Anson-Cartwright Majella 201111 MASc Thesis PDF

Optimization of Aggregate Gradation Combinations to
Improve Concrete Sustainability
by
Majella Anson-Cartwright
A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements

for the degree of Master of Applied Science
Department of Civil Engineering
University of Toronto
Copyright by Majella Anson-Cartwright 2011

Optimization of Aggregate Gradation Combinations to Improve
Concrete Sustainability
Majella Anson-Cartwright
Master of Applied Science
Department of Civil Engineering

University of Toronto
2011
Abstract
By optimizing the packing of the combined aggregate gradations, the cement paste content
needed to make concrete can be reduced, improving sustainability, cost, performance, durability,
and workability. Optimization can be achieved using theoretical and empirical techniques, or
waste concrete material as an intermediate size fraction. However, the potential for
improvement is currently limited by prescriptive grading specifications that require meeting
individual requirements for fine and coarse aggregates.
From this study, using various optimization techniques, it was found that by inclusion of an
intermediate sized aggregate material, a reduction in cement paste up to 16% is possible for 35
MPa and 50 MPa mix designs typically used in Ontario bridge decks. The aggregate materials
used were a natural sand, and two crushed limestones of 19.0 mm and 6.7 mm maximum size.
From these findings, recommendations are made for improving the current Ontario Provincial
Standard Specification (OPSS) 1002 used for concrete aggregates.
ii
Acknowledgments
I would first and foremost like to thank my supervisor, Professor R. Doug Hooton, for his
support and guidance. Furthermore, thank you to the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario for
the opportunity to conduct research on this specific topic. I thank Holcim for their generosity
and supply of all concrete constituent materials and ICAR rheometer used for this study.
The experimental work conducted for this study could not have been completed without the help
of the technical staff and concrete group, most notably: Olga, Joel, Renzo, Giovanni, Professor
Karl Peterson, Mila, Soley, Ahmad, Mahsa, Eric, Saeid, Adam, Dimitre, Andre, Ge-Hung, Ester,
Sonia, and Reza. I am extremely grateful to all of you for your help and kindness, thank you.
Last, but certainly not least, I could not have completed my M.A.Sc. degree without the endless
support and encouragement from my parents, brothers, and closest friends Ekaterina, Steve, Jen,
Marianne, Matt, and Lani.
I feel very fortunate to have such supportive and caring people surrounding me at school and at
home, thank you to you all.
iii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... iii
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ iv
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... viii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. xi
List of Appendices ..................................................................................................................... xviii
List of Abbreviations ..................................................................................................................... xx
Chapter 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background Information ...................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Research Objectives............................................................................................................. 3
1.3 Scope of Research................................................................................................................ 4
Chapter 2 Literature Review............................................................................................................ 6
2.1 Theoretical Particle Packing Models ................................................................................... 6
2.1.1 Modified Toufar Model ........................................................................................... 6
2.1.2 Theory of Particle Mixtures Particle Packing Model .............................................. 8
2.2 Empirical Charts ................................................................................................................ 10
2.2.1 Talbots Grading Curve ......................................................................................... 10
2.2.2 Shilstones Coarseness Factor Chart ..................................................................... 12
2.2.3 8-18 Distribution Chart .......................................................................................... 14
2.3 Summary of Recent Studies on Optimization Techniques for Combined Aggregate

Blends ................................................................................................................................ 16
2.4 Fresh Concrete Properties .................................................................................................. 17
2.4.1 Slump ..................................................................................................................... 17
2.4.2 Rheology ................................................................................................................ 17
2.5 Influence of Aggregate Shape and Texture ....................................................................... 26
2.6 Bulk Resistivity ................................................................................................................. 27

iv
Chapter 3 Experimental ................................................................................................................. 29
3.1 Materials for Laboratory Testing ....................................................................................... 29
3.1.1 Cementitious Material ........................................................................................... 29
3.1.2 Coarse Aggregate................................................................................................... 29
3.1.3 Fine Aggregate....................................................................................................... 34
3.1.4 Intermediate Aggregate ......................................................................................... 36
3.1.5 Chemical Admixtures ............................................................................................ 39
3.2 Mix Designs ....................................................................................................................... 39
3.3 Use of Existing Optimization Techniques to Design Mixtures ......................................... 40
3.3.1 Modified Toufar Particle Packing Model .............................................................. 40
3.3.2 Theory of Particle Mixtures Particle Packing Model ............................................ 41
3.3.3 Talbots Grading Curve ......................................................................................... 41
3.3.4 Shilstones Coarseness Factor Chart ..................................................................... 44
3.3.5 8-18 Distribution Chart .......................................................................................... 49
3.4 Range of Designed Combined Aggregate Gradations ....................................................... 52
3.5 Concrete Mix Design Methodology .................................................................................. 53
3.5.1 Stage 1 35 MPa, 360 kg/m3 cement content (typical), w/c = 0.39 ..................... 54
3.5.2 Stage 2 35 MPa, 330 kg/m3 cement content (reduced), w/c = 0.39 .................... 56
3.5.4 Stage 4 50 MPa, 390 kg/m3 cement content (reduced), w/c = 0.33 ................... 59
3.6 Mixing Procedure .............................................................................................................. 61
3.7 Workability Test Procedures ............................................................................................. 62
3.6.1 Air Content by Pressure Method ........................................................................... 63
3.6.2 Slump Test ............................................................................................................. 63
3.6.3 ICAR Rheometer ................................................................................................... 64
3.8 Evaluation of Fresh Concrete Properties ........................................................................... 73

v
3.9 Casting Test Procedures .................................................................................................... 74
3.10 Casting and Testing of Cylinder Procedures ..................................................................... 75
3.11 Casting and Testing of Concrete Prisms ............................................................................ 78
3.12 Curing Regime for Cylinders and Prisms .......................................................................... 79
Chapter 4 Results ........................................................................................................................... 80
4.1 Workability ........................................................................................................................ 80
4.2 Compressive Strength ........................................................................................................ 83
4.3 Linear Drying Shrinkage ................................................................................................... 85
4.4 Bulk Resistivity ................................................................................................................. 87
Chapter 5 Analysis and Discussion ............................................................................................... 90
5.1 Analysis of Optimization Techniques ............................................................................... 90
5.1.1 Analysis of Theoretical Particle Packing Models .................................................. 90
5.1.2 Analysis of Empirical Charts ................................................................................. 91
5.2 Analysis of Workability Results ........................................................................................ 92
5.2.5 Workability Boxes for Shilstones Coarseness Factor Charts ............................... 98
5.2.6 Slump and Static Yield Stress Correlation .......................................................... 101
5.2.7 Analysis of Rheology Test Results ...................................................................... 103
5.2.8 35 MPa Concrete Mixtures with Successful Workability ................................... 117
5.2.9 50 MPa Concrete Mixtures with Successful Workability ................................... 118
5.3 Analysis of Compressive Strength Results ...................................................................... 119
5.4 Analysis of Linear Drying Shrinkage Results ................................................................. 122
5.5 Analysis of Bulk Resistivity Results ............................................................................... 130

vi
5.6 Recommendations for the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario ................................... 143
Chapter 6 Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................... 157
6.1 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 157
6.2 Recommendations for Future Research ........................................................................... 159
References.................................................................................................................................... 164
Appendices .................................................................................................................................. 170
vii
List of Tables
Table 1.1: OPSS 1002 and ASTM C 33 Grading Requirements for Fine Aggregates .................. 3
Table 1.2: OPSS 1002 and ASTM C 33 Grading Requirements for Coarse Aggregates with
Nominal Maximum Size of 19.0 mm ............................................................................................ 3
Table 2.1: Zone and Workability Box Division Lines for Coarseness Factor Chart ................... 13
Table 2.2: Combined Individual % Retained Limits for 8-22 Distribution Chart ....................... 14
Table 2.3: Summary of Recent Studies on Optimization Techniques for Combined Aggregate
Blends .......................................................................................................................................... 16
Table 2.4: Influences of Mixture Proportioning of SCC on Rheological Properties (Koehler and
Fowler, 2004; 2007)..................................................................................................................... 20
Table 3.1: Cementitious Material Properties ............................................................................... 29
Table 3.2: Mixing Timeline and Coarse Aggregate Supply Used ............................................... 32
Table 3.3: Properties of Coarse Aggregate Used For Study........................................................ 33
Table 3.4: Properties of Fine Aggregate Used For Study............................................................ 36
Table 3.5: Properties of Intermediate Aggregate Used For Study .............................................. 38
Table 3.6: Properties of Chemical Admixtures Used For Study ................................................. 39
Table 3.7: Range of Combined Gradations Used in the Current Study....................................... 53
Table 3.8: List of Stage 1 (35 MPa, 360 kg/m3 typical cement content) Mix Designs ............... 54
Table 3.9: Material Contents and Dosages of Stage 1 (35 MPa, 360 kg/m3 typical cement
content) Mix Designs ................................................................................................................... 55
Table 3.10: List of Stage 2 (35 MPa, 330 kg/m3 reduced cement content) Mix Designs ........... 56
viii
Table 3.11: Material Contents and Dosages of Stage 2 (35 MPa, 330 kg/m3 reduced cement
Table 3.12: List of Stage 3 (50 MPa, 465 kg/m3 typical cement content) Mix Designs ............. 58
Table 3.13: Material Contents and Dosages of Stage 3 (50 MPa, 465 kg/m3 typical cement
Table 3.14: List of Stage 4 (50 MPa, 390 kg/m3 reduced cement content) Mix Designs ........... 60
Table 3.15: Material Contents and Dosages of Stage 4 (50 MPa, 390 kg/m3 reduced cement
Table 3.16: Admixture and Water Fraction Addition Times for All Stages ............................... 62
Table 3.17: Workability Testing Programme .............................................................................. 63
Table 3.18: Casting Mix Testing Programme ............................................................................. 75
Table 4.1: Workability Test Results and Evaluation ................................................................... 80
Table 4.2: Average Compressive Strength Results ..................................................................... 84
Table 4.3: Average Linear Drying Shrinkage Results Calculated Following Both OPSS LS-435
and ASTM C 157 Procedures ...................................................................................................... 85
Table 4.4: Average Merlin Test and RCPT Bulk Resistivity and Actual Charge Passed Results87
Table 5.1: Stages 1 and 2 35 MPa Concrete Mixtures with Successful Workability ................ 118
Table 5.2: Stages 3 and 4 50 MPa Concrete Mixtures with Successful Workability ................ 118
Table 5.3: Chloride Ion Penetrability Categories for RCPT, adapted from (ASTM C 1202, 2010)
................................................................................................................................................... 133
Table 5.4: Specific Criterion and Overall Successful Mixes for 35 MPa Design Strength....... 144
Table 5.5: Specific Criterion and Overall Successful Mixes for 50 MPa Design Strength....... 145
ix
Table 5.6: Summary of Test Results for 35 MPa Design Mixes Meeting All Criteria ............. 146
Table 5.7: Summary of Test Results for 50 MPa Design Mixes Meeting All Criteria ............. 147
Table 5.8: Range of Combined Gradations of 35 MPa and 50 MPa Design Mixes Meeting All
Criteria ....................................................................................................................................... 149
Table 5.9: Range of Combined Gradations of All Mixes Meeting All Criteria and OPSS 1002
Grading Requirements of 40% Fine Aggregate and 60% Coarse Aggregate ............................ 150
x
List of Figures
Figure 1.1: Gap-Graded vs. Well-Graded Combined Aggregate Gradation Curve by Individual
Percent Retained ............................................................................................................................ 2
Figure 2.1: Talbots Grading Curve Maximum Density Lines (for Various n Values) for 19.0
mm Nominal Maximum Size....................................................................................................... 11
Figure 2.2: Shilstones Coarseness Factor Chart ......................................................................... 13
Figure 2.3: 8-22 Distribution Well-Graded Combined Aggregate Blend Example .................... 15
Figure 2.4: Effect of Static and Dynamic Yield Stress for Complex Fluids exhibiting
Thixotropic Characteristics when a low shear strain rate is applied (Rheocentric Concrete
Technologies, 2006) .................................................................................................................... 18
Figure 2.5: Changes in Behaviour of SCC Yield Stress with Time (Koehler and Fowler, 2008)19
Figure 2.6: Schematic of Rheological Properties for Different Mixture Types when Bingham
Model Applied (reproduced from Rheocentric Concrete Technologies, 2006) .......................... 20
Figure 2.7: Typical Rheometer Configurations (Koehler, 2009a) ............................................... 22
Figure 2.8: Optimal Vane and Container Geometry (Koehler, 2009b) ....................................... 23
Figure 2.9: Flow Curves of Theoretical Models Applicable for Concrete (Koehler, 2009c) ...... 24
Figure 2.10: Coaxial Cylinder Configuration for Both Cases of All Material Flowing and Not
All Material Flowing (Koehler and Fowler, 2004) ...................................................................... 24
Figure 2.11: Correlation of Charge Passed vs. Conductivity (of initial RCPT) (Germann
Instruments, 2010) ....................................................................................................................... 27
Figure 3.1: Hopper Opening and Bin for 19.0 mm Coarse Aggregate ........................................ 30
Figure 3.2: Guideline for Visually Assessing Shape and Angularity of Aggregate (Koehler and
Fowler, 2007)............................................................................................................................... 30
xi
Figure 3.3: Round #1 of Coarse Aggregate Supply: Sieved, Left: 9.5 mm clear, Right: 4.75 mm
clear.............................................................................................................................................. 31
Figure 3.4: Round #2 of Coarse Aggregate Supply..................................................................... 31
Figure 3.5: Round #3 of Coarse Aggregate Supply..................................................................... 32
Figure 3.6: Hopper Opening and Bin for Fine Aggregate ........................................................... 34
Figure 3.7: Fine Aggregate Supply.............................................................................................. 35
Figure 3.8: Intermediate Aggregate Supply................................................................................. 37
Figure 3.9: Talbots Grading Curve Chart for Combined Binary and Ternary Aggregate Blends
of n = 0.40 .................................................................................................................................... 42
of n = 0.45 .................................................................................................................................... 43
of n = 0.50 .................................................................................................................................... 43
of n = 0.55 .................................................................................................................................... 44
Figure 3.13: Stage 1 Mix Plan Plotted on Coarseness Factor Chart ............................................ 45
Figure 3.17: 8-22 Distribution Chart for Binary 35 MPa Control Mix ....................................... 49
Figure 3.18: 8-22 Distribution Chart for Binary 50 MPa Control Mix ....................................... 50
Figure 3.19: 8-22 Distribution Chart for Ternary Blend Using the Modified Toufar Particle
Packing Model with Coarse Aggregate Supply #1 ...................................................................... 51
xii
Figure 3.22: Types of Slump Behaviour (Koehler, 2009a) ......................................................... 64
Figure 3.23: Rheometer Equipment Components (Rheocentric Concrete Technologies, 2006) 65
Figure 3.24: Full Container for Rheometer Testing (Concrete filled to top of vertical strips).... 65
Figure 3.25: Torque Resetting Position ....................................................................................... 66
Figure 3.26: Proper Placing of Vane in Concrete ........................................................................ 66
Figure 3.27: Frame Resting on Containers Supports, Rheometer Ready for Testing ................ 67
Figure 3.28: Stress Growth Test Software Output for 35 MPa Control (Mix #1), 1st Iteration .. 68
Figure 3.29: Stress Growth Test Software Output for 50 MPa Control (Mix #32d), 1st Iteration
..................................................................................................................................................... 69
Figure 3.30: Description of Generation of Flow Curve (Koehler, 2009b) .................................. 70
Figure 3.31: Bingham model represented graphically (Rheocentric Concrete Technologies,

2006) ............................................................................................................................................ 71
Figure 3.32: Flow Curve Test Software Output for 35 MPa Control (Mix #1), 1st Iteration ...... 72
Figure 3.33: Flow Curve Test Software Output for 50 MPa Control (Mix #32d), 1st Iteration .. 72
Figure 3.34: Hand Mixing in Wheelbarrow between First and Second Sets of Rheometer Testing
..................................................................................................................................................... 73
Figure 3.35: Merlin Bulk Conductivity Test Equipment (Germann Instruments, 2010) ............ 77
Figure 3.36: Merlin Bulk Conductivity Test Specimen Set-up (Germann Instruments, 2010)... 77
xiii
Figure 5.1: Flowability and Cohesion of First Slump Test for Mix #18 (Shilstone's Coarseness
Factor Chart - Zone 2, ternary, CF = 64.2, WF = 35.7)............................................................... 94
Figure 5.2: Segregation of Mix #17 (Shilstone's Coarseness Factor Chart - Zone 2, ternary, CF =
72.7, WF = 32.7) after First Slump Test ...................................................................................... 95
Figure 5.3: Result of Second Slump Test for Mix #31 (Theory of Particle Mixtures by Dewar,
binary) .......................................................................................................................................... 96
Figure 5.4: Coarseness Factor Chart Workability Box for Stage 1 Mixes .................................. 98
Figure 5.7: Coarseness Factor Chart Workability Box for Stage 4 Mixes ................................ 100
Figure 5.8: Static Yield Stress vs. Slump for Stage 1 Mixes..................................................... 101
Figure 5.9: Static Yield Stress vs. Slump for Stage 2 Mixes..................................................... 102
Figure 5.10: Static Yield Stress vs. Slump for Stage 3 Mixes................................................... 102
Figure 5.11: Static Yield Stress vs. Slump for Stage 4 Mixes................................................... 102
Figure 5.12: Stage 1, Static Yield Stress 1 Results Arranged by Workability Sufficiency.... 104
Figure 5.13: Stage 1, Dynamic Yield Stress 1 Results Arranged by Workability Sufficiency
................................................................................................................................................... 104
Figure 5.14: Stage 1, Plastic Viscosity 1 Results Arranged by Workability Sufficiency ...... 105
................................................................................................................................................... 106
xiv
................................................................................................................................................... 108
................................................................................................................................................... 109
................................................................................................................................................... 111
................................................................................................................................................... 113
................................................................................................................................................... 115
................................................................................................................................................... 116
xv
Figure 5.36: Linear Drying Shrinkage vs. Time of Drying for 35 MPa Mixes within Acceptable
Limit at 28 Days of Drying........................................................................................................ 124
Figure 5.37: Linear Drying Shrinkage vs. Time of Drying for 50 MPa Mixes within Acceptable
Limit at 28 Days of Drying........................................................................................................ 124
Figure 5.38: Linear Drying Shrinkage vs. Time of Drying for January 4, 2011 Cast Date ...... 125
Figure 5.39: Linear Drying Shrinkage vs. Time of Drying for January 10, 2011 Cast Date .... 126
Figure 5.46: Linear Drying Shrinkage vs. Time of Drying for May 12, 2011 Cast Date ......... 128
Figure 5.47: Average RCPT 5-minute Bulk Resistivity vs. Merlin Bulk Resistivity for 35 MPa
Mixes ......................................................................................................................................... 134
Figure 5.48: Average RCPT 5-minute Bulk Resistivity vs. Merlin Bulk Resistivity for 50 MPa
Mixes ......................................................................................................................................... 135
Figure 5.49: Average RCPT 6-hour Bulk Resistivity vs. Merlin Bulk Resistivity for 35 MPa
Mixes ......................................................................................................................................... 136
Figure 5.50: Average RCPT 6-hour Bulk Resistivity vs. Merlin Bulk Resistivity for 50 MPa
Mixes ......................................................................................................................................... 136
xvi
Figure 5.51: Average RCPT 6-hour Bulk Resistivity vs. 5-minute Bulk Resistivity for 35 MPa
Mixes ......................................................................................................................................... 137
Figure 5.52: Average RCPT 6-hour Bulk Resistivity vs. 5-minute Bulk Resistivity for 50 MPa
Mixes ......................................................................................................................................... 137
Figure 5.53: Average Merlin Bulk Resistivity for 35 MPa at 28 Days ..................................... 138
Figure 5.57: Average Actual Charge Passed for 50 MPa at 28 Days ........................................ 141
Figure 5.60: Coarse and Fine Gradations of 35 MPa Design Mixes Meeting All Criteria ....... 151
Figure 5.61: Coarse and Fine Gradations of 50 MPa Design Mixes Meeting All Criteria ....... 152
Figure 5.62: Coarse and Fine Gradations of All Mixes Meeting All Criteria ........................... 153
Figure 5.63: Combined Gradations of 35 MPa Design Mixes Meeting All Criteria................. 154
Figure 5.64: Combined Gradations of 50 MPa Design Mixes Meeting All Criteria................. 155
Figure 5.65: Combined Gradations of All Mixes Meeting All Criteria .................................... 156
xvii
List of Appendices
Appendix A: Master Mix Design List ....................................................................................... 170
Appendix B: Modified Toufar Model Spreadsheet ................................................................... 174
Appendix C: Theory of Particle Mixtures Spreadsheet ............................................................. 177
Appendix D: Talbots Grading Curve Spreadsheet ................................................................... 181
Appendix E: Combined Gradations for All Mix Designs ......................................................... 183
Appendix F: Compressive Strength Results for All Stages ....................................................... 186
Appendix G: Linear Drying Shrinkage Results for All Stages ................................................. 197
Appendix H: Bulk Resistivity Results for All Stages ................................................................ 206
Appendix I: Statistical Analysis of Compressive Strength Results at 28 Days with a 90%

Confidence Level ....................................................................................................................... 214
Appendix J: Ground Surface Smoothness at Age of 56 Days ASTM C 39 Check ................... 222
Appendix K: Statistical Analysis of Linear Drying Shrinkage Results at 35 Days with a 90%
Appendix L: Average Mass of Prism Specimens vs. Age ......................................................... 230
Appendix M: Statistical Analysis of Linear Drying Shrinkage Test Methods at 35 Days with a
90% Confidence Level .............................................................................................................. 232
Appendix N: Statistical Analysis of Merlin Bulk Resistivity Results with a 90% Confidence
Level .......................................................................................................................................... 234
Appendix O: Statistical Analysis of Bulk Resistivity Test Methods at 28 Days and 56 Days with
a 90% Confidence Level ............................................................................................................ 249
xviii
Appendix P: Statistical Analysis of 35 MPa Mixes Meeting All Criteria with a 90%
Appendix Q: Statistical Analysis of 50 MPa Mixes Meeting All Criteria with a 90% Confidence
Level .......................................................................................................................................... 257
xix
List of Abbreviations
ACI American Concrete Institute
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
CF Coarseness Factor (abscissa of Shilstones Coarseness Factor Chart)
CRD Difference between the Reference bar and Comparator reading (for linear drying
shrinkage measurements)
CSA Canadian Standards Association
GGBFS Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag
GU General Use (cement type)
HSF Hydraulic Portland/Silica Fume cement (blended GU cement with 8% silica fume)
ICAR International Center for Aggregates Research
LS Laboratory Standard (from MTO Laboratory Testing Manual)
MFA Manufactured Fine Aggregate
MTO Ministry of Transportation of Ontario
NRMCA National Ready Mix Concrete Association
OPSS Ontario Provincial Standard Specification
RCPT Rapid Chloride Permeability Test
SCC Self-Consolidating Concrete
SCM Supplementary Cementing Materials
SSD Saturated Surface Dry
WF Workability Factor (ordinate of Shilstones Coarseness Factor Chart)

xx
1
Chapter 1
Introduction
1
1.1 Background Information
From the production of concrete, cement is the most expensive material and can account for up
to 60% of the total materials cost (Quiroga, 2003). Its manufacturing process is also the largest
greenhouse gas contributor, and the most energy and resource intensive. Approximately 5% of
global carbon dioxide emissions are attributed to the manufacturing of cement. The paste
fraction of a concrete mix is usually 25% to 40% of the total volume. A portion of cement can
be substituted by supplementary cementing materials (SCMs), but there is greater potential to
reduce the cement content needed for concrete mixes by optimizing the combined aggregate
gradation of mixes. Optimizing the packing of the aggregate particles will improve concretes: i)
sustainability and cost by reducing cement content required; ii) durability by decreasing its
permeability and potential for drying shrinkage cracking; iii) workability by decreasing
segregation potential; and iv) structural performance by decreasing porosity and increasing the
total aggregate volume. The shape and texture of the aggregates have a significant effect on the
packing ability of individual aggregates, and, therefore, potential for optimizing blended
aggregates.
Typical concrete mixtures have a binary blend of fine and coarse aggregates, each meeting
gradation envelopes, which are often defined as gap-graded mixtures because of a lack of
intermediately sized particles ranging between 2.36 mm and 9.5 mm, as illustrated in Figure 1.1.
A well-graded mixture has a good distribution of aggregates including intermediate sized
particles. A well-graded combined aggregate blend can be achieved by using optimization
techniques (theoretical and empirical), or by adding low value or waste coarse aggregate
material as an intermediate size fraction. A significant percentage of quarried aggregate is
wasted per year from sieving to meet gradation specifications; therefore using ternary aggregate
blending is very cost-effective as well as environmentally sustainable. The potential for
optimization is limited by specifications as they separate grading envelopes for fine and coarse
aggregate material.
2
Figure 1.1: Gap-Graded vs. Well-Graded Combined Aggregate Gradation Curve by Individual Percent
Retained
The Ontario Provincial Standard Specification (OPSS) 1002 from April 2004 is the current
specification used for aggregate in concrete in Ontario, and only considers gap-graded
concretes. The OPSS 1002 specifies the grading requirements for fine and coarse aggregate.
There is one grading envelope for fine aggregate and six for coarse aggregate, categorized by
structural or non-structural element and nominal maximum size. The OPSS 1002 also specifies
that fine and coarse aggregate grading must be analyzed individually, and cannot be analyzed
after being combined. This limits the potential for the optimization of the total aggregate
grading.
The OPSS 1002 gradation requirements are based on the American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) C 33-07 gradation requirements, which have not changed substantially for
several decades. For fine aggregates, the range of acceptable fineness modulus is 2.3 to 3.1 for
both specifications. The grading envelopes are also the same with the exception of the percent
passing sieves 300 m and 75 m, as shown in Table 1.1.
3
Table 1.1: OPSS 1002 and ASTM C 33 Grading Requirements for Fine Aggregates
OPSS Sieve Size OPSS 1002 ASTM C 33
(ASTM Designation) Requirements Requirements
9.5 mm (-in.) 100 100
4.75 mm (No. 4) 95 100 95 100
2.36 mm (No. 8) 80 100 80 100
1.18 mm (No. 16) 50 85 50 85
600 m (No. 30) 25 60 25 60
300 m (No. 50) 10 30 5 30
150 m (No. 100) 0 10 0 10
0 3 Natural Sand 0 5 Natural Sand
75 m (No. 200)
0 6 Manufactured Sand 0 7 Manufactured Sand
Note: Fine aggregates shall have no more than 45% passing any sieve and
retained on the next consecutive sieve.
For coarse aggregates, with a nominal maximum size of 19.0 mm, the grading envelopes are the
same with the exception of percent passing sieves 19.0 mm, 16.0 mm, 2.36 mm and 75 m, as
shown in Table 1.2.
Table 1.2: OPSS 1002 and ASTM C 33 Grading Requirements for Coarse Aggregates with Nominal
Maximum Size of 19.0 mm
OPSS Sieve Size (ASTM OPSS 1002 ASTM C 33
Equivalent Designation) Requirements Requirements
26.5 mm (1 in.) 100 100
19.0 mm (-in.) 85 100 90 100
16.0 mm 65 90
13.2 mm
9.5 mm (-in.) 20 55 20 55
6.7 mm
4.75 mm (No. 4) 0 10 0 10
2.36 mm (No. 8) 05
0 1 Gravel 0 1*
75 m (No. 200) (washed)
0 2 Crushed Rock
*
Maximum allowable can be increased under certain conditions as described
in ASTM C 33, Table 3, Note C
1.2 Research Objectives

The objective of this research is to find combined aggregate gradations, using Ontario aggregate
sources, which will significantly reduce the amount of cement required by 10% to 15% without
compromising concrete fresh properties including slump, static and dynamic yield stress and
plastic viscosity, and hardened properties including strength, drying shrinkage and permeability
(resistivity).
4
To achieve this objective, several optimization techniques will be applied to typical MTO bridge
deck designs for 35 MPa and 50 MPa strengths. These techniques include: (i) introducing an
intermediate aggregate with particle sizes mostly between 2.36mm to 9.5mm, which is intended
to fill the gap between the traditional binary combination of coarse and fine aggregates; (ii)
applying theoretical particle packing models, such as the Theoretical Packing Model by Dewar
and the Modified Toufar Model by Goltermann, Johansen and Palbol; and (iii) applying
empirical charts developed using various aggregate sources, such as the Coarseness Factor Chart
by J. M. Shilstone, and Talbots Grading Curve, which has been used by the asphalt industry for
over 50 years to produce the 0.45 Power Chart for standardizing aggregate gradations.
With this studys findings, recommendations for improving the OPSS 1002 specification with
respect to combined aggregate grading requirements will be addressed.
1.3 Scope of Research

This research study will examine the effectiveness of optimizing the combined aggregate
gradation to ultimately reduce the cement paste fraction required in concrete. Reducing the
cement paste fraction required will increase the performance, durability, and sustainability while
decreasing the cost. Cement is the most expensive material, and its manufacturing process is the
most energy and raw material intensive. Therefore, if less cement paste is required, then it will
be more sustainable and less expensive to produce concrete. For the current study, typical MTO
bridge deck mixtures with 28-day compressive strengths of 35 MPa and 50 MPa were the
control mixtures. The combined aggregate gradation was optimized by using both binary (stone
and sand) and ternary (stone, intermediate-sized chip, and sand) blends and applying the
existing optimization techniques as described in the literature review: the Modified Toufar and
Theory of Particle Mixtures by Dewar particle packing models, the Talbots Grading Curve
(Power Chart), and Shilstones Coarseness Factor Chart. Both the Coarseness Factor Chart and
8-18 Distribution were used to evaluate the combined gradations produced from the above
optimization techniques. The intermediate aggregate was used to fill in the gap between the 2.36
mm to 9.5 mm size range. Over 50% of quarried concrete stone is wasted per year from sieving
to meet gradation specifications (Bottero, 2011); therefore, using ternary aggregate blending is
very cost-effective as well as more environmentally sustainable.
5
For this study, the cementitious material was considered part of the cement paste, rather than
being included in optimizing the particle packing of all dry constituents. This is because there is
a lack of validity with some of the optimization techniques with the inclusion of cementitious
material, and the cementitious material is not inert and will hydrate; although the cementitious
particles would not change size significantly when the concrete is still fluid.
The current study was divided into four stages with two stages using the two typical MTO
bridge deck mixture proportions, and two stages using variations of the control mixtures
proportions with reduced cement content and increased total aggregate content. Brief
descriptions of the four stages are as follows:
Stage 1: 35 MPa, 360 kg/m3 cement content (typical), w/c = 0.39
Stage 2: 35 MPa, 330 kg/m3 cement content (reduced), w/c = 0.39
Stage 3: 50 MPa, 465 kg/m3 cement content (typical), w/c = 0.33
Stage 4: 50 MPa, 390 kg/m3 cement content (reduced), w/c = 0.33
Within each stage, each mix was batched twice: first a batch looking specifically at workability
properties, and second a batch to cast cylinders and prisms for hardened properties. The
workability properties measured governed whether to continue to cast cylinders and prisms.
To minimize effects due to shape and texture, the coarse and intermediate aggregate used for
this research came from the same source, Dufferin Aggregates Milton quarry, of Niagara
escarpment crushed dolomitic limestone. The maximum nominal size of the coarse and
intermediate aggregate was 19.0 mm and 6.7 mm, respectively. The fine aggregate used for this
research was natural sand (maximum nominal size of 4.75 mm), and came from Dufferin
Aggregates Mill Creek pit in Cambridge. Both the fine and coarse aggregates pass the OPSS
1002 grading requirements from Table 1.1 and Table 1.2, respectively. However, the
intermediate aggregates grading does not fit within the OPSS 1002 grading requirements,
shown in Table 1.1, as it is significantly coarser.
6
Chapter 2
Literature Review
2
2.1 Theoretical Particle Packing Models
2.1.1 Modified Toufar Model
This technique can be used to design multi-source aggregate blend volume proportions by
maximizing the packing degree of the combined gradation. The individual aggregate properties
required to be inputted for this particle packing model are the particle size distribution, relative
density (in SSD condition), and loose bulk density (in SSD condition).
In Europe, previous experimental testing has confirmed that the Toufar aggregate packing
model, which was developed in the 1970s, and later modified in the 1990s, is an effective
theoretical model that gives a good approximation of the packing degree for binary and ternary
aggregate combinations (Goltermann, Johansen and Palbol, 1997; Jones, Zheng and Newlands,
2002). The Modified Toufar model is currently being used in the commercial EUROPACK
program that proportionally optimizes binary and ternary aggregate combinations with other
concrete material constituents (Goltermann, Johansen and Palbol, 1997).
The Modified Toufar model first calculates the characteristic diameter (36.8% cumulatively
retained) using linear interpolation and packing degree for each aggregate material, as defined
by Equation 2.1.
i
i = Equation 2.1
i w
Where: i = packing degree of an individual material
i = bulk density of an individual material
i = relative density of an individual material
w = density of water = 1000 kg/m3 @ 4C
Once the packing degree and characteristic diameter for each aggregate material is calculated,
the packing degree of a binary blended combined gradation is isolated and maximized using the
7
Modified Toufar models theoretical prediction of the combined packing degree as described in
Equation 2.2.
1
= Equation 2.2
y1 y 2 1
1 + 2 y 2 ( 2 1) kd ks

Where: = packing degree of combined gradation
y1, y2 = volume fraction of the fine and coarse aggregates, respectively
1, 2 = packing degree of the fine and coarse aggregates, respectively
kd = diameter ratio factor
(d 2 d 1)
= where d1, d2 = characteristic diameter of the fine and coarse
( d 1 + d 2)
aggregates, respectively
ks = statistical factor
x
= k o for x < xo
xo
(1 + 4 x)
= 1 for x xo
(1 + x) 4
Where: xo = 0.4753
ko = 0.3881
y1 2

y 2 1
x=
(1 2)
For ternary blending, a stepwise binary blending process is used where the two aggregate
materials with the highest diameter ratio (finer/coarser) are first blended.
This theoretical model makes three unrealistic assumptions about aggregate packing: that all
aggregates are spherical in shape; all aggregates are monosized; and that fine and coarse
aggregates are different sizes (Goltermann, Johansen and Palbol, 1997). However, the first two
assumptions are corrected by the use of the characteristic diameter for the individual aggregates
based on the Rosin-Raimmler-Sperling-Benett particle size distribution curves where the
cumulative probability is 0.368, and also by using the packing degree for each aggregate
8
material (Goltermann, Johansen and Palbol, 1997). It is debatable though how effective using a
single sized characteristic diameter is to represent a graded material, especially when the bulk
density used is representative of the graded material (Dewar, 1999).
2.1.2 Theory of Particle Mixtures Particle Packing Model

This technique can be used to design multi-source aggregate blend volume proportions by
minimizing the voids ratio of the combined gradation. The same inputs are required for this
particle packing model as the Modified Toufar model. In Europe, previous experimental testing
confirmed that the Theory of Particle Mixtures by Dewar is an effective theoretical model that
gives a good approximation of the packing degree for binary and ternary aggregate
combinations (Jones, Zheng and Newlands, 2002).
This model first calculates log mean diameter and voids ratio for each aggregate for each
aggregate, as defined by Equations 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5.
log(di) = 0.5(log (dupper) + log(dlower)) Equation 2.3
log(dm) = yilog(di) Equation 2.4
i w
Ui = 1 Equation 2.5
i
Where: di = log mean particle size between two sieve sizes

yi = individual volume fraction retained per sieve size
dm = log mean diameter of an individual material
Ui = voids ratio of an individual material
Once the voids ratio and log mean diameter for each aggregate material are calculated, the voids
ratio of a binary blended combined gradation is isolated and minimized using the Theory of
Particle Mixtures theoretical prediction of the combined voids ratio as described in Equations
2.6 to 2.10, and from the points in the voids ratio vs. fine fraction diagram.
Un = n U 1" Equation 2.6
U 0"
n= Equation 2.7
(1 + U 0" + U 1" )
9
(1 + U 1 ) U 0"
U 1" = 1 Equation 2.8
(1 + U 0" ) (1 + Z ) 3
kp
Z = k int + [(1 + U 0 )1 / 3 1 k int ] r Equation 2.9
U 0" = (1 + U 0 ) (1 + m r ) 3 1 Equation 2.10
Where: Un = voids ratio of combined gradation

n = fine material volume fraction
U 0" , U 1" = effective voids ratio of coarse and fine aggregate particles, respectively when
aggregates blended
Z = notional width factor
r = fine/coarse log mean diameter ratio
m = spacing factor; value dependent on point on voids ratio diagram
kint, kp = empirical factors; value dependent on point on voids ratio diagram
And:
Points of Voids Ratio Diagram m kint kp
A (n = 0) 0 - -
B 0.3 0.12 0.6
C 0.75 0.06 0.65
D 3 0.015 0.8
E 7.5 0.0 0.9
F (n = 1) - -
This theoretical model makes the assumption that concrete mixtures have a 50 mm slump and
will not significantly segregate, even though it is quite possible that segregation be induced by
mixing, compacting or placing (Dewar, 1999). To compensate for this assumption, an empirical
cohesion adjustment based on previous experimental work of Dewars is made to the minimized
Un value by applying Equations 2.11 and 2.12.
n x = n U min + 0.025 Equation 2.11
(n x n U min )
Ux = (U h U min ) + U min Equation 2.12
(n h n U min )
10
Where: (n U min
, U min ) co-ordinates of lowest voids ratio
n , U co-ordinates of point with next highest n value

h h

n , U co-ordinates of intermediate point for safe cohesion
x x

Another assumption made by this model is that each individual material can be characterized by
a single sized diameter, while the bulk density used is representative of the graded material
(Dewar, 1999).
For ternary blending, a stepwise binary blending process is used where the two finest materials
are first blended.
2.2 Empirical Charts

2.2.1 Talbots Grading Curve
This technique can be used to design multi-source aggregate blend volume proportions by fitting
the maximum density line of the combined gradation to the target gradation of Talbots grading
curve (also known as the Power Chart) for a series of grading type factors. The concept of the
ideal gradation curve shape that would produce the best concrete performance was first
developed by Fuller and Thompson in 1907, then in 1923 Talbot and Richart developed the
equation for the maximum density line as shown by Equation 2.13 for concrete mixtures. It was
further developed and validated for various aggregate types for asphalt mixtures by Nijboer in
1948, Goode and Lufsey in the 1962, and the Asphalt Institute since the 1980's. The only
individual aggregate property required to be inputted for this technique is the particle size
distribution. For over 50 years, the 0.45 Power Chart (produced by using the Talbots Grading
Curve with an n value of 0.45) has been the method standardized by the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) for designing aggregate gradations for the hot mix asphalt industry
since the 1960s (Virtual Superpave Laboratory, 2005). It is now more readily being applied to
concrete mix designs.
Talbots grading curve or the Power chart refers to a chart with percent passing (by mass) as the
dependent variable, and sieve size raised to the nth power as the independent variable. The
choice of a lower n, the grading type factor, such as 0.35 is described as sandy while with a
higher n of 0.55 is described as rocky (Panchalan and Ramakrishnan, 2007). The asphalt
11
industry uses a standard n of 0.45 for optimal grading, as studies during development showed
that the highest strength could be obtained with an n of 0.45 (Panchalan and Ramakrishnan,
2007). Past studies have indicated that the highest density for spherical particles is reached when
n = 0.5 (Talbot and Richart, 1923); however, for crushed stone the maximum density is reached
for a lower n value, around 0.4 (Ekblad, 2004).
The Talbots Grading Curve is defined by the following equation:
n
d
P = 100 Equation 2.13
D
Where: P = % passing (by mass)
d = sieve size
D = maximum sieve size
n = grading type factor
The maximum density line starts from the origin and continues to the maximum sieve size,
using the combined particle size gradation as the y-values, and sieve size raised to the nth power
as the x-values, as shown in Figure 2.1.
Figure 2.1: Talbots Grading Curve Maximum Density Lines (for Various n Values) for 19.0 mm Nominal
Maximum Size
Other than the n value, the maximum sieve size, D, influences the resulting target gradation.
There are discrepancies between the Asphalt Institute and ASTM C 125 with how D is defined
12
(Panchalan and Ramakrishnan, 2007). The Asphalt Institute defines the maximum aggregate
size as one size larger than the nominal maximum aggregate size, and the nominal maximum
size as one size larger than the first sieve to retain more than 10% (STP 1147, 1992). ASTM C
125 defines the maximum aggregate size as the smallest size to have 100% passing it, and the
nominal maximum size as one size smaller than the maximum aggregate size (ASTM C 125,
2007). For this study, the definition of ASTM C 125 was used, where D = 25.0 mm.
2.2.2 Shilstones Coarseness Factor Chart

Shilstones objective was to create a methodology for producing well-graded mixtures that have
a good distribution of aggregates including fine, intermediate, and coarse particles. Using
aggregate sources from Riyadh, Saudi Arabia and Dallas, Texas, Shilstone developed a tool for
determining a well-graded mixture, the Coarseness Factor Chart in 1990. The only individual
aggregate property required to be inputted for this technique is the particle size distribution. This
tool was incorporated into the American Concrete Institutes 2004 guideline ACI 302.1 R-04
Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab Construction, and it has also been adopted by several
departments of transportation in the United States. However, this empirical tool is chiefly
dependent on aggregate particle size, and neglects to fully consider different particle shapes,
which is also an important factor influencing mixture optimization.
The Coarseness Factor Chart, as shown in Figure 2.2, has five zones: Zone 1 gap-graded;
Zone 2 well-graded for maximum nominal coarse aggregate size between and including
19.0mm to 37.5mm; Zone 3 well-graded for maximum nominal coarse aggregate size less than
19.0mm; Zone 4 sandy; and Zone 5 rocky. Through recent research, a workability box
within Zone 2 has been established, and was implemented in the Texas Department of
Transportation in 2006 (TxDOT, 2006). This workability box highlights where gradations with
the best workability are in the Coarseness Factor Chart. The axes of this chart are two factors
that are defined as follows for a combined aggregate gradation:
% Cumulative Retained on 9.5mm Sieve

Coarseness Factor (CF) = 100
% Cumulative Retained on 2.36mm Sieve
Workability Factor (WF) = Cumulative % Passing the 2.36mm Sieve

13
Figure 2.2: Shilstones Coarseness Factor Chart
The zone and workability box division lines for the Coarseness Factor Chart used for this study
are stipulated in the Texas Department of Transportations Tex-470-A Optimized Aggregate
Gradation for Hydraulic Cement Concrete Mix Designs, and can be found in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1: Zone and Workability Box Division Lines for Coarseness Factor Chart
CF WF CF WF CF WF CF WF CF WF
Zone 5 Division Zone 4 Division Zone 2 Zone 1 Workabilit
Line with Zones Line with Division Line Division Line y Box
1-3 Zones 1-3 with Zone 3 with Zone 2 Points
30 35 40 45 45 32.3 75 27 52 34
40 33.2 50 43.2 45 44 75 38.8 52 38
50 31.4 60 41.4 68 32
60 29.6 70 39.6 68 36
70 27.8 80 37.9
80 26.1
The Coarseness Factor Chart was developed based on previous experimental work where the
mixes all had a cementitious content of 564 lb/yd3 (334 kg/m3) (TxDOT, 2006). Therefore, for
the Coarseness Factor Chart to be applicable for mixes with different cementitious contents, an
adjustment to the workability factor must be made. With every increase of 94 lb/yd3over 564
14
lb/yd3, the workability factor is increased by 2.5%, and similarly decreases by 2.5% with every
decrease of 94 lb/yd3 under 564 lb/yd3 (TxDOT, 2006).
2.2.3 8-18 Distribution Chart

The 8-18 distribution chart, which specifies an 8% minimum and 18% maximum of total
combined fine and coarse aggregate retained on any one main sieve, was introduced by Holland
in 1990 with the objective to improve concrete performance, durability, and workability for
critical structural elements like high tolerance floor slabs. The results from testing showed that
the concrete mixtures required less paste, had improved workability, early strength, and reduced
shrinkage. The only individual aggregate property required to be inputted for this technique is
the particle size distribution. The 8-18 distribution concept was incorporated into the American
Concrete Institutes 2004 ACI 302.1 R-04 Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab Construction. The
ACI 302.1 R-04 Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab Construction stipulates that for a large
maximum coarse aggregate size such as 37.5mm that the limits are between 8% and 18%;
however for a smaller maximum coarse aggregate size such as 19.0mm or 25.0mm, the lower
limit remains 8% while the upper limit of 18% is increased to 22%. The combined individual %
retained limits of the 8-22 distribution charts used for this study are stipulated in the ACI 302.1
R-04 Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab Construction, and can be found in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2: Combined Individual % Retained Limits for 8-22 Distribution Chart
Sieve Size % Retained % Retained
(mm) (low limit) (high limit)
37.5 - 0
25 0 4
19 8 22
16 8 22
9.5 8 22
6.7 8 22
4.75 8 22
2.36 8 22
1.18 8 22
0.6 8 15
0.3 8 15
0.15 2 5
0.075 0 3.5
0 0 0
15
Figure 2.3 illustrates examples of gap-graded and well-graded combined gradation with a
maximum coarse aggregate size of 25.0 mm, where the limits of the 8-22 distribution are
denoted by the shaded area.
Figure 2.3: 8-22 Distribution Well-Graded Combined Aggregate Blend Example
A survey conducted by the National Ready Mix Concrete Association (NRMCA) in 1990 of
several commercial concrete mix designs found that the majority of the combined aggregate
blends did not completely fall within the limits of the 8-18 distribution, but all concrete mixtures
had adequate workability and finishability (Meininger, 2003). It has also been found that it is
difficult to get a combined aggregate blend that falls entirely within the limits of the 8-18
distribution (Harrison, 2004; Meininger, 2003); therefore, the successful application of this
technique is significantly dependent on the individual gradations of each aggregate source used.
The effectiveness of this optimization technique has been criticized in recent studies as results
have greatly varied, and can in fact produce aggregate blends with a greater amount of fine or
intermediate sized particles than coarse sized particles yielding concrete that is harder to finish
(Harrison, 2004; Meininger, 2003). It has been recently indicated that this technique would not
solely produce meaningful results, and is recommended only to be used to evaluate mixture
gradations in conjunction with another method, such as the Coarseness Factor Chart (Harrison,
2004).
16
2.3 Summary of Recent Studies on Optimization Techniques for

