analysis of WBL In the development of the performance specification for SHRP 2, construction parameters summarized in Table F.A.1 of Attachment A were included alongside material parameters (strength and permeability). The VDOT approach uses only the material properties of strength and permeability. For SHRP 2, the PWL approach was also applied to some of the construction parameters. In some cases, acceptance was based on pass/fail without the price adjustment. CraCking. The concrete deck over every other pier had a formed joint; the concrete deck over the remaining piers (between the ones with formed joints) had continuous joints. Cracking was found on the deck over the joints that were continuous. The specification limit for cracking is a pass/fail parameter, requiring that no cracks be wider than 0.008 in. If cracks exceed the allowable width, repairs are to be made either by epoxy injection or gravity fill. Table F.6 shows the maximum cracks recorded above the piers without formed joints after placement. Because cracking is a pass/fail param- eter, no distinction was made between the VDOT and SHRP 2 methods. Cover Depth. Cover depth measurements were performed on hardened deck in December 2011. Cover depth refers to the depth of concrete above reinforcement. The distance from the concrete surface to the center of the reinforcing bar is speci- fied as 2.75 in. Therefore, the cover depth, which is also the Table F.4. Lower and Upper Specification Limits Class of Concrete LSL for Strength (psi) USL for Permeability (coulombs) USL for Permeability Over Tidal Water (coulombs) A5 (prestressed) 5500 1200 1200 A4 (bridge) 4500 2200 1700 A3 (substructure) 3800 3200 1700 Table F.5. Pay Factors for SHRP 2 (%) Percentage Within Limits (PWL) Pay Factor 91–100 [0.006 * (PWL - 90)] 85–90 0.0 55–84 -0.9 + 0.01 * PWL

124 lower specification limit, is 2.4375 in., for No. 5 bars with 5⁄8-in. diameter used in the deck. The upper specification limit is the cover depth plus 1 in., which is 3.4375 in. Table F.7 shows the resulting pay factors for each span of the bridge using the VDOT approach, and Table F.8 shows the results using the SHRP 2 approach. Both methods indicate a pen- alty (<100% pay) for cover depth when both the USL and LSL are used in calculating the pay factors. rebar LoCation. Rebar location was inspected before the placement of concrete. The team decided that inspection is necessary and sufficient; and pay factor calculations using PWL are not needed. Table F.6. Crack Data over Piers Without Formed Joints Pier Crack Width (in.) Pass/Fail 12 0.0197 Fail 10 0.0158 Fail 8 0.0169 Fail 6 0.0091 Fail 4 none Pass 2 0.0059 Pass Table F.7. Pay Factors for Cover Depth Using VDOT ERS Approach (%) Span LSL Pay Factor USL Pay Factor USL and LSL Pay Factor 1 102.00 101.83 101.83 2 101.99 98.82 98.80 3 101.93 100.26 100.20 4 102.00 101.95 101.95 5 101.91 101.08 100.99 6 101.98 101.98 101.96 7 100.26 101.95 100.21 8 100.73 101.41 100.14 9 99.39 102.00 99.39 10 96.79 102.00 96.78 11 97.54 102.00 97.54 12 95.34 102.00 95.34 13 101.04 102.00 101.04 Average 100.22 101.48 99.71 Table F.8. Pay Factors for Cover Depth Using SHRP 2 Approach (%) Span LSL Pay Factor USL Pay Factor USL and LSL Pay Factor 1 106.00 105.48 105.48 2 105.96 100.00 94.02 3 105.80 100.79 100.00 4 106.00 105.85 105.85 5 105.73 103.25 102.98 6 105.93 105.93 105.87 7 100.79 105.84 100.63 8 102.20 104.24 100.00 9 100.00 106.00 100.00 10 83.93 105.99 83.92 11 87.70 106.00 87.80 12 76.72 106.00 76.72 13 103.11 106.00 103.11 Average 99.22 104.72 97.41 DeCk thiCkness. Deck thickness measurements were taken during the placement of the deck concrete at the fresh state. The analysis was performed by determining the difference between the measured deck thickness and the target thick- ness at the ends, midspan, and quarter points at both sides of the beams. The lower specification limit for the difference between the two was -0.125 in. The upper limit was +0.25 in. Table F.9 shows the resulting pay factors, organized by span using the VDOT approach, and Table F.10 shows the results using the SHRP 2 approach. The pay factors indicate a penalty. Compressive strength. Compressive strength calculations were divided into two subgroups: samples collected before pumping from the truck on arrival and samples collected after pumping, immediately before consolidation. The lower specification limit for the 28-day compressive strength was 4500 psi. Table F.11 outlines the pay factor results using the VDOT approach, and Table F.12 shows the results using the SHRP 2 approach. The results were divided into four batches, one for each day of placement. The first two batches involved no pumping, so no pay factors after pumping are associated with those days. Pay factors for compressive strength using the VDOT ERS approach are given in Table F.11 and using the SHRP 2 approach in Table F.12. The pay factors provide for a bonus. permeabiLity. Permeability calculations were divided into before-pumping and after-pumping subgroups, as for the

