The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 106... ...
States Responding to Survey Alabama AL Nebraska NE Arizona AZ Nevada NV California CA New York NY Colorado CO North Carolina NC Connecticut CT North Dakota ND Delaware DE Ohio OH Florida FL Oklahoma OK Georgia GA Oregon OR Hawaii HI Pennsylvania PA Illinois IL Puerto Rico PR Indiana IN Rhode Island RI Iowa IA South Carolina SC Kansas KS South Dakota SD Kentucky KY Tennessee TN Louisiana LA Texas TX Maine ME Utah UT Massachusetts MA Vermont VT Michigan MI Virginia VI Minnesota MN Washington WA Mississippi MS West Virginia WV Missouri MO Wisconsin WI Montana MT Total Responses 43 * Names and contact information of responding persons are not included in the report.
|
From page 107... ...
Responded: 43 Does Not Allow the Use of SCMs in Yes, Only an Ingredient of Blended Yes, Allows Both as Additives and Replace Cement In the Mixture Cement Used in the Mixture Yes, Only as an Additive To as Blended in Cements State DOT Concrete Mixtures Alabama x Arizona x California x Colorado x Connecticut x Delaware x Florida x Georgia x Hawaii x Illinois x Indiana x Iowa x Kansas x Kentucky x Louisiana x Maine x Massachusetts x Michigan x Minnesota x Mississippi x Missouri x Montana x Nebraska x Nevada x New York x North Carolina x North Dakota x Ohio Oklahoma x Oregon x Pennsylvania x Puerto Rico x
|
From page 108... ...
Responded: 40 Bridges and Other Pavements and State DOT Pavements Only Structures all Structures Alabama x Arizona x California x Colorado x Connecticut x Delaware x Florida x Georgia x Hawaii x Illinois x Indiana Iowa x Kansas Kentucky x Louisiana x Maine x Massachusetts x Michigan x Minnesota x Mississippi x Missouri x Montana x Nebraska x Nevada x New York x North Carolina x
|
From page 109... ...
Responded: 41 Concrete Classes Heat Management Improve Environmental None of Other That Require Low for Mass Concrete Sustainability by the Above State DOT Permeability to Elements Reducing Cement Improved Durability Content in Concrete Alabama x Arizona x x x California x x x Colorado x Connecticut x x Delaware x x Florida x x x Georgia x x Hawaii x Illinois x x Indiana Iowa x x Kansas Kentucky x Louisiana x x x Maine x x x Massachusetts x x Michigan x x x
|
From page 110... ...
• AZ – ASR mitigation • MN – Silica fume for deck overlays and SCMs specified for ASR mitigation • NE – ASR mitigation • ME – ASR mitigation • SD – Prevention of ASR • TN – SCMs are allowed in these areas, but not required. • CO – Used to mitigate ASR and sulfate attack • MI – ASR mitigation
|
From page 111... ...
Responded: 41 Fly Fly Harvested Slag Silica Calcined Calcined Calcined Rice State DOT Ash Ash Metakaolin Other Fly Ash Cement Fume Clay Shale Pumice Husk F C Alabama x x x x Arizona x x x x x x California x x x x x x x x x x Colorado x x x x x x x x x x Connecticut x x x x Delaware x x Florida x x x x x x x x x x Georgia x x x x x Hawaii x Illinois x x x x x x Indiana Iowa x x x x x x Kansas Kentucky x x x x Louisiana x x x x x Maine x x x Massachusetts x x x x x Michigan x x x x Minnesota x x x x x x x x x x Mississippi x x x x x Missouri x x x x x Montana x x x x x x Nebraska x x x x Nevada x x x x x x x New York x x x x x x x x x x North x x x x x x x x Carolina North Dakota x x x x Ohio x x x x x x Oklahoma x x x x Oregon x x x x x x x x x Pennsylvania x x x x Puerto Rico x x x x Rhode Island x x x x x South x x x x Carolina South Dakota x Tennessee x x x x x Texas x x x x x x x x x Utah x x x x x Vermont x x x x Virginia x x x x x Washington x x x x x x West Virginia x x x Wisconsin x x x x x Total 40 28 18 37 35 15 10 10 16 3 12
|
From page 112... ...
Table B6. Q6: What percent SCM is permitted by your DOT specification as replacement of cement in pavement concrete?
|
From page 113... ...
• MT – Silica fume may be included up to 5% when a minimum of 15% FA [fly ash] or slag is included in the design or acceptable blended cements for pavements and structures.
|
From page 114... ...
114 Use of Supplementary Cementitious Materials for Concrete Table B7. Q7: What percent SCM is permitted by your DOT specification as replacement of cement in bridges and other structures?
|
From page 115... ...
Place "0" if not allowed or natural pozzolans not included in specification. Responded: 41 % Calcined % Calcined % Calcined % % Rice % Natural Clay Shale Pumice Metakaolin Husk Pozzolans Not in State DOT Specification California Note Below Colorado 50 50 50 50 50 Florida 15–50 15–50 15–50 8–12 Georgia ≤15 Iowa 20 20 20 20 Louisiana 50 Massachusetts 30 Missouri 15 Nebraska 25 25 25 Nevada 20 20 20 20 20 New York Note Below North Carolina 30 30 30 30 30 Oregon 30 30 30 30 Puerto Rico 40 Texas 20 20 20 20 Utah 30 30 30 Virginia 7–10 Washington 35 Comments: • CA – For concrete structures, natural pozzolans must be proportioned in accordance with the requirements of Sec.
|
From page 116... ...