Combined Aggregate Blends
The results of previous research varied greatly as different methodologies and aggregate sources
were used. The results are summarized in Table 2.3.
Table 2.3: Summary of Recent Studies on Optimization Techniques for Combined Aggregate Blends
Researcher(s) Methodology Aggregate Results (highlighted)
Source
Goltermann, Modified Toufar Denmark Effectively optimizes packing of
Johansen and Model aggregates for binary and ternary
Palbol (1997) blends
Dewar (1999) Theory of Particle United Effectively optimizes packing of
Mixtures Kingdom aggregate blends
water demand maintaining
adequate cohesion to resist
segregation
Jones, Zheng Modfied Toufar Scotland Both packing models are effective
and Newlands Model, Theory of at optimizing packing of
(2002) Particle Mixtures aggregates for binary and ternary
blends
Panchalan and Talbots Grading South Dakota compressive and flexural
Ramakrishnan Curve strength for n = 0.45 with adequate
(2007) workability
Shilstone Coarseness Factor Riyadh, Saudi water demand
(1990) Chart Arabia workability
Dallas, TX compressive strength
Holland (1990) 8-18 Distribution Atlanta, GA water demand
cement demand
drying shrinkage
workability
compressive strength
NRMCA 8-18 Distribution United States Difficult for combined aggregate
(Meininger, blends to fall within limits, and is
2003) also not a necessity for combined
aggregate blends to fall within
limits to have adequate workability
and finishability
Obla and Kim 8-18 Distribution Jacksonville, FL compressive strength
(2008) and Coarseness Atlanta, GA water demand
Factor Chart Denver, CO drying shrinkage
Maryland finishability
17
2.4 Fresh Concrete Properties

2.4.1 Slump
The slump test was standardized by ASTM, and has been used in the concrete industry since
1922, and is still the primary workability measuring test used to this day (Koehler and Fowler,
2004). In the early 20th century, a concrete was made from only cement, stone, sand, and water.
Now, concrete is also composed of supplementary cementitious materials and chemical
admixtures that improve both fresh and hardened concrete properties. With all these additions to
concrete mixtures and different application types, the slump test is becoming insufficient in
measuring workability adequately.
Through previous studies, the slump test was determined to give erroneous and unreliable
results, especially for mixtures with fiber reinforcement, SCC, ground granulated blast furnace
slag, high-microfine aggregate, and/or a variety of chemical admixtures (Koehler and Fowler,
2004). The main advantages to the slump test that have kept it the predominantly used
workability test for the field have been that it is quick, simple, and inexpensive. No other test
methods that have been developed since the early 20th century have matched the slump tests
advantages. However, the slump tests main disadvantage is that it only looks at the static state
of a concrete sample, anticipating that gravity will be able to overcome the static yield stress
required to induce the sample to flow. Test results are also heavily dependent on how the test is
performed and measured.
2.4.2 Rheology
Rheology is defined as the study of the behaviour of fluids (Koehler and Fowler, 2004).
Common measured rheological properties are static and dynamic yield stress, and plastic
viscosity. The static yield stress is defined as the minimum stress needed to initiate flow
(Rheocentric Concrete Technologies, 2006), and usually expressed in units of Pascals [Pa]. The
dynamic yield stress is defined as the minimum stress needed to maintain flow (Rheocentric
Concrete Technologies, 2006) after the effects of thixotropy are overcome, and usually
expressed in units of Pascals [Pa]. The plastic viscosity is defined as the resistance to flow after
the yield stress has been surpassed (Rheocentric Concrete Technologies, 2006), and usually
expressed in units of Pascal-seconds [Pas]. Thixotropy is defined as the reversible, time-
18
dependent decrease in viscosity of a fluid that experiences constant shearing (by shear stress or
shear rate) (Koehler and Fowler, 2005).
A complex fluid, such as fresh concrete, that is significantly affected by shear history, or
exhibiting thixotropic characteristics, will have a higher static yield stress than dynamic yield
stress as shown graphically in Figure 2.4 when a low shear strain rate is applied (Rheocentric
Concrete Technologies, 2006). The static yield stress and dynamic yield stress are initially
equal, immediately after mixing, since at this point in time there is no thixotropic build-up.
Referring to Figure 2.4, starting from a testing time of zero, shear stress is built up until the
static yield stress is reached and the concrete starts to flow. Once the concrete starts to flow, the
shear stress required to maintain that flow decreases to the dynamic yield stress (Rheocentric
Concrete Technologies, 2006). Since fresh concrete exhibits thixotropic characteristics, it can
return to its static yield stress, and follow the same behaviour to the dynamic yield stress, if the
sample is left to remain static without any shear strain applied (Rheocentric Concrete
Technologies, 2006).
Figure 2.4: Effect of Static and Dynamic Yield Stress for Complex Fluids exhibiting Thixotropic
Characteristics when a low shear strain rate is applied (Rheocentric Concrete Technologies, 2006)
However, it is important to note that with time, starting from when the water made contact with
the cement, continuing cement hydration and the diminishing performance of water-reducing
admixtures will increase both the static and dynamic yield stresses (Rheocentric Concrete
Technologies, 2006). Static yield stress also increases with time due to thixotropic build-up
19
from its shear history. Figure 2.5 illustrates how the yield stress of SCC changes with time from
mixing, specifically for dynamic yield stress (complete breakdown, no thixotropy) and two
cases for static yield stress with full thixotropic build-up from no disturbances; and with
incomplete thixotropic build-up due to transport and pouring disturbances for a precast
placement. If a concrete is described as being highly thixotropic, the rate of increase of static
yield stress is high (Koehler and Fowler, 2008).
Figure 2.5: Changes in Behaviour of SCC Yield Stress with Time (Koehler and Fowler, 2008)
Comparing the different types of mixtures, a conventional concrete has a higher static yield
stress than SCC because it decreases formwork pressure and improves cohesion once placed
(Rheocentric Concrete Technologies, 2006). In qualitative terms, Figure 2.6 shows
schematically what dynamic yield stresses and plastic viscosities to expect (or want) for
different mixture types, relative to each other, when the Bingham model is applied. SCC has a
lower dynamic yield stress (y-intercept), characteristically less than 100 Pa, than conventional
concrete because it improves pumpability, placement, and consolidation under its self-weight
(Rheocentric Concrete Technologies, 2006; 2007). The plastic viscosity (slope) of the mixtures
affects the cohesion and potential for segregation when flowing (Rheocentric Concrete
Technologies, 2006). Therefore, the plastic viscosity of the conventional concrete and optimal
SCC will be very similar. From Figure 2.6, a viscous SCC mixture type that is sticky and not
easy to pump, place or finish will have a high plastic viscosity (Rheocentric Concrete
Technologies, 2006), contrary to a segregating SCC mixture type where its plastic viscosity is
too low. Generally, a SCC mix will segregate when a high dosage rate of a high-range water
reducer is used to compensate for a low paste fraction, and causes bleeding (Koehler and
20
Fowler, 2007). An optimal SCC mixture type will not segregate because it has a moderate
plastic viscosity.
Figure 2.6: Schematic of Rheological Properties for Different Mixture Types when Bingham Model Applied
(reproduced from Rheocentric Concrete Technologies, 2006)
Although the results of workability and rheology tests are significantly dependent on the sources
of material, mixture proportions, and mixture combinations, generalizations of various material
type influences can be made based on previous research. Influences of mixture proportioning of
conventional concrete and SCC on rheological properties based on previous studies are
summarized in Table 2.4; however, it should be noted these are only general trends and there are
exceptions for all instances.
Table 2.4: Influences of Mixture Proportioning of SCC on Rheological Properties (Koehler and Fowler,
2004; 2007)
Change in Mixture Yield Plastic
Proportion Stress Viscosity
Aggregates
Volume Fraction ()
Max. Size ()
Grading (optimize)
Angularity ()
Shape (equidimensional)
Cement Paste
Paste volume ()
Water/powder ()
Supplementary Cementing Materials
Fly Ash
21
Change in Mixture Yield Plastic

Proportion Stress Viscosity
Slag
Silica Fume (low %)
Silica Fume (high %)
Admixtures
Viscosity Modifying
High-Range Water Reducing
Air Entraining
Previous studies have shown that slump test measurements have a strong correlation with yield
stress, and weak correlation with plastic viscosity (Koehler, 2009a). Generally, an increase in
slump will result in a decrease in yield stress (Koehler and Fowler, 2007).
Workability tests that not only look at the static behaviour of concrete mixtures, but also the
dynamic behaviour of concrete mixtures are more practical and appropriate for concrete since
there are now so many different types of materials, mixture proportioning, and concrete material
and construction applications used. Evaluating only the static behaviour of concrete is not good
enough anymore, and limits the breadth of workability ranges utilized, especially for more
thixotropic concrete mixtures.
To prevent a mix from segregating requires both sufficient static and dynamic characteristics.
Characteristics that influence the potential for segregation are the relative densities of the
aggregate and paste, change in paste rheological properties with time, aggregate source
(including shape and grading), and cohesion (Koehler and Fowler, 2007). Segregation can be
prevented by using well-graded aggregate blend, using less angular and rounded aggregate
particles, reducing the maximum aggregate size, increasing the paste volume, and decreasing the
high-range water reducing admixture dosage (Koehler and Fowler, 2007). In terms of
rheological properties, to increase segregation resistance the yield stress and plastic viscosity
should be increased; however, to increase flowability, the yield stress and plastic viscosity
should be decreased (Koehler and Fowler, 2007). From a previous study, a minimum static yield
stress of 40 Pa is required to prevent segregation (Koehler and Fowler, 2008). Ultimately, an
adequately high static yield stress and low dynamic yield stress are desirable rheological
properties to resist segregation and increase flowability, respectively (Koehler and Fowler,
2008).
22
The International Center for Aggregates Research (ICAR) rheometer used for this study was
purchased from Germann Instruments. The ICAR rheometer was developed at the University of
Texas to characterize the workability of fresh mortar and concrete mixes in terms of rheological
properties including plastic viscosity, and static and dynamic yield stress using a shear rate
controlled rheometer with coaxial cylinders configuration (as opposed to the other typical
configurations shown in Figure 2.7). The purpose of the ICAR rheometer is to give a better
representation of the workability of mortar or concrete than the established and standardized
workability related tests such as the slump test.
Figure 2.7: Typical Rheometer Configurations (Koehler, 2009a)
Although the concrete industry has been developing technology to measure the rheological
properties of fresh concrete since the 1970s (Tattersall and Banfill, 1983), a test method for
using a rheometer has not been standardized yet, as the use of preceding rheometer prototypes in
the field have been scarce due to their high costs, and large, non-portable sizes (Koehler and
Fowler, 2005). Since this technology is also still developing, there are multiple designs and
prototypes of rheometers, that can have different results for the same concrete sample, that make
it difficult to standardize rheological properties testing (Koehler and Fowler, 2005). This ICAR
rheometer has been designed to be a portable size and low in cost (Koehler and Fowler, 2005). It
has tolerance ranges of 6 mm to 40 mm for maximum aggregate size; 50 mm to SCC for slump;
and 0.001 rps to 0.6 rps for vane rotation speed (Rheocentric Concrete Technologies, 2007). It
was been tested and developed based on the results of over 100 concrete mixture types with
various materials and applications (multiple aggregate sources and gradations, use of fly ash,
silica fume, ground granulated blast furnace slag, and air-entraining, viscosity modifying, and
23
water reducing admixtures) and expected workabilities (ranging from 50 mm to SCC) to

successfully demonstrate its effectiveness (Koehler and Fowler, 2004). There were seven
aggregate sources that were tested that included: coarse aggregate of river gravel, crushed
limestone, and blast furnace slag; crushed limestone intermediate aggregate (same source as
coarse); and fine aggregate of natural sand and granite manufactured sand (Koehler and Fowler,
2004). It should be noted that even though the minimum tolerance for slump is 50 mm, this
rheometer increases in effectiveness with increasing slump as the concrete mixtures will tend to
act increasingly like a homogeneous fluid (Koehler and Fowler, 2004).
For the ICAR rheometer, the volume of the container used is dependent on the maximum
nominal aggregate size in the concrete sample to be tested. When the rheometer and vane
apparatus is in position, as shown in Figure 2.8, the gap size between the vane and the top of the
concrete sample, as well as the bottom and sides of the container must be at least four times the
maximum aggregate size in distance to make certain that there is proper uniformity throughout
the concrete sample (Germann Instruments, 2008). This optimal gap size was determined by
experimentation with several different concrete mixtures with a 1-inch maximum aggregate size,
ranging from gap sizes of 2.5 to 5.5 (Koehler and Fowler, 2004). The torque results were
affected more with a smaller gap size by interlocking effects of the aggregate, and hence the
smallest gap size with minimal aggregate effects was chosen of four times the maximum
aggregate size (illustrated in Figure 2.8) (Koehler and Fowler, 2004). The container also has
evenly spaced plastic vertical strips around its inner wall to prevent the sample from slipping
and rotating with the vane as shown in Figure 2.8 (Germann Instruments, 2008).
Figure 2.8: Optimal Vane and Container Geometry (Koehler, 2009b)

24
To measure the dynamic yield stress and plastic viscosity, the Bingham model was chosen to be
used to develop the flow curve behaviour for the ICAR Rheometer software, as opposed to the
Herschel-Bulkley, Power-Law (Shear Thickening), Newtonian, and Power-Law (Shear
Thinning) models (shown in Figure 2.9) because of its accuracy and simplicity in establishing a
linear relationship between shear stress and shear rate, and also because it includes dynamic
yield stress as a parameter (Koehler and Fowler, 2004).
= 0 + a& b
= 0 + &
= a& b
= &
= a& b
Figure 2.9: Flow Curves of Theoretical Models Applicable for Concrete (Koehler, 2009c)
It is a possibility that not all the concrete material will flow during testing of dynamic yield
stress and plastic viscosity, and a dead zone is created, as shown in Figure 2.10. However, these
cases are accounted for in the ICAR rheometer software provided.
Figure 2.10: Coaxial Cylinder Configuration for Both Cases of All Material Flowing and Not All Material
Flowing (Koehler and Fowler, 2004)
25
Since fresh concrete exhibits thixotropic characteristics, it can return to its static yield stress, and
if the sample is left to remain static without any shear strain applied, it will follow the same
behaviour to the dynamic yield stress (Rheocentric Concrete Technologies, 2006). Therefore,
rheometer testing can be repeated. However, it is important to note that with time, starting from
when the water made contact with the cement, continuing cement hydration and the diminishing
performance of water-reducing admixtures will increase both the static and dynamic yield
stresses (Rheocentric Concrete Technologies, 2006). Although test results are affected by the
shear history of the concrete material, comparing between rounds of testing will provide
information about the segregation potential and water-reducing admixtures effectiveness.
Variability in test results due to shear history can be reduced by rodding or vibrating to help
uniformly compact the concrete sample (Koehler and Fowler, 2004).
Critical feedback was given during the development of the ICAR rheometer about how the
rheological properties like plastic viscosity and yield stress translate for dry-consistency
concrete mixtures that have slumps less than 100 mm, and would rather know what the energy
required to initiate or move concrete, and keep the concrete cohesive (Koehler and Fowler,
2004). The development criteria for the ICAR rheometer based on feedback from industry,
government and academia, as well as existing workability tests, were: be able to measure static
and dynamic properties accurately for a wide range of slumps and aggregate sizes; be a durable
piece of equipment that can be used on a construction site; be a cost-effective option; fast;
simple to use for one person; portable; and parameter calculating software (Koehler and Fowler,
2004). During the development process, six types of impellers were tested with various concrete
mixtures, and the vane with 127 mm (5 in.) height and diameter was chosed because it was the
best a minimizing segregation compared to the egg-beater, half egg-beater, offset egg-beater,
joint compound paddle, and spiral (Koehler and Fowler, 2004). The segregation in the concrete
was identified by the reduction in torque over time, which is due primarily to structural
breakdown (aggregate particles falling out of cement paste suspension) of the material (Koehler
and Fowler, 2004). A low torque may indicate that only a small section of the sample is moving
(Koehler and Fowler, 2004), meaning that that the sample has segregated.
From a previous study for evaluating and trying to define good or acceptable rheological values,
workability boxes for plastic viscosity vs. yield stress were defined based on a visual assessment
of segregation resistance rating, and overall workability (combination of visual assessment of
26
segregation resistance, flowability, richness, bleeding, and finishability) (Koehler and Fowler,
2004). All workability boxes could not clearly classify an acceptable range of rheological values
as some acceptable mixes were not included in the boxes while bad mixes were (Koehler and
Fowler, 2004). However, a wide range of concrete mixes were evaluated collectively rather than
separating the concrete mixes based on their specific characteristics like cementitious materials
used, w/c, paste content, water-reducing admixtures used and their dosages. In summary, an
acceptable range of rheological properties could not be defined.
It is not only important to achieve adequate workability, but also to retain it for a desirable
length of time. There are several factors that affect workability retention including; type and
dosage of high-range water reducers (most notably polycarboxylate-based high-range water
reducers) and set retarders; cementitious material; weather conditions; construction practices;
and rheology where a more viscous concrete is more likely to have longer workability retention
(Koehler and Fowler, 2007). However, if a low yield stress is maintained with high dosages of
high-range water reducing, as well as set retarding admixtures for SCC, formwork pressures
would be high and close to hydrostatic pressure (Koehler, Keller, and Gardner, 2007). Although,
dynamic and static yield stress will inevitably increase with time as hydration progresses, and
the effectiveness of the admixtures reduces, and thixotropy specifically for static yield stress.
2.5 Influence of Aggregate Shape and Texture

With every aggregate source, the shape and texture will vary. These aggregate characteristics
significantly affect the packing ability of the individual aggregates, as well as of the combined
aggregate blends, and thus individual and combined aggregate gradations (De Larrard, 1999;
Dewar, 1999; Harrison, 2004). Consequently, they have a significant effect on both fresh and
hardened concrete properties including workability, finishability, pumpability, segregation
potential, density, strength, drying shrinkage, and permeability (Quiroga, 2003). Round or
cubical, smooth particles, as opposed to elongated or angular, flaky particles, will produce
concrete mixtures with better workability, pumpability, finishability, strength and less shrinkage
(Shilstone, 1990).
It was proposed from previous research that texture alone did not have a signficant effect on
rheology (Tattersall, 1991) or workability (Koehler and Fowler, 2007); however, shape alone
does significantly effect rheology and workability (Tattersall, 1991). Spherical particles have the
27
lowest specific surface area, resulting in less demand for cement paste. Generally, less cement
paste demand will reduce the resistance to flow, which will decrease both the yield stress and
plastic viscosity.
2.6 Bulk Resistivity

Two resistivity tests were used for this study to indirectly measure the permeability, and
therefore the durability, of the concrete specimens by the relation of current to the continuity
and conductivity of the saturated capillary pore system and pore fluid (Hooton, 2001): the Rapid
Chloride Permeability Test (RCPT) and the Merlin Bulk Conductivity Test.
The RCPT is destructive, uses an instantaneous 60 V direct current (DC), and also measures the
bulk electrical conductivity of a specimen by measuring the current over six hours (at 5 minute
intervals) to calculate the charge passed by integration. The Merlin Bulk Conductivity Test is
non-destructive (does not affect the composition or properties of the concrete specimen), uses an
alternating current (AC), and can measure the instantaneous bulk electrical conductivity or
resistivity of a sample.
Calculating the bulk conductivity from the initial current (within t < 1 min) measured during
RCPT, follows the same methodology as the Merlin test, and was found from previous research
to have a strong linear relationship with the charge passed calculated over the six hours of
testing, as represented by dots in Figure 2.11 (Germann Instruments, 2010).
Figure 2.11: Correlation of Charge Passed vs. Conductivity (of initial RCPT) (Germann Instruments, 2010)
28
When comparing the actual charge passed to the theoretical charge passed using the same bulk
conductivity value and Equations 3.4 and 3.6 (which assumes that current is constant over the
six hours), there is a slight divergence starting at 6 mS/m that becomes greater with increasing
conductivity, as shown in Figure 2.11 represented by the lines (Germann Instruments, 2010).
This is due to the assumption that current is constant over the six hours when in reality the
temperature of the pore fluid increases due to heat release from ion-ion and ion-solid collisions,
therefore increasing the current flow (Nokken and Hooton, 2006).
Therefore, Merlin bulk conductivity measurements should be most comparable to the bulk
conductivity calculated from the RCPTs initial current, rather than comparing the charge
passed over the six hours of testing from RCPT to the calculated charge passed from Merlins
bulk conductivity measurements. However, previous research has shown that a strong linear
correlation exists between the bulk conductivity calculated from the RCPTs initial current and
the charge passed over the six hours of testing.
29
Chapter 3
Experimental
3
3.1 Materials for Laboratory Testing
3.1.1 Cementitious Material
Three cementitious material products were used for this study: General Use (GU) Portland
cement, ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS), and blended GU Portland cement with
8% silica fume. All the products were supplied by Holcim from the Mississauga cement plant.
The relative densities found in Table 3.1 were used for mixture proportioning calculations, and
were provided by Holcim.
Table 3.1: Cementitious Material Properties

Cementitious Material Relative
Density
General Use (GU) cement 3.15
GranCem (GGBFS) 2.89
Hydraulic Portland/Silica Fume
(HSF) cement (blended GU 3.00
cement with 8% silica fume)
3.1.2 Coarse Aggregate

The coarse aggregate used for this study was supplied by Holcim, from the Dufferin
Aggregates Milton quarry. Two gradation test reports were provided by Dufferin Aggregates
for the 19.0 mm crushed dolomitic limestone concrete stone sampled from two different
stockpiles in November 2009. This source is typically supplied and used for concrete. There
were three rounds of pre-washed aggregate supply that were used for this study. The first round
was delivered by truck load in the summer of 2010, and was deposited into a hopper with an
approximate capacity of 1 m3, which was then lowered into a bin with an approximate capacity
of 0.5 m3 shown in Figure 3.1.
30
Figure 3.1: Hopper Opening and Bin for 19.0 mm Coarse Aggregate
Once the bin was close to being empty, the hopper would be opened to replenish the bin. The
second round was delivered in December 2010 in 20 kg sample bags, and was very similar
visually to the first round in terms of colour and shape. The third round was delivered by truck
load in January 2011, and was darker in colour, more cubic in shape, and less angular than the
first and second rounds by visual inspection. A previous research project from the International
Center for Aggregates Research (ICAR) created a guideline for visually assessing the shape and
angularity of any aggregate, shown in Figure 3.2, to develop a guideline for SCC mixture
proportioning with various aggregate characteristics (Koehler and Fowler, 2007).
Figure 3.2: Guideline for Visually Assessing Shape and Angularity of Aggregate (Koehler and Fowler, 2007)
31
Based on Figure 3.2, the first and second rounds had a rating of 4 while the third round had a
rating of 3. Samples of each round of coarse aggregate supply are shown in Figure 3.3 to Figure
3.5.
Figure 3.3: Round #1 of Coarse Aggregate Supply: Sieved, Left: 9.5 mm clear, Right: 4.75 mm clear
Figure 3.4: Round #2 of Coarse Aggregate Supply

32
Figure 3.5: Round #3 of Coarse Aggregate Supply
The mixing timeline of the current study (Table 3.2) shows the round of coarse aggregate supply
used by stage, and workability and casting mixtures.
Table 3.2: Mixing Timeline and Coarse Aggregate Supply Used

Workability Casting
Coarse Coarse
Stage
Time Aggregate Time Aggregate
Supply Used Supply Used
1 Oct. 22, 10 - Nov. 12, 10 Supply #1 Jan. 4, 11 - Jan. 12, 11 Supply #2
2 Dec. 3, 10 - Dec. 9, 10 Supply #2 Jan. 18, 11 - Jan. 25, 11 Supply #3
3 Dec. 15, 10 - Jan. 5, 11 Supply #2 Jan. 12, 11 - Jan. 17, 11 Supply #2*
4 Mar. 24, 11 - May 12, 11 Supply #3 Jan. 26, 11 - Jan. 31, 11** Supply #3
* Except for Mix #41, this used coarse aggregate from Supply #3
** Re-cast of Mix #47 prisms, and Mix #50 prisms and cylinders on May 12, 2011, this used coarse aggregate
from Supply #3
In the preliminary experimental research plan for this study, a representative particle size
distribution based on the gradations determined from Dufferin Aggregates two stockpiles
(Table 3.3) was to be sieved out for each mixture to decrease variability between mixtures.
However, for this research to be as practical as possible, it is more applicable to take a
representative sample of the aggregate supply provided rather than sieve out the individual sized
particles to fit a specific gradation. After conducting three sieve analyses of the first round of
aggregate supply (with different representative samples used), the particle size distributions
were similar enough that the aggregate could be used as is, and the variability of sampling
33
gradations would be controlled. The particle size distributions, absorptions and densities for all
aggregate supplies used for this study are shown in Table 3.3. All material properties were
measured by the author in the University of Torontos laboratory facilities, with the exception of
the two Dufferin Aggregates stockpiles particle size distributions, which were measured at the
Milton quarry. All coarse aggregate supplies pass the OPSS 1002 grading requirements.
Table 3.3: Properties of Coarse Aggregate Used For Study

Supply #2,
Dufferin Dufferin Supply #1, Bin Supply #3, Bin
Sample Bags
Aggregates Aggregates (Oct. 22, 10 - (Jan. 17, 11
(Dec. 2, 10 -
Stockpile #1 Stockpile #2 Nov. 26, 10) May 12, 11)
Jan. 17, 11)
Sieve Size
% Passing
[mm]
26.5 100 100 100 100 100
19 94 90 88 89 96
16 81 71 70 69 85
9.5 37 28 23 30 33
4.75 5 5 3 3 2
Pan 0 0 0 0 0
Absorption N/A N/A 1.41% 1.57% 1.85%

Relative
N/A N/A 2.72 2.72 2.72
Density (SSD)
Rodded Bulk
Density (SSD) N/A N/A 1607 1565 1617
[kg/m3]
Loose Bulk
Density (SSD) N/A N/A 1540 1464 1518
[kg/m3]
The sieve analyses conducted at the University of Torontos laboratory followed the procedure
from the CSA A23.2-2A Sieve Analysis of fine and coarse aggregate standard. For all particle
size distributions, the material finer than the 75 m sieve by washing was 1%, and therefore is
below the maximum acceptance requirement of 2.0% as stipulated in OPSS 1002 for crushed
rock. The procedure of LS-601 Materials Finer than 75 m Sieve in Mineral Aggregates by
Washing was used to check this requirement. These particle size distributions were used for
determining the aggregate material proportions for all of the optimization techniques used. The
absorption and relative density tests followed the procedure from the CSA A23.2-12A Relative
density and absorption of coarse aggregate standard, and were used for the theoretical particle
packing model optimization techniques and all aggregate material mixture proportioning. All
absorption values were below the maximum acceptance requirement of 2.0% as stipulated in
OPSS 1002. The rodded and loose bulk density tests followed the procedure from the CSA
34
A23.2-10A Bulk density of aggregate standard with a slight modification to Supply #2 and
#3s densities of measuring in the oven-dried condition then multiplying the mass by the
absorption to calculate the densities in the saturated surface dry condition. The loose bulk
densities were used for determining the aggregate material proportions for the theoretical
particle packing model optimization techniques.
3.1.3 Fine Aggregate

The fine aggregate used for this study was also supplied by Holcim, from the Dufferin
Aggregates Mill Creek pit. A gradation test report was provided by Dufferin Aggregates for
this natural sand from November 2009. This source is typically supplied and used for concrete.
There was only one delivery of fine aggregate used, therefore there were no issues with
continuity of material properties throughout the experimental research. The aggregate supply
was delivered by truck load in the summer of 2010, and was deposited into a hopper and bin
system as shown in Figure 3.6, identical to the first and third rounds of coarse aggregate supply.
Figure 3.6: Hopper Opening and Bin for Fine Aggregate
Based on the guideline for visually assessing the shape and angularity of any aggregate from the
ICAR research as shown in Figure 3.2, the sand had a rating of 1. A sample of the fine aggregate
is shown in Figure 3.7.
35
Figure 3.7: Fine Aggregate Supply
distribution based on the gradation determined from Dufferin Aggregates stockpile, shown in
Table 3.4, was to be sieved out for each mixture to decrease variability between mixtures.
particles to fit a specific gradation. After conducting three sieve analyses of the aggregate
supply (with different representative samples used), the particle size distributions were similar
enough that the aggregate could be used as is, and the variability of sampling gradations would
be controlled. The average particle size distribution, absorption and densities for the fine
aggregate used for this study are shown in Table 3.4. All material properties were measured by
the author in the University of Torontos laboratory facilities, and compared to the Dufferin
Aggregates data on particle size distribution, measured at the Mill Creek pit. The fine aggregate
passes the OPSS 1002 grading requirements.
36
Table 3.4: Properties of Fine Aggregate Used For Study

Dufferin U of T Lab
Aggregates (Oct. 22, 10 -
Stockpile May 12, 11)
Sieve Size [mm] % Passing
9.5 100 100
6.7 100 100
4.75 100 99
2.36 90 89
1.18 71 67
0.6 48 44
0.3 20 18
0.15 5 5
0.075 1 2
Pan 0 0
Fineness Modulus N/A 2.8

Absorption N/A 1.11%
Relative Density (SSD) N/A 2.73
Rodded Bulk Density
N/A 1885
(SSD) [kg/m3]
Loose Bulk Density
N/A 1744
(SSD) [kg/m3]
The sieve analyses conducted at the University of Torontos laboratory followed the procedure
from the CSA A23.2-2A Sieve Analysis of fine and coarse aggregate standard. The average
particle size distribution shown in Table 3.4 was used for determining the aggregate material
proportions for all the optimization techniques used. The absorption and relative density tests
followed the procedure from the CSA A23.2-6A Relative density and absorption of fine
aggregate standard, and were used for all aggregate material mixture proportioning. The rodded
and loose bulk density tests followed the procedure from the CSA A23.2-10A Bulk density of
aggregate standard with a slight modification of measuring the densities in the oven-dried
condition then multiplying the mass by the absorption to calculate the densities in the saturated
surface dry condition. The loose bulk densities were used for determining the aggregate material
proportions for the theoretical particle packing model optimization techniques.
3.1.4 Intermediate Aggregate

The intermediate aggregate used for this study was also supplied by Holcim, from the Dufferin
Aggregates Milton quarry. A gradation test report was provided by Dufferin Aggregates for the
chip material in October 2009. This source was washed residual material from the coarse
37
aggregate crushed dolomitic limestone used for this study. Several sample bags, each 20kg,
were supplied to the University of Toronto. There was only one aggregate supply that was used,
therefore there were no issues with continuity of material properties throughout the experimental
research.
Based on the guideline for visually assessing the shape and angularity of any aggregate from the
ICAR research as shown in Figure 3.2, the intermediate aggregate had a rating of 4. A sample of
the fine aggregate is shown in Figure 3.8.
Figure 3.8: Intermediate Aggregate Supply
distribution based on the gradation determined from Dufferin Aggregates stockpile, shown in
Table 3.5, was to be sieved out for each mixture to decrease variability between mixtures.
particles to fit a specific gradation. After conducting three sieve analyses of the aggregate
supply (with different representative samples used), the particle size distributions were similar
enough that the aggregate could be used as is, and the variability of sampling gradations would
be controlled. The average particle size distribution, absorption and densities for the
intermediate aggregate used for this study are shown in Table 3.5. All material properties were
measured by the author in the University of Torontos laboratory facilities, and compared to
Dufferin Aggregates data on particle size distribution, measured at the Milton quarry. The
38
intermediate aggregate does not pass the OPSS 1002 grading requirements for fine aggregates,
and is significantly coarser. An intermediate aggregate with a coarser gradation was chosen to
be used to fill in the intermediate sizes (2.36 mm to 9.5 mm) of the combined gradation all the
concrete mixtures. It should be noted, however, that the intermediate aggregate does fit the
OPSS 1002 grading requirements for coarse aggregate for structural concrete, sidewalks, and
curb and gutters for a nominal maximum size of 6.7 mm.
Table 3.5: Properties of Intermediate Aggregate Used For Study

Dufferin U of T Lab
Aggregates (Oct. 22, 10 -
Stockpile May 12, 11)
Sieve Size [mm] % Passing
9.5 100 100
6.7 90 94
4.75 65 60
2.36 16 14
1.18 4 3
0.6 2 1
0.3 1 1
0.15 1 1
0.075 1 1
Pan 0 0
Fineness Modulus N/A 5.2

Absorption N/A 1.79%
Relative Density (SSD) 2.73
Rodded Bulk Density
N/A 1552
(SSD) [kg/m3]
Loose Bulk Density
N/A 1448
(SSD) [kg/m3]
The sieve analyses conducted at the University of Torontos laboratory followed the fine
aggregates procedure from the CSA A23.2-2A Sieve Analysis of fine and coarse aggregate
standard. The average particle size distribution shown in Table 3.5 was used for determining the
aggregate material proportions for all the optimization techniques used. The absorption and
relative density tests followed the procedure from the CSA A23.2-6A Relative density and
absorption of fine aggregate standard, and were used for all aggregate material mixture
proportioning. The rodded and loose bulk density tests followed the procedure from the CSA
A23.2-10A Bulk density of aggregate standard with a slight modification of measuring the
densities in the oven-dried condition then multiplying the mass by the absorption to calculate the
39
densities in the saturated surface dry condition. The loose bulk densities were used for
determining the aggregate material proportions for the theoretical particle packing model
optimization techniques.
3.1.5 Chemical Admixtures

All admixtures were supplied by Holcim, and produced by the Euclid Chemical Company. Four
admixtures were used: Eucon WR, Eucon 37, Eucon 727, and Airextra. The classifications,
compositions and relative densities of the chemical admixtures used for this study are shown in
Table 3.6. All product information from Table 3.6 was found from the technical and material
safety data sheets found on the Euclid Chemical Companys website
(www.euclidchemical.com). The relative densities were used for all chemical admixture
proportioning.
Table 3.6: Properties of Chemical Admixtures Used For Study
ASTM C-494 Purpose for Composition [wt %] Relative

Product
Classification Use Density
> 60% Water
15-40% Calcium lignosulfonate
Eucon 10-30% Sodium lignosulfonate
Type A Water reducer 1.185
WR
1-5% Triethanolamine
< 1% 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
(PCMC)
Superplasticizer/ 40-70% Water
Eucon
Type F High range 30-60% Naphthalene sulfonate 1.203
37
water reducer
1-5% Sodium sulfate
Eucon Water reducer Double metallo-organic salt derived
Type D 1.160
727 and set retarder from hydroxycarboxylic acids
Airextra - Air entrainer Liquid solution of sulfonated fatty 1.007

acids
3.2 Mix Designs

As previously stated, the experimental programme for the current study was divided into four
stages with two stages using the two typical MTO bridge deck mixture proportions (for 35 MPa
and 50 MPa compressive strengths), and two stages using variations of the control mixture
proportions with reduced cement content and increased total aggregate content. Within each
40
stage, binary and ternary aggregate blends were optimized using the following existing
optimization techniques: the Modified Toufar and Theory of Particle Mixtures by Dewar
particle packing models, the Talbots Grading Curve (Power Chart), and Shilstones Coarseness
Factor Chart. Both the Coarseness Factor Chart and 8-18 Distribution were used to evaluate the
combined gradations produced from the above optimization techniques. Each mix design was
first batched for specifically looking at fresh concrete properties, and if the mix design displayed
good workability characteristics then the mix was batched again for casting cylinders and prisms
to evaluate hardened concrete properties. The evaluation of good workability characteristics will
be described in Section 3.8.
Stage 1 mixes batched for workability testing were the first set of mixes to be tested. The mixes
batched for workability testing for the remaining stages followed sequentially. The mix design
lists for Stages 2 and 3 were governed by the success of Stage 1s workability results, while
Stage 4 was governed by Stage 3s success.
The subsections to follow will describe in detail how the optimization techniques were used to
develop optimized binary and ternary aggregate blends, as well as explain the approach used to
developing the mix design list. A master list of all concrete mixture design proportions can be
found in Appendix A.
3.3 Use of Existing Optimization Techniques to Design Mixtures

The following subsections describe how the existing optimization techniques previously
described in the literature review were used to design and/or evaluate mixtures for this
experimental programme. All techniques outputted the volume proportions of the individual
aggregate materials.
3.3.1 Modified Toufar Particle Packing Model

This technique was used to design the binary and ternary aggregate blend volume proportions by
maximizing the packing degree of the combined gradation. The individual aggregate properties
required to be input for this particle packing model are the particle size distribution, relative
density (in SSD condition), and loose bulk density (in SSD condition).
A spreadsheet in Excel was developed using the Solver function to maximize the packing degree
and output the volume proportions for the individual aggregate materials, which can be seen in
41
Appendix B. The coarse aggregate material information inputted into Appendix B is that of
Supply #1. This spreadsheet has been formatted for the application of binary and ternary
blending for any two or three aggregate sources.
3.3.2 Theory of Particle Mixtures Particle Packing Model

minimizing the voids ratio of the combined gradation. The same inputs are required for this
particle packing model as the Modified Toufar model.
A spreadsheet in Excel was also developed, as shown in Appendix C; however, the Solver
function was not required to minimize the voids ratio and output the volume proportions for the
individual aggregate materials. The coarse aggregate material information inputted into
Appendix C is that of Supply #1. This spreadsheet has been formatted for the application of
binary and ternary blending for any two or three aggregate sources.
3.3.3 Talbots Grading Curve

fitting the maximum density line of the combined gradation to the target gradation of Talbots
grading curve (also known as the Power chart) for a series of grading type factors. The
individual aggregate property required to be inputted for this technique is the particle size
distribution.
For this study, a series of n values of 0.4, 0.45, 0.5 and 0.55 were chosen for designing mixes, so
that not only would the 0.45 and 0.5 optimal curves be looked at, but also a finer (0.4) and
coarser (0.55) be looked at. This is because the source of aggregate used will affect the
effectiveness of this method in terms of choosing the best n value for finding the maximum
density.
A spreadsheet in Excel was developed using the Solver function to fit the maximum density line
of a combined gradation to the target gradation calculated by the Equation 2.13 of the specified
ns grading curve, where D = 25.0 mm, as shown in Appendix D. The maximum density line
starts from the origin and continues to the maximum sieve size, using the combined particle size
gradation as the y-values, and sieve size raised to the nth power as the x-values. Solver was used
to minimize the deviation between fitting: i) the complete and ii) only intermediate sized
42
particles combined gradation by mass to the target gradation. The mass proportions used for
blending were translated to volume proportions using the material grain densities (relative
densities multiplied by density of water @ 4C). The coarse aggregate material information
input into Appendix D is that of Supply #1.
Both minimization methods yielded consistent volume proportion results for both binary and
ternary aggregate material blends with except for ternary blends for n values of 0.4 and 0.45.
Therefore, the full combined gradation for fitting to the target gradation was used for final mix
design proportioning. This spreadsheet has been formatted for the application of binary and
ternary blending for any two or three aggregate sources.
Figure 3.9 to Figure 3.12 illustrate graphically Talbots Grading Curves for all eight cases, and
how the combined aggregate gradation fits to the maximum density line. Note that the abscissa
is sieve size to the power of n. The combined aggregate gradations for both binary and ternary
blends fit closely to their respective maximum density lines; however, the ternary blends are
significantly closer.
Figure 3.9: Talbots Grading Curve Chart for Combined Binary and Ternary Aggregate Blends of n = 0.40
43
44
3.3.4 Shilstones Coarseness Factor Chart

This technique was used to design and also evaluate the quality of the combined gradations
produced from all optimization techniques. As previously mentioned, the Coarseness Factor
Chart was developed based on previous experimental work where the mixes all had a
cementitious content of 564 lb/yd3 (334 kg/m3) (TxDOT, 2006). For this study, adjustments to
the workability factors were made to every stage as stipulated in Section 2.2.2 due to the
variations in cementitious content. The mix designs generated by the use of the previous three
optimization techniques (Modified Toufar Model, Theory of Particle Mixtures Model, and
Talbots Grading Curve) were first evaluated. The zone of Stage 1s 35 MPa control mixture on
the Coarseness Factor Chart varied depending on coarse aggregate source used. For Supply #1,
it was located in Zone 4, and for Supply #2, Zone 2. The zone of Stage 3s 50 MPa control
mixture is in Zone 4, close to the dividing line between Zone 2. Stages 2 and 4s control based
mixtures are both in Zone 2.
For Stage 1, it was found that the binary aggregate blended mix designs points on the
Coarseness Factor Chart, as denoted by circles in Figure 3.13, clustered to the top left corner of
Zone 2 and Zone 4 (spreading from the bottom to off the chart), with Mix #11 (Talbots Grading
Curve, binary, n = 0.55) using coarse aggregate Supply #2 the only binary blend fitting within
the workability box. Mix #s 2-A2 (Modified Toufar, binary, Supply #2 coarse aggregate only), 4
(Theory of Particle Mixtures, ternary) and 8 (Talbots Grading Curve, binary, n = 0.4) do not
45
plot within the chart as their workability factors are higher than 45.0. The lowest and highest
coarseness factors were 64.4 and 73.7 respectively, and the lowest and highest workability
factors were 35.6 and 55.2.
Figure 3.13: Stage 1 Mix Plan Plotted on Coarseness Factor Chart
The ternary aggregate blended mix design points on the Coarseness Factor Chart, denoted by
triangles in Figure 3.13, are more scattered than the binary points; however, binary and ternary
point clustered areas do not overlap (ternary points have smaller coarseness factors). The
majority of the ternary points are in Zone 2 (in, above and below the workability box); however,
there were some found in Zone 5. Mix #s in the workability box are 5-A1 (Modified Toufar,
ternary, Supply #1 coarse aggregate only) and 13 (Talbots Grading Curve, ternary, n = 0.45).
The lowest and highest coarseness factors are 46.9 and 59.8 respectively, and the lowest and
highest workability factors are 25.3 and 40.3. It should be noted that the maximum coarseness
factor possible (coarse aggregate mass proportion is 1.0) for coarse aggregate Supply #1 crosses
through Zones 4, 5 and most notably Zone 1, while Supply #1 limits blends to Zone 2
46
(difference in coarseness factor values of 7.2). Therefore, the choice of coarse aggregate is
significant in the evaluation and design of concrete mixtures with the Coarseness Factor Chart.
To re-iterate, the mix designs used for Stage 2 were based on the success of Stage 1s mix
designs. From Figure 3.14, for Stage 2, all mixtures were above the workability box spread in
Zones 2 and 4. The binary aggregate blend points are clustered towards the centre of Zone 2 and
up to Zone 4 (spreading from the bottom to off the chart). Mix #31 (Theory of Particle Mixtures,
binary) does not plot within the chart as its workability factor is higher than 45.0. The lowest
and highest coarseness factors were 61.2 and 66.3 respectively, and the lowest and highest
workability factors were 37.4 and 53.9. The ternary aggregate blend points are in Zone 2, but do
not overlap with the binary points (ternary points have smaller coarseness factors). The lowest
and highest coarseness factors were 46.9 and 54.4 respectively, and all workability factors were
38.9.