125 compressive strength analysis. The upper specification limit for 28-day permeability is 2200 coulombs. Similar to the strength results, the permeability tests were divided into four batches, one for each day of placement. The first two batches involved no pumping, so no pay factors after pumping are associated with those days. Pay factors for permeability using the VDOT ERS approach are given in Table F.13 and using the SHRP 2 approach in Table F.14. The pay factors provide for a bonus. air Content. Air content was measured as the truck arrived. The results were divided into two subgroups, before and after pumping. The lower specification limit for air content was 5%, and the upper specification limit was 8%. Pay factors for air content using the VDOT ERS approach are given in Table F.15 and using the SHRP 2 approach in Table F.16. The pay factors indicate a bonus based on as-delivered concrete but a penalty based on as-placed into the deck. smoothness. To be assessed. skiD resistanCe. To be assessed. Cross sLope. Cross slope is difficult to measure and include in statistical analysis, especially in cases with super elevation. The team decided to consider it a pass/fail parameter. Result: pass. Cross slope in the middle (screed finished areas) por- tion of the placement was within the tolerances, as expected. However, along the edges where extensive hand finishing was performed, high and low spots were evident. High areas were ground. Low areas should be filled with epoxy mortar. Low Table F.9. Pay Factors for Deck Thickness Using VDOT ERS Approach (%) Span LSL Pay Factor LSL and USL Pay Factor 1 98.25 86.68 2 94.86 88.66 3 95.37 89.65 4 93.49 89.00 5 92.71 89.18 6 96.29 88.40 7 100.40 85.85 8 100.67 85.73 9 99.85 85.65 10 100.49 85.75 11 100.43 86.49 12 99.51 86.88 13 100.88 85.38 Average 97.65 87.30 Table F.10. Pay Factors for Deck Thickness Using SHRP 2 Approach (%) Span LSL Pay Factor LSL and USL Pay Factor 1 91.25 33.42 2 74.31 43.42 3 76.84 48.24 4 67.46 45.00 5 63.55 45.89 6 81.44 41.99 7 101.19 29.25 8 102.00 28.63 9 100.00 28.24 10 101.48 28.73 11 101.29 32.47 12 99.51 34.40 13 102.64 26.91 Average 89.459 35.88 Table F.11. Pay Factors for Compressive Strength Using VDOT ERS Approach (%) Before Pumping After Pumping Batch LSL Pay Factor Batch LSL Pay Factor 1 102 1 NA 2 102 2 NA 3 102 3 102 4 102 4 102 Average 102 Average 102 Table F.12. Pay Factors for Compressive Strength Using SHRP 2 Approach (%) Before Pumping After Pumping Batch LSL Pay Factor Batch LSL Pay Factor 1 106 1 NA 2 106 2 NA 3 106 3 106 4 106 4 106 Average 106 Average 106

126 areas are shown as dips in attachment tables F.B.1, F.B.2, and F.C.1. Dips were measured at three locations—at each of the joints, middle, and quarter points—and recorded if they were ¼ in. or more. Joint ConDition. Joint condition is a pass/fail parameter. Result: pass. Analysis of EBL CraCking. As in the WBL, the concrete deck over every other pier had a formed joint; the concrete deck over the remaining piers (between the ones with formed joints) had continuous joints. Very limited cracking was found in the deck at the joints that were continuous. Table F.17 shows the maximum cracks recorded above the piers without the formed joints after placement. Cover Depth. Cover depth measurements were performed on the hardened deck in August and September 2012. The lower specification limit is 2.4375 in., and the upper specifica- tion limit is 3.4375 in. for this deck. Table F.18 shows the result- ing pay factors for each span of the bridge using the VDOT approach, and Table F.19 shows the results using the SHRP 2 approach. rebar LoCation. Rebar location was inspected and approved before the placement of concrete. DeCk thiCkness. Deck thickness measurements were not cal- culated for the EBL. Compressive strength. Pay factors for compressive strength are given in Table F.20 for the VDOT approach and Table F.21 for the SHRP 2 approach. All pay factors indicate a bonus. permeabiLity. Pay factors for permeability are given in Table F.22 for the VDOT approach and Table F.23 for the SHRP 2 approach. All pay factors indicate a bonus. Table F.13. Pay Factors for Permeability Using VDOT ERS Approach (%) Before Pumping After Pumping Batch USL Pay Factor Batch USL Pay Factor 1 102 1 NA 2 102 2 NA 3 102 3 102 4 102 4 102 Average 102 Average 102 Table F.14. Pay Factors for Permeability Using SHRP 2 Approach (%) Before Pumping After Pumping Batch USL Pay Factor Batch USL Pay Factor 1 106 1 NA 2 106 2 NA 3 106 3 106 4 106 4 106 Average 106 Average 106 Table F.15. Pay Factors for Air Content Using VDOT ERS Approach (%) Before Pumping After Pumping Batch USL and LSL Pay Factor Batch USL and LSL Pay Factor 1 102 1 NA 2 102 2 NA 3 102 3 88.868 4 102 4 101.130 Average 102 Average 95.00 Table F.16. Pay Factors for Air Content Using SHRP 2 Approach (%) Before Pumping After Pumping Batch USL and LSL Pay Factor Batch USL and LSL Pay Factor 1 106 1 NA 2 106 2 NA 3 106 3 66.604 4 106 4 103.40 Average 106 Average 85.00 Table F.17. Crack Data over Piers Without Formed Joints Pier Crack Width (in.) Pass/Fail 12 none Pass 10 none Pass 8 none Pass 6 .0098 Fail 4 .0098 Fail 2 none Pass