? Responded: 33 Only in Only in Bridges In Pavements Have Not Been State DOT Pavements and Other and Structures Used Structures Alabama Arizona x California x Colorado x Connecticut Delaware x Florida x Georgia x Hawaii Illinois x Indiana Iowa x Kansas Kentucky Louisiana x Maine x Massachusetts Michigan x Minnesota x Mississippi x Missouri Montana x Nebraska Nevada x New York x North Carolina x North Dakota Ohio x Oklahoma x Oregon x Pennsylvania x Puerto Rico x
|
From page 117... ...
Responded: 29 10% + ≤ 20% + ≤ 50% + ≤ 20% + 20% + 30% + 40% + 10% + 15% + State DOT Other % Not Used 10% 10% 10% 20% 30% 30% 20% 50% 50% OR, FL MI, OR, TX, FL RI, TX, TX, FL WA CO, MI, TN, SD, FL FL WI, NY, ME, IA, Fly ash F OH, IL, AZ, WV, + Fly ash PA, OK, NC, CA, C LA PR, VT, MS, VA, UT OR, FL OR, PR, TX MI, OR, IA, OR, WA, FL TN, MT, SD, ME, TX RI, TX, MI, WI, AZ, WV, Fly ash + VA MN, NC, OK, MS, Slag CA, NY, UT OH, VT, IL, PA, LA OR OR, WV, RI, WA, WI, ME, MI, Fly Ash + TX, FL, VA, NC, CA, IA, AZ, PR, Silica UT NY, OH, MS fume IL, PA, FL, OK, LA OR, AZ OR, WV, ME, OR, WA, MI, TN, SD, IA, VT, VA RI, FL WI, NC, PR, MS, Slag + CA, NY, UT Silica OH, VT, fume IL, PA, TX, OK, LA OR OR, TX OR, TX IA, OR, FL FL WI, MN, TN, SD, TX NC, CA, ME, MI, Natural NY, OH AZ, RI, PR, Pozzolan + VT, IL, PA, Slag OK, MS, LA, VA, UT
|
From page 118... ...
The limits will apply to ternary blends. • TN – Require 50% minimum cement in ternary concrete mixtures • MI – Total SCM content for fly ash and slag cement is 40%, slag + silica fume is 25% slag + 4% silica fume.
|
From page 119... ...
Detailed Survey Responses 119 Delaware x Florida x Georgia x Hawaii x Illinois x Indiana Iowa x Kansas Kentucky x Louisiana x Maine x Massachusetts x Michigan x Minnesota x Mississippi x Missouri x Montana x Nebraska x Nevada x New York x North Carolina x North Dakota Ohio x Oklahoma x Oregon x Pennsylvania x Puerto Rico x Rhode Island x South Carolina South Dakota x Tennessee x Texas x Utah x Vermont x Virginia x Washington x West Virginia x Wisconsin x Total 0 2 7 30
|
From page 120... ...
Responded: 33 Yes, Same As in Acceptance Can Be Met State DOT Concrete With No at Later Ages (e.g., at 56 SCMs Days) Alabama Arizona x California x Colorado x Connecticut Delaware x Florida x Georgia x Hawaii Illinois x Indiana Iowa x Kansas Kentucky Louisiana x Maine x Massachusetts Michigan x Minnesota x Mississippi x Missouri Montana x Nebraska Nevada x New York x North Carolina x North Dakota Ohio x Oklahoma x Oregon x Pennsylvania x Puerto Rico x Rhode Island x South Carolina x South Dakota x Tennessee x Texas x
|
From page 121... ...
Q13: Does your DOT specification require the tests below when SCMs are used in concrete? Responded: 24 Tests Yes Pozzolanic reaction test IA, AZ, NV, TX, FL, DE, UT CO, WA, WI, WV, NV, RI, OH, Chloride permeability test PR, PA, FL, DE, VA CO, MT, ME, WI, IA, WV, NV, Surface resistivity test RI, NY, PR, VT, FL, DE, LA, VA, UT
|
From page 122... ...
Q14: Have SCMs affected the performance of concrete mixtures with Type IL cement? Responded: 33 Yes, Positive Yes, Minor Impacts Have Not No Effects Negative Readily Experienced Opinion State DOT Effects Overcome by Any Impact Contractors Alabama Arizona x California x
|
From page 123... ...
Detailed Survey Responses 123 Colorado x Connecticut Delaware x Florida x Georgia x Hawaii Illinois x Indiana Iowa x Kansas Kentucky Louisiana x Maine x Michigan x Minnesota x Mississippi x Missouri Montana x Nebraska Nevada x New York x North x Carolina North Dakota Ohio x Oklahoma x Oregon x Pennsylvania x Puerto Rico x Rhode Island x South x Carolina South Dakota x Tennessee x Texas x Utah x Vermont x Virginia x Washington x West Virginia x Wisconsin x Total 2 8 16 7
|
From page 124... ...