47
To re-iterate, the mix designs used for Stage 3 were based on the success of Stage 1s mix
designs. From Figure 3.15, for Stage 3, all mixtures were above the workability box spread in
Zones 2 and 4. The binary aggregate blend points are clustered in Zone 4, spreading from the
bottom to off the chart. Mix # 33 (Talbots Grading Curve, binary, n = 0.45), 34 (Modified
Toufar, binary), 39 (Theory of Particle Mixtures, binary) and 40 (Talbots Grading Curve,
binary, n = 0.4) does not plot within the chart as their workability factors are higher than 45.0.
The lowest and highest coarseness factors are 61.2 and 67.0 respectively, and the lowest and
highest workability factors are 40.2 and 59.9. The ternary aggregate blend points are in Zone 2
and Zone 4, but do not overlap with the binary points (ternary points have smaller coarseness
factors). The lowest and highest coarseness factors were 46.9 and 54.4 respectively, and the
lowest and highest workability factors were 39.7 and 44.9.
To re-iterate, the mix designs used for Stage 4 were based on the success of the Stage 3 mix
designs. From Figure 3.16, for Stage 4, the binary aggregate blend points are clustered in Zones
48
2 and 4, with Mix #51 (Talbots Grading Curve, binary, n = 0.55) binary blend fitting within the
workability box. The lowest and highest coarseness factors were 62.3 and 64.4 respectively, and
the lowest and highest workability factors were 35.5 and 44.9. The ternary aggregate blend
points are all in Zone 2, but do not overlap with the binary points (ternary points have smaller
coarseness factors). Mix #52 (Talbots Grading Curve, ternary, n = 0.45) is the only ternary
blended mix in the workability box. The lowest and highest coarseness factors were 46.7 and
52.1 respectively, and the lowest and highest workability factors were 36.3 and 41.6.
Once all of the previous optimization techniques were evaluated, points on the CF Chart were
chosen in Zone 2 in the gaps where none of the previous optimization techniques reached. A
total of seven mixes were designed using the Coarseness Factor Chart and particle size
distributions of the individual aggregates. These mixes are denoted by diamonds for binary and
squares for ternary blends in Figure 3.13 to Figure 3.16.
49
3.3.5 8-18 Distribution Chart

Previous research also indicated that this optimization technique would not necessarily produce
mix designs that would yield meaningful results. Therefore, this technique was used only to
evaluate the quality of the combined gradations produced from all optimization techniques as
this was recommended through past studies. Since the maximum aggregate size used for this
study was 25.0mm, distribution charts with an upper limit of 22% rather that 18% were used
(lower limit remained 8%).
None of the mix designs optimized by the previous techniques (Modified Toufar Model, Theory
of Particle Mixtures Model, Talbots Grading Curve, and Coarseness Factor Chart) fell
completely within the 8-22 Distribution Charts limits. Figure 3.17 and Figure 3.18 exemplify
how the 35 MPa and 50 MPa control mixes combined gradations fit of within the limits of the
8-22 Distribution Chart. It was found that for most of the 8-22 Distribution Charts that the 2.36
mm and 9.5 mm individual % retained values for the combined gradations were out of the
limits, and the Supply #2 coarse aggregate, as compared to the two other coarse aggregate
supplies, was the closest to fitting within the distributions limits. Therefore, the choice of
aggregate sources used is important.
Figure 3.17: 8-22 Distribution Chart for Binary 35 MPa Control Mix
50
Figure 3.18: 8-22 Distribution Chart for Binary 50 MPa Control Mix
The ternary blends generally drew the sections of the combined binary gradations that were out
of the limits closer to the limits. However, none of the combined ternary gradations still fell
completely within the limits. The mix design with the combined gradation closest to falling with
the distribution limits is the ternary Modified Toufar Particle Packing Model blend, as shown in
Figure 3.19 to Figure 3.21 with the three coarse aggregate supplies. Figure 3.19 to Figure 3.21
also show the high sensitivity of this optimization technique to the aggregate material chosen,
where Supply #2 of the coarse aggregate was the closest to falling within the distribution limits.
51
Figure 3.19: 8-22 Distribution Chart for Ternary Blend Using the Modified Toufar Particle Packing Model
with Coarse Aggregate Supply #1
52
The four binary Talbots Grading Curve mix designs had generally the same combined
gradation shape, but as the n value increased, the individual % retained on the 9.5 mm sieve
increased farther above the 22% limit. The four ternary Talbots Grading Curve mix designs
also had generally the same combined gradation shape, and as the n value increased, the same
trend as found from the binary mix designs occurred.
3.4 Range of Designed Combined Aggregate Gradations

From all of the current studys design mixes, including the 35 MPa and 50 MPa control mixes
and optimized mixes (binary and ternary) using the Modified Toufar particle packing model,
Theory of Particle Mixtures by Dewar, Talbots Grading Curve (n = 0.40, 0.45, 0.50 and 0.55),
and Shilstone's Coarseness Factor Chart, the range of the combined gradations from the
complete mix design list using the three aggregate sources individual gradations is shown in
Table 3.7. For a complete list of all combined gradations used for this current, refer to Appendix
E.
53
Table 3.7: Range of Combined Gradations Used in the Current Study
% Passing
Range of Combined
Sieve
Individual Materials Gradations from
Size
Mix Design List
[mm]
19.0 mm Concrete Stone 6.7 mm Concrete
Min Max
Supply #1 Supply #2 Supply #3 Chip Sand
26.5 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
19 88 89 96 100 100 92 98
16 70 69 85 100 100 79 94
9.5 23 30 33 100 100 47 73
6.7 - - - 94 100 39 65
4.75 3 3 2 60 99 32 60
2.36 - - - 14 89 24 54
1.18 - - - 3 67 17 41
0.6 - - - 1 44 11 27
0.3 - - - 1 18 5 12
0.15 - - - 1 5 2 3
0.075 - - - 1 2 1 2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.5 Concrete Mix Design Methodology

All mixes were designed using the absolute volume method for mixture proportioning.
For the control mixtures for the Stage 1 35 MPa and the Stage 3 50 MPa mixes used the
cementitious, water, air and coarse aggregate contents, and Eucon WR (water reducer) dosage as
prescribed by Holcim. For the 35 MPa control mixture, the prescribed Eucon 37
(superplasticizer) dosage by Holcim was used; however for 50 MPa mixtures, dosages for
Eucon 37 and Eucon 727 (set retarder) were determined by trial and error. The Airextra (air
entraining admixture) dosage was added to both mixtures, and the fine aggregate content for
both mixtures were calculated by subtracting the absolute volumes of all materials and air from
one cubic metre.
For all other mixtures, the volume proportions for all individual aggregate materials were
calculated using the optimization techniques. As previously stated, a master list of all concrete
mixture design proportions can be found in Appendix A.
54
3.5.1 Stage 1 35 MPa, 360 kg/m3 cement content (typical), w/c = 0.39
Stage 1 mixes were the first set of mixes to be tested. All mix designs using the optimization
techniques, a total of 20 mixes as described in Table 3.8, were cast for measuring fresh property
testing. If the mix design displayed satisfactory workability characteristics then the mix was
batched again for casting cylinders and prisms to evaluate hardened concrete properties. Table
3.8 shows the total aggregate volume fractions for both batches of the same mix (if batched
twice) as the total aggregate volume fractions differ for the particle packing model mix designs,
Mix #s 2, 4 and 5. This is due to the change in coarse aggregate supply used, which have
different particle size distributions. The total aggregate volume fractions for the Talbots
Grading Curve mix designs only changed slightly. The cementitious, water and air contents,
total aggregate absolute volume, and admixture dosages were consistent throughout, and are
shown in Table 3.9.
Table 3.8: List of Stage 1 (35 MPa, 360 kg/m3 typical cement content) Mix Designs
CA Aggregate Volume
Mix *
Mix Description Type Supply Fraction
#
Used CA IA FA
W 1 0.584 - 0.416
1 Control (binary)
C 2 0.584 - 0.416
W 1 0.550 - 0.450
2 Particle packing model (binary) [Toufar]
C 2 0.508 - 0.492
W 1 0.424 - 0.576
4 Particle packing model (binary) [Dewar]
C 2 0.402 - 0.598
W 1 0.445 0.184 0.372
5 Particle packing model (ternary) [Toufar]
C 2 0.410 0.192 0.399
7 Particle packing model (ternary) [Dewar] W 1 0.559 0.217 0.224
W 1 0.508 - 0.492
8 Talbot's Grading Curve (binary) [n=0.40]
C 2 0.508 - 0.492
W 1 0.552 - 0.448
C 2 0.552 - 0.448
W 1 0.591 - 0.409
C 2 0.591 - 0.409
W 1 0.627 - 0.373
C 2 0.627 - 0.373
W 1 0.473 0.118 0.410
12 Talbot's Grading Curve (ternary) [n=0.40]
C 2 0.474 0.116 0.410
W 1 0.516 0.139 0.346
C 2 0.516 0.139 0.346
55
CA Aggregate Volume
Mix *
Mix Description Type Supply Fraction
#
Used CA IA FA
14 Talbot's Grading Curve (ternary) [n=0.50] W 1 0.522 0.184 0.294
15 Talbot's Grading Curve (ternary) [n=0.55] W 1 0.561 0.184 0.255
Shilstone's Coarseness Factor Chart - Zone

16 W 1 0.694 - 0.306
2, binary, CF = 74.9, WF = 29.8
17 W 1 0.647 0.016 0.337
2, ternary, CF = 72.7, WF = 32.7
W 1 0.546 0.093 0.361
2, ternary, CF = 64.2, WF = 35.7
18
C 2 0.546 0.093 0.361
2, ternary, CF = 58.3, WF = 35.7
19 W 1 0.576 0.107 0.317
2, ternary, CF = 64.2, WF = 32.0
W 1 0.511 0.078 0.411
2, ternary, CF = 64.2, WF = 39.9
20
C 2 0.511 0.078 0.411
2, ternary, CF = 58.3, WF = 39.9
21 W 1 0.684 0.012 0.304
2, ternary, CF = 73.8, WF = 29.8
22 W 1 0.649 - 0.351
2, binary, CF = 74.1, WF = 33.7
*
W = measuring workability properties; C = casting of prisms and cylinders for measuring hardened
properties
Table 3.9: Material Contents and Dosages of Stage 1 (35 MPa, 360 kg/m3 typical cement content) Mix
Designs
Material Content or Dosage

Total Cement 360 kg/m3
General Use (GU) 270
GranCem (GGBFS) 90
Water Content 142 kg/m3
Total Aggregate
0.67
Absolute Volume
Air 6.5%
Airextra 20 mL/100 kg
Eucon WR 250 mL/cwt
Eucon 37 500 mL/cwt
56
3.5.2 Stage 2 35 MPa, 330 kg/m3 cement content (reduced), w/c =

0.39
Stage 2 mixes batched for workability testing were the second set of mixes to be tested. The mix
design list for Stage 2 was governed by the success of Stage 1 workability results. A total of 8
mixes as described in Table 3.10, were cast for fresh property testing. The mixture proportions
were altered by trial and error to reduce the cementitious material content while maintaining the
same GU %, GranCem %, w/c, and air content. Therefore, the total aggregate absolute volume
was increased, and three dosages of the admixtures (except for Eucon WR) were altered.
If the mix design displayed satisfactory workability characteristics then the mix was batched
again for casting cylinders and prisms to evaluate hardened concrete properties. Table 3.10
shows the total aggregate volume fractions for both batches of the same mix (if batched twice)
as the total aggregate volume fractions differ for Mix #24b. This is due to the change in coarse
aggregate supply used, which have different particle size distributions. The total aggregate
volume fractions for Mix #s 25e and 31 only changed slightly.
The cementitious, water and air contents, total aggregate absolute volume, and admixture
dosages were consistent throughout, and are shown in Table 3.11.
Table 3.10: List of Stage 2 (35 MPa, 330 kg/m3 reduced cement content) Mix Designs
CA Aggregate Volume
Mix * Fraction
Mix Description Type Supply
#
Used CA IA FA
W 2 0.508 - 0.492
24b Particle packing model (binary) [Toufar]
C 3 0.536 - 0.464
W 2 0.552 - 0.448
25e Talbot's Grading Curve (binary) [n=0.45]
C 3 0.553 - 0.447
Shilstone's Coarseness Factor Chart -
W 2 0.511 0.078 0.411
Zone 2, ternary, CF = 58.3, WF = 38.6
26
C 3 0.511 0.078 0.411
W 2 0.474 0.116 0.410
C 3 0.474 0.116 0.410
28 Talbot's Grading Curve (binary) [n=0.50] W 2 0.591 - 0.409
Control (binary) reduced cementitious W 2 0.584 - 0.416
29
content C 3 0.584 - 0.416
30 Particle packing model (ternary) [Toufar] W 2 0.410 0.192 0.399
57
CA Aggregate Volume
Mix * Fraction
Mix Description Type Supply
#
Used CA IA FA
W 2 0.402 - 0.598
31 Particle packing model (binary) [Dewar]**
C 3 0.400 - 0.600
*
properties
**
Failed in workability evaluation
Table 3.11: Material Contents and Dosages of Stage 2 (35 MPa, 330 kg/m3 reduced cement content) Mix
Designs

General Use (GU) 247.5
Total Aggregate
0.69
Absolute Volume
Air 6.5%
Eucon WR 250 mL/cwt
Eucon 37 625 mL/cwt
Stage 3 mixes batched for workability testing were the third set of mixes to be tested. The mix
design list for Stage 3 was governed by the success of the Stage 1 workability results. A total of
12 mixes as described in Table 3.12, were cast for fresh property testing.
shows the total aggregate volume fractions for both batches of the same mix (if batched twice)
as the total aggregate volume fractions differ for Mix #41. This is due to the change in coarse
aggregate supply used, which have different particle size distributions.
58
Table 3.12: List of Stage 3 (50 MPa, 465 kg/m3 typical cement content) Mix Designs
CA Aggregate Volume
Mix
Mix Description Type* Supply Fraction
#
Used CA IA FA
W 2 0.628 - 0.372
32d Control (binary)
C 2 0.628 - 0.372
W 2 0.552 - 0.448
C 2 0.552 - 0.448
W 2 0.508 - 0.492
C 2 0.508 - 0.492
Shilstone's Coarseness Factor Chart - W 2 0.511 0.078 0.411
35
Zone 2, ternary, CF = 58.3, WF = 44.6 C 2 0.511 0.078 0.411
W 2 0.474 0.116 0.410
C 2 0.474 0.116 0.410
W 2 0.591 - 0.409
C 2 0.591 - 0.409
W 2 0.410 0.192 0.399
C 2 0.410 0.192 0.399
39 Particle packing model (binary) [Dewar] W 2 0.402 - 0.598
40 Talbot's Grading Curve (binary) [n=0.40] W 2 0.508 - 0.492
Talbot's Grading Curve (binary) W 2 0.627 - 0.373
41
[n=0.55]** C 3 0.644 - 0.356
W 2 0.516 0.139 0.346
C 2 0.516 0.139 0.346
Shilstone's Coarseness Factor Chart - W 2 0.546 0.093 0.361
43
Zone 2, ternary, CF = 58.3, WF = 40.4 C 2 0.546 0.093 0.361
*
properties
**
59
Table 3.13: Material Contents and Dosages of Stage 3 (50 MPa, 465 kg/m3 typical cement content) Mix
Designs

GUb-8SF (HSF) 349
GranCem (GGBFS) 116
Total Aggregate
0.62
Absolute Volume
Air 6.0%
Eucon WR 250 mL/cwt
Eucon 727 160 mL/100 kg
Eucon 37 1000 mL/100 kg

0.33
Stage 4 mixes batched for workability testing were the last set of mixes to be tested. The mix
design list for Stage 4 was governed by the success of the Stage 3 workability results. A total of
10 mixes as described in Table 3.14, were cast for fresh property testing. The mixture
proportions were altered by trial and error to reduce the cementitious material content while
maintaining the same GUb-8SF %, GranCem %, w/c, and air content. Therefore, the total
aggregate absolute volume increased, and the dosages of the admixtures (except for Eucon WR
and 727) were altered.
shows the total aggregate volume fractions for both batches of the same mix (if batched twice).
All aggregate volume fractions are the same for both batches of each mix because the same
coarse aggregate supply was used.
60
Table 3.14: List of Stage 4 (50 MPa, 390 kg/m3 reduced cement content) Mix Designs
CA Aggregate Volume
Mix
Mix Description Type* Supply Fraction
#
Used CA IA FA
W 3 0.591 - 0.409
44c Talbot's Grading Curve (binary) [n=0.50]
C 3 0.591 - 0.409
Control (binary) reduced cementitious W 3 0.628 - 0.372
45
content** C 3 0.628 - 0.372
W 3 0.553 - 0.447
C 3 0.553 - 0.447
Shilstone's Coarseness Factor Chart - Zone W 3 0.511 0.078 0.411
47
2, ternary, CF = 55.8, WF = 41.2 C 3 0.511 0.078 0.411
W 3 0.474 0.116 0.410
C 3 0.474 0.116 0.410
W 3 0.432 0.178 0.390
C 3 0.432 0.178 0.390
W 3 0.536 - 0.464
C 3 0.536 - 0.464
W 3 0.644 - 0.356
C 3 0.644 - 0.356
W 3 0.516 0.139 0.346
52 Talbot's Grading Curve (ternary) [n=0.45]**
C 3 0.516 0.139 0.346
Shilstone's Coarseness Factor Chart - Zone W 3 0.546 0.093 0.361
53
2, ternary, CF = 55.8, WF = 37.0** C 3 0.546 0.093 0.361
*
properties
**
Table 3.15: Material Contents and Dosages of Stage 4 (50 MPa, 390 kg/m3 reduced cement content) Mix
Designs

GUb-8SF (HSF) 292.5
Total Aggregate
0.67
Absolute Volume
Air 6.0%
Eucon WR 250 mL/cwt
Eucon 727 160 mL/100 kg
Eucon 37 1500 mL/100 kg
61
3.6 Mixing Procedure

The procedure used for all concrete mixing, including both workability and casting mixes, for
this study followed the ASTM C 192 Standard Practice for Making and Curing Concrete Test
Specimens in the Laboratory with some exceptions.
All aggregate material used was in a moist condition for mixing. The 19.0 mm stone was
washed in advanced to rinse away coatings of dust surrounding the individual aggregate
particles. The sand was taken straight from the laboratory bin. The chip was taken straight
from the sample bags as it was pre-washed at the Milton quarry. The moisture contents of the
individual materials were taken for each batch, and the batch proportions were subsequently
adjusted. All materials including aggregates, cementitious material and admixtures were stored
in the laboratorys mixing area; therefore they were kept at a consistent temperature with
mixing. All materials were batched by mass, with the exception of the admixtures by volume.
The same mixer was used for all mixes. The mixer has a capacity of 60 L, with rotational paddle
speed of 119 rpm.
For the casting mixes, the cylinder and prism moulds were oiled the day before, and
immediately before casting any excess oil was wiped off. This was to prevent any oil seepage
into the hardening concrete, affecting its setting and hardened properties. The prism studs were
fastened into the moulds after oiling, and the gauge lengths of each were recorded to be used to
calculate drying shrinkage values.
All materials, including the water and admixtures, were measured out immediately before
casting. The water was divided into proportions as shown in Table 3.16, and specific admixtures
were added to the specific water fractions depending on the stage of mixing; however, they
remained constant for each design mix between the workability and casting mixes.
62
Table 3.16: Admixture and Water Fraction Addition Times for All Stages
Admixture
Water Admixture Dosage [mL/ mass
Addition Time
% Added of cementitious
content]
Stage #1 - 35 MPa, Airextra 20 mL/100 kg
Typical Cement 100 Eucon WR 250 mL/cwt At beginning of mixing
Content (360 kg/m3) Eucon 37 500 mL/cwt
Stage #2 - 35 MPa, 75 At beginning of mixing
Eucon WR 250 mL/cwt
Reduced Cement
Content (330 kg/m3) Delay of 30 seconds after
25 Eucon 37 625 mL/cwt
start of mixing
65 At beginning of mixing
Eucon WR 250 mL/cwt
Stage #3 - 50 MPa,
Immediately after adding
Typical Cement 10 Eucon 727 160 mL/100 kg
Eucon Airextra and WR
Content (465 kg/m3)
Delay of 30 seconds after
25 Eucon 37 1000 mL/100 kg
start of mixing
65 At beginning of mixing
Eucon WR 250 mL/cwt
Stage #4 - 50 MPa,
Immediately after adding
Reduced Cement 10 Eucon 727 160 mL/100 kg
Eucon Airextra and WR
Content (390 kg/m3)
Delay of 30 seconds after
25 Eucon 37 1500 mL/100 kg
start of mixing
The aggregate and cementitious materials were first placed in the mixing bowl where the
proportion of 19.0 mm stone was added first, followed by the chip (if required), GU cement
or GUb-8%SF (depending on the required strength), slag, and then sand on top. These materials
were mixed for 1 minute, then while the mixer was left running, the mixing water fractions were
added as specified in Table 3.16. The materials were mixed for 3 minutes, starting at the first
water to cement contact point. The mixer was then stopped for a 3 minute rest period, then
started again for an additional 2 minutes of mixing. This completed the mixing process.
3.7 Workability Test Procedures

Workability is defined in terms of flowability, placeability, consolidation, transportability, and
finishability. The air content (by pressure method) and slump tests for the mixes were started
immediately after the mixing process was completed. This was then followed by measuring the
63
rheological properties with the ICAR rheometer, then lastly another slump test was conducted.
A description of the timing of tests and volume required can be found in Table 3.17.
Table 3.17: Workability Testing Programme

Property Description Testing Standard or Litres
Equipment per
Mix
Slump At 15 and 45 minutes ASTM C 143 Standard Test
after water/cement Method for Slump of 6
contact Hydraulic-Cement Concrete
Air Content by Within 20 minutes of ASTM C 231 Standard Test
Pressure Method water/cement contact Method for Air Content of
7
Freshly Mixed Concrete by
the Pressure Method
Static and Within 45 minutes of ICAR Rheometer
Dynamic Yield water/cement contact
20
Stress, and (2 repetitions)
Plastic Viscosity
Minimum Total Volume Required per Mix = 33 L
Adjusted Total Volume per Mix [1.1*Minimum] = 36 L
3.6.1 Air Content by Pressure Method

The procedure used for measuring the air content of all mixes was in accordance with the CSA
A23.2-4C Air Content of Plastic Concrete by the Pressure Method test procedure. The air
meter container was filled with fresh concrete in 3 equal layers, and rodded 25 times and tapped
around the outer surface 10 times after every layer.
3.6.2 Slump Test

The procedure used for measuring the slump of all mixes was in accordance with ASTM C 143
Standard Test Method for Slump of Hydraulic-Cement Concrete to characterize the consistency
of the fresh concrete from all the mixes. The slump cone was filled with fresh concrete in 3
equivalent layers, and rodded 25 times after every layer. After the slump cone was filled, the
excess concrete was struck off the top and removed from the area surrounding the base of the
cone. Once the cone was removed, the distance between the displaced centre of the samples top
surface and the top of the cone mould was recorded as the slump. All slump tests were
performed and measurements made by the same individual to minimize the variance between
results.
64
If the sample, once the cone was removed, showed falling away or shearing off behaviour, as
illustrated in Figure 3.22, the test was discounted and repeated using a new sample. However, if
this behaviour recurred on the subsequent test, the mix was deemed unworkable as it lacked
proper consolidation and flowability.
Figure 3.22: Types of Slump Behaviour (Koehler, 2009a)
3.6.3 ICAR Rheometer

The International Center for Aggregates Research (ICAR) rheometer used for this study
characterizes the workability of fresh mortar and concrete mixes in terms of rheological
properties including plastic viscosity, and static and dynamic yield stress using a shear rate
controlled rheometer with coaxial cylinders configuration.
Using the rheometer for a 19.0 mm stone requires a sample size of 20 L (Germann Instruments,
2008). The 20 L container used for this study included 15 vertical strips around its inner wall (to
prevent the sample from slipping and rotating with the vane), which has a 143 mm inner radius
(measured to the inside of the vertical strips). The top of the strips indicates the limit to filling
the container. Before filling the container, the bottom of the plate is secured to the frame, and
the four-blade vane must be inserted as far as possible into the keyless chuck at the end of the
rheometer, shown in Figure 3.23 (to avoid the vane from loosening and sitting too low in the
container) (Germann Instruments, 2008). The portable driver has a width and length of 110 mm,
height of 400 mm, weight of 6 kg without the attachment of vane and frame, and weight of 18
kg with all attachments (Koehler, 2009b). Then the frame, with the rheometer and vane
attached, is placed on the containers supports checking that the gap size between the vane and
the top of the concrete sample, as well as the bottom and sides of the container are at least four
times the maximum aggregate size in distance to make certain that there is proper uniformity
throughout the concrete sample.
65
Figure 3.23: Rheometer Equipment Components (Rheocentric Concrete Technologies, 2006)
For this study, the container was filled in 3 equal layers and rodded 25 times after every layer, to
the top of the vertical strips as shown in Figure 3.24.
Figure 3.24: Full Container for Rheometer Testing (Concrete filled to top of vertical strips)
Rodding was conducted between the layers to consolidate the concrete, 25 times with a 10 mm
diameter rod. Before every set of tests, right before inserting the vane into the concrete sample,
the torque was reset to zero to ensure accuracy of testing results. While resetting the torque, no
load was applied to the vane, and the rheometer was kept vertically aligned as shown in Figure
3.25, so as not to affect the torque reset reading (Germann Instruments, 2008).
66
Figure 3.25: Torque Resetting Position
Within the ICAR rheometer software, and before performing the tests, the geometry of the vane
and container were set to: vane radius = 63.5 mm, vane height = 127.0 mm, and container radius
= 143.0 mm (specific to the 20 L bucket). The vane dimensions remain constant for all
aggregate sizes up to a maximum of 40 mm; however the shaft length varies with the container
size (Germann Instruments, 2008). The vane, attached to the rheometer, was then inserted
vertically downwards into the concrete sample, while the frame rested on the containers
supports, as shown in Figure 3.26 and Figure 3.27.
Figure 3.26: Proper Placing of Vane in Concrete

67
Figure 3.27: Frame Resting on Containers Supports, Rheometer Ready for Testing
The accuracy of testing results is affected significantly if the vane is inserted on an angle or
twisted into the concrete sample, since this influences the thixotropic characteristics of the
sample (Germann Instruments, 2008).
There were two tests conducted for every round of testing, with each test taking under a minute
to perform. The first was the Stress Growth Test to measure the static yield stress, output by the
software in units of Pascals [Pa]. The test speed parameter was set to 0.025 rps, as this value
was previously tested and suggested for many different concrete samples by the ICAR
Rheometer Manual (Germann Instruments, 2008; Koehler and Fowler, 2004). Previous research
showed that from a testing speed range of 0.00833 rev/sec (0.5 rpm) to 0.1833 rev/sec (11 rpm),
0.025 rps (1.5 rpm) was found to be the optimum speed (resulting in the lowest static yield
stress). Lower and higher speeds would both lead to inaccurately high static yield stresses
(Koehler and Fowler, 2004). If the speed is too low then the sample will be able to recuperate
from the torque applied increasing the peak torque, and if the speed is too high then the viscous
and dynamic forces can aid in increasing the torque required to initiate flow (Koehler and
Fowler, 2004). For this test, a low and constant speed is applied while the test outputs a torque
[Nm] vs. time [s] graph immediately after the vane starts to rotate. This test is stopped manually
after the peak torque has been reached, and the software calculates the yield stress based on the
68
maximum torque and vane dimensions. When calculating the static yield stress, the software
assumes that the shear stress is uniformly distributed over the ends and side of the vane, and is
equal to the static yield stress when the maximum torque is achieved (Germann Instruments,
2008). This test is conducted first because measuring static yield stress accurately is extremely
sensitive to the thixotropic characteristics of the sample (Germann Instruments, 2008).
Examples of the software output of the Stress Growth Test for both 35 and 50 MPa mixes are
shown in Figure 3.28 and Figure 3.29.
Figure 3.28: Stress Growth Test Software Output for 35 MPa Control (Mix #1), 1st Iteration
69
Figure 3.29: Stress Growth Test Software Output for 50 MPa Control (Mix #32d), 1st Iteration
The second test performed was the Flow Curve Test to measure the dynamic yield stress and
plastic viscosity by adding energy to the sample, output by the software in units of Pascals [Pa]
and Pascal-seconds [Pas], respectively. For this test, there is an initial breakdown period where
no measurements are made and the maximum input speed is constantly applied to reduce the
effects of thixotropy. After this initial breakdown period, the flow curve graph (torque [Nm] vs.
vane rotation speed [rps]) is generated based on a number of input points, following the steps as
shown in Figure 3.30.
70
Figure 3.30: Description of Generation of Flow Curve (Koehler, 2009b)
These test parameters were set to: breakdown time = 20 sec., breakdown speed = 0.5 rps,
number of points (for graph) = 7, time per point = 5 sec., initial speed = 0.5 rps, and final speed
= 0.05 rps. The breakdown and initial speeds should be the same. The breakdown, initial and
final speeds were chosen to be these values based on correspondence with Dr. Eric P. Koehler
who recommended that at least one order of magnitude between the breakdown/initial and final
speeds be used, such as 0.05 to 0.5 rps (Koehler, 2010). Generally for most types of mixtures, an
adequate breakdown time is 25 to 30 seconds (Koehler and Fowler, 2004).
This test stops automatically, and estimates the dynamic yield stress and plastic viscosity by first
fitting a trend line to relative units of the flow curve graph by using Equation 3.1, assuming zero
torque acting on the ends of the vane (Germann Instruments, 2008), and then translating those
results using the Bingham model as shown in Equation 3.2 and Figure 3.31. This requires the
vane dimensions and container inner radius as well, to output the dynamic yield stress and
plastic viscosity.
71
T = Y + VN Equation 3.1
Where: T = torque [Nm]

N = rotation speed [rps]
Y = relative yield stress [Nm]
V = relative plastic viscosity [Nms]
= 0 + & Equation 3.2
Where: = shear stress [Pa]

0 = dynamic yield stress [Pa]
= plastic viscosity [Pas]
& = shear strain rate [1/s].
Figure 3.31: Bingham model represented graphically (Rheocentric Concrete Technologies, 2006)
The Bingham model was chosen to be used to develop the flow curve behaviour for the ICAR
Rheometer software because of its accuracy and simplicity in establishing a linear relationship
between shear stress and shear rate, and also because it includes yield stress as a parameter as
shown in Equation 3.2 (Koehler and Fowler, 2004).
Examples of the software output of the Flow Curve Test for both 35 and 50 MPa mixes are
shown in Figure 3.32 and Figure 3.33.
72
Figure 3.32: Flow Curve Test Software Output for 35 MPa Control (Mix #1), 1st Iteration
Figure 3.33: Flow Curve Test Software Output for 50 MPa Control (Mix #32d), 1st Iteration
73
Repeatability is affected by variation in sampling, testing, and materials (Koehler and Fowler,
2004). A previous study showed that variation in testing was low between two sets of tests
(Koehler and Fowler, 2004). Therefore, for this study, two sets of testing using the rheometer
were chosen, and also for timing. Although each test takes under a minute to complete, filling,
emptying, and remixing is time consuming. Variation in sampling and materials should be
minimized by the individual(s) mixing and conducting the tests.
The repeatability of the tests is influenced by the slump of the concrete being tested, where SCC
has shown to have the best repeatability upon previous study (Koehler, 2010). Since the
concrete mixes used for this study have such a high slump range, good repeatability is expected
for these mixes.
For this study, once a round of testing was completed, the vane was removed from the container,
and the concrete sample was emptied from the container into a rinsed wheelbarrow and
manually remixed for 10 to 20 seconds, as shown in Figure 3.34. The concrete sample was then
re-used for another round of testing. It is important to remix the sample in between the sets of
tests to get good repeatability by improving consolidation.
Figure 3.34: Hand Mixing in Wheelbarrow between First and Second Sets of Rheometer Testing
3.8 Evaluation of Fresh Concrete Properties

This section explains how the fresh properties measured were evaluated to determine sufficient
mixture workability. As previous described in Table 3.17, for this study the fresh properties that
were measured were air content (by the pressure method), slump, and rheological properties
74
(including static and dynamic yield stress, and plastic viscosity). Mixes were also visually
assessed for segregation and flowability.
Air content was only an indicator, and had no influence in deciding the success of mixture
workability. Since the ICAR rheometer tests are not standardized, and acceptable ranges of yield
stress and plastic viscosity for good workability have not been identified, it was difficult to
evaluate the measurements from these tests alone without relying on a visual assessment of the
mixes and the measurements from the slump tests.
A system for determining the overall success or failure of the workability for all mixtures was
created for this study. Successful mixes required a fluid and cohesive visual description, an
acceptable slump loss, and two sets of adequate rheometer testing results. Governing points of
workability failure were: segregation, unacceptable slump loss, shearing behaviour shown
during slump test, and concrete sample being too harsh to insert the vane or complete rheology
testing properly. All workability results can be found in Table 4.1 (organized by best to least
workable for every stage), with a detailed analysis found in Section 5.2. Concrete mixtures that
were successful (passed or barely passed) were then batched again to cast cylinders and
prisms for hardened properties testing.
3.9 Casting Test Procedures

The testing regime for the casting mixes is described in Table 3.18, and spanned over 91 days.
Linear drying shrinkage, compressive strength and resistivity were measured using the testing
standard or equipment described in Table 3.18. The volume required for each casting mix can be
also found in Table 3.18.
75
Table 3.18: Casting Mix Testing Programme
Number Litres
Testing Equipment or
Property Description of per
Standard
Samples Mix
Drying At 1, 7, 14, 28, 35, 56, and 91 OPSS LS -435 Method of Test
Shrinkage days for Linear Shrinkage of
(Prism dimensions: Concrete
75*75*320 mm) ASTM C 157 Standard Test 3 6
Method for Length Change of
Hardened Hydraulic-Cement
Concrete
Compressive At 1, 3, 7, 28, 56, and 91 days ASTM C 39 Standard Test
Strength (Cylinder dimensions: Method for Compressive
12 19
100*200 mm, 2 per test day) Strength of Cylindrical Concrete
Specimens
Resistivity At 28 and 56 days ASTM C 1202 Standard Test
(Cylinder dimensions: Method for Electrical Indication
100*200 mm, 1 per test day of Concretes Ability to Resist 2 4
cut into 3 slices) Chloride Ion Penetration; Merlin
Bulk Conductivity Tester
Minimum Total Volume Required per Mix = 29 L
Adjusted Total Volume per Mix [1.1*Minimum] = 32 L
3.10 Casting and Testing of Cylinder Procedures

For each casting mix, 14 cylinder moulds with nominal dimensions of 100 mm by 200 mm were
required for the testing programme, as described in Table 3.18. The cylinders were filled in 3
equal layers and rodded 10 times after every layer. As stated in the CSA A23.2-3C Making and
curing concrete compression and flexural test specimens standard, for concrete that has a greater
slump than 180 mm, only 40% of the number of strokes to rod per layer as stipulated in CSA
A23.2-3C. CSA A23.2-3C states a stroke number of 20, meaning that only 8 strokes are
required per layer for this studys cylinder specimens as all the mixes had an initial slump over
180 mm. After the excess concrete was struck off the top surface, they were then capped and
placed on a flat surface in an area that would not be subject to any vibrations for the initial
curing period of 24 hours.
Compressive strength measurements followed the procedure of ASTM C 39 Standard Test

Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens. For this study, as shown
in Table 3.18, two cylinders were tested per day at 1, 3, 7, 28, 35, 56, and 91 days of age after
water and cement contact during casting in the saturated surface dry condition. The average of
the two cylinders results estimated the compressive strength for the specific age day tested. It
76
should be noted that two different machines were used to test the cylinder specimens for
compressive strength; a smaller machine, with a lower capacity of 2000 kN was used for all
specimens up to and including 28 days of age, and a larger machine with a higher capacity of
3000 kN was used at 56 and 91 days. Also, caps were used for the only some of the 1 day old
specimens, more specifically for Mix #s 24b, 25e, 26, 27, 29, 31, 44c, 45, 46, and 47.
Two resistivity tests were used for this study to indirectly measure the permeability, and
therefore the durability, of the concrete specimens by the relation of current to the continuity
and conductivity of the saturated capillary pore system and pore fluid (Hooton, 2001).
Resistivity measurements for the Rapid Chloride Permeability Test (RCPT) followed the
procedure of ASTM C 1202 Standard Test Method for Electrical Indication of Concretes
Ability to Resist Chloride Ion Penetration. Measurements for the Merlin Bulk Conductivity Test
followed the guidelines and instructions of the test equipments operation manual provided by
manufacturer Germann Instruments, as the test procedure has not been standardized. For this
study, as shown in Table 3.18, one cylinder per day at 28 and 56 days of age after water and
cement contact during casting was cut into three slices each with a nominal thickness of 50 mm.
They were conditioned following ASTM C 1202 with the exception of electrical tape
substituting for the electrically non-conductive coating around the cylindrical side surface of the
specimens.
The Merlin Bulk Conductivity Test is non-destructive (does not affect the composition or
properties of the concrete specimen), uses an alternating current (AC), and can measure the bulk
electrical conductivity or resistivity of a specimen with varying thickness (from 50 mm to 200
mm) in one to two seconds (Germann Instruments, 2010). The specimen, at SSD, is placed in
this measuring device between damp sponges (no electrode gel required) on either end, as
shown in Figure 3.35 and Figure 3.36, where the voltage drop is measured by the voltmeter and
the current is measured by the ammeter (Germann Instruments, 2010). The resistivity and/or
conductivity can then be calculated using Equations 3.3 and 3.4.
77
Figure 3.35: Merlin Bulk Conductivity Test Equipment (Germann Instruments, 2010)
Figure 3.36: Merlin Bulk Conductivity Test Specimen Set-up (Germann Instruments, 2010)
1
= Equation 3.3

I L
= Equation 3.4
VA
V
R= Equation 3.5
I
Q
I= Equation 3.6
t
Where: = electrical resistivity [m]
= electrical conductivity [mS/m]

78
Q = charge passed [Coulombs = Asec]
L = length of specimen [m]
V = voltage [V]
t = time [sec]
A = cross-sectional area [m2]
R = resistance []
I = current [A]
A verification cylinder (100 mm by 200 mm), as shown in Figure 3.35 on the left, is supplied to
check that the test equipment is working properly (Germann Instruments, 2010). Before every
testing period, the test equipment was verified with this cylinder.
The RCPT is destructive, uses an instantaneous 60 V direct current (DC), and also measures the
bulk electrical conductivity of a specimen by measuring the current over six hours (at 5 minute
intervals) to calculate the charge passed by integration. The Germann Instruments PROOVEit
software was used for the RCPT. For RCPT the current should remain constant; however when
the temperature of the pore fluid increases due to heat release from ion-ion and ion-solid
collisions, the conductivity increases, therefore increasing the current flow (Nokken and
Hooton, 2006). Therefore, measurements were taken using the Merlin test before the RCPT.
3.11 Casting and Testing of Concrete Prisms

For each casting mix, 3 prism moulds with cross section of 75 mm by 75 mm and length of 320
mm (nominal gauge length of 285 mm) were required for the testing programme, as specified by
OPSS LS-435 R23 Method of Test for Linear Shrinkage of Concrete and ASTM C 157 Standard
Test Method for Length Change of Hardened Hydraulic-Cement Concrete. The prisms were
filled in two equal layers, and rodded with a 10 mm diameter rod 10 times per layer. Vibrating
the moulds for 2 to 3 seconds was not required, as the slump of mixes was very high (usually
above 200 mm). After the excess concrete was struck off the top surface, the four sides of the
moulds were each lightly tapped twice. They were then placed on a flat surface in an area that
would not be subject to any vibrations for the initial curing period of 24 hours.
79
Length change readings for linear shrinkage measurements followed the procedure of OPSS LS-
435 R23; however, initial comparator reading on samples in the saturated surface dry condition
were also taken at least 30 minutes after being submerged in lime-saturated water following
ASTM C 157. Although OPSS LS-435 R23 specifies that the final comparator readings should
be taken at an age of 35 days, for this study the final comparator readings were taken at 91 days.
For this study, as shown in Table 3.18, linear drying shrinkage measurements were taken at 1, 7,
14, 28, 35, 56, and 91 days of age after water and cement contact during casting.
3.12 Curing Regime for Cylinders and Prisms

As stipulated by ASTM C 192 Standard Practice for Making and Curing Concrete Test
Specimens in the Laboratory, all cylinder specimens were cured and covered for the first 24 8
hours, after contact of water with cement, with wet burlap and plastic at 23 2C. All prism
specimens followed the same procedure; except for they were de-moulded within 24 hours,
as indicated in OPSS LS-435 R23. After de-moulding all the specimens, they were submerged
in lime-saturated water, with a Ca(OH)2 concentration of 3g/L and temperature of 23 0.5C.
The cylinders were kept in the lime-saturated water until testing. Following ASTM C 157, initial
comparator readings on samples in the saturated surface dry condition were taken at least 30
minutes after being submerged in lime-saturated water. The prism specimens were then placed
back and left in the lime-saturated water until an age of 7 days. Following OPSS LS-435 R23,
another set of initial comparator readings were then taken. The prism specimens were then
transferred to and remained in a drying room with temperature of 23 2C and relative humidity
of 50 4%.
80
Chapter 4
Results
4
4.1 Workability
The results from the workability tests are shown in Table 4.1, organized by best to least
satisfactory workability for every stage. The system for determining the overall success or
failure of the workability for all mixtures is described in Section 3.8. The rheology test results
were measured by the ICAR rheometer software, and recorded, to one decimal place where
some results displayed, consequently, more than three significant figures.
Table 4.1: Workability Test Results and Evaluation
Static Dynamic Static Dynamic

Slump Plastic Plastic Visual
Mix Air Yield Yield Yield Yield Evalua-
[mm] at Viscosity Viscosity Descrip-
# [%] Stress Stress Stress Stress tion
(minutes) [Pas] 1 [Pas] 2 tion*
[Pa] 1 [Pa] 1 [Pa] 2 [Pa] 2
Stage 1: 35 MPa, 360 kg/m3 cement content, w/c = 0.39

10 235 (13),
20 245.0 58.0 48.8 248.0 68.7 54.2 F, C Pass
(14) 230 (35)
6.5 230 (11),
9 281.6 58.5 53.1 348.7 82.4 55.9 F, C Pass
(22) 225 (41)
6.5 215 (13),

10 378.8 55.9 72.1 564.3 32.9 93.2 F, C Pass
(22) 210 (50)
7.5 230 (45,

2 419.1 62.4 62.8 752.4 95.4 61.5 F, C Pass
(40) 80)
8 230 (14,
1 646.6 66.1 86.3 461.3 222.2 35.5 F, C Pass
(45) 41)
9.5 230 (13),

5 704.2 68.4 61.9 468.5 92.3 56.0 F, C Pass
(16) 225 (46)
7.5 230 (12),

12 341.0 174.1 26.5 637.0 124.5 49.5 F, C Pass
(16) 215 (40)
8.5 220 (14, Barely

18 1224.0 48.9 68.5 805.3 84.1 58.0 F, C
(16) 45) Pass
F, C,
8 240 (23), Barely
4 425.9 155.4 57.1 684.1 148.5 92.3 very
(18) 195 (49) Pass
sandy
7 220 (12), Barely
13 505.8 53.3 71.1 1091.1 75.9 80.6 F, C
(14) 215 (42) Pass
81

[Pa] 1 [Pa] 1 [Pa] 2 [Pa] 2
6 220 (12), F (less), Barely

11 695.3 104.3 70.2 812.8 66.9 108.4
(17) 215 (45) C Pass
7.5 230 (21), F (less), Barely

8 599.7 136.0 76.5 1083.4 161.2 95.9
(17) 225 (55) C Pass
Concrete sample too F

7.5 220 (17),
19 1411.4 87.7 68.1 4100.6 harsh to complete (barely), Fail
(14) 195 (52)
testing C
Concrete sample too F
7 220 (11),
14 1093.7 75.1 96.8 5673.7 harsh to complete (barely), Fail
(22) 185 (45)
testing C
6
21 230 (16) 5428.3 Concrete sample too harsh to complete testing H, C Fail
(13)
7
15 210 (12) 5566.0 Concrete sample too harsh to complete testing H, C Fail
(15)
7
16 220 (25) Concrete sample too harsh to insert vane H, S Fail
(30)
6.5
(23)
6.5 215 (13),

17 Concrete sample too harsh to insert vane H, S Fail
(14) 200 (32)
4
(20)
10 240 (12),
26 321.2 97.2 63.8 431.7 92.6 72.1 F, C Pass
(16) 230 (36)
9.5 235 (13),
27 489.0 65.7 81.3 680.6 67.4 93.7 F, C Pass
(16) 215 (37)
9 240 (14),
25e 546.8 118.2 88.8 969.9 129.1 121.8 F, C Pass
(13) 220 (35)
9.5 235 (16),

24b 636.6 92.9 104.6 974.3 92.1 133.4 F, C Pass
(15) 200 (46)
9 235 (12), F, C Barely

29 759.4 50.7 105.8 858.9 59.4 109.9
(18) 220 (39) (less) Pass
F, C,
11 215 (11),
31 986.7 221.9 106.3 1553.6 242.2 136.1 very Fail
(16) 140 (37)
sandy
82

[Pa] 1 [Pa] 1 [Pa] 2 [Pa] 2
Concrete sample too

9 235 (17), F, C
28 898.6 70.9 108.6 1537.5 harsh to complete Fail
(16) 185 (51) (less)
testing
225 (12),
8.5 shearing F, C
30 1908.3 Concrete sample too harsh to complete testing Fail
(16) behaviour (less)
(30, 32)

7 220 (12),
37 539.8 134.7 46.8 483.2 194.5 41.6 F, C Pass
(18) 210 (35)
8.5 235 (11),

38 569.7 227.4 35.4 481.1 196.7 47.3 F, C Pass
(19) 215 (34)
6.5 220 (13),

36 513.7 193.4 41.6 772.0 276.8 44.6 F, C Pass
(24) 195 (38)
7.5 230 (11),

42 766.9 140.9 62.8 715.4 232.6 60.3 F, C Pass
(21) 190 (34)
8.5 225 (13),

33 589.3 210.2 40.4 660.8 315.3 39.9 F, C Pass
(15) 185 (42)
8 225 (15),
35 574.1 194.6 52.7 955.9 324.7 62.7 F, C Pass
(23) 185 (44)
8.5 225 (17), Barely

34 597.7 285.3 37.5 947.5 407.2 50.2 F, C
(14) 175 (45) Pass
7.5 220 (12), Barely

32d 840.8 199.5 59.9 1144.3 358.1 49.2 F, C
(15) 175 (38) Pass
7 220 (13), Barely

43 716.3 193.4 52.9 1251.2 351.9 64.5 F, C
(20) 160 (40) Pass
220 (19),
7.5 shearing
41 428.4 123.4 48.1 893.2 209.6 55.2 F, C Fail
(17) behaviour
(47, 52)
F, C,
8.5 205 (17),
40 810.0 405.3 33.4 1425.6 676.7 35.9 very Fail
(18) 125 (45)
sandy
F, C,
7.5 230 (12),
39 776.4 403.6 44.0 1397.4 716.6 50.1 very Fail
(19) 130 (41)
sandy
83

[Pa] 1 [Pa] 1 [Pa] 2 [Pa] 2
6.5 240 (14),

50 311.6 30.8 62.8 412.6 17.4 75.4 F, C Pass
(20) 220 (43)
8 235 (11),
47 326.6 79.7 49.6 661.8 85.9 76.1 F, C Pass
(15) 205 (35)
7.5 225 (12),

46 556.6 85.5 81.9 790.7 115.0 100.7 F, C Pass
(17) 215 (41)
6.5 230 (11),

51 772.7 43.6 91.4 1324.4 81.7 107.9 F, C Pass
(16) 215 (35)
7 230 (12),
48 599.7 51.8 106.6 1210.9 88.7 103.6 F, C Pass
(15) 205 (36)
7 220 (14), Barely

44c 696.9 72.3 102.6 1396.0 168.2 118.9 F, C
(21) 185 (45) Pass
7 225 (11), Barely

49 839.6 74.7 115.6 1448.9 97.5 124.0 F, C
(16) 185 (42) Pass
Concrete sample too

5 230 (21),
53 730.0 46.3 83.8 1935.1 harsh to complete F, C Fail
(15) 200 (37)
testing
Concrete sample too
5.5 225 (11), F, C
52 883.2 34.3 84.2 1184.3 harsh to complete Fail
(15) 210 (30) (less)
testing
5.5 220 (11), H, C
45 1721.2 Concrete sample too harsh to complete testing Fail
(16) 80 (35) (less)
*
F = Fluid; H = Harsh; S = Segregated; C = Cohesive
4.2 Compressive Strength

As previously stated, two cylinders were tested at each test age in the saturated surface dry
condition. The ages tested were 1, 3, 7, 28, 56 and 91 days. The average peak stress results from
the compressive strength tests for each test age are shown in Table 4.2. Mixes are organized
numerically for each design strength (35 MPa and 50 MPa).
The individual cylinder, as well as average, compressive strength results are shown in Appendix
F. The average diameter (two top and two bottom measurements) and the resulting peak load of
each cylinder were measured and recorded, and are also shown in Appendix F. The individual
compressive strengths were calculated from these measurements. An average of the two
compressive strength results per test age was calculated for all mixes, with the only exception of
84
Mix #42 at 28days where the first cylinder peak load was disregarded due to improper
alignment over the top and bottom bearing plates.
Table 4.2: Average Compressive Strength Results
Test Age
Mix #
1 3 7 28 56 91
35 MPa Design Strength
1 19.7 24.8 34.1 42.0 49.0 53.9
2 17.3 21.9 25.0 31.5 45.1 46.8
4 3.8 15.9 24.0 26.2 28.6 31.5
5 14.8 19.7 24.3 36.3 45.9 43.0
8 3.6 20.5 29.4 34.2 38.8 40.9
9 14.7 19.2 26.3 30.4 41.0 41.8
10 4.8 27.4 39.2 43.1 54.1 50.8
11 2.7 24.7 33.2 40.6 44.1 48.3
12 4.2 23.9 34.0 40.3 43.8 46.1
13 4.1 26.9 39.2 45.8 50.8 50.5
18 19.0 27.2 39.7 50.8 56.1 59.2
20 16.9 23.6 33.2 42.4 47.5 48.7
24b 2.2 22.8 28.9 37.1 44.7 44.9
25e 3.4 20.8 26.4 38.3 45.6 45.7
26 2.8 22.9 32.4 40.3 48.5 48.9
27 1.0 21.6 31.8 42.5 44.9 45.0
29 1.5 18.6 31.7 39.3 43.9 46.9
31 2.3 23.3 34.6 45.6 49.1 52.3
32d 10.2 40.0 58.8 72.1 72.9 75.9
33 10.5 39.3 57.4 70.6 73.5 78.6
34 29.7 38.3 55.6 66.5 71.1 70.5
35 30.7 31.3 54.3 60.0 71.4 64.2
36 11.2 33.9 50.1 55.4 67.4 62.6
37 13.5 37.1 50.0 64.4 70.5 70.4
38 6.2 32.3 44.9 61.0 65.9 70.5
41 13.6 38.5 53.1 67.7 74.7 71.6
42 7.0 32.0 45.8 62.0 70.2 68.9
43 2.5 33.8 48.8 59.9 68.6 64.0
44c 1.0 33.8 49.9 68.7 68.0 73.4
45 5.4 34.6 56.2 69.4 76.4 72.9
46 0.8 32.0 46.8 60.6 71.2 66.0
47 0.3 32.1 50.5 64.6 61.8 64.5
85
Test Age
Mix #
1 3 7 28 56 91
48 26.3 32.0 48.5 59.0 66.0 66.5
49 - 1 28.3 33.4 51.2 63.9 65.3 64.0
49 - 2 29.4 35.8 58.1 70.1 71.9 70.6
50 19.6 34.0 43.6 56.2 61.7 60.0
51 27.6 30.6 53.4 65.8 67.2 69.9
52 28.6 36.6 54.4 70.2 72.1 73.1
53 30.7 36.8 55.8 64.2 70.8 70.2
4.3 Linear Drying Shrinkage