127 Table F.18. Pay Factors for Cover Depth Using VDOT ERS Approach (%) Span LSL Pay Factor USL Pay Factor LSL and USL Pay Factor 1 101.19 101.06 100.25 2 92.39 102.00 92.39 3 94.69 102.00 94.69 4 95.56 101.79 95.35 5 0.00 102.00 91.30 6 100.49 101.86 100.36 7 100.46 101.73 100.20 8 95.84 102.00 95.84 9 97.30 101.70 96.99 10 94.91 101.91 94.81 11 97.78 101.46 97.24 12 95.91 101.06 94.97 13 100.01 101.46 99.47 Average 89.73 101.69 96.45 Table F.19. Pay Factors for Cover Depth Using SHRP 2 Approach (%) Span LSL Pay Factor USL Pay Factor LSL and USL Pay Factor 1 103.57 103.19 100.76 2 61.95 106.00 61.95 3 73.43 106.00 73.43 4 77.79 105.38 76.75 5 56.49 106.00 56.49 6 101.48 105.59 101.07 7 101.39 105.20 100.00 8 79.20 106.00 79.20 9 86.48 105.09 84.96 10 74.54 105.72 74.07 11 88.90 104.37 86.19 12 79.55 103.19 74.86 13 100.00 104.37 100.00 Average 83.44 105.08 82.29 Table F.20. Pay Factors for Compressive Strength Using VDOT ERS Approach (%) Before Pumping After Pumping Batch USL Pay Factor Batch USL Pay Factor 1 102 1 102 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 102 6 102 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 102 10 102 11 11 12 12 13 13 Average 102 Average 102 Table F.21. Pay Factors for Compressive Strength Using SHRP 2 Approach (%) Before Pumping After Pumping Batch USL Pay Factor Batch USL Pay Factor 1 106 1 106 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 106 6 106 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 106 10 106 11 11 12 12 13 13 Average 106 Average 106

128 Table F.22. Pay Factors for Permeability Using VDOT ERS Approach (%) Before Pumping After Pumping Batch LSL Pay Factor Batch LSL Pay Factor 1 102 1 102 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 102 6 102 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 102 10 102 11 11 12 12 13 13 Average 102 Average 102 Table F.23. Pay Factors for Permeability Using SHRP 2 Approach (%) Before Pumping After Pumping Batch LSL Pay Factor Batch LSL Pay Factor 1 106 1 106 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 106 6 106 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 106 10 106 11 11 12 12 13 13 Average 106 Average 106 Table F.24. Pay Factors for Air Content Using VDOT ERS Approach (%) Before Pumping After Pumping Batch USL and LSL Pay Factor Batch USL and LSL Pay Factor 1 98.79 1 94.61 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 102 6 95.93 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 98 10 94.53 11 11 12 12 13 13 Average 98.60 Average 95.03 air Content. Pay factors for air content are given in Table F.24 for the VDOT approach and Table F.25 for the SHRP 2 approach. All pay factors indicate a penalty. smoothness. To be assessed. skiD resistanCe. To be assessed. Cross sLope. Cross slope is a pass/fail parameter. Result: pass. Cross slope in the middle (screed finished areas) portion of the placement was within the tolerances, as expected. However, along the edges where extensive hand finishing was performed, high and low spots were evident. High areas were ground. Low areas should be filled with epoxy mortar. Low areas are shown as dips in attachment tables F.B.1, F.B.2, and F.C.1. Dips were measured at three locations—at each of the joints, middle, and quarter points—and recorded if they were ¼ in. or more. Joint ConDition. Joint condition is a pass/fail parameter. Result: pass. Summary of WBL and eBL Analyses Tables F.26 and F.27 outline the average pay factor for each category. The single-tail analyses of cover depth and deck thickness are less restrictive than the two-tailed analyses.