Q16: Is your state experiencing shortage of fly ash to supply DOT projects, or has your state experienced shortages in the past? Responded: 33 Yes, During the Past Yes, Yes, Expected Have Not Experienced, State DOT 5 Years or Longer Presently in the Near nor Anticipating Any Future Shortages Alabama Arizona x California x Colorado x Connecticut
|
From page 125... ...
Detailed Survey Responses 125 Delaware x Florida x Hawaii Georgia x Illinois x Indiana Iowa x Kansas Kentucky Louisiana x Maine x Massachusetts Michigan x Minnesota x Mississippi x Missouri Montana x Nebraska Nevada x New York x North Carolina x North Dakota Ohio x Oklahoma x Oregon x Pennsylvania x Puerto Rico x Rhode Island x South Carolina x South Dakota x Tennessee x Texas x Utah x Vermont x Virginia x Washington x West Virginia x Wisconsin x Total 22 2 4 5
|
From page 126... ...
Industry- Fly Ash to Only Designs to Such as Slag, Ashes Not Based Require Fly Reduce Silica Fume, Meeting Solution Ash in Permeability and Natural AASHTO State DOT Concrete Using Pozzolans, or M Subjected to Approaches ASCMs 295/ASTM Chemical Other Than 618-23 Attack or Fly Ash ASR Alabama Arizona x California x Colorado x Connecticut Delaware x Florida x x x x Hawaii Georgia x Illinois x x Indiana Iowa x x Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine x Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota x x Mississippi x Missouri Montana x Nebraska Nevada x New York x x x North x Carolina North Dakota Ohio x Oklahoma x Oregon x x x x Pennsylvania x x Puerto Rico Rhode Island x x South x Carolina South Dakota Tennessee x x
|
From page 127... ...
in concrete? Responded: 33 Yes, No Plans Yes, Plan to Allow State DOT Presently to Allow Use in the Future Allowed ASCMs Alabama Arizona x California x Colorado x Connecticut Delaware x Florida x Georgia x Hawaii Illinois x Indiana Iowa x Kansas Kentucky Louisiana x Maine x Massachusetts Michigan x Minnesota x Mississippi x Missouri Montana x Nebraska Nevada x New York x
|
From page 128... ...
128 Use of Supplementary Cementitious Materials for Concrete North x Carolina North Dakota Ohio x Oklahoma x Oregon x Pennsylvania x Puerto Rico x Rhode Island x South x Carolina South Dakota x Tennessee x Texas x Utah x Vermont x Virginia x Washington x West Virginia x Wisconsin x Total 6 7 20 Table B19. Q19: Does your DOT permit the use the of following ASCMs in concrete mixtures?
|
From page 129... ...
Ground Glass is under Standard Specification 711-15 "Miscellaneous Supplementary Cementitious Materials." The specification was written prior to ASTM C1866 and there are future plans to align this specification with the ASTM. Vermont: https://outside.vermont.gov/agency/VTRANS/external/docs/construction/02ConstrServ/PreContract/2024 %20Spec%20Book/2024%20Standard%20Specifications%20for%20Construction%20(2009%20MUTC D)
|
From page 130... ...
Responded: 13 Private Laboratory Data Accepted Concrete Producer Data Accepted Data from Other Source Accepted ASCM Producer Data Accepted No, We Rely on Our DOT Other State DOTs' Data Supplier Data Accepted Surface Resistivity Test Laboratory Tests Accepted CO, WA, WA, WI, CO, MN, NY, MI, WI, OH, CO, AZ, VT AZ, VT MN, NY OH, VT, UT SC, CA, NY, VT FL
|
From page 131... ...
Responded: 13 No, but Considering One Yes or More Field No Trials in the Future WI, AZ, CA, NY, CO, WA, MI, MN, UT OH, VT NC, FL 2 6 5 Other comments: New York: Ground glass is under Standard Specification 711-15 "Miscellaneous Supplementary Cementitious Materials." The specification was written prior to ASTM C1866 and there are future plans to align this specification with ASTM. https://www.dot.ny.gov/main/business-center/engineering/specifications/english-specrepository/2024_5_specs_usc_tc_vol4.pdf Table B24.
|
From page 132... ...
Responded: 24 Yes, Another State DOT Yes DOT Staff Member Alabama Arizona x California x Colorado x Connecticut Delaware x Florida x Georgia x Hawaii Illinois x Indiana Iowa x Kansas Kentucky Louisiana x Maine x Massachusetts Michigan x Minnesota x Mississippi x Missouri Montana x Nebraska Nevada x New York x North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon x Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota x Tennessee x Texas x Utah x Vermont x Virginia Washington x West Virginia Wisconsin x Total 17 7
|
From page 133... ...
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NTSB National Transportation Safety Board PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration SAE Society of Automotive Engineers SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (2005) TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998)
|
From page 134... ...
Transportation Research Board 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 ISBN 978-0-309-99319-7 90000 9 780309 993197
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.