As previously stated, the length changes of three prisms per mix were measured in accordance
with the OPSS LS-435 procedure at ages of 1, 7, 14, 28, 35, 56, and 91 days. Length change
values following the ASTM C 157 procedure were also calculated. The average length change
results following both procedures are shown in Table 4.3. Mixes are organized numerically for
each design strength (35 MPa and 50 MPa).
The individual, as well as average, length change results are shown in Appendix G. The gauge
length of each prism was measured and recorded before casting. The mass and difference
between the reference bar and comparator reading (CRD) of each individual prism were
measured and recorded for each test age. The individual prism length change values were
calculated using the gauge length, CRD at the specific age, and the 7 day CRD as the initial
CRD (after 7 days curing in lime-saturated water, as per OPSS LS-435 R23). An average length
change was then calculated from the three prisms individual length change results. Length
change measurements following the ASTM C 157 procedure using the 1 day CRD as the initial
CRD are also recorded in Appendix G.
Table 4.3: Average Linear Drying Shrinkage Results Calculated Following Both OPSS LS-435 and ASTM C
157 Procedures
Shrinkage (%) LS-435 R23 Shrinkage (%) ASTM C 157 (Modified)

Mix # Test Age Test Age
14 28 35 56 91 14 28 35 56 91
1* -0.020 -0.024 -0.032 -0.045 -0.046 -0.014 -0.019 -0.026 -0.039 -0.041
2* -0.011 -0.022 -0.029 -0.040 -0.046 -0.005 -0.016 -0.023 -0.034 -0.040
4 -0.024 -0.050 -0.055 -0.060 -0.065 -0.013 -0.039 -0.044 -0.050 -0.054
5* -0.021 -0.028 -0.036 -0.049 -0.053 -0.013 -0.021 -0.028 -0.041 -0.045
86
Shrinkage (%) LS-435 R23 Shrinkage (%) ASTM C 157 (Modified)

Mix # Test Age Test Age
14 28 35 56 91 14 28 35 56 91
8 -0.026 -0.048 -0.055 -0.059 -0.064 -0.001 -0.023 -0.031 -0.035 -0.039
9* -0.018 -0.027 -0.033 -0.046 -0.052 -0.012 -0.021 -0.028 -0.041 -0.047
10 -0.021 -0.041 -0.046 -0.049 -0.056 0.000 -0.021 -0.026 -0.028 -0.036
11 -0.020 -0.039 -0.047 -0.052 -0.054 0.001 -0.018 -0.027 -0.031 -0.033
12 -0.022 -0.041 -0.046 -0.050 -0.056 -0.004 -0.024 -0.029 -0.033 -0.039
13 -0.021 -0.036 -0.044 -0.048 -0.053 -0.005 -0.020 -0.028 -0.032 -0.037
18 -0.023 -0.027 -0.041 -0.045 -0.049 -0.017 -0.021 -0.035 -0.039 -0.043
20 -0.021 -0.031 -0.046 -0.050 -0.054 -0.012 -0.022 -0.037 -0.042 -0.045
24b - -0.036 -0.043 -0.048 -0.055 - -0.023 -0.030 -0.035 -0.042
25e - -0.040 -0.045 -0.050 -0.057 - -0.027 -0.032 -0.037 -0.044
26 - -0.037 -0.044 -0.048 -0.055 - -0.022 -0.029 -0.033 -0.040
27 -0.030 -0.047 -0.049 -0.056 -0.063 0.004 -0.012 -0.014 -0.021 -0.029
29 -0.023 -0.042 -0.043 -0.052 -0.057 0.002 -0.017 -0.018 -0.027 -0.032
31 -0.037 -0.059 -0.060 -0.068 -0.075 0.009 -0.012 -0.014 -0.022 -0.029
32d -0.015 -0.020 -0.034 -0.037 -0.042 -0.011 -0.015 -0.030 -0.032 -0.037
33 -0.019 -0.026 -0.040 -0.042 -0.047 -0.009 -0.016 -0.030 -0.032 -0.037
34 -0.027 -0.026 -0.041 -0.044 -0.048 -0.023 -0.022 -0.037 -0.039 -0.043
35 -0.028 -0.028 -0.042 -0.046 -0.049 -0.024 -0.024 -0.038 -0.041 -0.045
36 -0.026 -0.032 -0.044 -0.042 -0.047 -0.017 -0.022 -0.034 -0.033 -0.038
37 -0.032 -0.037 -0.053 -0.053 -0.060 -0.023 -0.029 -0.045 -0.044 -0.051
38 -0.022 -0.043 -0.052 -0.051 -0.057 -0.005 -0.026 -0.034 -0.034 -0.040
41 -0.026 -0.035 -0.047 -0.046 -0.051 -0.021 -0.031 -0.043 -0.042 -0.046
42 -0.021 -0.041 -0.047 -0.048 -0.055 -0.017 -0.037 -0.043 -0.044 -0.050
43 -0.020 -0.043 -0.050 -0.050 -0.057 -0.013 -0.036 -0.043 -0.043 -0.049
44c -0.014 -0.037 -0.039 -0.047 -0.049 0.000 -0.023 -0.025 -0.033 -0.036
45 -0.014 -0.037 -0.040 -0.045 -0.050 -0.001 -0.024 -0.027 -0.032 -0.037
46 -0.006 -0.030 -0.032 -0.034 -0.045 -0.001 -0.026 -0.028 -0.030 -0.041
47 -0.026 -0.039 -0.043 -0.048 -0.051 -0.019 -0.032 -0.036 -0.041 -0.045
48 -0.027 -0.044 -0.043 -0.057 -0.052 -0.014 -0.031 -0.029 -0.043 -0.038
49 - 1 -0.026 -0.044 -0.042 -0.055 -0.052 -0.009 -0.026 -0.024 -0.037 -0.035
49 - 2 -0.027 -0.045 -0.040 -0.050 -0.051 -0.009 -0.027 -0.022 -0.032 -0.033
50 -0.028 -0.040 -0.045 -0.050 -0.054 -0.020 -0.032 -0.037 -0.042 -0.046
51 -0.028 -0.043 -0.042 -0.051 -0.050 -0.007 -0.023 -0.021 -0.030 -0.029
52 -0.024 -0.038 -0.035 -0.044 -0.045 0.000 -0.014 -0.011 -0.020 -0.021
53 -0.025 -0.041 -0.037 -0.046 -0.046 -0.012 -0.028 -0.023 -0.033 -0.032
*
35 day values linearly interpolated between 28 day and 42 day data
87
4.4 Bulk Resistivity

As previously stated, the resistivity of each mix was measured at ages of 28 days and 56 days
using two different tests methods: ASTM C 1202 Standard Test Method for Electrical
Indication of Concretes Ability to Resist Chloride Ion Penetration, and the Merlin Bulk
Conductivity Test. Three slices, each with a nominal thickness of 50 mm, of a 100 mm by 200
mm cylinder were tested for each test.
The average bulk resistivity results for both the Merlin test and RCPT (for initial 5-minute and
final 6-hour time intervals), and actual charge passed from the RCPT are shown in Table 4.4.
Mixes are organized numerically for each design strength (35 MPa and 50 MPa).
The average and individual bulk resistivity results for both the Merlin test and RCPT (for initial
5-minute and final 6-hour time intervals) are shown in Appendix H. Appendix H also includes
the individual specimens average diameter, thickness, and specific to the RCPT, the initial 5-
minute and final 6-hour temperature readings, the actual and adjusted charges passed, chloride
ion penetrability category, and current measured at five minutes (initial) and six hours (final).
Table 4.4: Average Merlin Test and RCPT Bulk Resistivity and Actual Charge Passed Results
Age of 28 Days Age of 56 Days

Avg. Avg.
Avg. Avg. Avg. 6-hr Avg. Avg. Avg. 6-hr
RCPT RCPT
Mix # Merlin RCPT 5- RCPT Merlin RCPT 5- RCPT
Actual Actual
Bulk min Bulk Bulk Bulk min Bulk Bulk
Charge Charge
Resistivity Resistivity Resistivity Resistivity Resistivity Resistivity
Passed Passed
[m] [m] [m] [m] [m] [m]
[C] [C]
1 152.5 135.1 149.3 1300 155.6 196.2 250.4 848
2 147.4 132.6 150.7 1304 160.9 181.2 243.6 864
4 137.9 153.2 170. 1248 152.8 187.2 235.5 888
5 169.9 136.2 161.6 1239 170.2 196.9 244.2 868
8 164.0 147.7 178.5 1192 161.1 227.4 264.0 794
9 144.6 141.5 167.0 1206 170.7 192.3 261.0 812
10 127.4 148.9 195.6 1088 162.5 200.7 268.4 784
11 123.6 158.0 185.8 1135 163.2 210.1 259.1 818
12 112.7 133.0 175.3 1211 157.1 209.4 261.8 811

13 179.0 157.7 181.7 1159 163.4 227.9 312.0 698
88

Avg. Avg.
RCPT RCPT
Actual Actual
Charge Charge
Passed Passed
[m] [m] [m] [m] [m] [m]
[C] [C]
18 124.0 143.1 176.0 1184 167.2 194.0 256.1 823
20 131.6 138.6 165.2 1259 161.4 210.8 253.2 844
24b 100.3 124.4 152.1 1387 142.1 167.1 203.8 1047
25e 101.1 121.7 154.9 1334 134.8 153.1 188.9 1115
26 102.6 121.2 156.7 1291 154.4 180.5 221.9 949
27 89.2 110.1 150.8 1420 119.6 156.8 195.3 1085
29 94.7 112.9 133.1 1604 122.0 153.6 192.9 1107
31 90.3 113.8 133.6 1611 135.0 152.9 190.8 1111
32d 333.0 323.9 406.8 509 349.2 545.3 558.6 381
33 292.4 287.1 351.1 573 369.5 426.1 547.8 388
34 302.1 346.3 412.9 507 398.3 478.9 599.5 352
35 322.9 460.2 469.6 434 449.6 528.3 667.0 323
36 287.5 346.6 402.8 512 355.0 496.8 524.2 406
37 263.7 326.0 383.1 532 304.2 385.6 498.8 425
38 204.6 255.0 290.5 704 278.8 334.3 436.5 486
41 284.5 309.0 368.3 554 356.5 427.7 518.6 406
42 225.9 266.9 340.7 598 303.0 370.2 440.9 484
43 281.8 297.8 393.2 529 305.1 354.5 458.5 457
44c 218.6 263.0 323.5 664 304.3 347.4 451.0 464
45 207.4 259.3 347.9 615 310.3 371.9 482.7 434
46 212.9 293.6 367.1 575 329.7 370.3 478.5 443
47 216.5 265.8 342.6 623 302.4 350.7 434.4 481
48 226.2 255.0 298.4 704 265.1 323.2 403.2 534
49 - 1 294.1 425.2 458.2 473 386.1 444.2 545.0 401
49 - 2 304.1 345.1 415.3 507 376.2 436.9 534.6 402
50 169.9 204.2 225.7 859 267.3 343.1 418.7 506
51 316.2 453.3 476.8 463 377.7 441.4 549.1 397
52 314.1 364.5 451.2 470 355.2 420.0 525.1 413
89

Avg. Avg.
RCPT RCPT
Actual Actual
Charge Charge
Passed Passed
[m] [m] [m] [m] [m] [m]
[C] [C]
53 302.8 515.8 471.5 449 395.4 450.6 553.4 389
90
Chapter 5
Analysis and Discussion
5
5.1 Analysis of Optimization Techniques
5.1.1 Analysis of Theoretical Particle Packing Models
The theoretical particle packing models only consider volume proportioning of aggregates to fill
in voids, which is acceptable because the relative densities are so similar for aggregates and they
are considered when calculating the packing degree and voids ratio. Therefore, segregation
potential is not increased. However, the Theory of Particle Mixtures developed by Dewar does
take into consideration minimizing segregation with requiring bulk densities of the aggregate
materials loosely packed, and a safe cohesion factor of 0.025 added to the fine material volume
fraction n once the voids ratio is minimized.
Finding the bulk density in loose condition was highly subjective, since when leveling off the
top of the container, as stipulated in the CSA A23.2-10A Bulk density of aggregate standard, it
is left up to the judgment of the researcher to balance the projections and voids on the top
surface, which can result in significant changes in mass measured. Since the bulk densities are
used to calculate the packing degree and voids ratio, which are the optimized variables for the
respective particle packing models, the resulting volume proportions of the aggregate materials
are significantly sensitive to changes in the bulk densities.
The detail of the particle size distributions measured for each aggregate also affects the results
of the particle packing models. The more detailed the gradations, the more accurate will be the
blending process and calculation of the characteristic diameter (for the Modified Toufar Model)
and the mean size (for the Theory of Particle Mixtures Model) will be.
The greatest criticisms of the theoretical particle packing models are that they do not consider
source (shape and texture), and only aggregate blending without considering concrete mix
design aspects such as the total aggregate volume, cement paste volume, w/c, and admixture
dosages. Another criticism is that each individual material is characterized by a single sized
91
diameter, while the bulk density used is representative of the graded material (Dewar, 1999). It
is questionable how effective it is to represent a graded material by a single sized diameter.
5.1.2 Analysis of Empirical Charts

The only individual aggregate property required as input for Talbots Grading Curve,
Shilstones Coarseness Factor Chart, and the 8-18 (8-22) Distribution Chart is the particle size
distribution, as compared to the theoretical particle packing models that require the relative and
loose bulk densities in the SSD condition.
The greatest criticisms of the empirical charts are that they do not consider sources (shape and
texture) other than the ones that were used to create these techniques, and only aggregate
blending without considering concrete mix design aspects such as the total aggregate volume,
cement paste volume, w/c, and admixture dosages. Shilstones Coarseness Factor Chart does,
however, take into consideration the cement content when calculating the workability factor.
5.1.2.1 Talbots Grading Curve

As illustrated in Figure 3.9 to Figure 3.12, the combined aggregate gradations for both binary
and ternary blends fit closely to their respective maximum density lines; however, the ternary
blends are significantly closer. This indicates that with the increasing number of aggregate
sources used for blending, the closer the fit to the maximum density line. The detail of the
particle size distributions measured for each aggregate also affects the results of this
optimization technique. The more detailed the gradations, the more accurate the blending
process.
From previous study of Talbots Grading Curve for n = 0.45, it was indicated that since the
cement particles are not considered during aggregate blending, that the combined aggregate
blends should fall below the maximum density for 600 m and smaller to compensate for the
cement particles (Neville, 1995). As shown in Figure 3.9 to Figure 3.12, all eight cases for
aggregate blending in this study show that the combined gradation curves drop below the
maximum density lines around 600 m and smaller.
5.1.2.2 Shilstones Coarseness Factor Chart

For Shilstones Coarseness Factor Chart, detailed particle size distributions are not required for
the individual aggregates, since the only values needed to calculate the coarseness and
92
workability factors are the % passing the 9.5 mm and 2.36 mm sieves. It was found from this
study that the maximum coarseness factor possible (coarse aggregate mass proportion is 1.0) is
completely influenced by the choice of coarse aggregate, and can control or safeguard against
mixtures falling in the gap-graded zone, Zone 1.
5.1.2.3 8-18 Distribution Chart

The current research, along with previous studies, has found that it is difficult to get a combined
aggregate blend that falls entirely within the limits of the 8-18 (or 8-22) distribution. For this
study, since none of the combined gradations fit completely within the limits, and even though
the ternary blends generally improved the number of sections of the combined gradations within
of the limits, the combinations of the three particular aggregates selected for this study do not
completely satisfy this techniques requirements. Therefore, the successful application of this
technique is either significantly dependent on the individual gradations of each aggregate source
used, or requires more than three aggregate sources for blending. The current research, along
with previous studies, has also shown that it is not a necessity for combined aggregate blends to
fall within limits to have adequate workability and finishability.
5.2 Analysis of Workability Results

All workability results can be found in Table 4.1. The system for determining the overall
success or failure of the workability for all mixtures is described in Section 3.8. Concrete
mixtures that were successful (passed or barely passed) were then batched again to cast
cylinders and prisms for hardened property testing. Although, five mixes that failed in
workability were also cast, and their hardened properties were analyzed. These mixes include:
Mix #31 (Stage 2, Theory of Particle Mixtures by Dewar model, binary), Mix #41 (Stage 3,
Talbot's Grading Curve, binary, n = 0.55), Mix #45 (Stage 4, control binary, reduced
cementitious content), Mix #52 (Stage 4, Talbot's Grading Curve, ternary, n = 0.45), and Mix
#53 (Stage 4, Shilstone's Coarseness Factor Chart - Zone 2, ternary, CF = 55.8, WF = 37.0).
The governing points of workability failure for this study were: segregation, unacceptable slump
loss, shearing behaviour shown during slump test, and concrete sample being too harsh to insert
the vane or complete rheology testing properly. Each stage had a different set of points of
workability failure, as well as different trends that are described in the follow subsections.
93
The initial target slump for this stage was 230 mm, as this was what was measured for the 35
MPa control mixture, Mix #1.
Slump loss is not a relevant workability indicator. For the second slump test (at 45 minutes after
water and cementitious content contact), none of the mixes displayed shearing behaviour or
unacceptable slump loss. However, a second slump test was not conducted for all mixes,
specifically for the mixes that failed because the vane could not be inserted into the concrete
sample for the first set of rheology tests and the concrete sample was too harsh to complete
rheology testing because the vane could not rotate properly on 1st Flow Curve test. For the
mixes that were too harsh to complete resting with the rheometer, the initial slumps (measured
at 15 minutes after water and cementitious content contact) ranged from 165 mm to 230 mm.
All Flow Curve test results (dynamic yield stress and plastic viscosity) are adequate and less
variable; however, the static yield stress results were more variable, with a larger range, and
more effective in reaffirming the workability of the mixes as characterized by the visual
assessment, and the rheometers test limitations.
For the first slump test, all of the measured slumps were above 165 mm (Mix #7). An example
of a mixture that did not segregate and was fluid was Mix #18 (Shilstone's Coarseness Factor
Chart - Zone 2, ternary, CF = 64.2, WF = 35.7). Figure 5.1 shows the flowability and cohesion
of Mix #18 after the first slump test.
94
Figure 5.1: Flowability and Cohesion of First Slump Test for Mix #18 (Shilstone's Coarseness Factor Chart -
Zone 2, ternary, CF = 64.2, WF = 35.7)
Chronological governing points of failure in workability tests for this stage include:
Concrete sample was too harsh to insert vane for first set of rheology tests (Mix #s 7, 16,
17, and 22);
Concrete sample was too harsh to complete rheology tests because the vane could not
rotate properly on 1st Flow Curve test (Mix #s 15 and 21);
rotate properly on 2nd Flow Curve test (Mix #s 14 and 19);
Mixture segregation (Mix #s 7, 16, 17, and 22). The segregation of Mix #17 (Shilstone's
Coarseness Factor Chart - Zone 2, ternary, CF = 72.7, WF = 32.7) after 5 minutes of the
first slump test is illustrated in Figure 5.2.
95
Figure 5.2: Segregation of Mix #17 (Shilstone's Coarseness Factor Chart - Zone 2, ternary, CF = 72.7, WF =
32.7) after First Slump Test

0.39
MPa control mixture, Mix #1.
For the first slump test (at 15 minutes after water and cementitious content contact), all of the
measured slumps were above 215 mm (Mix #31). None of the mixes failed due to segregation.
However, slump loss and shearing behaviour, and the visual assessment were relevant
workability indicators.
All Flow Curve test results (dynamic yield stress and plastic viscosity) were adequate and less
variable (with the exception of Mix #31); however, the static yield stress results were more
variable, with a larger range, and more effective in reaffirming the workability of the mixes as
characterized by the slump loss and failure behaviour, visual assessment, and the rheometers
test limitations.
In comparison to Stage #1, the Flow Curve test measurements for plastic viscosity are notably
higher, which could be due to both a decrease in paste volume fraction and increase in aggregate
fraction. A higher viscosity yields longer workability retention and improves segregation
resistance.
96
rotate properly on 1st Flow Curve test (Mix #30);
rotate properly on 2nd Flow Curve test (Mix #28);
The second slump test displayed shearing behaviour (Mix #30). Two consecutive tests
on different samples confirmed failure;
Slump loss of 75 mm (Mix #31). This second slump for Mix #31 (Theory of Particle
Mixtures by Dewar, binary) is illustrated in Figure 5.3.
Figure 5.3: Result of Second Slump Test for Mix #31 (Theory of Particle Mixtures by Dewar, binary)
MPa control mixture, Mix #32d.
measured slumps were above 205 mm (Mix #40). None of the mixes failed due to segregation.
However, slump loss and shearing behaviour were relevant workability indicators.
Plastic viscosity measurements from Flow Curve test results were adequate and less variable.
The static yield stress results were also less variable; however, the dynamic yield stress results
97
were more variable, with a larger range, and more effective in reaffirming the workability of the
mixes as characterized by the slump loss and failure behaviour, and visual assessment.
In comparison to Stage #1, the Flow Curve test measurements for dynamic yield stress were
notably higher, which could be due to a decrease in w/c ratio.
The second slump test displayed shearing behaviour (Mix #41). Two consecutive tests
on different samples confirmed failure;
Slump loss of 80 mm (Mix #40) and 100 mm (Mix #39).

0.33
MPa control mixture, Mix #32d.
measured slumps were above 220 mm (Mix #s 44c and 45). None of the mixes failed due to
segregation. However, slump loss and the visual assessment were relevant workability
indicators
All Flow Curve test results (dynamic yield stress and plastic viscosity) were adequate and less
variable; however, the static yield stress results were more variable, with a larger range, and
more effective in reaffirming the workability of the mixes as characterized by the slump loss
and visual assessment.
In comparison to Stage #3, the Flow Curve test measurements for dynamic yield stress were
notably lower, and notably higher for plastic viscosity. Lower dynamic yield stress could be
attributed to an increase in high-range water reducing admixture, Eucon 37, increasing
flowability. Higher plastic viscosity could be attributed to a dual decrease in paste volume
fraction and increase in aggregate fraction. A higher viscosity yields longer workability
retention and improves segregation resistance.
98
rotate properly on 1st Flow Curve test (Mix #45);
rotate properly on 2nd Flow Curve test (Mix #s 52 and 53);
Slump loss of 140 mm (Mix #45).
5.2.5 Workability Boxes for Shilstones Coarseness Factor Charts

Based on the mixtures with sufficient workability results, workability boxes were produced for
each stage, specific to the aggregate sources and mixtures proportions used in this study
(including cement paste volume, total aggregate volume, w/c, and admixture dosages) as shown
in Figure 5.4 to Figure 5.7. The workability boxes define the areas where mixes with sufficient
workability are located on the Coarseness Factor Chart.
Figure 5.4: Coarseness Factor Chart Workability Box for Stage 1 Mixes
99
100
The workability boxes in Figure 5.4 and Figure 5.5 include all mixtures with sufficient
workability from Stages 1 and 2, respectively. The workability boxes for Stages 3 and 4 were
more difficult to define. The Stage 3 workability box includes all mixtures with sufficient
workability, as well as two mixtures that failed, Mix #s 40 and 41 (Talbots Grading Curve,
binary, n = 0.40 and 0.55, respectively). The Stage 4 workability box includes all mixtures with
sufficient workability, except for Mix #51 (Talbots Grading Curve, binary, n = 0.55).
The workability boxes produced for this study, as compared to the workability box in Zone 2
developed by the Texas Department of Transportation, are much larger, which can be attributed
to either the different aggregate sources used or different criteria set to define sufficient
workability. Producing workability boxes by stage was only possible because if the stages were
combined to produce one workability box, it would be impossible to define one area that would
not include mixes with insufficient workability. Further validation of these workability boxes
would be required as they are estimations only based on the scope of the current test results.
101
5.2.6 Slump and Static Yield Stress Correlation

Slump and static yield stress cannot be compared statistically as they are measured in different
units; however, a correlation graph can be produced to determine how well the static yield stress
can be predicted knowing the slump.
The correlation between the slump and static yield stress values, found in Table 4.1, was
evaluated for each stage of the mixtures with sufficient workability, as the variations in mixture
constituent proportions inherently affect measurement results. Figure 5.8 to Figure 5.11
illustrate the correlations graphically per stage with trend lines and their respective R2 values.
The R2 values for all stages indicate a weak correlation between static yield stress and slump
(highest of 0.57 for Stage 4 and lowest of 0.01 for Stage 3); however, the small sample size and
reduced sensitivity of slump measuring could possibly be underestimating the true relationship
between these two workability properties.
Figure 5.8: Static Yield Stress vs. Slump for Stage 1 Mixes
102
103
5.2.7 Analysis of Rheology Test Results

The results from the rheology tests using the ICAR rheometer were analyzed by stage and
rheological property measured for each mix (2 repetitions of static yield stress, dynamic yield
stress, and plastic viscosity). Figure 5.12 to Figure 5.35 show graphically the ranges of values
measured for each rheological property (includes 2 repetitions) for each stage, arranged by the
mix evaluation of Pass, Barely Pass, and Fail as defined in Section 3.8. All rheology test
results are shown in Table 4.1.
For Stage 1, comparing between the ranges of the mixes that passed, barely passed and failed in
Figure 5.12 to Figure 5.17, all ranges overlap with the exception of Figure 5.15 for the failed
mixes of the second repetition of static yield stress, which were much higher. The highest value
for the Barely Pass mixes was 1,091 Pa, as opposed to the lowest value for the Fail mixes of
4,101 Pa. However, there is a general trend for both static yield stress repetitions and plastic
viscosity repetitions to result in an increase in value ranges from Pass to Fail mixes. The
dynamic yield stress repetitions do not follow a general trend in increasing or decreasing in
value ranges from Pass to Fail mixes. It should be noted that going from the first Stress
Growth Test to the Flow Curve Test, Mix #s 15 and 21 were not continued with, as well as from
the second Stress Growth Test to the Flow Curve Test with Mix #s 14 and 19 as they were too
harsh to complete the Flow Curve Tests. Comparing between the Pass and Barely Pass
mixes of the repetitions for each rheological property, the static yield stress results had similar
ranges of 245 Pa 1,224 Pa for the first repetition and 248 Pa 1,091 Pa for the second
repetition. The second static yield stress measurements shown in Figure 5.15 had very little
overlap, and shows promise for use as a way of determining mixtures with suitable workability.
The dynamic yield stress results had similar ranges of 49 Pa 174 Pa for the first repetition and
33 Pa 222 Pa for the second repetition. The plastic viscosity results had similar ranges of 27
Pas 86 Pas for the first repetition and 36 Pas 108 Pas for the second repetition. This
indicates that the repeatability was good for the mixes that passed and barely passed, and the
performance of the water-reducing admixtures did not diminish greatly after 45 minutes.
104
Figure 5.12: Stage 1, Static Yield Stress 1 Results Arranged by Workability Sufficiency
105
Figure 5.14: Stage 1, Plastic Viscosity 1 Results Arranged by Workability Sufficiency
106
Figure 5.18 to Figure 5.23, all ranges do not overlap with the exception of: Figure 5.19 for the
107
Pass and Fail mixes of the first repetition of dynamic yield stress; Figure 5.21 for the Pass
and Barely Pass mixes of the second repetition of static yield stress; and Figure 5.23 for the
Pass and Barely Pass mixes of the second repetition of plastic viscosity. All the rheological
property repetitions do not follow a general trend in increasing or decreasing in value ranges
from Pass to Fail mixes. It should be noted that going from the first Stress Growth Test to
the Flow Curve Test, Mix # 30 was not continued with, as well as from the second Stress
Growth Test to the Flow Curve Test with Mix # 28 as they were too harsh to complete the Flow
Curve Tests. Comparing between the Pass and Barely Pass mixes of the repetitions for each
rheological property, the static yield stress results had similar ranges of 321 Pa 759 Pa for the
first repetition and 432 Pa 974 Pa for the second repetition. However, the range for the second
repetition had slightly higher values. The dynamic yield stress results had similar ranges of 51
Pa 118 Pa for the first repetition and 59 Pa 129 Pa for the second repetition. The plastic
viscosity results had similar ranges of 64 Pas 106 Pas for the first repetition and 72 Pas
133 Pas for the second repetition. This indicates that the repeatability was generally good for
the mixes that passed and barely passed, and the performance of the water-reducing admixtures
did not diminish greatly.
108

109
110
Figure 5.24 to Figure 5.29, all ranges overlap with the exception of Figure 5.28 for the Pass
and Fail mixes of the second repetition of dynamic yield stress. All the rheological property
repetitions do not follow a general trend in increasing or decreasing in value ranges from Pass
to Fail mixes. Comparing between the Pass and Barely Pass mixes of the repetitions for
each rheological property, the static yield stress results had ranges of 514 Pa 841 Pa for the
first repetition and 481 Pa 1,251 Pa for the second repetition. The lower range values were
similar; however, the higher range value for the second repetition was notably higher. The
dynamic yield stress results had ranges of 135 Pa 285 Pa for the first repetition and 195 Pa
407 Pa for the second repetition, which are considerably different. The plastic viscosity results
had similar ranges of 35 Pas 63 Pas for the first repetition and 40 Pas 65 Pas for the
second repetition. This indicates that the repeatability was not as good for the mixes that passed
and barely passed for Stage 3 as opposed to Stages 1 and 2. The diminishing performance of the
water-reducing admixture dosages could have a considerable effect on the repeatability of the
rheology tests.
111
112
113
Figure 5.30 to Figure 5.35, all ranges overlap with the exception of: Figure 5.33 for the Pass
and Barely Pass mixes of the second repetition of static yield stress; and Figure 5.35 for the
114
Pass and Barely Pass mixes of the second repetition of plastic viscosity. All the rheological
property repetitions do not follow a general trend in increasing or decreasing in value ranges
from Pass to Fail mixes. It should be noted that going from the first Stress Growth Test to
the Flow Curve Test, Mix # 45 was not continued with, as well as from the second Stress
Growth Test to the Flow Curve Test with Mix #s 52 and 53 as they were too harsh to complete
the Flow Curve Tests. Comparing between the Pass and Barely Pass mixes of the
repetitions for each rheological property, the static yield stress results had ranges of 312 Pa
840 Pa for the first repetition and 413 Pa 1,449 Pa for the second repetition. The range for the
second repetition had higher values. The dynamic yield stress results had ranges of 31 Pa 86
Pa for the first repetition and 17 Pa 168 Pa for the second repetition. The lower range values
were similar; however, the higher range value for the second repetition was notably higher. The
plastic viscosity results had similar ranges of 50 Pas 116 Pas for the first repetition and 75
Pas 124 Pas for the second repetition. This indicates that the repeatability was not as good for
the mixes that passed and barely passed for Stage 4 as opposed to Stages 1 and 2. The
diminishing performance of the water-reducing admixture dosages could have a considerable
effect on the repeatability of the rheology tests.
115

116
117
Since many of the rheology test results have overlapping ranges for the mixes that passed,
barely passed and failed for all stages, it is difficult to define numerical ranges for static and
dynamic yield stress, and plastic viscosity that would ensure satisfactory workability. The most
likely candidate for a workability parameter obtained from Stage 1 and 2 results is the second
set of static yield stress values.
5.2.8 35 MPa Concrete Mixtures with Successful Workability

The mixes with successful workability for both Stages 1 and 2 35 MPa concrete mixtures are
shown in Table 5.1. For Stage 1, there were 12 mixes with successful workability, including the
control binary mix. The mixtures that had better workability results than the control binary
mixture were: i) Shilstone's Coarseness Factor Chart - Zone 2, ternary, CF = 64.2, WF = 39.9,
ii) Talbot's Grading Curve (binary) [n=0.45]; iii) Talbot's Grading Curve (binary) [n=0.50]; and
iv) Particle packing model (binary) [Toufar]. For Stage 2, there were 5 mixes with successful
workability, including the control binary mix. All 4 mixes had better workability results than the
control binary mixture.
118
Table 5.1: Stages 1 and 2 35 MPa Concrete Mixtures with Successful Workability
Stage 1 Stage 2
Control (binary) Control (binary) reduced cementitious
content
Particle packing model (binary) [Toufar] Particle packing model (binary) [Toufar]
Particle packing model (ternary) [Toufar]
Particle packing model (binary) [Dewar]
Talbot's Grading Curve (binary) [n=0.40]
Talbot's Grading Curve (binary) [n=0.45] Talbot's Grading Curve (binary) [n=0.45]
Talbot's Grading Curve (ternary) [n=0.40] Talbot's Grading Curve (ternary) [n=0.40]
Talbot's Grading Curve (ternary) [n=0.45]
2, ternary, CF = 64.2, WF = 35.7
Shilstone's Coarseness Factor Chart - Zone Shilstone's Coarseness Factor Chart - Zone 2,
2, ternary, CF = 64.2, WF = 39.9 ternary, CF = 58.3, WF = 38.6
As can be seen from Table 5.1, the most successful optimization techniques for both stages are
the Talbots Grading Curve, Modified Toufar Model, and Shilstones Coarseness Factor Chart.
The Theory of Particle Mixtures Model by Dewar was only successful for Stage 1; however,
that binary Mix #4 barely passed.
5.2.9 50 MPa Concrete Mixtures with Successful Workability

The mixes with successful workability for both Stages 3 and 4 50 MPa concrete mixtures are
shown in Table 5.2. For Stage 3, there were 9 mixes with successful workability, including the
control binary mix. All mixes had better workability results than the control binary mixture,
except for Shilstone's Coarseness Factor Chart - Zone 2, ternary, CF = 58.3, WF = 40.4. For
Stage 4, there were 7 mixes with successful workability, not including the control binary mix.
Hence, all mixes had better workability results than the control binary mixture.
Table 5.2: Stages 3 and 4 50 MPa Concrete Mixtures with Successful Workability
Stage 3 Stage 4
Control (binary)
Particle packing model (binary) [Toufar] Particle packing model (binary) [Toufar]
Particle packing model (ternary) [Toufar] Particle packing model (ternary) [Toufar]
119
Talbot's Grading Curve (ternary) [n=0.40] Talbot's Grading Curve (ternary) [n=0.40]
Talbot's Grading Curve (ternary) [n=0.45]
Shilstone's Coarseness Factor Chart - Zone Shilstone's Coarseness Factor Chart - Zone 2,
2, ternary, CF = 58.3, WF = 44.6 ternary, CF = 55.8, WF = 41.2
2, ternary, CF = 58.3, WF = 40.4
As can be seen from Table 5.2, the most successful optimization techniques for both stages are
the same as for Stages 1 and 2, including the Talbots Grading Curve, Modified Toufar Model,
and Shilstones Coarseness Factor Chart. The Theory of Particle Mixtures Model by Dewar was
not successful.
5.3 Analysis of Compressive Strength Results

As previously stated, two cylinders were tested at each test age in the saturated surface dry
condition. The ages tested were 1, 3, 7, 28, 56 and 91 days. The average peak stress results from
the compressive strength tests for each test age are shown in Table 4.2. The individual cylinder,
as well as average, peak compressive strength results are shown in Appendix F. The average
diameter (two top and two bottom measurements) and the resulting peak load of each cylinder
were measured and recorded. The individual compressive strengths were calculated from these
measurements. An average of the two compressive strength results per test age was calculated
for all mixes, with the only exception of Mix #42 at 28days where the first cylinder peak load
was disregarded due to improper alignment over the top and bottom bearing plates.
For some cylinders, most notably the 1 day tests, were tested a day later due to setting, machine
or timing issues. For all ages, with the exception of the 1 day tests, the specimen ends were
ground. For the 1 day test specimens, the end conditions varied, and are noted in Appendix F.
Some were ground, and others were unground (too soft to grind) and were either capped or not.
The ground specimens were Mix #s 18, 20, 34, 35, 48, 49-1, 49-2, 51, 52 and 53, and were all 2
days old when tested. The unground specimens that were capped were Mix #s 24b, 25e, 27, 29,
31, 36, 44c, 45, 46, 47 and 50, and were all 1 day old when tested. The unground specimens that
were not capped were of Mix #s 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 32d, 33, 36, 37, 38, 41, 42 and
43, and were 1 day old when tested with the exception of Mix #s 1, 2, 5 and 9 (2 days old).
Two compressive strength testing machines certified to ASTM E4 were used for this study. For
all mixes, up to and including the 28 day specimens were tested on the same machine
120
(Manufacturer: Sartell Instruments, Load Capacity of 2000 kN). For all mixes, the 56 day and
91 day specimens were tested on another testing machine (Manufacturer: Forney, Load Capacity
of 3000 kN).
The variation in end condition for the 1 day specimens and testing machines did affect the peak
compressive strength results. However, with respect to the variation in testing machines used, it
is consistent across ages; therefore, the results are comparable between each other.
It was observed that Mix #s 8 (Talbots Grading Curve, binary, n = 0.4) and 2-A2 (Modified
Toufar, binary, Supply #2 coarse aggregate only) have the same aggregate material volume
proportions (refer to Appendix A); therefore, their results are expected to be similar. When
comparing the results of Mix #s 2 and 8, they had statistically similar compressive strengths at
28 days, which were slightly less than 35 MPa; however, Mix #2 achieved 46.8 MPa at 91 days
as opposed to Mix #8 with 40.9 MPa. Refer to Appendix I for statistical analysis of 28 day
compressive strength results.
Also, Mix #49 was cast twice (with the same coarse aggregate supply; Supply #3); therefore,
both sets of results are expected to be similar. When comparing the results of Mix #s 49-1 and
49-2, they had statistically similar compressive strengths at 28 days, which were greater than 50
MPa; however, Mix #49-2 achieved 70.6 MPa at 91 days as opposed to Mix #49-1 with 64.0
MPa. Refer to Appendix I for statistical analysis of 28 day compressive strength results.
The smoothness of the ground end surfaces was checked using the ASTM C 39 procedure to
ensure that the compressive strength results would not be significantly affected by the planeness
of the end surface condition. The end surfaces that were checked were the specimens of Mix #s
44c, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49-1, 49-2, 51, 52 and 53 at 56 days. An average of three thickness
measurements were taken per surface, and then an average of the top and bottom surfaces for
each cylinder was calculated. The limit of plane deviation specified in ASTM C 39 is 0.05 mm,
and the results in Appendix J confirm that the majority of the ends, except for the average of one
cylinder of Mix #s 49-1 and 51, fail this check as plane deviation was greater than 0.05 mm
(greatest plane deviation was 0.08 mm). Therefore, the end surface condition of the cylinders
could have an effect by creating stress concentrations, ultimately reducing the compressive
strength results.
121
Not all mixes for Stages 1 and 2 had 28 day compressive strength results, as shown in Table 4.2,
equal to or greater than 35 MPa including: Mix #2 (Stage 1, Modified Toufar Particle Packing
Model, binary), Mix #4 (Stage 1, Theory of Particle Mixtures by Dewar Model, binary), Mix #8
(Stage 1, Talbot's Grading Curve, binary, n = 0.40), and Mix #9 (Stage 1, Talbot's Grading
Curve, binary, n = 0.45). The control binary mixture (Mix #1) had a 28 day compressive
strength of 42.0 MPa.
Mix #18 had statistically significantly higher 28 day strength than the control binary mixture,
with a value 50.8 MPa. Ten mixes, had significantly comparable compressive strength
development results to the control binary mixture at 28 days above 35 MPa: Mix #5 (Stage 1,
Modified Toufar particle packing model, ternary), Mix #10 (Stage 1, Talbot's Grading Curve,
binary, n = 0.50), Mix #11 (Stage 1, Talbot's Grading Curve, binary, n = 0.55), Mix #12 (Stage
1, Talbot's Grading Curve, ternary, n = 0.40), Mix #13 (Stage 1, Talbot's Grading Curve,
ternary, n = 0.45), Mix #20 (Stage 1, Shilstone's Coarseness Factor Chart - Zone 2, ternary, CF
= 58.3, WF = 39.9), Mix #25e (Stage 2, Talbot's Grading Curve, binary, n = 0.45), Mix #26
(Stage 2, Shilstone's Coarseness Factor Chart - Zone 2, ternary, CF = 55.8, WF = 38.6), Mix #27
(Stage 2, Talbot's Grading Curve, ternary, n = 0.40), and Mix #29 (Stage 2, control binary,
reduced cementitious content). Mix #s 10, 13, 20 and 27 had better 28 day strength than the
control binary mixture. Mix #31 (Stage 2, Theory of Particle Mixtures by Dewar model, binary)
failed in terms of workability; however, it had statistically significantly better 28 day strength
than the control binary mixture with a value of 45.6 MPa. Refer to Appendix I for statistical
analysis of 28 day compressive strength results.
All mixes for Stages 3 and 4 had 28 day compressive strength results greater than 50 MPa. The
control binary mixture (Mix #32d) had the highest 28 day compressive strength of 72.1 MPa.
Twelve mixes had statistically comparable compressive strength results to the control binary
mixture at 28 days: Mix #s 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 43, 44c, 46, 47, 49, and 51. Four mixes, Mix
#41 (Stage 3, Talbot's Grading Curve, binary, n = 0.55), Mix #45 (Stage 4, control binary,
reduced cementitious content), Mix #52 (Stage 4, Talbot's Grading Curve, ternary, n = 0.45),
and Mix #53 (Stage 4, Shilstone's Coarseness Factor Chart - Zone 2, ternary, CF = 55.8, WF =
37.0), failed in terms of workability; however, they were statistically comparable to the control
binary mixture at 28 day compressive strength. Refer to Appendix I for statistical analysis of 28
day compressive strength results.
122
5.4 Analysis of Linear Drying Shrinkage Results