129 All of the pumping-dependent parameters fully met the requirements before pumping. As previously mentioned, the rewards are higher and the penalties steeper with the SHRP 2 approach. The SHRP 2 approach proved especially harsh when assessing deck thickness, giving a pay factor of only 35.88%. Conclusion The research team drew the following conclusions from the examination of the SHRP 2 performance specification as a shadow specification for the Lake Anna bridge project: • Cover depth, thickness, compressive strength, and air content after pumping resulted in a disincentive using both the VDOT and SHRP 2 approaches. The penalty for cover depth and thickness was more severe but the compressive strength after pumping was less severe using the SHRP 2 approach. • Compressive strength and air content before pumping resulted in an incentive using both the VDOT and SHRP 2 approaches. The bonus was larger for the SHRP 2 approach. • The bonus and penalty will depend on the equations chosen for the pay factors. • Pay factors can be used to encourage contractors to do better quality work. One important lesson drawn from these conclusions is that agencies interested in implementing performance specifica- tions, particularly for the first time, should exercise care in set- ting limits for parameters and adjusting payment formulas to balance targeted performance with what industry can reason- ably achieve. Another important lesson learned from this demonstration project was that workmanship issues can have a large effect on performance outcomes, and such issues may not necessarily be addressed or identified through the use of performance parameters measured through end-result testing. The team developed a checklist, included in Attachment D—which addresses transportation and handling, preplacement and placement inspection, and postplacement inspection—for use as a companion document with the guide specification. Table F.25. Pay Factors for Air Content Using SHRP 2 Approach (%) Before Pumping After Pumping Batch USL and LSL Pay Factor Batch USL and LSL Pay Factor 1 93.93 1 73.07 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 106 6 79.67 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 90 10 72.67 11 11 12 12 13 13 Average 96.64 Average 75.14 Table F.26. Pay Factor Averages for WBL and EBL Using VDOT ERS Approach (%) Parameter LSL and USL Pay Factor Cover depth 98.08 Deck thickness 87.30 Average 92.69 Parameter Before Pumping After Pumping Compressive strength 102 102 Permeability 102 102 Air content 100.3 95.02 Average 101.43 99.67 Table F.27. Pay Factor Averages for WBL and EBL Using SHRP 2 Approach (%) Parameter LSL and USL Pay Factor Cover depth 89.85 Deck thickness 35.88* Average 62.87 *Either rejected or accepted at 50%. Parameter Before Pumping After Pumping Compressive strength 106 106 Permeability 106 106 Air content 101.32 80.07 Average 105.06 100.81* *Air content is weighted 0.5.

130 Attachment A: performance parameters Table F.A.1. Performance Parameters Parameter Measurement Procedure Target/Lot Requirements Tolerance/Quality Acceptance Limits Cracking Cracks measured at 3-ft intervals on the surface of the deck in the 3 hours after sunrise at a concrete age ≥ 28 days. No crack wider than 0.008 inches Repair wider cracks. Pattern: gravity fill Linear: epoxy injection Cover depth Probing fresh concrete or calibrated NDT (e.g., pacometer, GPR). ≥ specified cover depth (CD) Measure on 10 ft grid PWL 85% full payment LQL = CD UQL = CD + 1.0-in. Rebar location Measure from reference surface ± 0.5-inch on rebar placement Measure on 10 ft grid Pass/Fail Thickness (fresh) Probe ACI recs. + 1⁄4-in. to -1⁄8 in. Measure on 10-ft grid PWL 85% full payment LQL = T - 1⁄8 in. UQL = T + 1⁄4 in. Compressive strength (design) Cylinders: ASTM C39 (Consider accommodating referee testing from cores.) Design strength:. min. of 5 tests per lot. At least one sublot per day. Note: more tests may be requested (and are desirable). One test = three 4-in. by 8-in. cylinders or two 6-in. by 12-in. cylinders PWL: 85% = full payment LQL = DS + 300 psi Compressive strength (opening to traffic) Maturity: ASTM C1074 (or field-cured specimens) Specified strength (min.): min. five tests per lot, at least one sublot per day Specimens: One test = three 4-in. by 8-in. cylinders or two 6-in. by 12-in. cylinders Pass or apply lane rental penalties Permeability (job-site testing) ASTM C1202 (accelerated test) Referee testing from cores 2000 coulombs (max.) at 28 days Min. five tests per lot, at least one sublot per day One test = three cylinders (2-in. high by 4-in. diameter cut from 4-in. by 4-in. or 4-in. by 8-in. cylinders) PWL: 85% = full payment UQL = 2000 PWL: <80% = penalty or apply sealer PWL: <70% = penalty or apply epoxy overlay PWL: <50% = reject or apply concrete overlay Permeability (mix design submittal) ASTM C1202 (accelerated test) 1500 coulombs (max.) at 28 days Pass or resubmit mix design Air content ASTM C231 Specified PWL: 85% = full payment LQL and UQL specified Smoothness Profilometer-based specification (continuous IRI) 80 in./mi with 100-ft base length PWL: 85% = full payment (see histogram from ProVAL Smoothness Assurance Module) UQL = 80 in./mi# Skid resistance ASTM E274, ASTM E524 FN40S ≥ 40 Average per lane PWL: 85% = full payment LQL = 40 Cross slope Elevation Plans ± 1⁄8 in. Pass/fail Joint condition Vertical setting (depth) Gap vs temperature (width) Visual/survey Plans ± 1⁄8 in. Plans ± 1⁄8 in. Proper installation Pass/fail Pass/fail Pass or replace