As previously stated, the length changes of three prisms per mix were measured in accordance
with the OPSS LS-435 R23 procedure at ages of 1, 7, 14, 28, 35, 56, and 91 days. Length
change values following the ASTM C 157 procedure were also calculated. The average length
change results following both procedures are shown in Table 4.3. The individual, as well as
average, length change results are shown in Appendix G. The gauge length of each prism was
measured and recorded before casting. The mass and difference between the reference bar and
comparator reading (CRD) of each individual prism were measured and recorded for each test
age. The individual prism length change values were calculated using the gauge length, CRD at
the specific age, and the 7 day CRD as the initial CRD (after 7 days curing in lime-saturated
water, as per OPSS LS-435 R23). An average length change was then calculated from the three
prism length change results. Length change measurements following the ASTM C 157
procedure using the 1 day CRD as the initial CRD are also recorded in Appendix G.
To maintain consistency between mass and linear drying shrinkage results, the same
comparator, scale, and reference bar were used. Changes in the reference bar length (compared
to another reference bar) were measured and recorded monthly, and used to compensate for any
length change in the reference bar.
Some tests, most notably the 1 day and 7 day tests, were done at a later age due to setting,
comparator or timing issues. Mix #s 18, 20, 32d, 33, 34, 35, 44c, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49-1, 49-2, 51,
52, and 53 were tested at 2 days rather than 1 day as they were de-moulded after 2 days. Mix #s
4, 8, 10, 11, 12, and 13 were tested at 8 days rather than 7 days. Therefore, since the initial CRD
values are based on the 7 day measurements for OPSS LS-435 R23, the length change
measurements will be affected for all these mixes as the specimens were left to cure to lime-
saturated water for one less or one extra day.
Toufar, binary, Supply #2 coarse aggregate only) have the same aggregate material volume
proportions (refer to Appendix A); therefore, their results are expected to be similar. When
comparing the results of Mix #s 2 and 8, Mix #2 had statistically significantly lower shrinkage
at 35 days; however its rate of increase in shrinkage with age was greater. From 14 days to 91
days, shrinkage increased by a factor of 4.24 for Mix #2 and 2.45 for Mix #8. However, the
123
initial CRDs were based on 7 day measurements for Mix #2 and 8 days for Mix #8. This could
explain the overall lower shrinkage of Mix #2. Refer to Appendix K for statistical analysis of 35
day linear drying shrinkage results.
Also, Mix #49 was cast twice (with the same coarse aggregate supply; Supply #3); therefore,
both sets of results are expected to be similar. These mixes were also cast on the same day, so
all of the testing dates are the same. When comparing the results of Mix #s 49-1 and 49-2, they
had similar linear drying shrinkage results over the entire testing period. When comparing the
results specifically at 35 days of age, their results were statistically insignificantly different. This
indicates that there was consistency in measuring the CRD values. Refer to Appendix K for
statistical analysis of 35 days of age linear drying shrinkage results.
The mass of every prism was also recorded on every test day, and the values are shown in
Appendix G. The trends in average mass reduction for all 35 MPa and 50 MPa mixes are shown
graphically in Appendix L, and were used to check that there were no discrepancies with the
specimens. The mass reductions for all mixes display the same trend of an increase in mass
between the ages of 1 day (30 minutes submersion in lime-saturated water, surface dry) and 7
days (cured in lime-saturated water since de-moulding, surface dry) as the concrete swells, and
then a decrease for the rest of the testing period as the specimens were cured in a drying room
with relative humidity of 50%. This trend shows consistency between mixture specimens, and
indicates that possible erroneous data cannot be attributed to specimen discrepancies.
For both the 35 MPa and 50 MPa mixes with successful workability, the majority of the mixes
exhibited greater shrinkage than the controls, Mix #s 1 and 32d, respectively. For the 35 MPa
mix with failed workability, Mix #31, its measured shrinkage was the greatest compared to all
35 MPa mixes, and had statistically significantly higher shrinkage than the control at 35 days.
Refer to Appendix K for statistical analysis of 35 days of age linear drying shrinkage results.
For the 50 MPa mixes with failed workability (Mix #s 41, 45, 52 and 53), their shrinkage
measurements were also greater than the control, Mix #32d. At 35 days, the shrinkage for Mix
#s 52 and 53 are statistically comparable to the control, while for Mix #s 41 and 45 they have
statistically significantly higher shrinkage than the control. Refer to Appendix K for statistical
analysis of 35 days of age linear drying shrinkage results.
124
CSA A23.1 specifies an acceptable shrinkage limit for low-shrinkage concrete of 0.040% after 7
days of wet curing during 28 days of drying, as does MTO for repair concrete. Using this
criterion to analyze the results of this study, only a select set of 35 MPa and 50 MPa mixes had
less shrinkage than 0.040% at the age of 35 days, as shown in Figure 5.36 and Figure 5.37. For
both strength concretes, the controls were under the acceptable shrinkage limit.
Figure 5.36: Linear Drying Shrinkage vs. Time of Drying for 35 MPa Mixes within Acceptable Limit at 28
Days of Drying
Figure 5.37: Linear Drying Shrinkage vs. Time of Drying for 50 MPa Mixes within Acceptable Limit at 28
Days of Drying
For 35 MPa, only four mixes, Mix #s 1, 2, 5, 9, are lower than the acceptable shrinkage limit.
Mix #s 2, 5, and 9 all have statistically comparable shrinkage results at 35 days of age to the
control, and all have a cementitious content of 360 kg/m3. For 50 MPa, seven mixes, Mix #s
125
32d, 33, 44c, 45, 46, 52 and 53, are lower than the acceptable shrinkage limit; however Mix #s
45, 52 and 53 all failed during the workability phase. Mix #s 33 and 45 had statistically
significantly higher shrinkage than the control, Mix #32d, for shrinkage at 35 days of age;
however the rest, Mix #s 44c and 46, were statistically comparable to the control for shrinkage
at 35 days of age. Refer to Appendix K for statistical analysis of 35 days of age linear drying
shrinkage results. Both these mixes have a reduced cementitious content of 390 kg/m3. It was
expected that more mixes, especially from Stages 2 and 4 with the reduced cementitious
contents for the 35 MPa and 50 MPa mix designs, respectively, would have comparable or
lower shrinkage results than the controls since their cement paste fractions decreased by
approximately 8% and 16%, respectively.
The results (including failed mixes with workability) were then analyzed by cast date, as shown
in Figure 5.38 to Figure 5.46, to verify that the shrinkage results are accurate, even though the
procedure for measuring length change was consistent. The procedures for OPSS and ASTM are
also compared in Figure 5.38 to Figure 5.46, specifically to check the difference in shrinkage
with the acceptable shrinkage limit at 35 days of age. It should be noted, however, that the
curing procedure for ASTM differs from OPSS, specifying after an initial reading at 1 day,
submersion of specimens in lime-saturated water until an age of 28 days, then beyond 28 days a
choice between wet or dry curing.
Figure 5.38: Linear Drying Shrinkage vs. Time of Drying for January 4, 2011 Cast Date
126
127
128
Figure 5.46: Linear Drying Shrinkage vs. Time of Drying for May 12, 2011 Cast Date
The only possible discrepancies found in the shrinkage results are from January 12 and 31 cast
dates at 21 days of drying (Figure 5.40 and Figure 5.45), as these results fluctuate, not
displaying a progressive increase in shrinkage. The reason for the fluctuation is uncertain as
shrinkage measurements for other mixes on surrounding testing days were not affected. There is
a possibility that when this set of prisms was put back in the drying room, there was not enough
space left surrounding the specimens to circulate air around them; however, due to a frequent
series of testing dates from January, 2011 to April, 2011, the specimens were shuffled around
and changed positions often. These discrepancies are most likely due to a systematic error, and
therefore were disregarded. The dial stand and comparator bar may have not been working
129
properly on those particular dates, for example due to sand or grit becoming lodged in the lower
measurement collar.
Results for the ASTM procedure (with the curing regime of OPSS) were incrementally lower
than the OPSS procedure results. The results at 35 days of age for the control mixes, Mix #s 1
and 32d, are statistically significantly different at a 90% confidence level. However, the ASTM
procedure was modified by following the curing procedure in the OPSS procedure. Refer to
Appendix M for statistical analysis of 35 day linear drying shrinkage results.
For January 4 cast date, all shrinkage at 35 days (28 days after 7 days of curing in lime-saturated
water) was lower than the acceptable limit of 0.040%. For January 10 cast date, the only mixes
that were lower than the acceptable limit of 0.040% at 35 days of age were Mix #s 8, 10, 11, 12
and 13 following the ASTM procedure. For January 12 cast date, all shrinkage values at 35 days
of age were lower than the acceptable limit, except for Mix #s 18, 20, 34 and 35 following the
OPSS procedure. For January 17 cast date, the only mixes that were lower than the acceptable
limit of 0.040% at 35 days of were Mix #s 36 and 38 following the ASTM procedure. For
January 25 cast date, all mixes following the ASTM procedure were lower than the acceptable
limit of 0.040% at 35 days of age while the shrinkage values following the OPSS procedure
were greater. For January 26 cast date, all shrinkage at 35 days of age was lower than the
acceptable limit of 0.040%. For January 31 cast date, all shrinkage at 35 days of age was lower
than the acceptable limit of 0.040%, with the exception of Mix #s 48, 49-1, 49-2 and 51
following the OPSS procedure. For May 12 cast date, all shrinkage follow the ASTM procedure
at 35 days of age was lower than the acceptable limit of 0.040%.
For some mixes at an age of 14 days using the ASTM procedure, the length change results were
positive, indicating expansion. The results are shown in Appendix G for Mix #s 11, 27, 29, 31,
47, 50 and 52, with the highest expansion for Mix #31 at 0.009%. Comparing between the
ASTM and OPSS, ASTM results will display incrementally lower shrinkage because the
specimens expand after 7 days of submersion in lime-saturated water (compared to the 1 day
measurements after 30 minutes of submersion in lime-saturated water). In many cases, mixes
that exhibited greater shrinkage at 35 days than the acceptable limit of 0.040% following the
OPSS procedure passed below the limit following the ASTM procedure.
130
If the acceptable shrinkage limit were increased from 0.040% to 0.050% at 28 days of drying,
several more mixes would meet this criterion. All 35 MPa mixes, fall below 0.050% at 28 days
of drying with the exception of only three mixes including: Mix #4 with 0.055%, Mix #8 with
0.055, and Mix #31 with 0.060%. However, Mix #31 failed during the workability phase. All 50
MPa mixes, fall below 0.050% at 28 days of drying with the exception of only two mixes
including: Mix #37 with 0.053%, and Mix #38 with 0.052%. The ASTM C 157 test method has
stated a precision for air dried samples with an expected difference between two means, each
mean based on three replicates, not exceeding 0.0137% with a 95% confidence level. Therefore,
the acceptable shrinkage limit for this study could be raised to 0.0537%, and still be statistically
comparable to 0.040%. If it were raised to 0.0537%, then all 50 MPa mixes would meet this
criterion (including Mix #37 and Mix #38); although, for the 35 MPa mixes it would be the
same outcome as that of increasing the acceptable shrinkage limit from 0.040% to 0.050%.
5.5 Analysis of Bulk Resistivity Results

As previously stated, the resistivity of each mix was measured at ages of 28 days and 56 days
using two different tests methods: ASTM C 1202 Standard Test Method for Electrical
Indication of Concretes Ability to Resist Chloride Ion Penetration, and the Merlin Bulk
Conductivity Test. Three slices, each with a nominal thickness of 50 mm, of a 100 mm by 200
mm cylinder were tested for each test. For the Merlin Bulk Conductivity Tester, the three
specimens for each mix were tested consecutively in the sequence from top to bottom, while for
ASTM C 1202, they were tested simultaneously. This consistency in testing procedure ensured
that the resistivity results would be comparable between mixes, but also between the three
specimens of the same mix. The resistivity of the specimens was first measured with the Merlin
test, as it is non-destructive, then afterwards with the RCPT, which is destructive. A verification
cylinder (100 mm by 200 mm), as shown in Figure 3.35 on the left, is supplied for the Merlin
test to ensure the testing equipment is working properly. This verification cylinder was used
before every testing period, and no issues were found with the equipment at any point in time.
The average bulk resistivity results for both the Merlin test and RCPT (for initial 5-minute and
final 6-hour time intervals), and actual charge passed from the RCPT are shown in Table 4.4.
The average and individual bulk resistivity results for both the Merlin test and RCPT (for initial
5-minute and final 6-hour time intervals) are shown in Appendix L. Appendix L also includes
the individual specimens average diameter, thickness, and specific to the RCPT, the initial 5-
131
minute and final 6-hour temperature readings, the actual and adjusted charges passed, chloride
ion penetrability category, and current measured at five minutes (initial) and six hours (final).
All values were output by the test software, with the exception of the RCPT 5-minute and 6-
hour bulk resistivity values, which were calculated using Equations 3.3 to 3.6, where V = 60 V.
The calculated initial 5-minute bulk resistivity is based on the measured current at 5 minutes
(first measured reading), and the final 6-hour bulk resistivity calculation is based on t = 6 hrs
and Q = Actual Charge Passed (as opposed to Adjusted Charge Passed).
All specimens were conditioned following ASTM C 1202 with the exception of electrical tape
substituting for the electrically non-conductive coating around the cylindrical side surface of the
specimens. However, since the curing regime used for this study was submersion in lime-
saturated water from time of de-moulding through to the end of the testing period, conditioning
the samples under a vacuum for three hours was redundant. This was verified with the top sliced
specimen from Mix #36 at 28 days using the Merlin test method (as this test is non-destructive
while the RCPT is destructive). There was found to be an insignificant difference between
Merlin test results where conditioning the sample without vacuum saturation was 294.74 m
and with vacuuming was 294.56 m.
Since multiple mixes were cast on the same day, timing for testing all three slices per mix was
an issue. Many mix specimens were tested at ages of 29 days or 57 days, and some at 30 days,
58 days, and 59 days. The mix specimens tested at 29 days were Mix #s 4, 8, 12, 13, 18, 24b,
26, 27, 29, 31, 32d, 34, 35, 36, 38, 41, 43, 44c, 46, 47, 51, and 52. The mix specimens tested at
30 days were Mix #s 10, 11, 25e, 37, and 42. The mix specimens tested at 57 days were Mix #s
1, 5, 8, 10, 24b, 25e, 32d, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 51, and 53. The mix specimens tested at 58 days
were Mix #s 4, 13, 41, and 42. The mix specimens tested at 59 days were that of Mix # 26. Even
though these mix specimens were either 1 day to 3 days older in age, it is to be assumed they are
old enough that the variation in test day would be insignificant, and, hence, are still comparable.
There were some discrepancies with some RCPT measurements that have been excluded or
corrected. This includes discontinuing the RCP testing of the middle slice of Mix #48 at 28 days
since the sample was dropped, and subsequently split, after measuring resistivity with the
Merlin test. Thus, the average 5-minute and 6-hour RCPT bulk resistivity values only included
the top and bottom slice values. Another discrepancy was the measured current value at 5
minutes from RCPT for Mix #11s middle slice at 56 days. The current at five minutes was 23.8
132
mA and at ten minutes was 44.6 mA (with subsequent measurements similar to this), meaning
that it did not stabilize within the first five minutes of testing. The measured current reading at
ten minutes was consequently used for further calculations instead of the current reading
measured current reading at five minutes. There was also a discrepancy with the RCPT
machines measurements for Mix #s 2 and 5s middle slices at 56 days, Mix #20s bottom slice
at 56 days, and Mix #45s top slice at 28 days where the actual and adjusted charges passed, and
measured current at five minutes are all considerably lower than expected; therefore, they have
been excluded. These discrepancies in measurements were from different channels, where Mix
#2 and 5 were from Channel 2, Mix #20 from Channel 6, and Mix #45 from Channel 4.
Therefore, it is not a particular channel that caused these discrepancies, but possibly a particular
unreliable and damaged applied voltage cell.
For complete analysis of the data measured and calculated, the average bulk resistivity values
for each mix of the 35 MPa and 50 MPa mix lists were compared to other respective mixes, and
also compared specifically to their respective control mixes. As mentioned earlier in Section 2.6,
previous research has found a strong linear relationship with the bulk conductivity, and therefore
bulk resistivity, calculated from the initial current (within t < 1 min) measured and the charge
passed calculated over the six hours of RCP testing. This relationship will be evaluated for the
current study of both the Merlin and initial 5-minute RCPT bulk resistivity values with the final
6-hour RCPT bulk resistivity values. The Chloride Ion Penetrability Category for RCPT will be
commented on between the 28-day and 56-days specimens for each mix. The difference in the
current measured at five minutes and six hours will also be commented on, as the current is
expected to increase with increasing temperature.
Toufar, binary, Supply #2 coarse aggregate only) had the same aggregate material volume
proportions (refer to Appendix A); therefore, their results are expected to be similar. The Merlin
test average bulk resistivity measurements for 28 and 56 days, shown in Appendix L, were
147.4 m and 158.0 m, respectively for Mix #2, while they were 164.0 m and 161.1 m,
respectively for Mix #8. Both Merlin bulk resistivity values at 28 days and 56 days are
statistically comparable. Refer to Appendix N for statistical analysis of Merlin bulk resistivity
results. Between Mix #8's Merlin result for both ages, the resistivity at 28 days is higher than the
56 day cylinder, even though the 56 day cylinder should have greater resistivity due to
133
continued hydration, and hence increased discontinuity of the pore structure. The bulk resistivity
values at 28 days for Mix #8 for the top, middle and bottom slices of the cylinder differ with
132.3 m, 171.2 m, and 188.4 m, respectively where the middle and bottom values being
especially higher than the top. This difference is possibly due to the compaction of the fresh
concrete sample into the cylinders. Both average 5-minute and 6-hour bulk resistivity for the
two ages are higher, and the actual and adjusted charges passed are generally lower for Mix #8
than Mix #2. However, for each slice of each age, the chloride ion penetrability category is the
same.
Mix #49 was cast twice (with the same coarse aggregate supply; Supply #3); therefore, both sets
of results are expected to be similar. When comparing the results of Mix #s 49-1 and 49-2, all
measured and calculated values are similar with the exception of the 28-day top slice, as Mix
#49-1s measured current at five minutes, and actual and adjusted charges passed are lower than
the middle and bottom values of its mix and top slice of Mix #49-2. This could be again
attributed to an unreliable or damaged applied voltage cell, although, for each slice of each age,
the chloride ion penetrability category is the same. Both Merlin bulk resistivity values at 28 days
and 56 days are statistically comparable. Refer to Appendix N for statistical analysis of Merlin
bulk resistivity results.
The Chloride Ion Penetrability Categories for the RCPT results, which is based on the adjusted
charge passed (adjusted meaning that the diameter of the specimens is standardized to 95 mm),
were compared. The different categories are shown in Table 5.3. For the 35 MPa mixes, the 28
day results varied between the classification of Low or Very Low, and the 56 day results were all
in the classification of Very Low with the one exception of the top slice for Mix #29. For the 50
MPa mixes, all the results were classified as Very Low.
Table 5.3: Chloride Ion Penetrability Categories for RCPT, adapted from (ASTM C 1202, 2010)
Charge Passed (Coulombs) Chloride Ion Penetrability
> 4,000 High
2,000 4,000 Moderate
1,000 2,000 Low
100 1,000 Very Low
< 100 Negligible
For RCPT the current should remain constant over the six hours when in reality the temperature
of the pore fluid increases due to heat release from ion-ion and ion-solid collisions, therefore
134
increasing the current flow (Nokken and Hooton, 2006). However, for the majority of specimens
in the current study, the temperature increased (largest increase was 10C) over the six hours of
testing while the current decreased from the initial 5-minute to 6-hour current measured. The
initial (at 5 minutes) and final (at 6 hours) temperatures are shown in Appendix G. This
tendency occurred for all specimens, with the exception for seven specimens: top slices at 28
days for Mix #s 1, 49-1 and 53; middle slice at 28 days for Mix #53; bottom slice at 28 days for
Mix #53; middle slice at 56 days for Mix #36; and bottom slice at 56 days for Mix #20. The
exceptional cases were tested on various days (except for Mix #53) and with various channels
(of the eight channels of the test device). There were also only six test cells that were used for
testing, and they were all used at once; therefore, these exceptional cases cannot be attributed to
one test cell. Hence, the only explanation for the current dropping for the majority of the tested
specimens is an internal RCPT machine error or a build-up of resistance at the electrodes.
Although the RCPT results could be inaccurate, it is still possible that the results could be
consistent since most of the results showed the same trend in the current dropping over the six
hour duration. This was checked by plotting the average RCPT 5-minute bulk resistivity vs.
Merlin bulk resistivity values for both the 35 MPa and 50 MPa mixes, as shown in Figure 5.47
and Figure 5.48.
Figure 5.47: Average RCPT 5-minute Bulk Resistivity vs. Merlin Bulk Resistivity for 35 MPa Mixes
135
Figure 5.48: Average RCPT 5-minute Bulk Resistivity vs. Merlin Bulk Resistivity for 50 MPa Mixes
For most cases, with the exception of one specimen tested (Mix #11 middle slice at 56 days) the
current stabilized within the first five minutes, therefore the correlation between the Merlin test
results and calculated RCPT 5-minute bulk resistivity values is expected to be strong. However,
all correlations were weak, with the two graphs (for both strengths) displaying a slightly weak
correlation with R2 values of 0.54 at 28 days and 0.65 at 56 days for 35 MPa, and 0.58 at 28
days and 0.71 at 56 days for 50 MPa. These weak correlations indicate that the results of the
Merlins instantaneous measurement of bulk resistivity, and the RCPTs calculated initial bulk
resistivity using the measured current at five minutes are not comparable. However, the bulk
resistivity results for both the 35 MPa and 50 MPa control mixes, Mix #1 and Mix #32d, at 28
days and 56 days are statistically comparable with a 90% confidence level. Refer to Appendix O
for statistical analysis of bulk resistivity results.
The correlation between the Merlin bulk resistivity values and calculated RCPT 6-hour bulk
resistivity results was also checked. Figure 5.49 and Figure 5.50 shows the average RCPT 6-
hour bulk resistivity vs. Merlin bulk resistivity values for both the 35 MPa and 50 MPa mixes.
136
Figure 5.49: Average RCPT 6-hour Bulk Resistivity vs. Merlin Bulk Resistivity for 35 MPa Mixes
Figure 5.50: Average RCPT 6-hour Bulk Resistivity vs. Merlin Bulk Resistivity for 50 MPa Mixes
The correlations for the average 35 MPa concretes were weak with R2 values of 0.23 at 28 days
and 0.69 at 56 days. The correlations of the 50 MPa concretes were moderately weak, except the
R2 value at 56 days was strong. The R2 values for 50 MPa were 0.75 at 28 days and 0.92 at 56
days. The bulk resistivity results for both the 35 MPa and 50 MPa control mixes, Mix #1 and
Mix #32d, at 28 days are statistically comparable, and at 56 days are statistically significantly
different with a 90% confidence level. Refer to Appendix O for statistical analysis of bulk
resistivity results. Since these correlations vary in strength and the statistical significance varies
137
for the control mixes, this indicates that the results of the Merlins instantaneous measurement
of bulk resistivity, and the RCPTs calculated final bulk resistivity using the measured actual
charge passed are not consistently comparable.
The initial and final RCPT bulk resistivity results were thus compared to determine if the RCPT
readings were consistent or precise. Figure 5.51 and Figure 5.52 show the average RCPT 6-hour
bulk resistivity vs. 5-minute bulk resistivity values for both the 35 MPa and 50 MPa mixes.
Figure 5.51: Average RCPT 6-hour Bulk Resistivity vs. 5-minute Bulk Resistivity for 35 MPa Mixes
Figure 5.52: Average RCPT 6-hour Bulk Resistivity vs. 5-minute Bulk Resistivity for 50 MPa Mixes
138
All correlations were generally moderately weak, with the two graphs (for both strengths)
displaying R2 values of 0.73 at 28 days and 0.88 at 56 days for 35 MPa, and 0.84 at 28 days and
0.81 at 56 days for 50 MPa. These moderately weak correlations indicate that the results of the
RCPT calculated initial bulk resistivity using the measured current at five minutes, and the
calculated final bulk resistivity using the measured actual charge passed do not show
consistency. However, the bulk resistivity results for both the 35 MPa and 50 MPa control
mixes, Mix #1 and Mix #32d, at 28 days and 56 days are statistically comparable at a 90%
confidence level. Refer to Appendix O for statistical analysis of bulk resistivity results.
There is a general weakness in the correlations between the bulk resistivity results. Although,
the statistical analysis indicates that even though the RCPT machine is consistent, it is possibly
not accurate in measurements taken over the six-hour duration.
To compare between the 35 MPa and 50 MPa mixes, the Merlin bulk resistivity values were
only considered as the accuracy of the RCPT machine is questionable. Figure 5.53 to Figure
5.56 show the average Merlin bulk resistivity for the 35 MPa and 50 MPa mixes at 28 days and
56 days, for all mixes including the five mixes (one with 35 MPa and four with 50 MPa) that
failed in workability.
Figure 5.53: Average Merlin Bulk Resistivity for 35 MPa at 28 Days

139

140
For the 35 MPa mixes at 28 days, there were only three mixes that had higher bulk resistivity
than the control, Mix #1 with 152.5 m, which were Mix #13 with 179.0 m, Mix #5 with
169.9 m, and Mix #8 with 164.0 m. However, they are all statistically comparable to the
control. Results that were below the control, but statistically comparable to it were Mix #s 2, 9,
4, 20, 10, and 11. At 56 days, there were ten mixes that had higher bulk resistivity than the
control with 155.6 m, which include: Mix #s 9, 5, 18, 13, 11, 10, 20, 8, 2, and 12, ranging in
resistivity from 170.7 m to 157.1 m. However, they are all statistically comparable to the
control. Results that were below the control, but statistically comparable to it were Mix #s 26, 4,
24b, 31 (failed in workability), 25e and 29. Refer to Appendix N for statistical analysis of
Merlin bulk resistivity results.
For the 50 MPa mixes at 28 days, the control, Mix #32d, had the highest bulk resistivity with
333.0 m. The mixes that were statistically comparable to Mix #32d were Mix #s 35, 51, 52
(failed in workability), 49-2, 53 (failed in workability), 34, 49-1, 33, 36, 41 (failed in
workability), and 43. At 56 days, there were ten mixes that had higher bulk resistivity than the
control with 349.2 m, which include: Mix #s 35, 34, 53 (failed in workability), 49-1, 51, 49-2,
33, 41 (failed in workability), 52 (failed in workability), and 36, ranging in resistivity from
449.6 m to 355.0 m. Mix #s 35 and 53 had statistically significantly higher Merlin bulk
resistivity results; however, the rest had statistically comparable results to the control. Results
141
that were below the control, but statistically comparable to it were Mix #s 46 and 45 (failed in
workability). Refer to Appendix N for statistical analysis of Merlin bulk resistivity results.
CSA A23.1 specifies an acceptable charge passed (from the RCPT) of 1500 C for 35 MPa
concrete and 1000 C for 50 MPa concrete at 56 days of age. OPSS specifies an acceptable
charge passed of 1000 C for 50 MPa concrete at 28 days of age. Even though the RCPT results
are questionable, the average actual charge passed values were compared to these limits as
shown in Figure 5.57 to Figure 5.59. For all cases, the results were below the limits specified,
where the highest value at 28 days for the 50 MPa concretes was 859 C for Mix #50; the highest
value at 56 days for the 35 MPa concretes was 1115 C for Mix #25e; and the highest value at 56
days for the 50 MPa concretes was 534 C for Mix #48.
Figure 5.57: Average Actual Charge Passed for 50 MPa at 28 Days

142
Since the RCPT results are questionably inaccurate due to the weak correlation between the
initial and final calculated bulk resistivity values with the Merlin bulk resistivity values, and
also the common discrepancy in the current decreasing while the temperature increases, it is
difficult to verify the reliability and accuracy of the Merlin test results. However, the
verification cylinder provided by Germann Instruments for ensuring the Merlin testing
equipment was working properly was used before every testing period. There were no issues
143
found with the Merlin testing equipment. Since the RCPT is destructive, it is difficult to prevent
erroneous data output. Therefore, the RCPT used for this study is not reliable. The RCPT
machine used for this study should be recalibrated and the equipments measuring output
verified.
5.6 Recommendations for the Ministry of Transportation of

Ontario
The 35 MPa and 50 MPa mixes were further compared based on their workability (based on
slump and rheological properties), compressive strength, linear drying shrinkage (following the
OPSS procedure) and resistivity (based on the Merlin test) results. The acceptable drying
shrinkage maximum value of 0.040% at 28 days after 7 days of curing in lime-saturated water
(age of 35 days) proved to be the limiting factor in evaluating the overall success of both the 35
MPa and 50 MPa mixes. The compressive strength limitations were, depending on the design
strength, a minimum of 35 MPa or 50 MPa at 28 days. CSA A23.1 specifies an acceptable
charge passed (from the RCPT) of 1500 C for 35 MPa concrete and 1000 C for 50 MPa concrete
at 56 days of age. OPSS specifies an acceptable charge passed of 1000 C for 50 MPa concrete at
28 days of age. For all cases, the results were below the limits specified. There were not any
acceptance limits placed on the resistivity values for this study. The chronological governing
points of failure for workability tests included: concrete sample was too harsh to insert vane for
first set of rheology tests; concrete sample was too harsh to complete rheology tests because the
vane could not rotate properly on the first or second Flow Curve test; the second slump test
displayed shearing behaviour; high slump loss; and mixture segregation.
Both control mixes did well overall, meeting all acceptable limits. For every criterion, not only
were the test mixes evaluated for meeting the acceptable limits (if any), they were compared to
their respective control mixs results as well. Table 5.4 and Table 5.5 list the 35 MPa and 50
MPa mixes, respectively, that were successful for each criterion.
144
Table 5.4: Specific Criterion and Overall Successful Mixes for 35 MPa Design Strength
Mix # with 35 MPa Design Strength

Criterion
Workability Compressive Strength Linear Drying Shrinkage Resistivity
Comparable to control Overall
Pass or Barely Comparable to control and Better than
and Above acceptable
pass Below acceptable limit control
strength
1 1 1 1 1
2 5 2 2 5
4 10 5 5
5 11 9 8
8 12 9
9 13 10
10 18 11
11 20 12
12 25e 13
13 26 18
18 27 20
Comparable
20 29
to control
24b 31 4
Above acceptable 24b
25e
strength
26 24b 25e
27 26
29 29
31
145
Table 5.5: Specific Criterion and Overall Successful Mixes for 50 MPa Design Strength
Mix # with 50 MPa Design Strength

Criterion
Linear Drying
Workability Compressive Strength Resistivity
Shrinkage Overall
Comparable to
Pass or Comparable to control and
control and Below Better than control
Barely pass Above acceptable strength
acceptable limit
32d 32d 32d 32d 32d
33 33 44c 33 33
34 34 46 34 44c
35 35 52 35 46
36 36 53 36
Below acceptable
37 37 41
limit
38 38 33 49
42 41 45 51
43 43 52
44c 44c 53
46 45 Comparable to control
47 46 43
48 47 45
49 49 46
Lower resistivity (no
50 51
limit)
51 52 44c
53
Above acceptable strength
42
48
50
For the 35 MPa mixes, there were two mixes that met all criteria: Mix #1 Control, typical
binary bridge deck mix, cementitious content = 360 kg/m3; and Mix #5 Optimized, modified
Toufar particle packing model (ternary), cementitious content = 360 kg/m3. The test results for
these two mixes are summarized in Table 5.6. It should be noted that the coarse aggregate
supply used for the mixes batched for workability testing during Stage 1 were from Supply #1
and for the mixes batched for hardened property testing, Supply #2. The aggregate volume
proportions did not change from the coarse aggregate supply used as the grain density is the
same for all supplies used. However, the optimization technique used for Mix #5, the modified
146
Toufar particle packing model, requires the individual aggregate gradations as inputs; therefore,
the aggregate volume proportions change with different aggregate supplies.
Table 5.6: Summary of Test Results for 35 MPa Design Mixes Meeting All Criteria
Mix # 1 5
Modified Toufar
Typical particle packing
MTO model
Description Bridge
Coarse Coarse
Deck
Aggregate Aggregate
Mix
Supply #1 Supply #2
Cementitious Content [kg/m3] 360 360
Binary or Ternary Aggregate Blend Binary Ternary
Concrete Sand [fraction of total aggregate volume] 0.416 0.372 0.399
6.7 mm chip [fraction of total aggregate volume] 0 0.184 0.192
Concrete Stone [fraction of total aggregate volume] 0.584 0.445 0.410
Slump @ 15 min [mm] 230 230 -
Slump @ 45 min [mm] 230 225 -
Average Compressive Strength @ 28 d [MPa] 42 - 36
Average Linear Drying Shrinkage @ 35 d (OPSS LS-
0.0316 - 0.0355
435 procedure) [%]
Average Merlin Bulk Resistivity @ 28 d [m] 153 - 170
Average Actual Charge Passed from RCPT @ 28 d [C] 1300 - 1239
Average Merlin Bulk Resistivity @ 56 d [m] 156 - 170
Average Actual Charge Passed from RCPT @ 56 d [C] 848 - 812
A statistical analysis was conducted to compare Mix #s 1, 2, and 5 to ultimately assess the
significance of introducing an intermediately sized aggregate material. Refer to Appendix P for
complete statistical analysis at a 90% confidence level of compressive strength at 28 days; linear
drying shrinkage at 35 days (OPSS method); bulk resistivity (Merlin test) at 28 days and 56
days; slump; static yield stress; dynamic yield stress; and plastic viscosity. Comparisons
between Mix #1 and Mix #2, Mix #1 and Mix #5, and Mix #2 and Mix #5 all showed their
results were statistically insignificantly different. Although the differences were statistically
insignificantly different, comparing between Mix #2 and #5 showed that introducing an
intermediately sized aggregate material resulted in an increase in compressive strength, linear
drying shrinkage, and bulk resistivity.
For the 50 MPa mixes, there were four mixes that met all criteria: Mix #32d Control, typical
binary bridge deck mix, cementitious content = 465 kg/m3; Mix #33 Optimized, Talbot's
147
Grading Curve (binary) [n=0.45], cementitious content = 465 kg/m3; Mix #44c Optimized,
Talbot's Grading Curve (binary) [n=0.50], cementitious content = 390 kg/m3; and Mix #46
Optimized, Talbot's Grading Curve (binary) [n=0.45], cementitious content = 390 kg/m3. The
test results for these four mixes are summarized in Table 5.7.
Table 5.7: Summary of Test Results for 50 MPa Design Mixes Meeting All Criteria
Mix # 32d 33 44c 46

Typical
Talbot's Talbot's Talbot's
MTO
Grading Grading Grading
Description Bridge
Curve Curve Curve
Deck
[n=0.45] [n=0.50] [n=0.45]
Mix
Cementitious Content [kg/m3] 465 465 390 390
Binary or Ternary Binary Binary Binary Binary
Concrete Sand [fraction of total aggregate
0.372 0.448 0.409 0.447
volume]
6.7 mm chip [fraction of total aggregate
0 0 0 0
volume]
Concrete Stone [fraction of total aggregate
0.628 0.552 0.591 0.553
volume]
Slump @ 15 min [mm] 220 225 220 225
Slump @ 45 min [mm] 175 185 185 215
Average Compressive Strength @ 28 d [MPa] 72 71 69 61
Average Linear Drying Shrinkage @ 35 d
0.0342 0.0397 0.0387 0.0324
(OPSS LS-435 procedure) [%]
Average Merlin Bulk Resistivity @ 28 d [m] 333 292 219 213
Average Actual Charge Passed from RCPT @
509 573 664 575
28 d [C]
Average Merlin Bulk Resistivity @ 56 d [m] 349 369 304 330
Average Actual Charge Passed from RCPT @
381 388 464 443
56 d [C]
A statistical analysis was conducted to compare Mix #s 32d, 33, 37, 44c, and 46 to ultimately
assess the significance of reducing the cementitious content from 465 kg/m3 to 390 kg/m3. Refer
to Appendix Q for complete statistical analysis at a 90% confidence level of compressive
strength at 28 days; linear drying shrinkage at 35 days (OPSS method); bulk resistivity (Merlin
test) at 28 days and 56 days; slump; static yield stress; dynamic yield stress; and plastic
viscosity. The design mixes for Talbot's Grading Curve, binary, [n = 0.50], Mix #s 37 and 44c,
and the 50 MPa control, Mix #32d, were first compared. Mix #37 is statistically comparable to
Mix #32d, except that its linear drying shrinkage at 35 days is significantly higher and bulk
resistivity is significantly lower. Mix #44c is statistically comparable to Mix #32d, except that
148
its bulk resistivity is significantly lower. Mix #44c is statistically comparable to Mix #37, except
that its linear drying shrinkage at 35 days and bulk resistivity at 28 days are significantly lower.
Therefore, the reduction in cementitious content caused significant improvements in reducing
drying shrinkage making this mix design comparable to the control. However, its bulk resistivity
decreased at 28 days, and this mix designs bulk resistivity remained significantly lower than
that of the control.
The design mixes for Talbot's Grading Curve, binary, [n = 0.45], Mix #s 33 and 46, and the 50
MPa control, Mix #32d, were also compared. Mix #33 is statistically comparable to Mix #32d,
except that its shrinkage at 35 days is significantly higher. Mix #46 is statistically comparable to
Mix #32d, except that its bulk resistivity at 28 days is significantly lower. Mix #46 is
statistically comparable to Mix #33, except that its shrinkage at 35 days and bulk resistivity is
significantly lower. Therefore, the reduction in cementitious content caused significant
improvements in reducing drying shrinkage making it this mix design comparable to the control.
However, this mix designs bulk resistivity at 28 days was significantly lower than the controls.
Although, there was no acceptable limit placed on the resistivity values for this study.
Table 5.8 shows the combined gradations for the six mixes (including both 35 MPa and 50 MPa
mixes), and the ranges of the combined gradation of % passing that is graphically compared to
the OPSS 1002 grading requirements in Figure 5.60, Figure 5.61, Figure 5.63 and Figure 5.64.
149
Table 5.8: Range of Combined Gradations of 35 MPa and 50 MPa Design Mixes Meeting All Criteria
Design
35 MPa 50 MPa
Strength
Mix # 1 5 RANGE 32d 33 44c 46 RANGE
CA % vol 0.584 0.584 0.445 0.410 0.628 0.552 0.591 0.553
Combined Combined
IA % vol 0 0 0.184 0.192 0 0 0 0
Gradation Gradation
FA % vol 0.416 0.416 0.372 0.399 0.372 0.448 0.409 0.447
Coarse
Aggregate 1 2 1 2 Min Max 2 2 3 3 Min Max
Supply
Sieve Size
% Passing
[mm]
26.5 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
19 93 94 95 96 93 96 93 94 98 98 93 98
16 82 82 87 87 82 87 81 83 91 92 81 92
9.5 55 59 66 71 55 71 56 61 60 63 56 63
6.7 49 49 60 63 49 63 45 51 48 51 45 51
4.75 43 43 49 52 43 52 39 46 42 45 39 46
2.36 38 38 37 39 37 39 34 41 38 41 34 41
1.18 29 29 26 28 26 29 26 31 29 31 26 31
0.6 19 19 17 19 17 19 18 21 19 21 18 21
0.3 9 9 8 8 8 9 8 9 9 9 8 9
0.15 3 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 2 3
0.075 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Table 5.9 shows the combined gradation range off all six mixes meeting all criteria (Mix #s 1, 5,
32d, 33, 44c and 46), the OPSS 1002 fine and coarse grading requirements, and a combined
gradation using those requirements of 40% fine aggregate and 60% coarse aggregate by mass.
The comparison between the OPSS 1002 grading requirements and all mixes meeting all criteria
is shown graphically in Figure 5.62 and Figure 5.65.
150
Table 5.9: Range of Combined Gradations of All Mixes Meeting All Criteria and OPSS 1002 Grading
Requirements of 40% Fine Aggregate and 60% Coarse Aggregate
Mixes Meeting
All Criteria
OPSS 1002 Requirements
(Both Design
Gradation Strengths)
Type 40% Fine, 60%
Coarse (19.0 Effective
Fine Coarse
mm) Combined
Combined
Limit Lower Upper Lower Upper Min Max Lower Upper
Sieve Size
% Passing
[mm]
26.5 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
19 100 100 85 100 91 100 93 98
16 100 100 65 90 79 94 81 92
9.5 100 100 20 55 52 73 55 71
4.75 95 100 0 10 38 46 39 52
2.36 80 100 - - 32 40 34 41
1.18 50 85 0 - 20 34 26 31
0.6 25 60 0 - 10 24 17 21
0.3 10 30 0 - 4 12 8 9
0.15 0 10 0 - 0 4 2 3
0.075 0 3 0 2 0 1 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Figure 5.60 illustrates the comparison between the fine and coarse grading envelope limits of
the OPSS 1002 grading requirements, and the grading envelope limits of the 35 MPa design
mixes meeting all criteria successfully (Mix #s 1 and 5) found in Table 5.8. The fine and coarse
grading envelopes based on Mix #s 1 and 5 are narrower than and fall out of the OPSS 1002 fine
and coarse grading envelopes around the intermediate sieve sizes, including 1.18 mm to 16. 0
mm.
151
Figure 5.60: Coarse and Fine Gradations of 35 MPa Design Mixes Meeting All Criteria
Figure 5.61 illustrates the comparison between the fine and coarse grading envelopes of the
OPSS 1002 grading requirements, and the grading envelope of the 50 MPa design mixes
meeting all criteria successfully (Mix #s 32d, 33, 44c and 46) found in Table 5.8. The fine and
coarse grading envelopes based on Mix #s 32d, 33, 44c and 46 are narrower and follow the
same trend as the 35 MPa design mixes falling out of the OPSS 1002 fine and coarse grading
envelopes around the intermediate sieve sizes, including 1.18 mm to 16. 0 mm.
152
Figure 5.61: Coarse and Fine Gradations of 50 MPa Design Mixes Meeting All Criteria
Figure 5.62 illustrates the comparison between the fine and coarse grading envelopes of the
OPSS 1002 grading requirements, and the grading envelope of the all mixes meeting all criteria
successfully (Mix #s 1, 5, 32d, 33, 44c and 46) found in Table 5.9. The fine and coarse grading
envelopes based on Mix #s 1, 5, 32d, 33, 44c and 46 are narrower and follow the same trend as
the 35 MPa and 50 MPa design mixes, as shown in Figure 5.60 and Figure 5.61, falling out of
the OPSS 1002 fine and coarse grading envelopes around the intermediate sieve sizes, including
1.18 mm to 16. 0 mm. In particular, the fine grading envelope based on the mixes meeting all
criteria, is narrower from sieve sizes 1.18 mm to 4.75 mm than in Figure 5.60 and Figure 5.61.
153
Figure 5.62: Coarse and Fine Gradations of All Mixes Meeting All Criteria
Figure 5.63 illustrates the comparison between the combined grading envelopes of the OPSS
1002 grading requirements, assuming aggregate proportioning of 41.6% fine and 58.4% coarse
(same as Mix #1, by mass), and the combined grading envelope of the 35 MPa design mixes
meeting all criteria successfully (Mix #s 1 and 5) found in Table 5.8. The combined grading
envelope based on Mix #s 1 and 5 is narrower and falls within the OPSS 1002 combined
grading envelope; however, the effective upper limit extends outside of the OPSS 1002 upper
limit at the 4.75 mm sieve size.
154
Figure 5.63: Combined Gradations of 35 MPa Design Mixes Meeting All Criteria
1002 grading requirements, assuming aggregate proportioning of 37.2% fine and 62.8% coarse
(same as Mix #32d, by mass), and the combined grading envelope of the 50 MPa design mixes
meeting all criteria successfully (Mix #s 32d, 33, 44c and 46) found in Table 5.8. The combined
grading envelope based on Mix #s 32d, 33, 44c and 46 is narrower and falls within the OPSS
1002 combined grading envelope; however, the effective upper limit extends outside of the
OPSS 1002 upper limit at the 2.36 mm and 4.75 mm sieve sizes.
155
Figure 5.64: Combined Gradations of 50 MPa Design Mixes Meeting All Criteria
1002 grading requirements, assuming aggregate proportioning of 40% fine and 60% coarse
(similar to the control mixes, by mass), and the combined grading envelope of all the mixes
meeting all criteria successfully (Mix #s 1, 5, 32d, 33, 44c and 46) found in Table 5.9. The
combined grading envelope based on Mix #s 1, 5, 32d, 33, 44c and 46 is narrower and falls
within the OPSS 1002 combined grading envelope; however, the effective upper limit extends
outside of the OPSS 1002 upper limit at the 2.36 mm and 4.75 mm sieve sizes.
156
Figure 5.65: Combined Gradations of All Mixes Meeting All Criteria
Figure 5.60 to Figure 5.65 indicate that the OPSS 1002 grading requirements are too restrictive
in the intermediate sieve size range (especially for the 2.36 mm and 4.75 mm sieve sizes), and
those sieve sizes surrounding them (1.18 mm and 16.0 mm). The current research has assisted in
identifying this, and has developed possible improvements to the OPSS 1002 with the
recommended effective combined grading envelopes in Figure 5.63 to Figure 5.65.
157
Chapter 6
Conclusions and Recommendations
6
6.1 Conclusions
Typical concrete mixtures use a binary blend of fine and coarse aggregates, which are often
defined as gap-graded mixtures. A well-graded mixture has a good distribution of
aggregates including intermediately sized particles between 2.36 mm and 9.5 mm. A well-
graded combined aggregate blend can be achieved by using optimization techniques, or by
adding low value or waste crushed aggregate material as an intermediate size. By optimizing the
packing of the combined aggregate gradation of concrete mixes, the cement paste content
needed can be reduced. It is possible to reduce the cement paste up to 16% without
compromising concrete performance. A significant percentage of quarried aggregate is wasted
per year from sieving to meet gradation OPSS individual specifications; therefore using ternary
aggregate blending is very cost-effective as well as environmentally sustainable. However, the
potential for optimization is limited by current OPSS (and CSA) specifications as they separate
grading envelopes for fine and coarse aggregate material.
6.1.1 Both the 35 MPa and 50 MPa control mixes were used as the standards for meeting all
specified criteria. For the 35 MPa design mixes, there were two mixes that met all
criteria successfully: Mix #1 Control, typical binary bridge deck mix, cementitious
content = 360 kg/m3; and Mix #5 Optimized, modified Toufar particle packing model
(ternary), cementitious content = 360 kg/m3. It should be noted that both mixes have the
same cementitious content, rather than the reduced (330 kg/m3); therefore, with the
allowable limits specified for the criteria for this current study, none of the mixes were
successful overall in reducing the cementitious content by 8%. However, using the
intermediate aggregate and creating a ternary aggregate blend (for Mix #5) was
successful. Using an intermediate aggregate, which is considered waste material, is both
economical and sustainable.
6.1.2 For the 50 MPa mixes, there were four mixes that were successful in meeting overall
criteria: Mix #32d Control, typical binary bridge deck mix, cementitious content = 465
158
kg/m3; Mix #33 Optimized, Talbot's Grading Curve (binary) [n=0.45], cementitious
content = 465 kg/m3; Mix #44c Optimized, Talbot's Grading Curve (binary) [n=0.50],
cementitious content = 390 kg/m3; and Mix #46 Optimized, Talbot's Grading Curve
(binary) [n=0.45], cementitious content = 390 kg/m3. All of the successful mixes had
binary aggregate blends; therefore, the intermediate aggregate was not useful. However,
Mix #s 44c and 46 had 16% reduced cementitious contents. Using less cementitious
material is both economical and sustainable.
6.1.3 Packing density is directly related to the source of aggregates, meaning specifically the
shape and texture. Less cement paste is needed for spherical, cubical and rounded
shapes, meaning less resistance to flow and better workability. However, the theoretical
particle packing models make assumptions about the shape. Often, the particles are
assumed to be perfect spheres, which is ideal for modeling but not realistic. The
empirical charts do consider aggregate source; however, only the characteristics of the
sources used to develop the empirical charts are considered. These are the greatest
criticisms of the theoretical particle packing models and empirical charts. Another
criticism is that the optimization techniques used for this study only focus on aggregate
blending (with the exception of the Coarseness Factor Chart to an extent) without
considering other concrete mix design aspects such as the total aggregate volume,
cement paste volume, w/c, and admixture dosages.
6.1.4 Approximately 34% of the mixes over the four stages failed the workability criteria for
this study because either: the concrete sample was too harsh to insert the vane into the
bucket for first set of rheology testing; the concrete sample was too harsh to complete
the rheology testing because the vane could not rotate properly on the first or second
Flow Curve test; the second slump test displayed shearing behaviour; high slump loss;
and mixture segregation. These points of failure could be attributed to the admixtures
used, specifically the superplasticizer, or the ICAR rheometers limitations. The
superplasticizer used in all mixes for this study was Eucon 37, which is a naphthalene
sulfonate. These types of superplasticizers are no longer used as commonly as
polycarboxylates as they are not considered as powerful cement particle dispersants.
6.1.5 The acceptable drying shrinkage criterion of 0.040% at 28 days of drying proved to be
the most limiting criterion, which greatly reduced the number of mixes that successfully
159
met all criteria for this study. If the acceptable shrinkage limit were increased from
0.040% to 0.050% at 28 days of drying, several more mixes would meet this criterion.
6.1.6 The results of the current study have demonstrated that optimizing aggregate gradation
combinations can improve concrete sustainability, workability, durability, strength, and
cost by introducing an intermediate sized aggregate material thus reducing the
cementitious content.
6.2 Recommendations for Future Research

6.2.1 The current study only used one source for each of the fine, intermediate, and coarse
(three supplies) aggregate to minimize the effect of shape and texture. The fine aggregate
was natural sand from Dufferin Aggregates Mill Creek pit. The coarse aggregate was
19.0 mm crushed pre-washed dolomitic limestone from Dufferin Aggregates Milton
quarry, and the intermediate aggregate was its waste material. To verify and validate the
successful improvements and proposed recommendations made for OPSS 1002, a
variety of other aggregate sources should be tested, such as gravels, and/or crushed
granites, gneisses and diabases, which are found and quarried in northern Ontario. Other
crushed limestone sources found and quarried in southern Ontario could be evaluated.
Also, other natural sands or manufactured fine aggregate (MFA) sources could be used.
The source of aggregates will vary the effectiveness of all optimization techniques;
therefore, the more sources tested, the more confidence in the optimization technique
will be accrued.
6.2.2 Continue investigating work with other aggregate sources, and also increase to more
multi-material aggregate blends using Talbots Grading Curve (specifically for n = 0.45
or 0.50) and Modified Toufar Model to design, and Shilstones Coarseness Factor Chart
to evaluate as they were the most successful optimization techniques for this study. The
only individual aggregate property required to be inputted for Talbots Grading Curve
and Shilstones Coarseness Factor Chart is the particle size distribution, as compared to
the theoretical particle packing models that require the relative and loose bulk densities
in the SSD condition; however, the Shilstones Coarseness Factor Chart also requires the
cement content to be considered for the workability factor. The Theory of Particle
Mixtures by Dewar was the least successful optimization technique, with mixes not even
160
passing the workability stage except for Mix #4. However, Mix #4s hardened properties
did not meet any allowable criteria, and had lower resistivity than the control mix.
Therefore, research with this technique should not be continued.
6.2.3 For Shilstones Coarseness Factor Charts, proper validation of the workability boxes
would be required as they are estimations only based on the scope of the current studys
results. This would require future study into using the Shilstones Coarseness Factor
Chart to design aggregate blends specifically in Zone 4, greater than a workability factor
of 45.0, and also towards the left side of Zone 2. It may also require setting different or
more restrictive criteria on defining sufficient workability as the workability boxes
produced for this study were much larger than the workability box developed by the
Texas Department of Transportation
6.2.4 For this study, none of the combined gradations fit completely within the 8-18 (or 8-22)
distribution limits, and even though the ternary blends generally drew the sections of the
combined gradations out of the limits closer to them, it could be with the combinations
of the three aggregates selected for this study that do not satisfy this techniques
requirements. Therefore, the successful application of this technique is significantly
dependent on the individual gradations of each aggregate source used, or requires more
than three aggregate sources for blending. Although, previous studies have also found
that it is not a necessity for combined aggregate blends to fall within limits to have
adequate workability. Therefore, investigating this empirical chart further is not
essential.
6.2.5 The particle packing models were only used to optimize the packing of the aggregate
fractions for this study because cement paste was considered another component where
the cement paste would fill in the voids. However, for future research, there could be the
possibility of including packing of aggregates plus cement. Although, this may influence
the amount of cement and sand required, and all the optimization techniques used do not
distinguish between inert and hydraulic components with the exception of Shilstones
Coarseness Factor Chart, which clearly separates the optimization of aggregates and
cement with the coarseness and workability factors.
161
6.2.6 Computer modelling for optimizing concrete design should be investigated. Computer
modelling is based on theoretical particle packing models and empirical charts; however,
they look at concrete design holistically, optimizing aggregate blending packing given
the concrete mixture constituents proportions and dosages. Examples of such computer
models include EUROPACK, based on Modified Toufar Model, and SeeMIX III based
on Shilstones Coarseness Factor Chart.
6.2.7 The research could also be extended beyond the provincial OPSS 1002 standard to the
national CSA A23.1 standard. CSA A23.1 stipulates grading requirements for fine and
coarse aggregate where individual materials do not necessarily need to meet the grading
requirements if more than one material is being blended, but the blended gradation must
meet the requirements. For fine aggregate there are two grading envelopes specified,
FA1 and FA2, where FA1 is the grading requirement for a typical concrete mixture, and
FA2 is to be used in conjunction with FA1 to optimize both the coarse and fine
aggregate components gradation. The ACI 302.1 R-04 Guide for Concrete Floor and
Slab Construction, has a preferred grading envelope guideline for fine aggregates (using
ASTM designated sieve sizes) that could also be evaluated in future research.
6.2.8 Binary and ternary aggregate blends were looked at in this study, and many of the
ternary aggregate blends were successful in meeting all criteria. Therefore, for future
research, multi-blending of aggregates could be investigated for further concrete
performance and cost improvements. All optimization techniques used in the current
study can be used for multi-blending.
6.2.9 Addition of microfine filler content, i.e., particles passing the 75 m sieve, such as
limestone or granite, high microfine MFAs (approximately 15% microfines), and/or
unwashed or finer graded intermediately sized waste material could be explored for
reducing the binder needed. Both types of additions would conceptually improve
concrete performance, as the microfine material fill in the voids between the other
aggregate materials, reducing the quantity of cement paste needed. Specifically, this
would reduce the drying shrinkage of the concrete, which was the criterion most limiting
the overall success of many mixes for both 35 MPa and 50 MPa design strengths in the
current study.
162
6.2.10 As previously stated, the superplasticizer used in all mixes for this study was Eucon 37,
which is a naphthalene sulfonate. These types of superplasticizers are no longer used as
commonly as polycarboxylates as they are not considered as powerful cement particle
dispersants. Therefore, for future research, a polycarboxylate-based superplasticizer
could be used, which would make the research findings more readily applicable to
industry projects.
6.2.11 Since the ICAR rheometer testing procedure is not standardized, and acceptable ranges
of yield stress and plastic viscosity for good workability have not been identified from
previous studies, it was difficult to evaluate the measurements from these tests alone
without relying on a visual assessment of the mixes and the measurements from the
slump tests. For this study, it was not possible to define numerical ranges for static and
dynamic yield stress, and plastic viscosity that would ensure satisfactory workability.
Therefore, for more effective use and evaluation of the rheological properties, a
standardized procedure and allowable ranges of yield stress and plastic viscosity for
good workability should be established, which would most likely require repetitive
batching and testing of individual mixes multiple times. Specifically, for more accurate
testing of static yield stress over time, separate samples in separate containers should be
tested, with no disturbances to the samples before testing. Also, for the mixes that were
too harsh to complete testing with the rheometer, the initial slumps ranged from 165 mm
to 230 mm. However, the rheometer did function properly for mixes that were described
as sandy with final slumps down to 125 mm (Mix #40 from Stage 3). It would be
beneficial for future research to establish a range of design proportions coupled with a
range of workable slumps that will assure proper functionality of the ICAR rheometer.
6.2.12 In many cases, mixes that exhibited greater shrinkage at 35 days than the acceptable
limit of 0.040% following the OPSS procedure exhibited less shrinkage than 0.040%
following the ASTM procedure. It should be noted, however, that their curing
procedures differ. This was the criterion limiting the overall success of many mixes,
especially those with ternary aggregate blends, and of Stages 2 and 4 with reduced
cementitious content. Therefore, for future work, it would be interesting to compare the
two procedures, with their respective curing regimes followed. Also, since it was
expected that more mixes would be comparable to the control mixes for both 35 MPa
163
and 50 MPa design mixes, particularly those of Stages 2 and 4 with the reduced paste
fractions by 8% and 16%, respectively, exploring other specimen types or procedures for
measuring shrinkage, and/or selectively duplicating mixes could be examined for future
research.
6.2.13 The admixtures used could have also had an effect on the initial 1- day length change
measurements made using the ASTM procedure. However, the OPSS procedure was the
primary procedure considered for the current study, and the initial 7-day length change
measurements would not have been affected by the admixtures performances.
6.2.14 There are many benefits to using the Merlin bulk resistivity test as opposed to the RCPT.
Most notably specific to this current research, the results from the Merlin test were more
reliable and accurate. The Merlin test also only takes one to two seconds to get results
while the RCPT takes 6 hours. Although this bulk resistivity test is not standardized yet,
it is more convenient to use, adjustable to various specimen lengths ranging from 50 mm
to 200 mm, and it is also non-destructive. This means that standard sized cylinders of
100 mm by 200 mm cast for the purpose of compressive strength testing can be tested
beforehand for resistivity, or samples cast for the purpose of resistivity testing can be re-
used at various ages consequently giving more confidence in results.
6.2.15 Batch mixing with a ready-mix producer to assess the quality of concrete of larger batch
volumes could also be conducted.
164
References
Abrams, D. A. (1918). Design of Concrete Mixtures. Chicago: Structural Materials Research
Laboratory, Lewis Institute.
American Concrete Institute. (2004). ACI 302.1 R-04 Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab
Construction. Farmington Hills, MI: ACI Manual of Concrete Practice.
ASTM C 1202. (2010). Standard Test Method for Electrical Indication of Concrete's Ability to
Resist Chloride Ion Penetration. ASTM Book of Standards, Volume 04.02, Concrete and
Aggregates. West Conshohocken, Pa.: ASTM International.
ASTM C 125. (2007). Standard Terminology Relating to Concrete and Concrete Aggregates.
ASTM Book of Standards, Volume 04.02, Concrete and Aggregates. West Conshohocken, Pa.:
ASTM International.
ASTM C 143. (2010). Standard Test Method for Slump of Hydraulic-Cement Concrete. ASTM
Book of Standards, Volume 04.02, Concrete and Aggregates. West Conshohocken, Pa.: ASTM
International.
ASTM C 157. (2008). Standard Test Method for Length Change of Hardened Hydraulic-Cement
Concrete. ASTM Book of Standards, Volume 04.02, Concrete and Aggregates. West
Conshohocken, Pa.: ASTM International.
ASTM C 192. (2007). Standard Practice for Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens in the
Laboratory. ASTM Book of Standards, Volume 04.02, Concrete and Aggregates. West
ASTM C 231. (2009). Standard Test Method for Air Content of Freshly Mixed Concrete by the
Pressure Method. ASTM Book of Standards, Volume 04.02, Concrete and Aggregates. West
ASTM C 33. (2007). Standard Specification for Concrete Aggregates. ASTM Book of Standards,
Volume 04.02, Concrete and Aggregates. West Conshohocken, Pa.: ASTM International.
165
ASTM C 39. (2010). Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete
Specimens. ASTM Book of Standards, Volume 04.02, Concrete and Aggregates. West
ASTM C 494. (2008). Standard Specification for Chemical Admixtures for Concrete. ASTM
Book of Standards, Volume 04.02, Concrete and Aggregates. West Conshohocken, Pa.: ASTM
International.
ASTM E4. (2010). Standard Practices for Force Verification of Testing Machines. ASTM Book
of Standards, Volume 03.01, Metals -- Mechanical Testing; Elevated and Low-Temperature
Tests; Metallography. West Conshohocken, Pa.: ASTM International.
Billberg, P. P. (1996). Proceedings from the Production Methods and Workability of Concrete
Conference: New Generation of Superplasticizers, 295-306. RILEM, E&FN Spon.
Bottero, S. (2011). Correspondence with Manager of Logistics and Yard Sales at Dufferin
Aggregates. MTO/UofT/HCA Meeting, May 19.
Canadian Standards Association. (2004). CSA A23.1 Concrete materials and methods of
concrete construction/CSA A23.2 Methods of test and standard practices for concrete.
Mississauga: Canadian Standards Association.
De Larrard, F. (1999). Concrete Mixture Proportioning: a Scientific Approach. London: E &

FN Spon.
Dewar, J. D. (1999). Computer Modelling of Concrete Mixtures. London: E & FN Spon.
Ekblad, J. (2004). Influence of Water on Resilient Properties of Coarse Granular Materials.

Stockholm: Licentiate Thesis, Kungliga Tekniska Hgskolan (KTH).
Faroug, F. S. (1999). Influence of Superplasticizers on Workability of Concrete. Journal of

Materials in Civil Engineering, 11(2), 151-157.
Fuller, W., and Thompson, S. E. (1907). The laws of proportioning concrete. American Society
of Civil Engineers, 33, 67-143.
166
Germann Instruments. (2010). Operation Manual MERLIN test system for measuring bulk
conductivity. Germann Instruments.
Germann Instruments, Inc. (January 2008). ICAR Rheometer Manual. Evanston, Illinois.
Ghezal, A., and Khayat, K. (2002). Optimizing Self-Consolidating Concrete with Limestone
Filler by using Statistical Factorial Design Methods. ACI Materials Journal, 99(3), 264-272.
Goltermann, P., Johansen, V., and Palbol, L. (1997). Packing of Aggregates: An Alternative
Tool to Determine the Optimal Aggregate Mix. ACI Materials Journal, 94(5), 435-443.
Goode, J. F. (1962). Proceedings from the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists: A New
Graphical Chart for Evaluation Aggregate Gradations, 31, 176-207.
Harrison, P. J. (2004). For the Ideal Slab-on-Ground Mixture. Concrete International, 26(3), 49-
55.
Holland, J. A. (1990). Mixture Optimization. Concrete International, 12(10), 10.
Hooton, R. D. (2001). Development of Standard Test Methods for Measuring Fluid Penetration
and Ion Transport Rates. Materials Science of Concrete: Fluid and Ion Transport Rates in
Concrete, 1-12. American Ceramic Society.
Hope, B. B. (1990). Proceedings of the International RILEM Colloquium on Properties of Fresh

Concrete: Statistical Analysis of the Influence of Different Cements on the Water Demand for
Constant Slump, 179-186. Chapman and Hall.
Jones, M. R., Zheng, L., and Newlands, M. D. (2002). Comparison of particle packing models
for proportioning concrete constituents for minimum voids ratio. Materials and Structures, 35,
301-309.
Koehler, E. P., and Fowler D. W. (2004). ICAR 105-3F: Development of a Portable Rheometer
for Fresh Portland Cement Concrete. Austin, Texas: International Center for Aggregates
Research, The University of Texas at Austin.
167
Koehler, E. P., and Fowler, D. W. (2005). Proceedings from 3th International RILEM
Symposium on Self-Compacting Concrete: A Portable Rheometer for Self-Consolidating
Concrete. China.
Koehler, E. P., and Fowler, D. W. (2007). ICAR Research Report 108-2F, Aggregates In Self-
Consolidating Concrete. Austin: ICAR, University of Texas at Austin.
Koehler, E. P., Keller, L., and Gardner, N. J. (2007). Proceedings from 5th International RILEM
Symposium on Self-Compacting Concrete: Field Measurements of SCC Rheology and
Formwork Pressure. Ghent, Belgium.
Koehler, E. P., and Fowler, D. W. (2008). Proceedings from 6th International RILEM
Symposium on Self-Compacting Concrete: Static and Dynamic Yield Stress Measurements of
SCC. Chicago, IL.
Koehler, E. P. (2009a). Test Methods for Workability and Rheology of Fresh Concrete. ACI
Fall Convention.
Koehler, E. P. (2009b). Germann Instruments. Retrieved June 15, 2011, from ICAR Rheometer:
http://www.germann.org/Articles/download_files/Sevilla/Koehler_ICAR%20Rheometer_v1.ppt
Koehler, E. P. (2009c). Proceedings from Tenth ACI International Symposium on Recent

Advances in Concrete Technology and Sustainability Issues: Use of Rheology to Specify,
Design, and Manage Self-Consolidating Concrete. Sevilla, Spain.
Koehler, E. P. (2010). Correspondence with R&D Engineer at W. R. Grace & Co. Email: ICAR
Rheometer repeatability of readings, March 22.
Meininger, R. C. (2003). 8 to 18 Percent or Fight. Retrieved February 8, 2010, from Rock

Products: http://www.rockproducts.com/index.php/features/51-archives/2300.html
Mork, J. H. (1996). Proceedings of RILEM Conference on Production Methods and Workability

of Concrete: A Presentation of the BML Viscometer, 369-376. E&FN Spon.
Neville, A. M. (1995). Properties of Concrete, 4th ed. Harlow, England: Pearson Education
Limited.
168
Nijboer, L. W. (1948). Plasticity as a Factor in the Design of Dense Bituminous Road Carpets.
New York: Elsevier Publishing.
Nokken, M. R. (2006). Electrical Conductivity Testing: A Prequalification and Quality

Assurance Tool. ACI Concrete International, 28 (10), 58-63.
Obla, K. H., and Kim H. (2008). On Aggregate Grading. Concrete International, 30(3), 45-50.
OPSS 1002. (2004, April). Material Specification For Aggregates - Concrete. Ontario
Provincial Standard Specification.
OPSS LS-435. (2006). Method of Test for Linear Shrinkage of Concrete. Ministry of
Transportation, Ontario Laboratory Testing Manual.
OPSS LS-601. (2002). Materials Finer than 75 m Sieve in Mineral Aggregates by Washing.
Ministry of Transportation, Ontario Laboratory Testing Manual.
Panchalan, R. K., and Ramakrishnan, V. (2007). Validity of 0.45 Power Chart in Obtaining the
Optimized Aggregate Gradation for Improving the Strength Aspects of High-Performance
Concrete. American Concrete Institute.
Quiroga, P. N. (2003). The Effect of Aggregate Characteristics on the Performance of Portland

Cement Concrete, PhD Dissertation. Austin, TX: The University of Texas at Austin.
Rheocentric Concrete Technologies (2006). Test Systems. Retrieved May 30, 2011, from
Germann Instruments, Inc.:
http://www.germann.org/TestSystems/ICAR%20Rheometer/ICAR%20Rheometer.pdf
Rheocentric Concrete Technologies (2007). ICAR Rheometer Capabilities. Retrieved November

3, 2010, from Concrete Rheology.com: http://concreterheology.com/capabilities.aspx
Shilstone, J. M. (June 1990). Concrete Mixture Optimization. Concrete International, 12(6), 33-
39.
Smeplass, S. (1994). Proceedings from Conference on Special Concretes for Workabilit and
Mixing: Applicability of the Bingham Model to High Strength, 145-151. Paisley, Scotland:
RILEM.
169
STP 1147. (1992). Effects of Aggregates and Mineral Fillers on Asphalt Mixture Performance.
ASTM Special Technical Publication. West Conshohocken, Pa.: ASTM International.
Struble, L. J. (2004). Effects of Air Entrainment on Rheology. ACI Materials Journal, 101(6),
448-456.
Szecsy, R. S. (1997). Concrete Rheology, PhD Dissertation. Urbana, IL: University of Illionois
at Urbana-Champaign.
Talbot, A. N. (1923). The Strength of Concrete and Its Relation to the Cement, Aggregate, and
Water. University of Illinois Bulletin No. 137.
Tattersall, G. H. (1983). The Rheology of Fresh Concrete. Marshfield, MA: Pitman Publishing.
Tattersall, G. H. (1991). Workability and Quality Control of Concrete. London: E&FN Spon.
TxDOT. (2006). Tex-470-A Test Procedure for Optimized Aggregate Gradation for Hydraulic
Cement Concrete Mix Designs. TxDOT. Retrieved from ftp://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-
info/cst/TMS/400-A_series/pdfs/cnn470.pdf
Virtual Superpave Laboratory. (2005). Gradation & Size - Background. Retrieved July 18,
2011, from Virtual Superpave Laboratory:
http://training.ce.washington.edu/VSL/aggregate_tests/gs/gs_background.htm
170
Appendices
Appendix A: Master Mix Design List

Cementitious Content Aggregate Aggregate Volume Optimized Coarseness Factor
CA 3 Air Admixture Dosage (mL/100 kg)
Stage Mix (kg/m ) Content (kg/m3) Fraction Variable Chart 8-22
Mix Description Type* Supply w/c Content
# # Eucon Eucon Eucon Chart
Used GU GGBFS Gub-8SF (%) CA IA FA Airextra CA IA FA Ux CF WF Zone WB
WR 37 727
W 1 270 90 - 0.39 6.5 1065 - 761 550 1100 - 20 0.584 - 0.416 - - 72.8 39.4 4 N N
1 1 Control (binary)
C 2 270 90 - 0.39 6.5 1065 - 761 550 1100 - 20 0.584 - 0.416 - - 66.1 39.4 2 N N
W 1 270 90 - 0.39 6.5 1002 - 824 550 1100 - 20 0.550 - 0.450 - 0.732 72.0 42.3 4 N N
1 2 Particle packing model (binary) [Toufar]
C 2 270 90 - 0.39 6.5 926 - 900 550 1100 - 20 0.508 - 0.492 - 0.720 64.4 46.0 4 N N
W 1 270 90 - 0.39 6.5 772 - 1055 550 1100 - 20 0.424 - 0.576 0.371 - 68.2 53.3 4 N N
1 4 Particle packing model (binary) [Dewar]
C 2 270 90 - 0.39 6.5 732 - 1095 550 1100 - 20 0.402 - 0.598 0.386 - 67.3 55.2 4 N N
W 1 270 90 - 0.39 6.5 811 336 680 550 1100 - 20 0.445 0.184 0.372 - 0.754 53.9 37.7 2** Y N
1 5 Particle packing model (ternary) [Toufar]
C 2 270 90 - 0.39 6.5 747 351 730 550 1100 - 20 0.410 0.192 0.399 - 0.743 46.9 40.2 2 N N
1 7 Particle packing model (ternary) [Dewar] W 1 270 90 - 0.39 6.5 1019 397 410 550 1100 - 20 0.559 0.217 0.224 0.401 - 56.7 25.3 5 N N
W 1 270 90 - 0.39 6.5 925 - 901 550 1100 - 20 0.508 - 0.492 - - 70.9 46.0 4 N N
1 8 Talbot's Grading Curve (binary) [n=0.40]
C 2 270 90 - 0.39 6.5 925 - 901 550 1100 - 20 0.508 - 0.492 - - 64.4 46.0 4 N N
W 1 270 90 - 0.39 6.5 1006 - 820 550 1100 - 20 0.552 - 0.448 - - 72.0 42.2 4 N N
C 2 270 90 - 0.39 6.5 1006 - 820 550 1100 - 20 0.552 - 0.448 - - 65.5 42.2 4 N N
W 1 270 90 - 0.39 6.5 1077 - 748 550 1100 - 20 0.591 - 0.409 - - 72.9 38.8 2 N N
C 2 270 90 - 0.39 6.5 1077 - 748 550 1100 - 20 0.591 - 0.409 - - 66.3 38.8 2 N N
W 1 270 90 - 0.39 6.5 1142 - 683 550 1100 - 20 0.627 - 0.373 - - 73.7 35.6 2 N N
C 2 270 90 - 0.39 6.5 1142 - 683 550 1100 - 20 0.627 - 0.373 - - 67.0 35.6 2 Y N
W 1 270 90 - 0.39 6.5 862 216 751 550 1100 - 20 0.473 0.118 0.410 - - 59.6 40.3 2 N N
1 12 Talbot's Grading Curve (ternary) [n=0.40]
C 2 270 90 - 0.39 6.5 864 212 750 550 1100 - 20 0.474 0.116 0.410 - - 54.4 40.2 2 N N
W 1 270 90 - 0.39 6.5 941 254 633 550 1100 - 20 0.516 0.139 0.346 - - 59.8 35.0 2 Y N
C 2 270 90 - 0.39 6.5 941 254 633 550 1100 - 20 0.516 0.139 0.346 - - 54.4 35.0 2 Y N
1 14 Talbot's Grading Curve (ternary) [n=0.50] W 1 270 90 - 0.39 6.5 952 337 538 550 1100 - 20 0.522 0.184 0.294 - - 57.2 31.0 2 N N
1 15 Talbot's Grading Curve (ternary) [n=0.55] W 1 270 90 - 0.39 6.5 1023 336 467 550 1100 - 20 0.561 0.184 0.255 - - 58.7 27.6 5 N N
Shilstone's Coarseness Factor Chart - ****
1 16 W 1 270 90 - 0.39 6.5 1264 - 560 550 1100 - 20 0.694 - 0.306 - - 74.9 29.8 2 N N
Zone 2, binary, CF = 74.9, WF = 29.8
1 17 W 1 270 90 - 0.39 6.5 1179 30 617 550 1100 - 20 0.647 0.016 0.337 - - 72.7 32.7 2 N N
W 1 270 90 - 0.39 6.5 994 171 660 550 1100 - 20 0.546 0.093 0.361 - - 64.2 35.7 2 Y N
1 18
C 2 270 90 - 0.39 6.5 994 171 660 550 1100 - 20 0.546 0.093 0.361 - - 58.3 35.7 2 Y N
1 19 W 1 270 90 - 0.39 6.5 1051 196 579 550 1100 - 20 0.576 0.107 0.317 - - 64.2 32.0 2 N N
W 1 270 90 - 0.39 6.5 931 143 753 550 1100 - 20 0.511 0.078 0.411 - - 64.2 39.9 2 N N
1 20
C 2 270 90 - 0.39 6.5 931 143 753 550 1100 - 20 0.511 0.078 0.411 - - 58.3 39.9 2 N N
1 21 W 1 270 90 - 0.39 6.5 1247 21 557 550 1100 - 20 0.684 0.012 0.304 - - 73.8 29.8 2 N N
1 22 W 1 270 90 - 0.39 6.5 1183 - 642 550 1100 - 20 0.649 - 0.351 - - 74.1 33.7 2 N N
Zone 2, binary, CF = 74.1, WF = 33.7
W 2 247.5 82.5 - 0.39 6.5 955 - 929 550 1380 - 15 0.508 - 0.492 - 0.720 64.4 44.6 4 N N
2 24b Particle packing model (binary) [Toufar]
C 3 247.5 82.5 - 0.39 6.5 1008 - 876 550 1380 - 15 0.536 - 0.464 - 0.725 62.3 42.2 4 N N
W 2 247.5 82.5 - 0.39 6.5 1038 - 846 550 1380 - 15 0.552 - 0.448 - - 65.5 40.8 4 N N
2 25e Talbot's Grading Curve (binary) [n=0.45]
C 3 247.5 82.5 - 0.39 6.5 1040 - 844 550 1380 - 15 0.553 - 0.447 - - 62.7 40.7 2 N N
171
WR 37 727
W 2 247.5 82.5 - 0.39 6.5 960 147 776 550 1380 - 15 0.511 0.078 0.411 - - 58.3 38.6 2 N N
2 26
C 3 247.5 82.5 - 0.39 6.5 960 147 776 550 1380 - 15 0.511 0.078 0.411 - - 55.8 38.6 2 N N
W 2 247.5 82.5 - 0.39 6.5 891 219 774 550 1380 - 15 0.474 0.116 0.410 - - 54.4 38.9 2 N N
C 3 247.5 82.5 - 0.39 6.5 891 219 774 550 1380 - 15 0.474 0.116 0.410 - - 52.1 38.9 2 N N
2 28 Talbot's Grading Curve (binary) [n=0.50] W 2 247.5 82.5 - 0.39 6.5 1111 - 772 550 1380 - 15 0.591 - 0.409 - - 66.3 37.4 2 N N
Control (reduced cementitious content, W 2 247.5 82.5 - 0.39 6.5 1099 - 785 550 1380 - 15 0.584 - 0.416 - - 66.1 38.0 2 N N
2 29
binary) C 3 247.5 82.5 - 0.39 6.5 1099 - 785 550 1380 - 15 0.584 - 0.416 - - 63.3 38.0 2 N N
2 30 Particle packing model (ternary) [Toufar] W 2 247.5 82.5 - 0.39 6.5 771 362 753 550 1380 - 15 0.410 0.192 0.399 - 0.743 46.9 38.9 2 N N
Particle packing model (binary) W 2 247.5 82.5 - 0.39 6.5 756 - 1128 550 1380 - 15 0.402 - 0.598 0.386 - 61.2 53.9 4 N N
2 31
[Dewar]***** C 3 247.5 82.5 - 0.39 6.5 747 - 1138 550 1380 - 15 0.400 - 0.600 0.387 - 58.5 54.0 4 N N
W 2 - 116 349 0.33 6 1060 - 630 550 1000 160 15 0.628 - 0.372 - - 67.0 40.2 4*** N N
3 32d Control (binary)
C 2 - 116 349 0.33 6 1060 - 630 550 1000 160 15 0.628 - 0.372 - - 67.0 40.2 4*** N N
W 2 - 116 349 0.33 6 932 - 759 550 1000 160 15 0.552 - 0.448 - - 65.5 46.9 4 N N
C 2 - 116 349 0.33 6 932 - 759 550 1000 160 15 0.552 - 0.448 - - 65.5 46.9 4 N N
W 2 - 116 349 0.33 6 857 - 833 550 1000 160 15 0.508 - 0.492 - 0.720 64.4 50.7 4 N N
C 2 - 116 349 0.33 6 857 - 833 550 1000 160 0.508 - 0.492 - 0.720 64.4 50.7 4 N N
Shilstone's Coarseness Factor Chart - W 2 - 116 349 0.33 6 862 132 697 550 1000 160 15 0.511 0.078 0.411 - - 58.3 44.6 4 N N
3 35
Zone 2, ternary, CF = 58.3, WF = 44.6 C 2 - 116 349 0.33 6 862 132 697 550 1000 160 15 0.511 0.078 0.411 - - 58.3 44.6 4 N N
W 2 - 116 349 0.33 6 800 197 695 550 1000 160 15 0.474 0.116 0.410 - - 54.4 44.9 4 N N
C 2 - 116 349 0.33 6 800 197 695 550 1000 160 15 0.474 0.116 0.410 - - 54.4 44.9 4 N N
W 2 - 116 349 0.33 6 988 - 693 550 1000 160 15 0.591 - 0.409 - - 66.3 43.5 4 N N
C 2 - 116 349 0.33 6 988 - 693 550 1000 160 15 0.591 - 0.409 - - 66.3 43.5 4 N N
W 2 - 116 349 0.33 6 692 325 676 550 1000 160 15 0.410 0.192 0.399 - 0.743 46.9 44.9 4 N N
C 2 - 116 349 0.33 6 692 325 676 550 1000 160 15 0.410 0.192 0.399 - 0.743 46.9 44.9 4 N N
3 39 Particle packing model (binary) [Dewar] W 2 - 116 349 0.33 6 679 - 1013 550 1000 160 15 0.402 - 0.598 0.386 - 61.2 59.9 4 N N
3 40 Talbot's Grading Curve (binary) [n=0.40] W 2 - 116 349 0.33 6 857 - 834 550 1000 160 15 0.508 - 0.492 - - 64.4 50.7 4 N N
Talbot's Grading Curve (binary) W 2 - 116 349 0.33 6 1058 - 632 550 1000 160 15 0.627 - 0.373 - - 67.0 40.4 4*** N N
3 41
[n=0.55]***** C 3 - 116 349 0.33 6 1045 - 645 550 1000 160 15 0.644 - 0.356 - - 64.4 38.9 2 N N
W 2 - 116 349 0.33 6 873 234 586 550 1000 160 15 0.516 0.139 0.346 - - 54.4 39.7 2 N N
C 2 - 116 349 0.33 6 873 234 586 550 1000 160 15 0.516 0.139 0.346 - - 54.4 39.7 2 N N
Shilstone's Coarseness Factor Chart - W 2 - 116 349 0.33 6 921 158 612 550 1000 160 15 0.546 0.093 0.361 - - 58.3 40.4 2 N N
3 43
Zone 2, ternary, CF = 58.3, WF = 40.4 C 2 - 116 349 0.33 6 921 158 612 550 1000 160 15 0.546 0.093 0.361 - - 58.3 40.4 2 N N
W 3 - 97.5 292.5 0.33 6 1077 - 748 550 1500 160 10 0.591 - 0.409 - - 63.4 40.1 2 N N
4 44c Talbot's Grading Curve (binary) [n=0.50]
C 3 - 97.5 292.5 0.33 6 1077 - 748 550 1500 160 10 0.591 - 0.409 - - 63.4 40.1 2 N N
Control (reduced cementitious content, W 3 - 97.5 292.5 0.33 6 1145 - 680 550 1500 160 10 0.628 - 0.372 - - 64.1 36.9 2 N N
4 45
binary)***** C 3 - 97.5 292.5 0.33 6 1145 - 680 550 1500 160 10 0.628 - 0.372 - - 64.1 36.9 2 N N
W 3 - 97.5 292.5 0.33 6 1008 - 818 550 1500 160 10 0.553 - 0.447 - - 62.7 43.4 4 N N
C 3 - 97.5 292.5 0.33 6 1008 - 818 550 1500 160 10 0.553 - 0.447 - - 62.7 43.4 4 N N
Shilstone's Coarseness Factor Chart - W 3 - 97.5 292.5 0.33 6 931 143 753 550 1500 160 10 0.511 0.078 0.411 - - 55.8 41.2 2 N N
4 47
Zone 2, ternary, CF = 55.8, WF = 41.2 C 3 - 97.5 292.5 0.33 6 931 143 753 550 1500 160 10 0.511 0.078 0.411 - - 55.8 41.2 2 N N
W 3 - 97.5 292.5 0.33 6 864 212 750 550 1500 160 10 0.474 0.116 0.410 - - 52.1 41.6 2 N N
C 3 - 97.5 292.5 0.33 6 864 212 750 550 1500 160 10 0.474 0.116 0.410 - - 52.1 41.6 2 N N
W 3 - 97.5 292.5 0.33 6 787 326 714 550 1500 160 10 0.432 0.178 0.390 - 0.744 46.7 40.6 2 N N
C 3 - 97.5 292.5 0.33 6 787 326 714 550 1500 160 10 0.432 0.178 0.390 - 0.744 46.7 40.6 2 N N
W 3 - 97.5 292.5 0.33 6 977 - 849 550 1500 160 10 0.536 - 0.464 - 0.725 62.3 44.9 4 N N
C 3 - 97.5 292.5 0.33 6 977 - 849 550 1500 160 10 0.536 - 0.464 - 0.725 62.3 44.9 4 N N
172
WR 37 727
W 3 - 97.5 292.5 0.33 6 1174 - 651 550 1500 160 10 0.644 - 0.356 - - 64.4 35.5 2 Y N
C 3 - 97.5 292.5 0.33 6 1174 - 651 550 1500 160 10 0.644 - 0.356 - - 64.4 35.5 2 Y N
Talbot's Grading Curve (ternary) W 3 - 97.5 292.5 0.33 6 940 253 633 550 1500 160 10 0.516 0.139 0.346 - - 52.1 36.3 2** Y N
4 52
[n=0.45]***** C 3 - 97.5 292.5 0.33 6 940 253 633 550 1500 160 10 0.516 0.139 0.346 - - 52.1 36.3 2** Y N
Shilstone's Coarseness Factor Chart - W 3 - 97.5 292.5 0.33 6 995 171 660 550 1500 160 10 0.546 0.093 0.361 - - 55.8 37.0 2 Y N
4 53
Zone 2, ternary, CF = 55.8, WF = 37.0***** C 3 - 97.5 292.5 0.33 6 995 171 660 550 1500 160 10 0.546 0.093 0.361 - - 55.8 37.0 2 Y N
*
W = measuring workability properties; C = casting of prisms and cylinders for measuring hardened properties
**
Point close to Workability Box - Zone 2 dividing line
***
Point close to Zone 2 - Zone 4 dividing line
****
Point just right of Zone 1 - Zone 2 dividing line
*****
173
174
Appendix B: Modified Toufar Model Spreadsheet

Modified Toufar Particle Packing Model
Inputs Required:
Particle Size Distribution Loose Bulk Density (SSD)
Sieve Size % Passing

[mm] CA IA FA CA IA FA
37.5 100 100 100 1540 1448 1744
26.5 100 100 100
19 88 100 100 Relative Density (SSD)
16 70 100 100
9.5 23 100 100 CA IA FA
6.7 12 94 100 2.72 2.73 2.73
4.75 3 60 99
2.36 2 14 89
1.18 2 3 67
0.6 2 1 44
0.3 2 1 18
0.15 1 1 5
0.075 1 1 2
0 0 0 0
Step #1: Calculation of packing degree and characteristic diameter of individual aggregate materials
Cumulative % Retained (by vol) FA IA CA Sieve Size Linear Interpolation of Characteristic Diameter
Sieve Size [mm]
FA IA CA n n+1 n n+1 n n+1 n n+1 % Retained for Char Dia = 36.8
37.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.5 26.5
26.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.0 26.5 19 FA IA CA
19 0.0 0.0 12.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.0 30.0 19 16 % Ret Below 33.0 6.0 30.0
16 0.0 0.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 77.0 16 9.5 % Ret Above 56.0 40.0 77.0
9.5 0.0 0.0 77.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 77.0 88.0 9.5 6.7 Sieve Below 1.18 6.7 16
6.7 0.0 6.0 88.0 0.0 1.0 6.0 40.0 88.0 97.0 6.7 4.75 Sieve Above 0.6 4.75 9.5
4.75 1.0 40.0 97.0 1.0 11.0 40.0 86.0 97.0 98.0 4.75 2.36 d1 d2 d3
2.36 11.0 86.0 98.0 11.0 33.0 86.0 97.0 98.0 98.0 2.36 1.18 Char Dia 1.08 4.93 15.06
1.18 33.0 97.0 98.0 33.0 56.0 97.0 99.0 98.0 98.0 1.18 0.6
0.6 56.0 99.0 98.0 56.0 82.0 99.0 99.0 98.0 98.0 0.6 0.3
0.3 82.0 99.0 98.0 82.0 95.0 99.0 99.0 98.0 99.0 0.3 0.15
0.15 95.0 99.0 99.0 95.0 98.0 99.0 99.0 99.0 99.0 0.15 0.075
0.075 98.0 99.0 99.0 98.0 100.0 99.0 100.0 99.0 100.0 0.075 0
0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 0
Loose Bulk 1744 1448 1540
Grain 2730 2730 2720
Packing degree, i 0.64 0.53 0.57
175
Step #2: Maximization of packing degree of aggregate blend using the Solver function
FOR TERNARY BLENDING ONLY: d 1/d 2 = 0.220 STEP #1: Blend the two aggregate sources with the highest characteristic diameter ratio
d 1/d 3 = 0.072 STEP #2: Blend the binary aggregate blend from Step #1 with the remaining aggregate source
d 2/d 3 = 0.328
Given Statistical Factors: ko= 0.3881

xo= 0.4753
BINARY BLENDING (FA & CA) TERNARY BLENDING (STEPWISE PROCESS)
Var for
STEP #1 STEP #2 Variables for Step #1
Step #2
Cumulative % Cumulative % Cumulative % Cumulative % Cumul %
Sieve Size [mm] Retained Sieve Size [mm] Retained Retained Retained Retained
n n+1 n n+1 n n+1 Finer Coarser Remaining
37.5 0.0 0.0 37.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
26.5 0.0 6.6 26.5 0.0 8.5 0.0 5.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
19 6.6 16.5 19 8.5 21.2 5.3 13.3 0.0 12.0 0.0
16 16.5 42.3 16 21.2 54.5 13.3 34.2 0.0 30.0 0.0
9.5 42.3 48.4 9.5 54.5 64.0 34.2 40.2 0.0 77.0 0.0
6.7 48.4 53.8 6.7 64.0 80.3 40.2 50.9 6.0 88.0 0.0
4.75 53.8 58.8 4.75 80.3 94.5 50.9 63.5 40.0 97.0 1.0
2.36 58.8 68.7 2.36 94.5 97.7 63.5 73.7 86.0 98.0 11.0
1.18 68.7 79.1 1.18 97.7 98.3 73.7 82.6 97.0 98.0 33.0
0.6 79.1 90.8 0.6 98.3 98.3 82.6 92.2 99.0 98.0 56.0
0.3 90.8 97.2 0.3 98.3 99.0 92.2 97.5 99.0 98.0 82.0
0.15 97.2 98.5 0.15 99.0 99.0 97.5 98.6 99.0 99.0 95.0
0.075 98.5 100.0 0.075 99.0 100.0 98.6 100.0 99.0 99.0 98.0
0 100.0 0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Char Dia, d 1-3 10.89 Char Dia, d blend 12.96 8.30 Char Dia, d 4.93 15.06 1.08
% Ret Below 16.5 % Ret Below 21.2 34.2 Vol Prop Step #1, y 0.292 0.708
% Ret Above 42.3 % Ret Above 54.5 40.2 Vol Prop Step #2, y 0.184 0.445 0.372
Sieve Below 16 Sieve Below 16 9.5 Packing degree, 0.53 0.57 0.64
Sieve Above 9.5 Sieve Above 9.5 6.7
Dia Ratio Factor, k d 0.866 Dia Ratio Factor, k d 0.506 0.846
Statistical Factor, k s 0.849 Statistical Factor, k s 0.694 0.824
Fine Bulk Vol/ Fine Bulk Vol/
1.673 1.017 1.516
Coarse Void Vol, x Coarse Void Vol, x
Packing degree, i 0.732 Packing degree, i 0.621 0.754
Output:
Individual Material Volume Proportions Blended Aggregate Properties

Blend
Loose
Type y1 y2 y3 y sum Grain
Bulk
Binary 0.450 0.000 0.550 1.000 1994 2725 0.732
Ternary 0.372 0.184 0.445 1.000 2055 2726 0.754
176
177
Appendix C: Theory of Particle Mixtures Spreadsheet

Theory of Particle Mixtures Particle Packing Model
Inputs Required:
Particle Size Distribution Loose Bulk Density (SSD)
% Passing
Sieve Size [mm]
CA IA FA CA IA FA
37.5 100 100 100 1540 1448 1744
26.5 100 100 100
19 88 100 100 Relative Density (SSD)
16 70 100 100
9.5 23 100 100 CA IA FA
6.7 12 94 100 2.72 2.73 2.73
4.75 3 60 99
2.36 2 14 89
1.18 2 3 67
0.6 2 1 44
0.3 2 1 18
0.15 1 1 5
0.075 1 1 2
0 0 0 0
Step #1: Calculation of log mean diameter and voids ratio of individual aggregate materials
Individual % Retained (by vol) Mean

Sieve Size [mm]
FA IA CA Size, d i
37.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 -
26.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.52
19 0.0 0.0 12.0 22.44
16 0.0 0.0 18.0 17.44
9.5 0.0 0.0 47.0 12.33
6.7 0.0 6.0 11.0 7.98
4.75 1.0 34.0 9.0 5.64
2.36 10.0 46.0 1.0 3.35
1.18 22.0 11.0 0.0 1.67
0.6 23.0 2.0 0.0 0.84
0.3 26.0 0.0 0.0 0.42
0.15 13.0 0.0 1.0 0.21
0.075 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.11
0 2.0 1.0 1.0 -
Mean size, d m 0.76 3.75 11.58
Loose Bulk 1744 1448 1540
Grain 2730 2730 2720
Void Ratio, U i 0.565 0.885 0.766
178
Step #2: Minimization of voids ratio of aggregate blend
BINARY BLENDING (FA & CA)
Individual Void Ratio Notional Void Ratio, U Fine Vol

Spacing
Sieve Size [mm] % Diagram k int kp Width U 0" U 1" Fraction,
Factor, m
Retained Points Factor, Z n n+1 n
37.5 0.0 A 0.00 - - - - - 0.77 0.49 -

26.5 0.0 B 0.30 0.120 0.600 0.137 0.872 2.403 0.49 0.37 0.204
19 5.1 C 0.75 0.060 0.650 0.085 1.038 1.138 0.37 0.36 0.327
16 7.7 D 3.00 0.015 0.800 0.037 2.019 0.660 0.36 0.44 0.549
9.5 20.0 E 7.50 0.000 0.900 0.018 4.833 0.583 0.44 0.753
6.7 4.7 F - - - - - 0.57 -
4.75 4.4 U min 0.362
2.36 6.2 n 0.55
1.18 12.6 nx 0.57
0.6 13.2 U next 0.44
0.3 14.9 n next 0.75
0.15 7.9 Ux 0.371
0.075 1.7
0 1.6
Size ratio, r 0.065
Mean size, d 1-3 2.42
179
TERNARY BLENDING STEP #1: Blend the two finest aggregate sources (based on individual log mean diameter)
STEP #2: Blend the binary aggregate blend from Step #1 with the remaining aggregate source
STEP #1 STEP #2
Notional
Individual Void Ratio Notional Void Ratio, U Fine Vol Individual Void Ratio, U Fine Vol
Spacing " Width
Sieve Size [mm] % Diagram k int kp Width U 0" U1 Fraction, % U 0" U 1" Fraction,
Factor, m Factor,
Retained Points Factor, Z n n+1 n Retained n n+1 n
Z
37.5 0.0 A 0.00 - - - - - 0.89 0.57 - 0.0 - - - 0.77 0.51 -
26.5 0.0 B 0.30 0.120 0.600 0.164 1.248 1.913 0.57 0.49 0.300 0.0 0.148 1.004 2.033 0.51 0.40 0.249
19 0.0 C 0.75 0.060 0.650 0.122 1.875 1.006 0.49 0.50 0.483 6.7 0.102 1.400 0.962 0.40 0.40 0.416
16 0.0 D 3.00 0.015 0.800 0.076 6.785 0.624 0.50 0.55 0.807 10.1 0.056 4.168 0.554 0.40 0.45 0.728
9.5 0.0 E 7.50 0.000 0.900 0.056 28.840 0.575 0.55 0.948 26.3 0.036 14.799 0.499 0.45 0.908
6.7 3.0 F - - - - - 0.57 - 7.4 - - - 0.49 -
4.75 17.2 U min 0.486 12.6 U min 0.401
2.36 27.7 n 0.48 12.8 n 0.42
1.18 16.6 n x 0.51 7.3 nx 0.44
0.6 12.7 U next 0.50 5.6 U next 0.40
0.3 13.2 n next 0.81 5.8 n next 0.73
0.15 6.6 U x 0.487 3.5 Ux 0.401
0.075 1.5 0.7
0 1.5 1.2
Size ratio, r 0.201 0.143 Size ratio, r
Mean Dia, d 1-2 1.66 4.91 Mean Dia, d 1-2-3
y1 0.508 0.441 y 1-2
y2 0.492 0.559 y 3
Output:
Individual Material Volume Proportions Blended Aggregate Properties

Blend Type Loose
y1 y2 y3 y sum Grain U
Bulk
Binary 0.574 0.000 0.426 1.000 1987 2726 0.371
Ternary 0.224 0.217 0.559 1.000 1945 2724 0.401
180
181
Appendix D: Talbots Grading Curve Spreadsheet

Talbot's Grading Curve (For D = 26.5 mm)
Deviation of Blend from Target % Passing is minimized using the Solver function
BINARY BLENDING (FA & CA)
n = 0.40 n = 0.45 n = 0.50 n = 0.55

Sieve % Passing (by 0.40 Blend 0.40 Target Deviation of Blend Size)n 0.45 Blend 0.45 Target Deviation of Blend Size)n 0.50 Blend 0.50 Target Deviation of Blend from Size)n 0.55 Blend 0.55 Target Deviation of Blend from Size)n
Size mass) % Passing % Passing from Target % Passing % Passing from Target % Passing % Passing Target % Passing % Passing Target
[mm] CA FA (by mass) (by mass) Int Only All 0.40 (by mass) (by mass) Int Only All 0.45 (by mass) (by mass) Int Only All 0.50 (by mass) (by mass) Int Only All 0.55
26.5 100 100 100.0 100.0 0.0 3.71 100.0 100.0 0.0 4.37 100.0 100.0 0.0 5.15 100.0 100.0 0.0 6.06
19 88 100 93.9 87.5 6.4 3.25 93.4 86.1 7.3 3.76 92.9 84.7 8.2 4.36 92.5 83.3 9.2 5.05
16 70 100 84.8 81.7 3.1 3.03 83.5 79.7 3.8 3.48 82.3 77.7 4.6 4.00 81.2 75.8 5.4 4.59
9.5 23 100 60.9 66.3 5.4 5.4 2.46 57.6 63.0 5.4 5.4 2.75 54.6 59.9 5.3 5.3 3.08 51.8 56.9 5.1 5.1 3.45
6.7 12 100 55.3 57.7 2.4 2.4 2.14 51.5 53.9 2.3 2.3 2.35 48.1 50.3 2.2 2.2 2.59 44.9 46.9 2.1 2.1 2.85
4.75 3 99 50.3 50.3 0.0 0.0 1.86 46.1 46.1 0.0 0.0 2.02 42.3 42.3 0.0 0.0 2.18 38.9 38.9 0.0 0.0 2.36
2.36 2 89 44.8 38.0 6.8 6.8 1.41 41.1 33.7 7.4 7.4 1.47 37.6 29.8 7.8 7.8 1.54 34.5 26.4 8.0 8.0 1.60
1.18 2 67 34.0 28.8 5.2 1.07 31.2 24.7 6.6 1.08 28.6 21.1 7.5 1.09 26.3 18.1 8.2 1.10
0.6 2 44 22.7 22.0 0.7 0.82 20.9 18.2 2.7 0.79 19.2 15.0 4.2 0.77 17.7 12.5 5.2 0.76
0.3 2 18 9.9 16.7 6.8 0.62 9.2 13.3 4.1 0.58 8.6 10.6 2.1 0.55 8.0 8.5 0.5 0.52
0.15 1 5 3.0 12.6 9.7 0.47 2.8 9.7 6.9 0.43 2.6 7.5 4.9 0.39 2.5 5.8 3.3 0.35
0.075 1 2 1.5 9.6 8.1 0.35 1.4 7.1 5.7 0.31 1.4 5.3 3.9 0.27 1.4 4.0 2.6 0.24
0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00
Grain 2720 2730 Sum of Deviations 14.6 54.5 Sum of Deviations 15.2 52.2 Sum of Deviations 15.4 50.8 Sum of Deviations 15.2 49.8
y CA(mass) y FA(mass) y CA(mass) y FA(mass) y CA(mass) y FA(mass) y CA(mass) y FA(mass)
0.508 0.492 0.551 0.449 0.590 0.410 0.627 0.373
Int Only Int Only Int Only Int Only
y CA(vol) y FA(vol) y CA(vol) y FA(vol) y CA(vol) y FA(vol) y CA(vol) y FA(vol)
0.508 0.492 0.552 0.448 0.591 0.409 0.627 0.373
y CA(mass) y FA(mass) y CA(mass) y FA(mass) y CA(mass) y FA(mass) y CA(mass) y FA(mass)
0.508 0.492 0.551 0.449 0.590 0.410 0.627 0.373
All All All All
y CA(vol) y FA(vol) Sum y CA(vol) y FA(vol) Sum y CA(vol) y FA(vol) Sum y CA(vol) y FA(vol) Sum
0.508 0.492 1.000 0.552 0.448 1.000 0.591 0.409 1.000 0.627 0.373 1.000
TERNARY BLENDING (FA, IA & CA)
n = 0.40 n = 0.45 n = 0.50 n = 0.55