131 Attachment B: WBL Table F.B.1. Cover Depth Data Parapet Dipsa (in.) Beam 1/A Beam 2/B Beam 3/C Dipsa (in.) Barrier 3.05 2.85 3.10 Pier Abut. B 0.250 2.75 3.05 2.80 Q 2 0.750 3.05 2.90 3.05 0.250 M 0.875 3.25 3.05 2.90 0.625 Q 1 3.10 3.40 3.30 Joint 0 Pier 12 0.875 0.375 Joint 3.20 3.25 3.15 1.000 Q 2 2.85 2.90 3.00 0.500 M 3.50 2.90 2.80 0.500 Q 1 3.60 3.60 2.95 Pier 11 0.250 3.35 3.55 3.10 Pier 0.250 3.35 3.20 2.75 0.250 Q 2 3.00 3.20 2.80 0.625 M 0.250 3.30 3.20 2.70 0.250 Q 1 0.250 Joint 0 Pier 10 0.250 2.70 3.15 2.85 0.375 Joint 0.250 3.05 3.00 2.90 0.375 Q 2 0.500 3.05 2.90 2.90 1.000 M 0.500 2.85 3.00 2.95 0.375 Q 1 2.90 3.40 3.30 0.500 Pier 9 3.25 3.30 3.15 Pier 3.20 3.20 3.10 Q 2 3.25 3.20 3.05 0.250 M 2.80 3.05 2.95 0.500 Q 1 Joint 0 Pier 8 0.250 2.45 2.85 2.60 0.375 Joint 3.10 2.95 2.80 Q 2 3.25 3.05 2.95 0.250 M 2.75 3.00 2.75 Q 1 2.50 3.00 2.75 0.250 Pier 7 2.95 2.65 2.50 Pier 3.00 3.15 2.50 Q 2 (continued on next page)

132 0.375 2.35 2.95 2.45 0.250 M 0.625 2.90 3.00 2.75 Q 1 Joint 0 Pier 6 2.65 3.20 2.85 Joint 3.00 3.00 2.85 Q 2 3.00 3.10 2.90 M 2.95 3.00 2.75 Q 1 2.00 3.35 2.75 0.250 Pier 5 2.35 2.75 2.35 Pier 0.375 2.70 2.95 2.90 Q 2 0.500 2.75 2.50 2.65 M 0.625 2.65 2.40 2.70 Q 1 Joint 0 Pier 4 0.375 2.60 2.60 2.75 Joint 0.750 2.70 2.20 2.45 0.250 Q 2 2.80 2.55 2.50 M 0.250 2.60 2.70 2.05 Q 1 2.65 3.25 2.85 Pier 3 0.250 2.75 2.85 2.50 Pier 2.60 2.80 2.40 Q 2 2.85 2.65 2.40 M 2.55 2.90 2.30 Q 1 Joint 0 Pier 2 2.70 2.75 2.15 Joint 2.20 2.75 2.15 Q 2 0.250 2.80 2.85 2.30 M 2.95 2.75 2.35 Q 1 2.55 2.75 2.40 Pier 1 2.70 3.15 2.75 Pier 2.55 2.95 2.95 Q 2 2.90 2.85 2.65 0.500 M 2.65 2.70 2.70 Q 1 3.05 2.65 2.35 Joint 0 Abut. A a Dips are low spots on deck with a depth of ¼ in. or more. Table F.B.1. Cover Depth Data (continued) Parapet Dipsa (in.) Beam 1/A Beam 2/B Beam 3/C Dipsa (in.) Barrier

133 Table F.B.2. Average, Standard Deviation, and the Number of Dips Span Average Standard Deviation No. < 2.4375 in. No. of Dips 13 3.04 0.182 0 5 12 3.17 0.270 0 5 11 3.08 0.267 0 7 10 2.99 0.180 0 9 9 3.03 0.252 0 2 8 2.85 0.224 0 4 7 2.79 0.263 1 3 6 2.89 0.304 1 1 5 2.64 0.180 3 3 4 2.62 0.276 2 4 3 2.61 0.223 4 1 2 2.56 0.275 6 1 1 2.77 0.206 1 1 Sum 18 46 Average 2.849 0.239 1.38 3.538 Note: N = 15, Specified cover depth = 2.4375 in. Table F.B.3. Pay Factors for Cover Depth Using Only LSL and Using Both LSL and USL (%) QUL USL PWL USL Pay Factor QLL LSL PWL LSL  USL  100 Pay Factor 2.18 99.13 101.83 3.30 100.00 99.13 101.83 1.00 84.09 98.82 2.70 99.93 84.02 98.80 1.34 91.31 100.26 2.41 99.67 90.98 100.20 2.47 99.75 101.95 3.09 100.00 99.75 101.95 1.63 95.42 101.08 2.34 99.55 94.97 100.99 2.62 99.89 101.98 1.84 99.89 99.78 101.96 2.46 99.74 101.95 1.34 91.31 91.05 100.21 1.80 97.06 101.41 1.49 93.66 90.72 100.14 4.42 100.00 102.00 1.12 86.95 86.95 99.39 2.98 99.99 102.00 0.65 73.93 73.92 96.78 3.71 100.00 102.00 0.77 77.70 77.70 97.54 3.19 100.00 102.00 0.44 66.72 66.72 95.34 3.24 100.00 102.00 1.61 95.19 95.19 101.04 Average 97.41 101.48 91.12 88.53 99.71

134 Table F.B.4. Analysis of Compressive Strength and Permeability Before Pumping After Pumping Before Pumping After Pumping Data Average Standard Deviation Batch Strength Perm. Strength Perm. Strength Perm. Strength Perm. Strength Perm. 1 6190 1129 6040 1197 N/A N/A 132.3 66.1 N/A N/A2 5990 1261 3 5940 1202 1 6190 1030 6087 1166 N/A N/A 179.0 118.8 N/A N/A2 5880 1248 3 6190 1221 1 6540 1010 6110 1247 5683 1123 563.2 158.3 746.7 119.8 1P 4790 1099 2 5460 1331 2P 5920 1026 3 6620 1309 3P 6560 1070 4 5820 1337 4P 5460 1297 1 5130 1136 5533 967 5420 890 296 128.5 273.8 46.3 1P 5185 920 2 5610 970 2P 5320 879 3 5840 825 3P 5815 931 4 5550 938 4P 5360 829

135 Attachment C: eBL Table F.C.1. Cover Depth Data Parapet Dipsa (in.) Beam 1/A Beam 2/B Beam 3/C Dipsa (in.) Barrier 0.2500 2.70 3.10 2.85 Joint Abut. B 0.2500 2.80 2.80 3.45 0.1875 Q 2 0.2500 2.75 2.50 3.10 0.2500 M 0.3125 2.25 2.70 3.05 0.1875 Q 1 0.2500 2.40 3.25 3.00 0.3125 Pier Pier 12 0.2500 2.40 3.25 3.00 0.3125 Pier 0.1250 2.55 2.75 2.65 1.0000 Q 2 0.2500 1.90 2.35 2.95 0.7500 M 0.2500 1.80 2.55 3.15 0.1250 Q 1 0.2500 2.40 3.25 3.25 0.1250 Joint 0 11 0.1250 2.60 3.15 3.20 0.2500 Joint 0.2500 2.60 2.90 3.30 0.2500 Q 2 0.1250 2.50 2.45 3.15 0.5000 M 0.1875 2.30 2.65 2.75 0.7500 Q 1 0.1875 1.90 2.80 2.90 0.1250 Pier Pier 10 0.1875 1.90 2.80 2.90 0.1250 Pier 0.2500 2.10 2.70 2.65 0.0625 Q 2 0.3125 1.85 2.55 2.75 0.0625 M 0.3750 2.35 2.65 2.85 0.2500 Q 1 0.2500 2.60 3.00 3.00 0.1250 Joint 0 9 0.2500 2.95 3.15 2.65 0.2500 Joint 0.4375 2.85 2.85 3.20 0.3750 Q 2 0.2500 2.10 2.80 2.60 0.1875 M 0.3125 2.05 2.85 2.90 0.1250 Q 1 0.3125 2.20 3.00 2.40 0.0625 Pier Pier 8 0.3125 2.20 3.00 2.40 0.0625 Pier 0.5000 2.45 2.85 2.85 0.3750 Q 2 0.3125 2.15 2.65 2.70 M 0.3125 2.20 2.60 2.80 0.1875 Q 1 0.2500 2.30 2.90 2.65 0.1875 Joint 0 7 0.2500 3.00 3.15 2.75 0.1250 Joint 0.2500 2.45 2.95 2.65 0.1250 Q 2 0.1875 2.65 2.75 2.85 0.1875 M 0.3125 2.40 3.05 3.05 0.1250 Q 1 (continued on next page)

136 0.3750 2.50 3.45 3.00 0.3750 Pier Pier 6 0.3750 2.50 3.45 3.00 0.3750 Pier 0.5000 2.50 3.00 2.80 0.5000 Q 2 2.80 2.60 2.60 M 0.3750 2.80 2.90 2.55 Q 1 2.90 3.25 2.70 0.1250 Joint 0 5 0.5000 2.50 3.10 2.50 0.2500 Joint 0.2500 2.20 2.65 2.45 0.2500 Q 2 0.3125 2.25 2.35 2.50 0.3125 M 0.1875 2.15 2.60 2.60 0.2500 Q 1 0.3125 1.80 2.55 1.95 0.1875 Pier Pier 4 0.3125 1.80 2.55 1.95 0.1875 Pier 0.3125 2.50 2.70 2.75 0.2500 Q 2 0.2500 2.65 2.40 2.50 0.5000 M 0.2500 2.80 2.80 2.65 0.1875 Q 1 0.1250 3.00 3.40 2.80 0.2500 Joint 0 3 2.50 2.75 2.75 0.2500 Joint 0.1250 2.50 2.90 2.45 0.1250 Q 2 0.1875 2.25 2.55 2.55 0.3125 M 0.2500 2.10 2.60 2.45 0.3750 Q 1 0.1250 2.35 2.80 2.25 0.2500 Pier Pier 2 0.1250 2.35 2.80 2.25 0.2500 Pier 0.1250 2.25 2.55 2.35 0.0625 Q 2 0.1250 2.00 2.65 2.40 0.3125 M 0.2500 2.10 2.80 2.00 0.1875 Q 1 0.5000 2.70 3.10 2.50 0.1875 Joint 0 1 0.1250 2.65 3.60 2.85 0.1250 Joint 0.3125 2.60 3.10 2.90 0.1250 Q 2 0.3125 2.65 2.85 2.75 0.1875 M 0.3125 3.05 3.00 2.85 0.1250 Q 1 0.1250 3.50 3.20 2.65 Joint 0 Abut. A a Dips are low spots on deck with a depth of ¼ in. or more. Table F.C.1. Cover Depth Data (continued) Parapet Dipsa (in.) Beam 1/A Beam 2/B Beam 3/C Dipsa (in.) Barrier