(Sieve (Sieve (Sieve (Sieve
Sieve 0.40 Blend 0.40 Target Deviation of Blend 0.45 Blend 0.45 Target Deviation of Blend 0.50 Blend 0.50 Target Deviation of Blend from 0.55 Blend 0.55 Target Deviation of Blend from
% Passing (by mass) Size)n Size)n Size)n Size)n
Size % Passing % Passing from Target % Passing % Passing from Target % Passing % Passing Target % Passing % Passing Target
[mm] (by mass) (by mass) (by mass) (by mass) (by mass) (by mass) (by mass) (by mass)
CA IA FA Int Only All 0.40 Int Only All 0.45 Int Only All 0.50 Int Only All 0.55
26.5 100 100 100 100.0 100.0 0.0 3.71 100.0 100.0 0.0 4.37 100.0 100.0 0.0 5.15 100.0 100.0 0.0 6.06
19 88 100 100 94.3 87.5 6.8 3.25 93.8 86.1 7.7 3.76 93.7 84.7 9.1 4.36 93.3 83.3 10.0 5.05
16 70 100 100 85.9 81.7 4.1 3.03 84.6 79.7 4.9 3.48 84.4 77.7 6.7 4.00 83.2 75.8 7.4 4.59
9.5 23 100 100 63.7 66.3 2.7 2.7 2.46 60.4 63.0 2.7 2.7 2.75 59.9 59.9 0.0 0.0 3.08 56.9 56.9 0.0 0.0 3.45
6.7 12 94 100 57.8 57.7 0.1 0.1 2.14 53.9 53.9 0.0 0.0 2.35 53.0 50.3 2.8 2.8 2.59 49.6 46.9 2.7 2.7 2.85
4.75 3 60 99 49.1 50.3 1.1 1.1 1.86 44.2 46.1 2.0 2.0 2.02 41.8 42.3 0.6 0.6 2.18 38.0 38.9 0.8 0.8 2.36
2.36 2 14 89 39.1 38.0 1.1 1.1 1.41 33.8 33.7 0.1 0.1 1.47 29.8 29.8 0.0 0.0 1.54 26.4 26.4 0.0 0.0 1.60
1.18 2 3 67 28.8 28.8 0.0 1.07 24.7 24.7 0.0 1.08 21.3 21.1 0.2 1.09 18.8 18.1 0.7 1.10
0.6 2 1 44 19.1 22.0 2.9 0.82 16.4 18.2 1.8 0.79 14.2 15.0 0.9 0.77 12.5 12.5 0.1 0.76
0.3 2 1 18 8.5 16.7 8.2 0.62 7.4 13.3 5.9 0.58 6.5 10.6 4.1 0.55 5.9 8.5 2.6 0.52
0.15 1 1 5 2.6 12.6 10.0 0.47 2.4 9.7 7.4 0.43 2.2 7.5 5.3 0.39 2.0 5.8 3.8 0.35
0.075 1 1 2 1.4 9.6 8.2 0.35 1.3 7.1 5.8 0.31 1.3 5.3 4.0 0.27 1.3 4.0 2.7 0.24
0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00
Grain 2720 2730 2730 Sum of Deviations 5.0 45.1 Sum of Deviations 4.8 38.2 Sum of Deviations 3.3 33.6 Sum of Deviations 3.5 30.8
y CA(mass) y IA(mass) y FA(mass) y CA(mass) y IA(mass) y FA(mass) y CA(mass) y IA(mass) y FA(mass) y CA(mass) y IA(mass) y FA(mass)
0.437 0.172 0.390 0.480 0.181 0.339 0.521 0.184 0.295 0.560 0.184 0.256
Int Only Int Only Int Only Int Only
y CA(vol) y IA(vol) y FA(vol) y CA(vol) y IA(vol) y FA(vol) y CA(vol) y IA(vol) y FA(vol) y CA(vol) y IA(vol) y FA(vol)
0.438 0.172 0.389 0.481 0.180 0.339 0.522 0.184 0.294 0.561 0.184 0.255
y CA(mass) y IA(mass) y FA(mass) y CA(mass) y IA(mass) y FA(mass) y CA(mass) y IA(mass) y FA(mass) y CA(mass) y IA(mass) y FA(mass)
0.472 0.118 0.411 0.515 0.139 0.346 0.521 0.184 0.295 0.560 0.184 0.256
All All All All
y CA(vol) y IA(vol) y FA(vol) Sum y CA(vol) y IA(vol) y FA(vol) Sum y CA(vol) y IA(vol) y FA(vol) Sum y CA(vol) y IA(vol) y FA(vol) Sum
0.473 0.118 0.410 1.000 0.516 0.139 0.346 1.000 0.522 0.184 0.294 1.000 0.561 0.184 0.255 1.000
182
183
Appendix E: Combined Gradations for All Mix Designs

Stage 1
Mix # 1 2 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
CA % vol 0.584 0.584 0.550 0.508 0.424 0.402 0.445 0.410 0.559 0.508 0.508 0.552 0.552 0.591 0.591 0.627 0.627 0.473 0.474 0.516 0.516 0.522 0.561 0.694 0.647 0.546 0.546 0.576 0.511 0.511 0.684 0.649
IA % vol 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.184 0.192 0.217 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.118 0.116 0.139 0.139 0.184 0.184 0 0.016 0.093 0.093 0.107 0.078 0.078 0.012 0
FA % vol 0.416 0.416 0.450 0.492 0.576 0.598 0.372 0.399 0.224 0.492 0.492 0.448 0.448 0.409 0.409 0.373 0.373 0.410 0.410 0.346 0.346 0.294 0.255 0.306 0.337 0.361 0.361 0.317 0.411 0.411 0.304 0.351
Coarse
CA Aggregate 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1
Supply
Sieve Size
1 2 3 IA FA Combined Gradation (% Passing)
(mm)
26.5 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
19 88 89 96 100 100 93 94 93 94 95 96 95 96 93 94 94 93 94 93 93 92 93 94 95 94 94 94 93 92 92 93 94 93 94 94 92 92
16 70 69 85 100 100 82 82 84 84 87 88 87 87 83 85 84 83 83 82 82 81 81 86 85 85 84 84 83 79 81 84 83 83 85 84 79 81
9.5 23 30 33 100 100 55 59 58 64 67 72 66 71 57 61 64 57 61 54 59 52 56 64 67 60 64 60 57 47 50 58 62 56 61 64 47 50
6.7 12 12 12 94 100 49 49 52 55 63 65 60 63 50 55 55 51 51 48 48 45 45 58 58 54 54 53 50 39 43 51 51 49 55 55 40 43
4.75 3 3 2 60 99 43 43 46 50 58 60 49 52 37 50 50 46 46 42 42 39 39 49 49 44 44 42 38 32 36 43 43 40 47 47 33 37
2.36 2 2 2 14 89 38 38 41 45 52 54 37 39 24 45 45 41 41 38 38 34 34 39 39 34 34 30 26 29 32 35 35 31 39 39 29 33
1.18 2 2 2 3 67 29 29 31 34 39 41 26 28 17 34 34 31 31 29 29 26 26 29 29 25 25 21 19 22 24 26 26 23 29 29 22 25
0.6 2 2 2 1 44 19 19 21 23 26 27 17 19 11 23 23 21 21 19 19 18 18 19 19 16 16 14 13 15 16 17 17 15 19 19 15 17
0.3 2 2 2 1 18 9 9 9 10 11 12 8 8 5 10 10 9 9 9 9 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 6 7 7 8 8 7 8 8 7 8
0.15 1 1 1 1 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 2
0.075 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Stage 2
Mix # 24b 25e 26 27 28 29 30 31

CA % vol 0.508 0.536 0.552 0.553 0.511 0.511 0.474 0.474 0.591 0.584 0.584 0.410 0.402 0.400
IA % vol 0 0 0 0 0.078 0.078 0.116 0.116 0 0 0 0.192 0 0
FA % vol 0.492 0.464 0.448 0.447 0.411 0.411 0.410 0.410 0.409 0.416 0.416 0.399 0.598 0.600
Coarse
CA Aggregate 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 3
Supply
Sieve Size
(mm)
26.5 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
19 88 89 96 100 100 94 98 94 98 94 98 95 98 93 94 98 96 96 98
16 70 69 85 100 100 84 92 83 92 84 92 85 93 82 82 91 87 88 94
9.5 23 30 33 100 100 64 64 61 63 64 66 67 68 59 59 61 71 72 73
6.7 12 12 12 94 100 55 53 51 51 55 55 58 58 48 49 49 63 65 65
4.75 3 3 2 60 99 50 47 46 45 47 46 49 48 42 43 42 52 60 60
2.36 2 2 2 14 89 45 42 41 41 39 39 39 39 38 38 38 39 54 54
1.18 2 2 2 3 67 34 32 31 31 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 28 41 41
0.6 2 2 2 1 44 23 21 21 21 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 27 27
0.3 2 2 2 1 18 10 9 9 9 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 8 12 12
0.15 1 1 1 1 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
0.075 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
184
Stage 3
Mix # 32d 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43
CA % vol 0.628 0.552 0.508 0.511 0.474 0.591 0.410 0.402 0.508 0.627 0.644 0.516 0.546
IA % vol 0 0 0 0.078 0.116 0 0.192 0 0 0 0 0.139 0.093
FA % vol 0.372 0.448 0.492 0.411 0.410 0.409 0.399 0.598 0.492 0.373 0.356 0.346 0.361
Coarse
CA Aggregate 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2
Supply
Sieve Size
(mm)
26.5 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
19 88 89 96 100 100 93 94 94 94 95 93 96 96 94 93 97 94 94
16 70 69 85 100 100 81 83 84 84 85 82 87 88 84 81 90 84 83
9.5 23 30 33 100 100 56 61 64 64 67 59 71 72 64 56 57 64 62
6.7 12 12 12 94 100 45 51 55 55 58 48 63 65 55 45 43 54 51
4.75 3 3 2 60 99 39 46 50 47 49 42 52 60 50 39 37 44 43
2.36 2 2 2 14 89 34 41 45 39 39 38 39 54 45 34 33 34 35
1.18 2 2 2 3 67 26 31 34 29 29 29 28 41 34 26 25 25 26
0.6 2 2 2 1 44 18 21 23 19 19 19 19 27 23 18 17 16 17
0.3 2 2 2 1 18 8 9 10 8 8 9 8 12 10 8 8 7 8
0.15 1 1 1 1 5 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2
0.075 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Stage 4
Mix # 44c 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53
RANGE
CA % vol 0.591 0.628 0.553 0.511 0.474 0.432 0.536 0.644 0.516 0.546
IA % vol 0 0 0 0.078 0.116 0.178 0 0 0.139 0.093
FA % vol 0.409 0.372 0.447 0.411 0.410 0.390 0.464 0.356 0.346 0.361 Combined
Gradation
Coarse
of All
CA Aggregate 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Stages
Supply
Sieve Size
1 2 3 IA FA Combined Gradation (% Passing) Min Max
(mm)
26.5 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
19 88 89 96 100 100 98 97 98 98 98 98 98 97 98 98 92 98
16 70 69 85 100 100 91 91 92 92 93 94 92 90 92 92 79 94
9.5 23 30 33 100 100 60 58 63 66 68 71 64 57 66 63 47 73
6.7 12 12 12 94 100 48 45 51 55 58 61 53 43 54 51 39 65
4.75 3 3 2 60 99 42 38 45 46 48 50 47 37 44 42 32 60
2.36 2 2 2 14 89 38 34 41 39 39 38 42 33 34 35 24 54
1.18 2 2 2 3 67 29 26 31 29 29 28 32 25 25 26 17 41
0.6 2 2 2 1 44 19 18 21 19 19 18 21 17 16 17 11 27
0.3 2 2 2 1 18 9 8 9 8 8 8 9 8 7 8 5 12
0.15 1 1 1 1 5 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 3
0.075 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
185
186
Appendix F: Compressive Strength Results for All Stages

187
MIX #1
Cast Date: 04/01/2011
Avg. Avg. Peak Peak Peak Peak

Days Diameter Diameter Load Load Stress Stress Avg. Peak Stress
Date Notes
(after cast) Cylinder Cylinder Cylinder Cylinder Cylinder Cylinder [MPa]
#1 [mm] #2 [mm] #1 [kN] #2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
2 06/01/2011 101.73 101.62 163.20 155.90 20.08 19.22 19.65 No caps used
3 07/01/2011 101.73 101.93 188.20 216.00 23.16 26.47 24.81
7 11/01/2011 101.81 101.62 268.90 285.60 33.03 35.22 34.13
28 01/02/2011 101.77 101.91 343.50 340.30 42.23 41.72 41.98
57 02/03/2011 101.72 101.56 403.29 391.28 49.62 48.31 48.96 Basement lab Forney machine
MIX #2
Cast Date: 04/01/2011

Date Notes
#1 [mm] #2 [mm] #1 [kN] #2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
2 06/01/2011 101.97 101.64 140.70 140.80 17.23 17.35 17.29 No caps used
3 07/01/2011 101.75 101.70 180.00 175.70 22.14 21.63 21.88
7 11/01/2011 101.63 102.17 193.10 214.40 23.81 26.15 24.98
28 01/02/2011 101.93 101.53 236.50 275.60 28.98 34.04 31.51
MIX #5
Cast Date: 04/01/2011

Date Notes
#1 [mm] #2 [mm] #1 [kN] #2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
2 06/01/2011 101.60 101.79 116.60 124.30 14.38 15.28 14.83 No caps used
3 07/01/2011 101.82 101.74 163.00 158.00 20.02 19.44 19.73
7 11/01/2011 101.83 101.74 201.50 193.20 24.74 23.77 24.25
28 01/02/2011 101.66 101.43 280.20 306.90 34.52 37.98 36.25
MIX #9
Cast Date: 04/01/2011

Date Notes
#1 [mm] #2 [mm] #1 [kN] #2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
2 06/01/2011 101.99 102.22 127.00 114.30 15.55 13.93 14.74 No caps used
3 07/01/2011 101.97 102.36 151.30 163.30 18.53 19.84 19.19
7 11/01/2011 101.63 101.96 213.10 214.20 26.27 26.23 26.25
28 01/02/2011 102.09 101.88 259.20 237.00 31.66 29.07 30.37
188
MIX #4
Cast Date: 10/01/2011

Date Notes
#1 [mm] #2 [mm] #1 [kN] #2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
1 11/01/2011 97.64 97.90 26.80 30.45 3.58 4.05 3.81 No caps used
3 13/01/2011 101.87 101.12 129.30 127.40 15.87 15.86 15.86
8 18/01/2011 102.02 101.82 186.00 205.00 22.75 25.18 23.97
28 07/02/2011 101.18 101.83 209.40 215.00 26.04 26.40 26.22
MIX #8
Cast Date: 10/01/2011

Date Notes
#1 [mm] #2 [mm] #1 [kN] #2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
1 11/01/2011 101.31 93.70 27.67 26.65 3.43 3.87 3.65 No caps used
3 13/01/2011 101.96 101.71 169.30 164.90 20.74 20.30 20.52
8 18/01/2011 101.82 102.08 240.30 239.00 29.51 29.20 29.36
28 07/02/2011 102.06 101.46 283.70 272.10 34.68 33.65 34.17
MIX #10
Cast Date: 10/01/2011

Date Notes
#1 [mm] #2 [mm] #1 [kN] #2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
1 11/01/2011 97.67 92.70 35.44 32.68 4.73 4.84 4.79 No caps used
3 13/01/2011 101.01 101.88 223.10 219.60 27.84 26.94 27.39
8 18/01/2011 102.26 102.17 330.10 312.60 40.19 38.13 39.16
28 07/02/2011 101.79 101.94 352.90 350.10 43.37 42.89 43.13
MIX #11
Cast Date: 10/01/2011

Date Notes
#1 [mm] #2 [mm] #1 [kN] #2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
1 11/01/2011 100.68 100.24 20.48 21.60 2.57 2.74 2.65 No caps used
3 13/01/2011 101.62 101.26 202.80 195.90 25.00 24.33 24.66
8 18/01/2011 101.41 101.69 263.20 275.20 32.59 33.89 33.24
28 07/02/2011 101.71 101.53 335.40 323.70 41.28 39.98 40.63
189
MIX #12
Cast Date: 10/01/2011

Date Notes
#1 [mm] #2 [mm] #1 [kN] #2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
1 11/01/2011 99.21 96.26 24.17 38.86 3.13 5.34 4.23 No caps used
3 13/01/2011 101.65 101.81 199.60 188.30 24.60 23.13 23.86
8 18/01/2011 101.82 101.52 281.40 271.30 34.56 33.51 34.04
28 07/02/2011 101.69 100.16 322.40 322.80 39.70 40.97 40.33
MIX #13
Cast Date: 10/01/2011

Date Notes
#1 [mm] #2 [mm] #1 [kN] #2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
1 11/01/2011 98.45 97.38 24.66 36.58 3.24 4.91 4.08 No caps used
3 13/01/2011 101.80 101.69 216.90 220.30 26.65 27.12 26.89
8 18/01/2011 101.90 102.05 324.50 316.10 39.79 38.65 39.22
28 07/02/2011 102.18 101.74 364.70 383.70 44.48 47.20 45.84
MIX #18
Cast Date: 12/01/2011

Date Notes
#1 [mm] #2 [mm] #1 [kN] #2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
2 14/01/2011 102.16 102.03 153.10 158.50 18.68 19.38 19.03 No caps used
3 15/01/2011 101.42 101.55 223.10 217.20 27.62 26.82 27.22
7 19/01/2011 101.48 101.56 319.40 323.20 39.49 39.90 39.69
28 09/02/2011 101.47 102.11 405.10 422.50 50.10 51.59 50.84
MIX #20
Cast Date: 12/01/2011

Date Notes
#1 [mm] #2 [mm] #1 [kN] #2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
2 14/01/2011 101.15 101.41 135.20 137.90 16.82 17.07 16.95 Ends ground
3 15/01/2011 101.44 101.51 186.70 194.40 23.10 24.02 23.56
7 19/01/2011 101.92 101.55 273.50 265.70 33.52 32.81 33.16
28 09/02/2011 100.16 101.67 310.60 367.70 39.42 45.29 42.36
190
MIX #32d
Cast Date: 12/01/2011

Date Notes
#1 [mm] #2 [mm] #1 [kN] #2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
1 13/01/2011 101.27 100.00 57.47 104.90 7.13 13.36 10.25 No caps used
3 15/01/2011 100.70 101.67 314.20 328.40 39.45 40.45 39.95
7 19/01/2011 101.39 101.88 477.60 476.30 59.15 58.43 58.79
28 09/02/2011 101.78 101.61 590.30 581.00 72.55 71.66 72.11
56 09/03/2011 101.94 101.97 607.88 583.05 74.48 71.40 72.94 Basement lab Forney machine; #1 sudden splitting failure
MIX #33
Cast Date: 12/01/2011

Date Notes
#1 [mm] #2 [mm] #1 [kN] #2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
1 13/01/2011 99.76 100.65 69.44 96.53 8.88 12.13 10.51 No caps used
3 15/01/2011 100.82 100.93 313.90 314.00 39.32 39.24 39.28
7 19/01/2011 101.67 102.03 466.80 468.30 57.50 57.28 57.39
28 09/02/2011 101.84 101.69 569.90 579.00 69.97 71.29 70.63
MIX #34
Cast Date: 12/01/2011

Date Notes
#1 [mm] #2 [mm] #1 [kN] #2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
2 14/01/2011 101.72 102.38 243.30 243.00 29.94 29.52 29.73 Ends ground
3 15/01/2011 101.20 101.64 314.70 303.30 39.13 37.38 38.25
7 19/01/2011 101.95 101.26 447.70 453.30 54.85 56.29 55.57
28 09/02/2011 102.05 102.61 574.00 518.80 70.18 62.74 66.46
MIX #35
Cast Date: 12/01/2011

Date Notes
#1 [mm] #2 [mm] #1 [kN] #2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
2 14/01/2011 101.98 101.45 253.80 244.80 31.07 30.29 30.68 Ends ground
3 15/01/2011 100.81 101.47 289.30 213.00 36.25 26.34 31.29
7 19/01/2011 101.98 101.72 452.00 433.50 55.33 53.34 54.34
28 09/02/2011 101.42 101.59 436.90 533.80 54.08 65.85 59.96
191
MIX #36
Cast Date: 17/01/2011

Date Notes
#1 [mm] #2 [mm] #1 [kN] #2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
1 18/01/2011 98.26 99.44 61.31 111.80 8.09 14.40 11.24 No caps used
3 20/01/2011 100.53 101.87 260.00 285.40 32.76 35.01 33.89
7 24/01/2011 101.29 101.97 414.00 398.60 51.38 48.81 50.09
28 14/02/2011 101.52 101.93 426.50 474.90 52.69 58.20 55.45
MIX #37
Cast Date: 17/01/2011

Date Notes
#1 [mm] #2 [mm] #1 [kN] #2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
1 18/01/2011 93.70 95.68 83.64 106.40 12.13 14.80 13.46 No caps used
3 20/01/2011 101.65 101.31 296.90 303.80 36.59 37.69 37.14
7 24/01/2011 100.75 102.04 398.50 408.30 49.99 49.93 49.96
28 14/02/2011 101.61 102.15 537.70 512.00 66.31 62.47 64.39
MIX #38
Cast Date: 17/01/2011

Date Notes
#1 [mm] #2 [mm] #1 [kN] #2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
1 18/01/2011 98.36 94.80 33.33 55.93 4.39 7.92 6.16 No caps used
3 20/01/2011 99.70 100.65 250.70 258.60 32.11 32.50 32.31
7 24/01/2011 101.58 100.52 364.80 355.10 45.01 44.75 44.88
28 14/02/2011 101.84 101.71 477.20 514.90 58.59 63.38 60.98
MIX #41
Cast Date: 17/01/2011

Date Notes
#1 [mm] #2 [mm] #1 [kN] #2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
1 18/01/2011 101.88 102.19 104.50 117.50 12.82 14.33 13.57 No caps used
3 20/01/2011 100.90 101.72 325.90 295.00 40.76 36.30 38.53
7 24/01/2011 101.20 101.61 439.20 418.90 54.60 51.66 53.13
28 14/02/2011 102.03 101.77 545.40 559.40 66.71 68.77 67.74
192
MIX #42
Cast Date: 17/01/2011

Date Notes
#1 [mm] #2 [mm] #1 [kN] #2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
1 18/01/2011 98.26 98.82 55.58 50.88 7.33 6.63 6.98 No caps used
3 20/01/2011 101.62 101.44 262.90 254.90 32.41 31.54 31.98
7 24/01/2011 101.53 101.64 346.80 396.30 42.83 48.84 45.84
28 14/02/2011 101.60 101.74 274.00 504.20 33.80 62.02 62.02 #1 improper alignment; disregard
MIX #43
Cast Date: 17/01/2011

Date Notes
#1 [mm] #2 [mm] #1 [kN] #2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
1 18/01/2011 98.02 98.77 17.69 19.84 2.34 2.59 2.47 No caps used
3 20/01/2011 101.93 100.82 281.80 263.40 34.53 33.00 33.76
7 24/01/2011 101.02 100.38 395.60 381.80 49.36 48.24 48.80
28 14/02/2011 101.58 101.83 461.70 512.00 56.97 62.87 59.92
MIX #24b
Cast Date: 18/01/2011

Date Notes
#1 [mm] #2 [mm] #1 [kN] #2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
1 19/01/2011 100.00 100.00 16.83 17.01 2.14 2.17 2.15 Caps used
3 21/01/2011 101.73 101.48 183.70 186.20 22.60 23.02 22.81
7 25/01/2011 103.14 101.65 241.00 234.50 28.85 28.90 28.87
28 15/02/2011 102.24 101.67 306.90 298.50 37.38 36.77 37.08
MIX #25e
Cast Date: 18/01/2011

Date Notes
#1 [mm] #2 [mm] #1 [kN] #2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
1 19/01/2011 100.00 100.00 26.18 26.67 3.33 3.40 3.36 Caps used
3 21/01/2011 101.37 101.08 167.10 167.60 20.70 20.89 20.80
7 25/01/2011 101.28 101.97 232.60 194.80 28.87 23.85 26.36
28 15/02/2011 101.81 101.75 316.00 307.50 38.81 37.82 38.31
193
MIX #26
Cast Date: 18/01/2011

Date Notes
#1 [mm] #2 [mm] #1 [kN] #2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
1 19/01/2011 100.00 100.00 22.80 21.70 2.90 2.76 2.83 Caps used
3 21/01/2011 100.69 101.61 184.00 184.20 23.11 22.72 22.91
7 25/01/2011 101.73 99.28 261.40 252.10 32.16 32.56 32.36
28 15/02/2011 101.97 101.68 340.20 315.80 41.66 38.89 40.27
MIX #27
Cast Date: 25/01/2011

Date Notes
#1 [mm] #2 [mm] #1 [kN] #2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
1 26/01/2011 100.00 100.00 8.85 7.05 1.13 0.90 1.01 Caps used
3 28/01/2011 101.23 101.70 176.80 172.10 21.97 21.19 21.58
8 02/02/2011 101.02 101.79 260.40 252.50 32.49 31.03 31.76
28 22/02/2011 102.00 101.99 355.90 337.80 43.56 41.35 42.45
MIX #29
Cast Date: 25/01/2011

Date Notes
#1 [mm] #2 [mm] #1 [kN] #2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
1 26/01/2011 100.00 100.00 11.34 11.70 1.44 1.49 1.47 Caps used
3 28/01/2011 102.26 100.60 154.30 146.20 18.79 18.40 18.59
8 02/02/2011 101.39 102.07 263.50 251.20 32.64 30.70 31.67
28 22/02/2011 101.86 102.28 312.00 331.50 38.29 40.35 39.32
MIX #31
Cast Date: 25/01/2011

Date Notes
#1 [mm] #2 [mm] #1 [kN] #2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
1 26/01/2011 100.00 100.00 17.47 17.97 2.22 2.29 2.26 Caps used
3 28/01/2011 101.60 101.28 191.00 186.10 23.56 23.10 23.33
8 02/02/2011 101.85 101.74 279.00 285.00 34.24 35.06 34.65
28 22/02/2011 101.45 101.72 378.00 360.90 46.76 44.41 45.59
194
MIX #44c
Cast Date: 26/01/2011

Date Notes
#1 [mm] #2 [mm] #1 [kN] #2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
1 27/01/2011 100.00 100.00 6.49 8.94 0.83 1.14 0.98 Caps used
3 29/01/2011 101.84 101.44 259.30 288.70 31.83 35.73 33.78
7 02/02/2011 101.88 101.56 432.40 378.90 53.04 46.77 49.91
28 23/02/2011 101.59 101.54 545.80 567.80 67.33 70.12 68.73
MIX #45
Cast Date: 26/01/2011

Date Notes
#1 [mm] #2 [mm] #1 [kN] #2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
1 27/01/2011 100.00 100.00 33.34 50.71 4.24 6.46 5.35 Caps used
3 29/01/2011 101.53 100.55 266.60 287.30 32.93 36.18 34.55
7 02/02/2011 101.73 101.89 453.00 462.70 55.73 56.75 56.24
28 23/02/2011 101.77 101.98 582.60 549.50 71.62 67.27 69.44
MIX #46
Cast Date: 26/01/2011

Date Notes
#1 [mm] #2 [mm] #1 [kN] #2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
1 27/01/2011 100.00 100.00 5.43 7.52 0.69 0.96 0.82 Caps used
3 29/01/2011 101.49 101.50 260.50 256.70 32.20 31.72 31.96
7 02/02/2011 101.32 101.78 383.40 374.30 47.56 46.01 46.78
28 23/02/2011 101.83 101.03 483.50 496.20 59.37 61.90 60.63
MIX #47
Cast Date: 26/01/2011

Date Notes
#1 [mm] #2 [mm] #1 [kN] #2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
1 27/01/2011 100.00 100.00 2.32 2.10 0.30 0.27 0.28 Caps used
3 29/01/2011 99.08 100.65 240.50 262.50 31.19 32.99 32.09
7 02/02/2011 101.25 101.26 403.70 409.70 50.14 50.87 50.51
28 23/02/2011 101.72 101.66 540.10 508.60 66.46 62.66 64.56
195
MIX #48
Cast Date: 31/01/2011

Date Notes
#1 [mm] #2 [mm] #1 [kN] #2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
2 02/02/2011 101.67 101.77 211.10 216.20 26.00 26.58 26.29 Caps used
3 03/02/2011 101.77 101.71 263.70 256.80 32.42 31.61 32.01
9 09/02/2011 101.69 101.87 389.60 399.00 47.98 48.96 48.47
28 28/02/2011 101.91 101.91 489.50 472.60 60.01 57.94 58.97
MIX #49 - 1
Cast Date: 31/01/2011

Date Notes
#1 [mm] #2 [mm] #1 [kN] #2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
2 02/02/2011 101.60 101.18 227.30 229.40 28.04 28.53 28.29 Ends ground
3 03/02/2011 101.48 101.72 269.50 272.70 33.32 33.56 33.44
9 09/02/2011 101.36 102.05 410.80 421.90 50.91 51.58 51.24
28 28/02/2011 101.71 101.68 543.10 495.20 66.84 60.98 63.91
MIX #49 - 2
Cast Date: 31/01/2011

Date Notes
#1 [mm] #2 [mm] #1 [kN] #2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
2 02/02/2011 101.86 101.84 238.10 240.20 29.22 29.49 29.36 Ends ground
3 03/02/2011 101.68 101.24 286.60 292.40 35.30 36.32 35.81
9 09/02/2011 101.61 101.81 477.00 466.40 58.82 57.29 58.06
28 28/02/2011 101.77 101.77 556.60 584.30 68.42 71.83 70.13
MIX #51
Cast Date: 31/01/2011

Date Notes
#1 [mm] #2 [mm] #1 [kN] #2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
2 02/02/2011 102.00 102.15 220.90 231.20 27.03 28.21 27.62 Ends ground
3 03/02/2011 102.19 102.20 300.90 201.90 36.69 24.61 30.65
9 09/02/2011 102.43 101.86 438.50 437.10 53.22 53.64 53.43
28 28/02/2011 101.87 102.13 571.00 503.70 70.06 61.49 65.77
196
MIX #52
Cast Date: 31/01/2011

Date Notes
#1 [mm] #2 [mm] #1 [kN] #2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
2 02/02/2011 101.71 101.98 231.70 234.10 28.52 28.66 28.59 Ends ground
3 03/02/2011 101.63 101.28 305.30 286.20 37.63 35.52 36.58
9 09/02/2011 101.77 101.82 414.70 470.70 50.98 57.81 54.39
28 28/02/2011 101.78 101.74 591.20 550.80 72.67 67.76 70.21
MIX #53
Cast Date: 31/01/2011

Date Notes
#1 [mm] #2 [mm] #1 [kN] #2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
2 02/02/2011 101.87 101.74 244.10 255.60 29.95 31.44 30.70 Ends ground
3 03/02/2011 101.60 101.32 295.70 299.10 36.48 37.10 36.79
9 09/02/2011 101.55 101.77 441.40 464.00 54.50 57.05 55.78
28 28/02/2011 101.78 101.73 529.50 515.40 65.09 63.41 64.25
MIX #50
Cast Date: 12/05/2011

Date Notes
#1 [mm] #2 [mm] #1 [kN] #2 [kN] #1 [MPa] #2 [MPa]
1 13/05/2011 100.00 100.00 154.60 153.10 19.68 19.49 19.59 Caps used
3 15/05/2011 101.96 101.87 277.10 276.90 33.94 33.98 33.96
7 19/05/2011 101.73 101.67 343.50 365.10 42.27 44.98 43.62
28 09/06/2011 102.10 101.81 469.22 448.42 57.31 55.09 56.20
197
Appendix G: Linear Drying Shrinkage Results for All Stages

198
MIX #1 Gauge Length #1 [mm] = 268.148
Cast Date: 04/01/2011 Gauge Length #2 [mm] = 268.300
Gauge Length #3 [mm] = 267.691 OPSS LS-435 R23 ASTM C 157 (Modified)
Corrected Corrected Corrected Corrected Corrected Corrected
Average Average
Mass Mass Mass CRD CRD CRD Length Length Length Length Length Length
Days Average Length Length
Date Prism #1 Prism #2 Prism #3 Prism #1 Prism #2 Prism #3 Change Change Change Change Change Change
(after cast) Mass [g] Change Change
[g] [g] [g] [mm] [mm] [mm] Prism #1 Prism #2 Prism #3 Prism #1 Prism #2 Prism #3
[%] [%]
[%] [%] [%] [%] [%] [%]
1 05/01/2011 4073 4090 4107 4090 3.969 4.307 3.658
7 11/01/2011 4095 4113 4129 4112 3.984 4.320 3.675
14 18/01/2011 4029 4044 4061 4045 3.929 4.267 3.624 -0.0205 -0.0198 -0.0191 -0.0198 -0.0149 -0.0149 -0.0127 -0.0142
28 01/02/2011 4016 4031 4048 4032 3.918 4.254 3.612 -0.0246 -0.0246 -0.0235 -0.0242 -0.0190 -0.0198 -0.0172 -0.0187
42 15/02/2011 4013 4027 4045 4028 3.882 4.217 3.579 -0.0395 -0.0399 -0.0374 -0.0389 -0.0339 -0.0350 -0.0310 -0.0333
56 01/03/2011 4009 4024 4041 4025 3.864 4.202 3.563 -0.0462 -0.0455 -0.0433 -0.0450 -0.0406 -0.0406 -0.0370 -0.0394
91 05/04/2011 4003 4018 4036 4019 3.858 4.199 3.562 -0.0485 -0.0466 -0.0437 -0.0463 -0.0429 -0.0417 -0.0374 -0.0407

Average Average
[%] [%]
[%] [%] [%] [%] [%] [%]
1 05/01/2011 4238 4236 4185 4220 7.101 6.252 6.586
7 11/01/2011 4258 4256 4204 4239 7.117 6.268 6.602
14 18/01/2011 4193 4191 4142 4175 7.082 6.241 6.576 -0.0129 -0.0100 -0.0096 -0.0108 -0.0070 -0.0041 -0.0037 -0.0049
28 01/02/2011 4182 4180 4131 4164 7.067 6.198 6.543 -0.0184 -0.0259 -0.0218 -0.0220 -0.0125 -0.0200 -0.0159 -0.0161
42 15/02/2011 4179 4176 4128 4161 7.035 6.174 6.507 -0.0317 -0.0363 -0.0366 -0.0349 -0.0258 -0.0303 -0.0307 -0.0289
56 01/03/2011 4176 4173 4125 4158 7.021 6.161 6.493 -0.0369 -0.0411 -0.0418 -0.0399 -0.0310 -0.0352 -0.0359 -0.0340
91 05/04/2011 4170 4168 4119 4152 7.004 6.155 6.468 -0.0431 -0.0433 -0.0510 -0.0458 -0.0372 -0.0374 -0.0451 -0.0399

Average Average
[%] [%]
[%] [%] [%] [%] [%] [%]
1 05/01/2011 4015 4037 4079 4044 8.358 9.431 9.282
7 11/01/2011 4046 4068 4109 4074 8.382 9.449 9.303
14 18/01/2011 3975 3995 4043 4004 8.307 9.408 9.249 -0.0276 -0.0150 -0.0197 -0.0208 -0.0188 -0.0084 -0.0121 -0.0131
28 01/02/2011 3963 3982 4031 3992 8.283 9.386 9.232 -0.0365 -0.0231 -0.0260 -0.0285 -0.0276 -0.0165 -0.0183 -0.0208
42 15/02/2011 3959 3979 4028 3989 8.248 9.350 9.200 -0.0508 -0.0377 -0.0391 -0.0425 -0.0420 -0.0311 -0.0315 -0.0348
56 01/03/2011 3956 3976 4025 3986 8.229 9.333 9.184 -0.0578 -0.0439 -0.0450 -0.0489 -0.0490 -0.0373 -0.0373 -0.0412
91 05/04/2011 3950 3971 4019 3980 8.216 9.324 9.172 -0.0626 -0.0472 -0.0494 -0.0531 -0.0538 -0.0406 -0.0417 -0.0454

Average Average
[%] [%]
[%] [%] [%] [%] [%] [%]
1 05/01/2011 4083 4116 4038 4079 10.435 11.591 11.125
7 11/01/2011 4110 4144 4064 4106 10.449 11.606 11.139
14 18/01/2011 4035 4068 3992 4032 10.393 11.560 11.095 -0.0204 -0.0167 -0.0160 -0.0177 -0.0153 -0.0112 -0.0109 -0.0125
28 01/02/2011 4022 4054 3979 4018 10.368 11.537 11.070 -0.0295 -0.0250 -0.0251 -0.0265 -0.0244 -0.0196 -0.0200 -0.0213
42 15/02/2011 4019 4051 3975 4015 10.336 11.502 11.040 -0.0426 -0.0392 -0.0374 -0.0397 -0.0375 -0.0337 -0.0324 -0.0345
56 01/03/2011 4015 4047 3972 4011 10.317 11.487 11.024 -0.0496 -0.0446 -0.0433 -0.0458 -0.0445 -0.0392 -0.0382 -0.0406
91 05/04/2011 4009 4042 3967 4006 10.305 11.467 11.002 -0.0539 -0.0519 -0.0513 -0.0524 -0.0488 -0.0464 -0.0462 -0.0471

Average Average
[%] [%]
[%] [%] [%] [%] [%] [%]
1 11/01/2011 3873 3863 3764 3833 10.593 9.643 9.504
8 18/01/2011 3901 3890 3789 3860 10.622 9.673 9.533
14 24/01/2011 3819 3806 3711 3779 10.559 9.615 9.462 -0.0232 -0.0215 -0.0264 -0.0237 -0.0125 -0.0104 -0.0156 -0.0128
28 07/02/2011 3802 3788 3695 3762 10.492 9.543 9.391 -0.0479 -0.0481 -0.0528 -0.0496 -0.0372 -0.0370 -0.0420 -0.0388
35 14/02/2011 3799 3785 3692 3759 10.478 9.529 9.374 -0.0531 -0.0533 -0.0592 -0.0552 -0.0424 -0.0422 -0.0484 -0.0443
56 07/03/2011 3792 3778 3685 3752 10.469 9.520 9.362 -0.0579 -0.0581 -0.0651 -0.0604 -0.0472 -0.0470 -0.0543 -0.0495
91 11/04/2011 3789 3774 3682 3748 10.457 9.505 9.350 -0.0623 -0.0636 -0.0696 -0.0652 -0.0516 -0.0525 -0.0588 -0.0543
199
MIX #8 Gauge Length #1 [mm] = 271.399 Note: Prism #2 epoxy used to place top stud
Average Average
[%] [%]
[%] [%] [%] [%] [%] [%]
1 11/01/2011 3986 4014 3902 3967 8.431 8.494 6.003
8 18/01/2011 4013 4045 3929 3996 8.489 8.582 6.056
14 24/01/2011 3947 3986 3867 3933 8.416 8.510 5.990 -0.0269 -0.0267 -0.0245 -0.0260 -0.0055 0.0059 -0.0048 -0.0015
28 07/02/2011 3928 3968 3849 3915 8.359 8.449 5.933 -0.0479 -0.0493 -0.0457 -0.0476 -0.0265 -0.0167 -0.0260 -0.0231
35 14/02/2011 3924 3964 3845 3911 8.341 8.423 5.915 -0.0545 -0.0589 -0.0524 -0.0553 -0.0332 -0.0263 -0.0327 -0.0307
56 07/03/2011 3918 3958 3838 3905 8.334 8.413 5.910 -0.0586 -0.0641 -0.0557 -0.0595 -0.0372 -0.0315 -0.0360 -0.0349
91 11/04/2011 3915 3955 3835 3902 8.324 8.401 5.896 -0.0623 -0.0686 -0.0609 -0.0639 -0.0409 -0.0360 -0.0412 -0.0394

Average Average
[%] [%]
[%] [%] [%] [%] [%] [%]
1 11/01/2011 4072 4147 4071 4097 11.946 10.780 9.635
8 18/01/2011 4098 4173 4094 4122 12.003 10.831 9.695
14 24/01/2011 4041 4112 4037 4063 11.947 10.779 9.632 -0.0204 -0.0190 -0.0230 -0.0208 0.0004 -0.0004 -0.0011 -0.0004
28 07/02/2011 4028 4099 4024 4050 11.887 10.724 9.579 -0.0423 -0.0390 -0.0424 -0.0412 -0.0215 -0.0204 -0.0205 -0.0208
35 14/02/2011 4027 4097 4022 4049 11.876 10.709 9.564 -0.0463 -0.0445 -0.0479 -0.0462 -0.0255 -0.0259 -0.0259 -0.0258
56 07/03/2011 4021 4092 4016 4043 11.871 10.706 9.562 -0.0496 -0.0471 -0.0501 -0.0489 -0.0288 -0.0285 -0.0281 -0.0285
91 11/04/2011 4017 4089 4013 4040 11.850 10.686 9.545 -0.0572 -0.0544 -0.0563 -0.0560 -0.0365 -0.0358 -0.0344 -0.0355

Average Average
[%] [%]
[%] [%] [%] [%] [%] [%]
1 11/01/2011 4105 4058 4094 4086 9.199 11.064 12.287
8 18/01/2011 4132 4085 4122 4113 9.251 11.119 12.349
14 24/01/2011 4071 4022 4061 4051 9.201 11.065 12.291 -0.0184 -0.0197 -0.0212 -0.0198 0.0007 0.0004 0.0015 0.0009
28 07/02/2011 4053 4005 4044 4034 9.144 11.013 12.243 -0.0395 -0.0387 -0.0387 -0.0390 -0.0203 -0.0186 -0.0161 -0.0183
35 14/02/2011 4049 4001 4040 4030 9.126 10.986 12.221 -0.0461 -0.0486 -0.0467 -0.0471 -0.0269 -0.0285 -0.0241 -0.0265
56 07/03/2011 4044 3995 4034 4024 9.117 10.984 12.207 -0.0509 -0.0508 -0.0533 -0.0517 -0.0317 -0.0307 -0.0307 -0.0310
91 11/04/2011 4041 3993 4031 4022 9.114 10.972 12.206 -0.0520 -0.0552 -0.0537 -0.0536 -0.0328 -0.0351 -0.0310 -0.0330

Average Average
[%] [%]
[%] [%] [%] [%] [%] [%]
1 11/01/2011 3983 4096 4069 4049 13.395 10.744 8.289
8 18/01/2011 4012 4125 4095 4077 13.445 10.787 8.338
14 24/01/2011 3950 4059 4031 4013 13.382 10.739 8.271 -0.0228 -0.0175 -0.0247 -0.0216 -0.0047 -0.0018 -0.0066 -0.0044
28 07/02/2011 3936 4043 4016 3998 13.328 10.680 8.224 -0.0423 -0.0390 -0.0419 -0.0411 -0.0242 -0.0233 -0.0239 -0.0238
35 14/02/2011 3932 4040 4012 3995 13.310 10.668 8.213 -0.0488 -0.0434 -0.0460 -0.0461 -0.0307 -0.0277 -0.0280 -0.0288
56 07/03/2011 3926 4033 4006 3988 13.301 10.660 8.206 -0.0535 -0.0478 -0.0500 -0.0504 -0.0354 -0.0321 -0.0320 -0.0332
91 11/04/2011 3923 4030 4003 3985 13.286 10.644 8.188 -0.0590 -0.0536 -0.0567 -0.0564 -0.0409 -0.0379 -0.0386 -0.0391

Average Average
[%] [%]
[%] [%] [%] [%] [%] [%]
1 11/01/2011 4196 4151 4124 4157 20.283 17.920 14.168
8 18/01/2011 4225 4178 4151 4185 20.320 17.968 14.217
14 24/01/2011 4162 4117 4090 4123 20.275 17.905 14.151 -0.0160 -0.0225 -0.0238 -0.0208 -0.0028 -0.0054 -0.0061 -0.0048
28 07/02/2011 4147 4102 4076 4108 20.220 17.868 14.113 -0.0356 -0.0357 -0.0375 -0.0363 -0.0224 -0.0186 -0.0198 -0.0203
35 14/02/2011 4144 4099 4073 4105 20.199 17.847 14.090 -0.0431 -0.0432 -0.0458 -0.0440 -0.0299 -0.0261 -0.0281 -0.0280
56 07/03/2011 4137 4093 4066 4099 20.188 17.840 14.083 -0.0484 -0.0471 -0.0497 -0.0484 -0.0352 -0.0300 -0.0321 -0.0324
91 11/04/2011 4134 4090 4063 4096 20.179 17.832 14.060 -0.0516 -0.0500 -0.0580 -0.0532 -0.0384 -0.0328 -0.0404 -0.0372
200

Average Average
[%] [%]
[%] [%] [%] [%] [%] [%]
2 14/01/2011 4058 4180 4218 4152 10.798 10.930 11.880
7 19/01/2011 4078 4200 4237 4172 10.814 10.947 11.896
14 26/01/2011 4018 4138 4177 4111 10.755 10.887 11.828 -0.0215 -0.0219 -0.0248 -0.0227 -0.0157 -0.0157 -0.0189 -0.0168
28 09/02/2011 4003 4123 4162 4096 10.741 10.875 11.821 -0.0267 -0.0263 -0.0273 -0.0268 -0.0208 -0.0201 -0.0215 -0.0208
35 16/02/2011 4002 4122 4160 4095 10.707 10.838 11.787 -0.0405 -0.0413 -0.0412 -0.0410 -0.0347 -0.0351 -0.0353 -0.0350
56 09/03/2011 3996 4115 4154 4088 10.697 10.828 11.776 -0.0442 -0.0449 -0.0452 -0.0448 -0.0383 -0.0387 -0.0393 -0.0388
91 13/04/2011 3991 4110 4150 4084 10.687 10.813 11.763 -0.0478 -0.0504 -0.0499 -0.0494 -0.0420 -0.0442 -0.0441 -0.0434