137 Table F.C.2. Analysis of Compressive Strength and Permeability Before Pumping After Pumping Before Pumping After Pumping Data Average Standard Deviation Span Strength Perm. Strength Perm. Strength Perm. Strength Perm. Strength Perm. 1 7150 720 6908.00 833.40 6866.00 828.60 497.21 97.23 325.32 51.08 1P 7210 808 2 7130 959 2P 7150 844 3 7310 905 3P 6900 904 4 6060 808 4P 6490 822 5 6890 775 5P 6580 765 Note: Number of sublots = 5: one set from truck and the second set after the pump (P). 6 6650 649 6527.50 700.25 6520.00 754.00 395.84 86.53 521.47 122.22 6P 7170 623 7 5940 610 7P 6320 682 8 6730 800 8P 5940 886 9 6790 742 9P 6650 825 Note: Number of sublots = 4: one set from truck and the second set after the pump (P). 10 6770 551 7342.50 694.25 7352.50 673.25 450.29 110.73 613.32 73.45 10P 6620 586 11 7390 663 11P 7670 656 12 7340 776 12P 7110 688 13 7870 787 13P 8010 763 Note: Number of sublots = 4: one set from truck and the second set after the pump (P).

138 Attachment d: inspection Checklist Hydraulic Cement Concrete deck Part 1: Preplacement Inspection Issue Yes No N/A Comments Initials A. Forms i. Are forms tight, sturdy, and clean? ii. Are the joints formed with compressible material? Use of incompressible material may cause delaminations due to the restraint of the incompressible material kept too long in the joint. B. Reinforcement i. Are the bar size and spacing correct? ii. Is the reinforcement properly supported? iii. Are bar splices correct? iv. Is the reinforcement clean (i.e., no rust other than mill scale; no oil, concrete, or other materials)? v. Is the type of reinforcement correct? Is it black steel or corrosion-resistant reinforcement? C. Shear Studs i. Are the shear stud spacing and height as specified? D. Equipment (Verify the following are on site and in working condition.) i. Are the trucks clean with blades in good condition, and is there proof of inspection for each truck? ii. Is the screed set properly to provide the specified crown and grade? (a) Does the screed have a vibrating unit complying with the specs? (b) Is there a burlap drag attached to the screed? Burlap shall be kept wet during placement. iii Are there backup vibrators onsite? (a) Do the frequency and amplitude of vibrators comply with the specs? iv. Does the pump have enough clean lines? v. Is the mobile mixer calibrated? vi. Does the concrete testing equipment comply with the specs, and is it calibrated? vii. Is there a curing box with a recording thermometer? Continuous temperature data that can be printed are needed to ensure that short spikes because of opening the lid do not invalidate the result. E. Aggregate Storage i. Is there an individual stockpile for each aggregate? To achieve the specified gradation and minimize segregation individual stockpiles are needed. ii. Are aggregates stored on concrete slabs to prevent mixing with soil? Mixing with soil is an unacceptable practice (UP) because the soil will leave mud holes in the concrete. iii. Are the aggregates kept moist by sprinklers? Aggregates must be maintained in a moist condition to control the water content and temperature of the concrete. (continued on next page)

139 iv. Is the aggregate moisture content checked daily at least once by the gravimetric method? If the moisture condition of aggregates is not properly controlled, fresh and hardened concrete properties can be adversely affected. F. Contingency Plan: Is there a contingency plan for equipment breakdown and inclement weather? G. Trial Batches: Are trial batches completed, and are the results submitted and approved? Part 2: Placement Inspection A. Light: Is there sufficient light in the work area? B. Certified Personnel i. Is there a certified technician responsible for placement? ii. Is there a certified technician responsible for admixture adjustments in the field? iii. Is there a certified technician responsible for sampling and testing the concrete? C. Formwork: Is the formwork surface treated? Forms should be wetted or oiled since dry forms can remove water from the mixture, affecting workability and hydration. D. Concrete Transportation and Handling i. Is the concrete deposited using a chute? If deposited using other than a chute, indicate how (bucket, pump, belt). Aluminum chutes or lines are not permitted due to the formation of gas. ii. Does the first load of concrete have the proper documentation? VDOT requires Form TL-28a. iii. Is concrete protected against wind, rain, hot and cold conditions? iv. Is water added after batching? Extra water during transit or at the jobsite beyond the design amount adversely affects strength and durability. v. Is the concrete delivered within the allowable time and mixing revolution? The time limit can be waived if the proper admixtures are used. The maximum number of revolutions can be waived if the concrete is work- able and sound aggregates are used. E. Inspection of Concrete Placement and Consolidation i. Is concrete placed as close as possible to the final location in the structure? Moving concrete can cause segregation. ii. Is the concrete distributed evenly rather than piling up in any area of the form? Moving piles of concrete can cause segregation. iii. Is concrete placed against a previously placed fresh concrete batch? If concrete is deposited as separate piles, trying to combine them would require moving the concrete, which can cause segregation. In addition, leaving the surface of the concrete uncovered for a long time could cause drying of the surface, leading to cold joints. Issue Yes No N/A Comments Initials Attachment d (continued) (continued on next page)

140 iv. Is the concrete free from segregation? Segregation causes aggregates to pile up in an area, leading to lower strength. The areas rich in paste and mortar shrink more, which can cause cracking. v. Is concrete prevented from hitting reinforcing bars and segregating? Segregation adversely affects strength and durability. vi. Is concrete dropped more than 5 feet? Significant drops can cause segregation. vii. If concrete is dropped, are there drop chutes or tremie to direct the fall? Dropping concrete on reinforcement can cause segregation. viii. Is there an undue time delay in depositing the concrete? A time delay can cause cold joints, which may separate and facilitate infiltration of harmful solutions. ix. Is the concrete covered when delays occur? Covering with wet burlap and plastic is needed to prevent drying. Drying results in reduced workability, requiring that water be added or sprayed on the surface. x. Is concrete moved by vibrators? Moving would cause segregation. xi. Are vibrators inserted in a grid pattern? Full coverage and insertion within 1.5 times the radius of action of the vibrator in a grid pattern are needed. xii. Is vibration causing segregation (excessive mortar brought to the surface)? Excessive mortar provides a weak layer prone to wear and cracking. xiii. Are vibrators inserted vertically? Vertical insertion is needed except in thin slabs where vibrators can be inserted at an angle or horizontally. xiv. Is concrete spaded or vibrated along forms and joints? Proper consolidation in those areas is needed. xv. Is free fall prevented during pumping? Free fall should be avoided, and concrete should be pumped continuously to minimize loss in air content and slump. F. Inspection of Leveling and Screeding Operations i. Is the screed support sufficient to maintain line and grade? ii. Is there enough concrete rolling in front of the rollers? Concrete must be rolling in front of the rollers to ensure correct profile and vibration. iii. Is there only a moderate amount of paste or mortar on the surface of the concrete after screeding? Excess mortar reduces strength and durability. G. Inspection of Finishing Operations i. Is water sprayed on the concrete surface before the screed? Water sprayed before the screed as a finishing aid is an UP. Extra water sprayed will increase the water-cementitious material ratio, reducing strength and durability. Issue Yes No N/A Comments Initials (continued on next page) Attachment d (continued)

141 ii. Is any hand finishing moderate? Extensive hand finishing is an UP. It brings fine material to the surface, reduces air voids, changes the profile (low spots), and delays the curing operation. iii. Are low areas present? Low areas will hold water, reduce surface traction, and increase freeze- thaw deterioration. H. Inspection of Curing i. Is concrete surface after the screeding sprayed with water? Too much water can increase the water-cementitious material ratio, reducing strength and durability. Fog misting is encouraged to reduce the rate of evaporation. ii. Is the burlap wet and applied in a timely manner? Right after screeding, wet (but not dripping) burlap should be placed. Delay in burlap application increases the chance of surface drying that can lead to cracking. iii. Is the burlap kept wet during the curing period? After the setting of the concrete, burlap should be kept wet with a soaker hose or plastic or should be ponded with water to prevent loss of surface moisture that may lead to cracking. iv. Are specimens placed in a curing box immediately after casting? v. In cold weather, are the forms prewarmed? The concrete temperature should be kept above a particular tempera- ture for proper hydration. vi. Are the aggregates kept from freezing? Frozen aggregates stick together and cause a temperature differential within the concrete, leading to cracking. vii. In hot weather, are the ingredients cooled? High concrete temperatures accelerate concrete hydration, adversely affecting workability. viii. Is flaked or shaved ice used? Flaked or shaved ice should be used since large ice particles could leave voids within the concrete. ix. Is the rate of evaporation within the spec limit? High evaporation rates cause great loss of surface moisture, leading to cracking. Part 3: Post-placement Inspection A. Inspection of Concrete Moist Curing i. Are there daily checks to ensure that the wet burlap stays wet? Keeping concrete wet during the curing period is essential for the development of concrete properties and for minimizing the dimensional changes that can cause cracking. ii. Is the curing compound used properly? Approved curing compound must be applied immediately and with good coverage as the water sheen is disappearing in order to retain the moisture and reflect the sunlight. iii. Is the concrete temperature monitored during the curing period? A favorable temperature is essential for the hydration reaction and to minimize volumetric changes caused by a temperature differential that may cause cracking. Issue Yes No N/A Comments Initials Attachment d (continued) (continued on next page)

142 B. Checking of Joints: Is each joint checked for alignment, removal of tempo- rary formwork, and workmanship? Joints are critical locations that require proper placement and consolidation; after hardening, the temporary formwork must be removed promptly so that the expanding concrete has room to expand and does not delaminate the joint area. C. Checking for Low Spots: Is the surface checked for low spots? Low spots hold water and keep concrete saturated, which adversely affects durability and traction. D. Freeze Protection: Is the concrete protected against freezing? Concrete frozen at the fresh state will have voids; concrete frozen at the hardened state will have freeze/thaw cracking. Issue Yes No N/A Comments Initials Attachment d (continued)