Average Average
[%] [%]
[%] [%] [%] [%] [%] [%]
2 14/01/2011 3854 3896 3940 3897 6.229 10.941 12.232
7 19/01/2011 3874 3915 3959 3916 6.239 10.970 12.263
14 26/01/2011 3808 3849 3894 3850 6.190 10.913 12.201 -0.0182 -0.0210 -0.0229 -0.0207 -0.0145 -0.0103 -0.0115 -0.0121
28 09/02/2011 3790 3831 3878 3833 6.163 10.886 12.172 -0.0282 -0.0310 -0.0337 -0.0309 -0.0245 -0.0203 -0.0222 -0.0223
35 16/02/2011 3789 3830 3876 3832 6.126 10.851 12.137 -0.0434 -0.0453 -0.0481 -0.0456 -0.0397 -0.0347 -0.0366 -0.0370
56 09/03/2011 3783 3824 3871 3826 6.113 10.839 12.124 -0.0482 -0.0498 -0.0529 -0.0503 -0.0445 -0.0391 -0.0414 -0.0417
91 13/04/2011 3780 3820 3867 3822 6.104 10.828 12.114 -0.0515 -0.0538 -0.0566 -0.0540 -0.0478 -0.0431 -0.0451 -0.0454
MIX #32d Gauge Length #1 [mm] = 274.015

Average Average
[%] [%]
[%] [%] [%] [%] [%] [%]
2 14/01/2011 4308 4365 4276 4316 10.320 10.428 10.093
7 19/01/2011 4324 4381 4291 4332 10.332 10.441 10.105
14 26/01/2011 4277 4332 4243 4284 10.302 10.384 10.068 -0.0109 -0.0208 -0.0135 -0.0151 -0.0066 -0.0161 -0.0091 -0.0106
28 09/02/2011 4265 4318 4231 4271 10.279 10.387 10.048 -0.0193 -0.0197 -0.0208 -0.0200 -0.0150 -0.0150 -0.0164 -0.0155
35 16/02/2011 4264 4317 4230 4270 10.244 10.351 10.014 -0.0336 -0.0343 -0.0347 -0.0342 -0.0292 -0.0296 -0.0303 -0.0297
56 09/03/2011 4259 4313 4226 4266 10.237 10.345 10.007 -0.0361 -0.0365 -0.0373 -0.0366 -0.0318 -0.0318 -0.0329 -0.0321
91 13/04/2011 4256 4310 4222 4263 10.224 10.333 9.992 -0.0409 -0.0409 -0.0428 -0.0415 -0.0365 -0.0361 -0.0384 -0.0370

Average Average
[%] [%]
[%] [%] [%] [%] [%] [%]
2 14/01/2011 4186 4229 4286 4234 12.256 11.133 12.192
7 19/01/2011 4202 4246 4302 4250 12.285 11.160 12.218
14 26/01/2011 4151 4192 4250 4198 12.238 11.099 12.171 -0.0171 -0.0224 -0.0173 -0.0189 -0.0065 -0.0125 -0.0077 -0.0089
28 09/02/2011 4137 4178 4237 4184 12.214 11.089 12.150 -0.0258 -0.0261 -0.0250 -0.0256 -0.0153 -0.0162 -0.0154 -0.0156
35 16/02/2011 4136 4178 4236 4183 12.179 11.055 12.116 -0.0400 -0.0400 -0.0390 -0.0397 -0.0294 -0.0301 -0.0294 -0.0297
56 09/03/2011 4131 4173 4232 4179 12.172 11.046 12.109 -0.0425 -0.0433 -0.0415 -0.0425 -0.0320 -0.0334 -0.0320 -0.0325
91 13/04/2011 4128 4170 4229 4176 12.156 11.035 12.099 -0.0483 -0.0474 -0.0452 -0.0470 -0.0378 -0.0374 -0.0357 -0.0370

Average Average
[%] [%]
[%] [%] [%] [%] [%] [%]
2 14/01/2011 4179 4254 4220 4218 8.408 8.483 8.439
7 19/01/2011 4195 4271 4239 4235 8.419 8.497 8.450
14 26/01/2011 4156 4229 4195 4193 8.346 8.422 8.375 -0.0267 -0.0276 -0.0277 -0.0273 -0.0227 -0.0224 -0.0236 -0.0229
28 09/02/2011 4144 4217 4183 4181 8.350 8.423 8.377 -0.0252 -0.0272 -0.0269 -0.0264 -0.0212 -0.0220 -0.0229 -0.0220
35 16/02/2011 4143 4216 4182 4180 8.313 8.388 8.341 -0.0402 -0.0415 -0.0417 -0.0411 -0.0362 -0.0364 -0.0376 -0.0367
56 09/03/2011 4138 4211 4177 4175 8.306 8.381 8.334 -0.0428 -0.0441 -0.0442 -0.0437 -0.0388 -0.0389 -0.0402 -0.0393
91 13/04/2011 4134 4208 4174 4172 8.297 8.371 8.322 -0.0461 -0.0478 -0.0487 -0.0475 -0.0421 -0.0426 -0.0446 -0.0431
201

Average Average
[%] [%]
[%] [%] [%] [%] [%] [%]
2 14/01/2011 4060 4155 4200 4138 12.586 9.756 9.188
7 19/01/2011 4075 4170 4214 4153 12.602 9.766 9.198
14 26/01/2011 4036 4131 4177 4115 12.519 9.694 9.120 -0.0302 -0.0264 -0.0287 -0.0284 -0.0244 -0.0228 -0.0250 -0.0240
28 09/02/2011 4023 4117 4164 4101 12.517 9.694 9.123 -0.0309 -0.0264 -0.0276 -0.0283 -0.0251 -0.0228 -0.0239 -0.0239
35 16/02/2011 4022 4117 4163 4101 12.484 9.661 9.088 -0.0443 -0.0400 -0.0419 -0.0421 -0.0385 -0.0363 -0.0382 -0.0377
56 09/03/2011 4017 4112 4158 4096 12.473 9.653 9.077 -0.0483 -0.0430 -0.0460 -0.0458 -0.0425 -0.0393 -0.0423 -0.0414
91 13/04/2011 4014 4108 4154 4092 12.465 9.643 9.068 -0.0513 -0.0466 -0.0493 -0.0490 -0.0454 -0.0430 -0.0456 -0.0447

Average Average
[%] [%]
[%] [%] [%] [%] [%] [%]
1 18/01/2011 4172 4175 4093 4147 6.187 10.909 10.456
7 24/01/2011 4211 4213 4133 4186 6.217 10.933 10.481
15 01/02/2011 4158 4159 4079 4132 6.143 10.865 10.407 -0.0274 -0.0248 -0.0270 -0.0264 -0.0163 -0.0161 -0.0179 -0.0167
28 14/02/2011 4150 4152 4072 4125 6.129 10.844 10.397 -0.0326 -0.0325 -0.0307 -0.0319 -0.0215 -0.0237 -0.0215 -0.0222
35 21/02/2011 4146 4148 4068 4121 6.097 10.821 10.366 -0.0459 -0.0423 -0.0434 -0.0439 -0.0348 -0.0336 -0.0343 -0.0342
57 15/03/2011 4144 4146 4066 4119 6.099 10.828 10.37 -0.0452 -0.0398 -0.0420 -0.0423 -0.0341 -0.0310 -0.0329 -0.0326
91 18/04/2011 4140 4143 4063 4115 6.085 10.815 10.356 -0.0504 -0.0445 -0.0471 -0.0473 -0.0393 -0.0358 -0.0380 -0.0377

Average Average
[%] [%]
[%] [%] [%] [%] [%] [%]
1 18/01/2011 3953 4097 3992 4014 5.328 5.792 4.613
7 24/01/2011 3992 4135 4031 4053 5.361 5.812 4.631
15 01/02/2011 3939 4082 3981 4001 5.272 5.734 4.541 -0.0331 -0.0290 -0.0335 -0.0319 -0.0209 -0.0215 -0.0268 -0.0231
28 14/02/2011 3931 4074 3972 3992 5.257 5.721 4.524 -0.0387 -0.0338 -0.0398 -0.0374 -0.0264 -0.0264 -0.0331 -0.0286
35 21/02/2011 3927 4070 3969 3989 5.219 5.683 4.484 -0.0544 -0.0494 -0.0562 -0.0533 -0.0421 -0.0419 -0.0495 -0.0445
57 15/03/2011 3923 4067 3965 3985 5.219 5.686 4.486 -0.0544 -0.0483 -0.0555 -0.0527 -0.0421 -0.0408 -0.0488 -0.0439
91 18/04/2011 3919 4063 3960 3981 5.195 5.675 4.463 -0.0633 -0.0523 -0.0640 -0.0599 -0.0510 -0.0449 -0.0573 -0.0511

Average Average
[%] [%]
[%] [%] [%] [%] [%] [%]
1 18/01/2011 4156 4203 4136 4165 11.466 10.580 10.476
7 24/01/2011 4198 4246 4180 4208 11.517 10.627 10.520
15 01/02/2011 4141 4188 4124 4151 11.450 10.570 10.460 -0.0243 -0.0208 -0.0219 -0.0223 -0.0058 -0.0036 -0.0058 -0.0051
28 14/02/2011 4133 4179 4116 4143 11.392 10.511 10.408 -0.0454 -0.0423 -0.0408 -0.0428 -0.0269 -0.0252 -0.0248 -0.0256
35 21/02/2011 4129 4175 4112 4139 11.372 10.491 10.387 -0.0541 -0.0510 -0.0499 -0.0517 -0.0356 -0.0339 -0.0339 -0.0345
57 15/03/2011 4125 4172 4108 4135 11.374 10.493 10.387 -0.0534 -0.0503 -0.0499 -0.0512 -0.0349 -0.0332 -0.0339 -0.0340
91 18/04/2011 4121 4168 4103 4131 11.357 10.477 10.369 -0.0596 -0.0561 -0.0565 -0.0574 -0.0410 -0.0390 -0.0405 -0.0402

Average Average
[%] [%]
[%] [%] [%] [%] [%] [%]
1 18/01/2011 4170 4189 4153 4171 6.455 6.615 6.710
7 24/01/2011 4204 4223 4188 4205 6.463 6.617 6.736
15 01/02/2011 4150 4169 4134 4151 6.396 6.550 6.662 -0.0247 -0.0248 -0.0274 -0.0256 -0.0218 -0.0240 -0.0178 -0.0212
28 14/02/2011 4144 4164 4129 4146 6.381 6.509 6.642 -0.0303 -0.0399 -0.0348 -0.0350 -0.0273 -0.0392 -0.0252 -0.0306
35 21/02/2011 4141 4160 4125 4142 6.346 6.491 6.610 -0.0447 -0.0481 -0.0481 -0.0470 -0.0417 -0.0473 -0.0385 -0.0425
57 15/03/2011 4137 4157 4121 4138 6.349 6.493 6.612 -0.0436 -0.0473 -0.0474 -0.0461 -0.0406 -0.0466 -0.0378 -0.0417
91 18/04/2011 4133 4153 4117 4134 6.339 6.479 6.600 -0.0473 -0.0525 -0.0518 -0.0505 -0.0443 -0.0518 -0.0422 -0.0461
202

Average Average
[%] [%]
[%] [%] [%] [%] [%] [%]
1 18/01/2011 4336 4310 4187 4278 9.691 9.870 11.094
7 24/01/2011 4374 4347 4225 4315 9.708 9.881 11.101
15 01/02/2011 4320 4292 4170 4261 9.651 9.830 11.038 -0.0209 -0.0187 -0.0229 -0.0208 -0.0146 -0.0146 -0.0204 -0.0166
28 14/02/2011 4316 4289 4168 4258 9.590 9.775 10.985 -0.0432 -0.0388 -0.0422 -0.0414 -0.0370 -0.0347 -0.0397 -0.0371
35 21/02/2011 4312 4284 4163 4253 9.579 9.764 10.969 -0.0487 -0.0443 -0.0495 -0.0475 -0.0425 -0.0402 -0.0470 -0.0432
57 15/03/2011 4307 4280 4159 4249 9.578 9.762 10.967 -0.0491 -0.0450 -0.0502 -0.0481 -0.0428 -0.0410 -0.0477 -0.0438
91 18/04/2011 4303 4275 4154 4244 9.558 9.746 10.949 -0.0564 -0.0508 -0.0568 -0.0547 -0.0502 -0.0468 -0.0542 -0.0504

Average Average
[%] [%]
[%] [%] [%] [%] [%] [%]
1 18/01/2011 3942 4157 4148 4082 9.575 8.830 10.899
7 24/01/2011 3981 4198 4187 4122 9.603 8.849 10.911
15 01/02/2011 3926 4141 4130 4066 9.545 8.794 10.858 -0.0213 -0.0202 -0.0194 -0.0203 -0.0110 -0.0132 -0.0150 -0.0131
28 14/02/2011 3919 4135 4124 4059 9.472 8.731 10.807 -0.0482 -0.0433 -0.0380 -0.0432 -0.0379 -0.0364 -0.0336 -0.0360
35 21/02/2011 3915 4130 4120 4055 9.458 8.716 10.793 -0.0548 -0.0503 -0.0446 -0.0499 -0.0445 -0.0433 -0.0402 -0.0427
57 15/03/2011 3912 4127 4116 4052 9.458 8.716 10.794 -0.0548 -0.0503 -0.0442 -0.0498 -0.0445 -0.0433 -0.0398 -0.0426
91 18/04/2011 3908 4123 4112 4048 9.438 8.697 10.778 -0.0622 -0.0573 -0.0500 -0.0565 -0.0519 -0.0503 -0.0457 -0.0493
MIX #24b Gauge Length #1 [mm] = 264.490

Average Average
[%] [%]
[%] [%] [%] [%] [%] [%]
1 19/01/2011 4164 4150 4095 4136 0.508 4.971 4.207
7 25/01/2011 4195 4180 4128 4168 0.548 5.001 4.241
14 01/02/2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
28 15/02/2011 4119 4102 4049 4090 0.457 4.908 4.148 -0.0359 -0.0361 -0.0362 -0.0361 -0.0208 -0.0249 -0.0235 -0.0231
35 22/02/2011 4115 4098 4046 4086 0.437 4.891 4.128 -0.0435 -0.0424 -0.0437 -0.0432 -0.0284 -0.0312 -0.0310 -0.0302
56 15/03/2011 4109 4092 4040 4080 0.425 4.878 4.117 -0.0480 -0.0472 -0.0478 -0.0477 -0.0329 -0.0361 -0.0351 -0.0347
91 19/04/2011 4104 4086 4034 4075 0.406 4.858 4.097 -0.0552 -0.0547 -0.0553 -0.0551 -0.0401 -0.0435 -0.0426 -0.0421
MIX #25e Gauge Length #1 [mm] = 274.218

Average Average
[%] [%]
[%] [%] [%] [%] [%] [%]
1 19/01/2011 4243 4328 4122 4231 10.434 10.076 11.863
7 25/01/2011 4276 4361 4151 4263 10.471 10.104 11.906
14 01/02/2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
28 15/02/2011 4189 4274 4074 4179 10.374 9.994 11.794 -0.0368 -0.0416 -0.0420 -0.0402 -0.0233 -0.0314 -0.0265 -0.0271
35 22/02/2011 4185 4270 4069 4175 10.357 9.988 11.776 -0.0430 -0.0438 -0.0486 -0.0451 -0.0295 -0.0336 -0.0330 -0.0320
56 15/03/2011 4178 4264 4063 4168 10.345 9.976 11.762 -0.0474 -0.0482 -0.0536 -0.0497 -0.0339 -0.0379 -0.0380 -0.0366
91 19/04/2011 4173 4258 4058 4163 10.327 9.958 11.740 -0.0540 -0.0547 -0.0616 -0.0568 -0.0405 -0.0445 -0.0460 -0.0437

Average Average
[%] [%]
[%] [%] [%] [%] [%] [%]
1 19/01/2011 4255 4208 4364 4276 11.088 11.474 9.967
7 25/01/2011 4287 4240 4397 4308 11.133 11.516 10.004
14 01/02/2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
28 15/02/2011 4211 4162 4322 4232 11.036 11.419 9.905 -0.0367 -0.0367 -0.0376 -0.0370 -0.0204 -0.0214 -0.0241 -0.0220
35 22/02/2011 4208 4159 4318 4228 11.019 11.398 9.889 -0.0429 -0.0443 -0.0435 -0.0436 -0.0266 -0.0291 -0.0300 -0.0285
56 15/03/2011 4202 4153 4312 4222 11.005 11.385 9.877 -0.0480 -0.0491 -0.0479 -0.0483 -0.0316 -0.0338 -0.0343 -0.0333
91 19/04/2011 4196 4148 4307 4217 10.985 11.366 9.857 -0.0553 -0.0560 -0.0552 -0.0555 -0.0389 -0.0407 -0.0417 -0.0404
203

Average Average
[%] [%]
[%] [%] [%] [%] [%] [%]
1 26/01/2011 4141 4233 4156 4177 7.169 6.619 4.437
7 01/02/2011 4177 4268 4192 4212 7.257 6.716 4.532
14 08/02/2011 4107 4201 4125 4144 7.178 6.639 4.441 -0.0291 -0.0283 -0.0338 -0.0304 0.0033 0.0074 0.0015 0.0041
28 22/02/2011 4093 4187 4110 4130 7.135 6.590 4.411 -0.0464 -0.0479 -0.0465 -0.0469 -0.0140 -0.0121 -0.0112 -0.0124
35 01/03/2011 4090 4183 4107 4127 7.129 6.586 4.408 -0.0487 -0.0493 -0.0476 -0.0485 -0.0162 -0.0136 -0.0123 -0.0140
56 22/03/2011 4084 4177 4101 4121 7.110 6.568 4.388 -0.0557 -0.0559 -0.0550 -0.0556 -0.0232 -0.0202 -0.0197 -0.0211
91 26/04/2011 4078 4171 4095 4115 7.091 6.549 4.371 -0.0634 -0.0637 -0.0621 -0.0631 -0.0310 -0.0280 -0.0268 -0.0286

Average Average
[%] [%]
[%] [%] [%] [%] [%] [%]
1 26/01/2011 4132 4205 4211 4183 7.556 9.312 10.225
7 01/02/2011 4168 4237 4248 4218 7.631 9.373 10.294
14 08/02/2011 4093 4165 4172 4143 7.573 9.312 10.223 -0.0213 -0.0223 -0.0259 -0.0232 0.0063 0.0000 -0.0007 0.0018
28 22/02/2011 4077 4150 4156 4128 7.522 9.263 10.177 -0.0416 -0.0416 -0.0441 -0.0424 -0.0140 -0.0194 -0.0189 -0.0174
35 01/03/2011 4075 4148 4154 4126 7.521 9.261 10.172 -0.0419 -0.0424 -0.0459 -0.0434 -0.0143 -0.0201 -0.0208 -0.0184
56 22/03/2011 4069 4142 4148 4120 7.500 9.241 10.144 -0.0497 -0.0497 -0.0561 -0.0518 -0.0221 -0.0274 -0.0309 -0.0268
91 26/04/2011 4064 4137 4142 4114 7.489 9.228 10.134 -0.0544 -0.0551 -0.0604 -0.0567 -0.0268 -0.0329 -0.0353 -0.0317

Average Average
[%] [%]
[%] [%] [%] [%] [%] [%]
1 26/01/2011 4215 4327 4202 4248 7.931 7.758 3.699
7 01/02/2011 4247 4361 4235 4281 8.082 7.869 3.811
14 08/02/2011 4185 4294 4169 4216 7.978 7.792 3.691 -0.0384 -0.0285 -0.0447 -0.0372 0.0173 0.0126 -0.0030 0.0090
28 22/02/2011 4169 4275 4153 4199 7.933 7.729 3.638 -0.0564 -0.0533 -0.0660 -0.0586 -0.0007 -0.0122 -0.0242 -0.0124
35 01/03/2011 4166 4272 4150 4196 7.924 7.727 3.635 -0.0597 -0.0540 -0.0671 -0.0603 -0.0041 -0.0130 -0.0253 -0.0141
56 22/03/2011 4160 4265 4144 4190 7.907 7.704 3.612 -0.0660 -0.0626 -0.0756 -0.0681 -0.0103 -0.0215 -0.0339 -0.0219
91 26/04/2011 4153 4258 4137 4183 7.885 7.688 3.596 -0.0749 -0.0692 -0.0823 -0.0755 -0.0192 -0.0281 -0.0406 -0.0293
MIX #44c Gauge Length #1 [mm] = 274.269

Average Average
[%] [%]
[%] [%] [%] [%] [%] [%]
2 28/01/2011 4374 4426 4432 4411 9.947 12.709 7.765
7 02/02/2011 4392 4439 4446 4426 9.993 12.739 7.803
14 09/02/2011 4339 4391 4398 4376 9.950 12.705 7.765 -0.0157 -0.0124 -0.0140 -0.0140 0.0011 -0.0015 0.0000 -0.0001
28 23/02/2011 4329 4381 4388 4366 9.895 12.647 7.704 -0.0372 -0.0349 -0.0379 -0.0366 -0.0204 -0.0240 -0.0239 -0.0228
35 02/03/2011 4325 4378 4385 4363 9.889 12.642 7.698 -0.0394 -0.0367 -0.0401 -0.0387 -0.0226 -0.0258 -0.0261 -0.0248
56 23/03/2011 4321 4374 4380 4358 9.874 12.611 7.679 -0.0448 -0.0480 -0.0471 -0.0466 -0.0281 -0.0371 -0.0331 -0.0327
91 27/04/2011 4317 4369 4376 4354 9.863 12.613 7.671 -0.0496 -0.0480 -0.0507 -0.0494 -0.0328 -0.0371 -0.0368 -0.0355

Average Average
[%] [%]
[%] [%] [%] [%] [%] [%]
2 28/01/2011 4381 4404 4419 4401 9.774 9.867 11.023
7 02/02/2011 4395 4418 4433 4415 9.813 9.905 11.052
14 09/02/2011 4351 4373 4386 4370 9.772 9.866 11.014 -0.0150 -0.0142 -0.0138 -0.0144 -0.0007 -0.0004 -0.0033 -0.0015
28 23/02/2011 4342 4363 4376 4360 9.713 9.810 10.958 -0.0380 -0.0362 -0.0357 -0.0366 -0.0237 -0.0223 -0.0251 -0.0237
35 02/03/2011 4338 4359 4373 4357 9.704 9.799 10.949 -0.0413 -0.0402 -0.0389 -0.0401 -0.0270 -0.0263 -0.0284 -0.0272
56 23/03/2011 4333 4355 4369 4352 9.690 9.788 10.936 -0.0464 -0.0442 -0.0437 -0.0448 -0.0322 -0.0303 -0.0331 -0.0319
91 27/04/2011 4329 4350 4365 4348 9.675 9.776 10.925 -0.0526 -0.0493 -0.0484 -0.0501 -0.0384 -0.0354 -0.0378 -0.0372
204
MIX #46 Gauge Length #1 [mm] = 274.193 Note: Prisms #1 and #3 epoxy used to place top stud
Average Average
[%] [%]
[%] [%] [%] [%] [%] [%]
2 28/01/2011 4345 4370 4330 4348 9.790 10.614 12.683
7 02/02/2011 4362 4385 4345 4364 9.803 10.623 12.697
14 09/02/2011 4308 4332 4290 4310 9.787 10.609 12.680 -0.0058 -0.0051 -0.0061 -0.0057 -0.0011 -0.0018 -0.0011 -0.0013
28 23/02/2011 4297 4322 4279 4299 9.723 10.549 12.615 -0.0306 -0.0283 -0.0311 -0.0300 -0.0259 -0.0251 -0.0260 -0.0257
35 02/03/2011 4293 4317 4275 4295 9.716 10.542 12.609 -0.0332 -0.0309 -0.0332 -0.0324 -0.0284 -0.0276 -0.0282 -0.0281
56 23/03/2011 4288 4312 4270 4290 9.709 10.542 12.603 -0.0357 -0.0309 -0.0354 -0.0340 -0.0310 -0.0276 -0.0304 -0.0296
91 27/04/2011 4283 4307 4266 4285 9.684 10.511 12.573 -0.0456 -0.0428 -0.0470 -0.0451 -0.0408 -0.0396 -0.0419 -0.0408

Average Average
[%] [%]
[%] [%] [%] [%] [%] [%]
1 13/05/2011 4232 4247 4317 4265 9.960 11.449 11.891
7 19/05/2011 4255 4270 4341 4289 9.979 11.468 11.910
8 20/05/2011 4222 4237 4307 4255 9.965 11.453 11.896 -0.0051 -0.0055 -0.0051 -0.0052 0.0018 0.0015 0.0018 0.0017
14 26/05/2011 4206 4219 4289 4238 9.907 11.399 11.838 -0.0263 -0.0251 -0.0261 -0.0258 -0.0194 -0.0182 -0.0192 -0.0189
28 09/06/2011 4198 4211 4281 4230 9.875 11.363 11.801 -0.0380 -0.0382 -0.0396 -0.0386 -0.0311 -0.0313 -0.0327 -0.0317
35 16/06/2011 4193 4207 4276 4225 9.861 11.350 11.790 -0.0431 -0.0429 -0.0436 -0.0432 -0.0362 -0.0360 -0.0367 -0.0363
56 07/07/2011 4190 4203 4273 4222 9.853 11.341 11.781 -0.0475 -0.0476 -0.0483 -0.0478 -0.0406 -0.0407 -0.0414 -0.0409
91 11/08/2011 4187 4201 4271 4220 9.844 11.329 11.772 -0.0508 -0.0520 -0.0515 -0.0514 -0.0438 -0.0451 -0.0447 -0.0445

Average Average
[%] [%]
[%] [%] [%] [%] [%] [%]
2 02/02/2011 4221 4333 4320 4291 9.921 6.473 6.061
7 07/02/2011 4238 4347 4336 4307 9.962 6.508 6.096
14 14/02/2011 4199 4309 4296 4268 9.884 6.437 6.022 -0.0285 -0.0262 -0.0274 -0.0274 -0.0135 -0.0133 -0.0144 -0.0137
28 28/02/2011 4185 4294 4281 4253 9.840 6.397 5.980 -0.0460 -0.0425 -0.0444 -0.0443 -0.0310 -0.0296 -0.0315 -0.0307
36 08/03/2011 4183 4291 4279 4251 9.846 6.400 5.984 -0.0438 -0.0414 -0.0429 -0.0427 -0.0288 -0.0285 -0.0300 -0.0291
56 28/03/2011 4178 4286 4274 4246 9.811 6.369 5.936 -0.0565 -0.0529 -0.0607 -0.0567 -0.0416 -0.0399 -0.0477 -0.0431
91 05/04/2011 4173 4281 4268 4241 9.819 6.376 5.963 -0.0536 -0.0503 -0.0507 -0.0515 -0.0387 -0.0373 -0.0377 -0.0379
MIX #49 - 1 Gauge Length #1 [mm] = 273.380

Average Average
[%] [%]
[%] [%] [%] [%] [%] [%]
2 02/02/2011 4203 4248 4247 4233 9.411 9.600 10.141
7 07/02/2011 4220 4265 4264 4250 9.445 9.649 10.202
14 14/02/2011 4186 4228 4230 4215 9.371 9.579 10.131 -0.0271 -0.0256 -0.0259 -0.0262 -0.0146 -0.0077 -0.0036 -0.0086
28 28/02/2011 4172 4214 4217 4201 9.328 9.537 10.084 -0.0443 -0.0424 -0.0445 -0.0437 -0.0318 -0.0245 -0.0222 -0.0262
36 08/03/2011 4170 4210 4213 4198 9.331 9.544 10.089 -0.0432 -0.0398 -0.0426 -0.0419 -0.0307 -0.0219 -0.0204 -0.0244
56 28/03/2011 4166 4206 4207 4193 9.288 9.519 10.051 -0.0589 -0.0490 -0.0565 -0.0548 -0.0465 -0.0311 -0.0343 -0.0373
91 05/04/2011 4160 4201 4201 4187 9.307 9.512 10.059 -0.0519 -0.0515 -0.0536 -0.0523 -0.0395 -0.0336 -0.0313 -0.0348
MIX #49 - 2 Gauge Length #1 [mm] = 271.907

Average Average
[%] [%]
[%] [%] [%] [%] [%] [%]
2 02/02/2011 4123 4234 4183 4180 7.689 6.187 5.500
7 07/02/2011 4137 4247 4197 4194 7.737 6.236 5.549
14 14/02/2011 4106 4215 4164 4162 7.659 6.170 5.477 -0.0287 -0.0244 -0.0267 -0.0266 -0.0110 -0.0063 -0.0085 -0.0086
28 28/02/2011 4093 4202 4150 4148 7.613 6.128 5.430 -0.0471 -0.0414 -0.0456 -0.0447 -0.0294 -0.0233 -0.0274 -0.0267
36 08/03/2011 4091 4200 4148 4146 7.625 6.141 5.445 -0.0427 -0.0366 -0.0401 -0.0398 -0.0250 -0.0185 -0.0219 -0.0218
56 28/03/2011 4088 4196 4144 4143 7.596 6.114 5.415 -0.0533 -0.0466 -0.0512 -0.0504 -0.0357 -0.0285 -0.0330 -0.0324
91 05/04/2011 4084 4192 4140 4139 7.595 6.111 5.412 -0.0537 -0.0477 -0.0523 -0.0512 -0.0360 -0.0296 -0.0341 -0.0332
205

Average Average
[%] [%]
[%] [%] [%] [%] [%] [%]
2 02/02/2011 4407 4531 4494 4477 10.332 11.228 11.407
7 07/02/2011 4423 4546 4509 4493 10.385 11.281 11.470
14 14/02/2011 4391 4514 4479 4461 10.305 11.205 11.397 -0.0292 -0.0277 -0.0267 -0.0279 -0.0099 -0.0084 -0.0037 -0.0073
28 28/02/2011 4380 4503 4469 4451 10.268 11.168 11.358 -0.0442 -0.0427 -0.0424 -0.0431 -0.0248 -0.0233 -0.0194 -0.0225
36 08/03/2011 4379 4502 4468 4450 10.272 11.173 11.361 -0.0427 -0.0408 -0.0413 -0.0416 -0.0234 -0.0215 -0.0183 -0.0211
56 28/03/2011 4376 4499 4465 4447 10.246 11.148 11.336 -0.0522 -0.0500 -0.0504 -0.0509 -0.0329 -0.0306 -0.0274 -0.0303
91 05/04/2011 4370 4493 4459 4441 10.249 11.152 11.339 -0.0511 -0.0485 -0.0493 -0.0497 -0.0318 -0.0292 -0.0263 -0.0291

Average Average
[%] [%]
[%] [%] [%] [%] [%] [%]
2 02/02/2011 4232 4402 4259 4298 5.159 7.132 6.989
7 07/02/2011 4247 4416 4274 4312 5.227 7.192 7.055
14 14/02/2011 4214 4383 4241 4279 5.161 7.132 6.990 -0.0246 -0.0222 -0.0241 -0.0236 0.0007 0.0000 0.0004 0.0004
28 28/02/2011 4203 4372 4231 4269 5.124 7.101 6.956 -0.0399 -0.0351 -0.0382 -0.0377 -0.0145 -0.0129 -0.0137 -0.0137
36 08/03/2011 4202 4371 4230 4268 5.133 7.108 6.961 -0.0365 -0.0325 -0.0363 -0.0351 -0.0112 -0.0104 -0.0119 -0.0111
56 28/03/2011 4200 4369 4227 4265 5.114 7.082 6.935 -0.0436 -0.0421 -0.0460 -0.0439 -0.0183 -0.0200 -0.0215 -0.0199
91 05/04/2011 4195 4364 4222 4260 5.105 7.082 6.938 -0.0469 -0.0421 -0.0448 -0.0446 -0.0216 -0.0200 -0.0204 -0.0206

Average Average
[%] [%]
[%] [%] [%] [%] [%] [%]
2 02/02/2011 4175 4315 4132 4207 8.337 10.570 9.822
7 07/02/2011 4189 4330 4146 4222 8.367 10.613 9.857
14 14/02/2011 4156 4296 4112 4188 8.296 10.544 9.788 -0.0261 -0.0250 -0.0252 -0.0254 -0.0150 -0.0094 -0.0124 -0.0123
28 28/02/2011 4146 4285 4102 4178 8.258 10.506 9.751 -0.0415 -0.0403 -0.0401 -0.0406 -0.0305 -0.0247 -0.0274 -0.0275
36 08/03/2011 4145 4285 4102 4177 8.270 10.520 9.758 -0.0371 -0.0352 -0.0376 -0.0366 -0.0261 -0.0196 -0.0248 -0.0235
56 28/03/2011 4143 4282 4100 4175 8.243 10.493 9.733 -0.0470 -0.0450 -0.0467 -0.0462 -0.0360 -0.0294 -0.0339 -0.0331
91 05/04/2011 4137 4277 4094 4169 8.244 10.493 9.738 -0.0466 -0.0450 -0.0449 -0.0455 -0.0356 -0.0294 -0.0321 -0.0324

Average Average
[%] [%]
[%] [%] [%] [%] [%] [%]
1 13/05/2011 4153 4203 4129 4162 10.325 10.323 11.116
7 19/05/2011 4176 4225 4151 4184 10.347 10.345 11.135
8 20/05/2011 4144 4193 4121 4153 10.333 10.331 11.121 -0.0051 -0.0051 -0.0051 -0.0051 0.0029 0.0029 0.0018 0.0025
14 26/05/2011 4128 4177 4105 4137 10.269 10.271 11.056 -0.0284 -0.0270 -0.0287 -0.0280 -0.0204 -0.0189 -0.0218 -0.0204
28 09/06/2011 4120 4169 4096 4128 10.235 10.240 11.023 -0.0408 -0.0382 -0.0407 -0.0399 -0.0328 -0.0302 -0.0338 -0.0323
35 16/06/2011 4115 4164 4092 4124 10.221 10.226 11.008 -0.0459 -0.0433 -0.0462 -0.0451 -0.0379 -0.0353 -0.0393 -0.0375
56 07/07/2011 4112 4160 4088 4120 10.214 10.216 10.996 -0.0499 -0.0484 -0.0520 -0.0501 -0.0419 -0.0404 -0.0451 -0.0425
91 11/08/2011 4109 4158 4085 4117 10.201 10.209 10.984 -0.0546 -0.0510 -0.0564 -0.0540 -0.0466 -0.0430 -0.0495 -0.0463
206
Appendix H: Bulk Resistivity Results for All Stages

207
MIX #1
Cast Date: 04/01/2011
RCPT RCPT RCPT

Avg. Merlin RCPT RCPT 5- Avg. RCPT RCPT 6-hr Avg. 6-hr RCPT Avg. RCPT RCPT RCPT
Days Avg. Avg. Merlin Bulk Current Temp. Current
Cylinder Bulk Temp. min Bulk 5-min Bulk Bulk RCPT Bulk Actual Actual Adjusted Chloride Ion
(after Date Diameter Thickness[ Resistivity Measured Measured Measured
Section Resistivity Measured Resistivity Resistivity Resistivity Resistivity Charge Charge Charge Penetrability
cast) [mm] mm] [m] at 5 min at 5 min at 6 hrs
[m] at 6 hrs [C] [m] [m] [m] [m] Passed [C] Passed [C] Passed [C] Category
[mA] [C] [mA]
Top 102 55 142.80 70.7 23 75.2 33 126.08 126.51 1522 1320 Low
28 01/02/2011 Middle 102 55 160.45 152.52 63.6 22 57.6 30 140.16 135.14 154.16 149.34 1249 1300 1083 Low
Bottom 101 55 154.30 62.8 23 52.2 30 139.18 167.37 1128 998 Very Low
Top 102 50 153.12 52.2 23 37.9 28 187.85 245.99 861 747 Very Low
57 02/03/2011 Middle 102 50 148.20 155.58 51.9 22 42.2 27 188.93 196.17 224.60 250.40 943 848 818 Very Low
Bottom 102 51 165.42 45.4 22 32.3 26 211.75 280.60 740 642 Very Low
MIX #2
Cast Date: 04/01/2011
RCPT RCPT RCPT

[mA] [C] [mA]
Top 102 55 137.62 72.2 23 69.1 31 123.46 129.57 1486 1289 Low
28 01/02/2011 Middle 102 54 145.12 147.43 68.1 23 60.4 30 133.32 132.55 148.79 150.69 1318 1304 1143 Low
Bottom 101 54 159.54 63.2 23 49.1 29 140.86 173.70 1107 979 Very Low
Top 102 51 151.80 54.6 22 40.1 27 176.07 227.93 911 790 Very Low
56 01/03/2011 Middle* 102 50 152.39 160.87 39.9 23 31.8 26 - 181.24 - 243.59 735 864 638 Very Low
Bottom 102 50 169.93 52.6 23 34.5 27 186.42 259.24 817 709 Very Low
*
Actual and adjusted charges passed, and 5-minute current measured all lower than expected; therefore, they have been excluded
MIX #5
Cast Date: 04/01/2011
RCPT RCPT RCPT

[mA] [C] [mA]
Top 102 52 149.45 69.8 22 61.0 30 135.08 153.47 1327 1151 Low
28 01/02/2011 Middle 101 53 181.87 169.88 69.0 24 54.2 31 131.45 136.18 162.58 161.57 1205 1239 1066 Low
Bottom 101 52 178.32 65.1 24 55.0 32 142.00 168.65 1184 1048 Low
Top 102 50 166.09 52.0 23 39.2 27 188.57 236.91 894 776 Very Low
57 02/03/2011 Middle* 102 50 162.66 170.20 38.4 23 30.8 26 - 196.85 - 244.23 701 868 608 Very Low
Bottom 102 50 174.30 47.8 23 37.0 28 205.14 251.54 842 730 Very Low
*
MIX #9
Cast Date: 04/01/2011
RCPT RCPT RCPT

[mA] [C] [mA]
Top 102 52 136.40 70.5 23 66.4 31 133.74 142.91 1425 1236 Low
28 01/02/2011 Middle 102 55 156.01 144.59 62.4 0 50.1 0 142.85 141.53 173.93 167.00 1107 1206 960 Very Low
Bottom 102 53 141.36 62.5 22 47.7 26 148.01 184.16 1085 941 Very Low
Top 102 50 170.27 52.1 23 36.0 28 188.21 254.87 831 721 Very Low
56 01/03/2011 Middle 102 50 172.13 170.74 51.8 22 33.6 26 189.30 192.27 264.42 261.02 801 812 695 Very Low
Bottom 102 50 169.81 49.2 22 34.7 26 199.30 263.76 803 697 Very Low
MIX #4
Cast Date: 10/01/2011
RCPT RCPT RCPT

[mA] [C] [mA]
Top 102 49 140.64 71.5 23 56.9 30 139.94 171.53 1260 1093 Low
29 08/02/2011 Middle 102 50 133.98 137.91 62.1 23 57.7 31 157.90 153.22 169.85 170.91 1247 1248 1082 Low
Bottom 102 50 139.12 60.6 24 58.3 31 161.81 171.36 1236 1072 Low
Top 102 51 148.76 52.5 23 37.8 27 183.11 242.86 855 742 Very Low
58 09/03/2011 Middle 102 50 150.80 152.75 52.7 23 41.2 28 186.06 187.15 234.29 235.45 904 888 784 Very Low
Bottom 102 51 158.70 50.0 23 41.5 28 192.27 229.19 906 786 Very Low
MIX #8
Cast Date: 10/01/2011
RCPT RCPT RCPT

[mA] [C] [mA]
Top 102 49 132.29 70.0 24 57.5 31 142.94 173.17 1248 1083 Low
29 08/02/2011 Middle 102 50 171.18 163.96 68.4 33 58.3 32 143.36 147.71 168.23 178.49 1259 1192 1092 Low
Bottom 101 50 188.42 61.3 24 48.3 30 156.84 194.08 1070 947 Very Low
Top 102 50 159.07 39.3 22 33.8 27 249.50 283.15 748 649 Very Low
57 08/03/2011 Middle 102 50 155.86 161.14 43.2 21 37.3 27 226.98 227.43 252.14 264.01 840 794 729 Very Low
Bottom 101 51 168.50 45.8 21 35.6 26 205.80 256.74 793 702 Very Low
208
MIX #10
Cast Date: 10/01/2011
RCPT RCPT RCPT

[mA] [C] [mA]
Top 102 50 122.20 68.5 24 50.6 31 143.15 185.46 1142 991 Very Low
30 09/02/2011 Middle 102 50 126.14 127.43 67.8 23 51.7 31 144.62 148.90 186.77 195.61 1134 1088 984 Very Low
Bottom 102 50 133.95 61.7 24 44.5 31 158.92 214.59 987 856 Very Low
Top 102 50 148.15 50.9 23 33.9 27 192.64 271.19 781 677 Very Low
57 08/03/2011 Middle 102 50 174.11 162.51 48.7 22 34.4 27 201.35 200.69 270.50 268.40 783 784 679 Very Low
Bottom 102 51 165.28 46.2 21 35.1 27 208.08 263.51 788 684 Very Low
MIX #11
Cast Date: 10/01/2011
RCPT RCPT RCPT

[mA] [C] [mA]
Top 102 50 120.78 65.4 23 55.1 31 149.93 176.06 1203 1044 Low
30 09/02/2011 Middle 102 50 116.50 123.61 63.5 23 53.3 30 154.42 157.97 185.46 185.81 1142 1135 991 Very Low
Bottom 101 50 133.56 56.7 23 48.9 30 169.56 195.91 1060 938 Very Low
Top 102 50 161.54 50.2 23 37.5 28 195.33 249.18 850 737 Very Low
56 07/03/2011 Middle* 102 50 154.29 163.24 44.6 23 34.8 27 219.86 210.07 263.76 259.12 803 818 697 Very Low
Bottom 102 50 173.88 45.6 23 35.1 27 215.03 264.42 801 695 Very Low
*
Current measured at 10 minutes used instead of current measured at 5 minutes, as current did not stabilize by 5 minutes (23.8 mA)
MIX #12
Cast Date: 10/01/2011
RCPT RCPT RCPT

[mA] [C] [mA]
Top 102 50 107.70 77.7 26 54.6 32 126.20 173.18 1223 1061 Low
29 08/02/2011 Middle 102 50 110.11 112.74 77.0 25 57.9 33 127.34 133.01 166.51 175.27 1272 1211 1103 Low
Bottom 102 50 120.41 67.4 26 51.4 32 145.48 186.12 1138 987 Very Low
Top 102 50 142.95 43.8 23 35.3 28 223.87 258.29 820 711 Very Low
56 07/03/2011 Middle 102 50 156.10 157.11 50.9 23 37.2 27 192.64 209.43 249.18 261.81 850 811 737 Very Low
Bottom 102 50 172.27 46.3 22 32.3 26 211.78 277.95 762 661 Very Low
MIX #13
Cast Date: 10/01/2011
RCPT RCPT RCPT

[mA] [C] [mA]
Top 102 50 170.46 54.6 25 50.0 30 179.59 184.33 1149 997 Very Low
29 08/02/2011 Middle 102 50 181.44 179.01 68.2 25 51.0 31 143.78 157.71 185.46 181.68 1142 1159 991 Very Low
Bottom 101 50 185.14 64.2 25 54.2 32 149.75 175.25 1185 1048 Low
Top 102 50 162.14 40.1 23 29.8 27 244.53 310.10 683 592 Very Low
58 09/03/2011 Middle 102 50 163.04 163.43 48.7 22 38.8 27 201.35 227.94 244.86 311.99 865 698 750 Very Low
Bottom 102 51 165.12 40.4 22 21.9 25 237.95 381.00 545 473 Very Low
MIX #18
Cast Date: 12/01/2011
RCPT RCPT RCPT

[mA] [C] [mA]
Top 102 51 127.52 67.2 24 54.1 32 143.05 173.04 1200 1041 Low
29 10/02/2011 Middle 102 51 121.28 124.01 69.0 24 58.4 31 139.32 143.05 164.02 176.03 1266 1184 1098 Low
Bottom 102 51 123.22 65.5 25 48.3 31 146.77 191.03 1087 943 Very Low
Top 102 50 170.16 49.5 24 34.4 28 198.09 268.78 788 684 Very Low
56 09/03/2011 Middle 102 50 162.83 167.22 51.4 24 36.9 27 190.77 193.97 253.05 256.05 837 823 726 Very Low
Bottom 102 51 168.68 49.8 23 37.4 28 193.04 246.32 843 731 Very Low
MIX #20
Cast Date: 12/01/2011
RCPT RCPT RCPT

[mA] [C] [mA]
Top 102 51 132.20 71.6 24 56.4 31 134.26 167.73 1238 1074 Low
28 09/02/2011 Middle 102 51 129.07 131.59 70.1 24 61.2 31 137.14 138.58 156.71 165.16 1325 1259 1149 Low
Bottom 102 51 133.50 66.6 24 55.0 31 144.34 171.04 1214 1053 Low
Top 102 50 165.40 41.2 23 33.9 28 238.00 276.86 765 664 Very Low
56 09/03/2011 Middle 102 50 157.42 161.41 53.4 22 40.5 27 183.62 210.81 229.47 253.17 923 844 801 Very Low
Bottom* 101 51 169.06 25.6 22 31.3 26 - - 618 547 Very Low
*
209
MIX #32d
Cast Date: 12/01/2011
RCPT RCPT RCPT

[mA] [C] [mA]
Top 102 51 354.12 27.3 25 20.2 27 352.13 438.07 474 411 Very Low
29 10/02/2011 Middle 102 51 318.11 332.99 31.8 24 23.8 27 302.30 323.93 377.54 406.79 550 509 477 Very Low
Bottom 101 51 326.75 29.7 25 21.3 28 317.36 404.76 503 445 Very Low
Top 102 50 359.63 23.2 23 17.9 25 422.65 510.36 415 360 Very Low
57 10/03/2011 Middle 102 50 343.67 349.21 21.1 24 15.5 25 464.72 545.29 586.70 558.58 361 381 313 Very Low
Bottom 102 50 344.33 13.1 23 15.8 25 748.51 578.69 366 317 Very Low
MIX #33
Cast Date: 12/01/2011
RCPT RCPT RCPT

[mA] [C] [mA]
Top 102 52 292.55 32.1 25 25.4 29 293.72 353.57 576 500 Very Low
28 09/02/2011 Middle 101 52 287.80 292.38 33.6 25 25.6 28 275.13 287.13 344.28 351.05 580 573 513 Very Low
Bottom 101 52 296.80 31.6 25 25.1 29 292.55 355.30 562 497 Very Low
Top 102 50 367.90 23.1 23 15.4 25 424.48 569.35 372 323 Very Low
57 10/03/2011 Middle 102 50 367.87 369.46 24.4 23 18.2 25 401.87 426.07 509.13 547.76 416 388 361 Very Low
Bottom 102 50 372.60 21.7 23 16.2 25 451.87 564.80 375 325 Very Low
MIX #34
Cast Date: 12/01/2011
RCPT RCPT RCPT

[mA] [C] [mA]
Top 102 49 324.64 26.9 22 21.6 25 371.96 438.38 493 428 Very Low
29 10/02/2011 Middle 102 51 282.60 302.07 28.8 23 22.6 26 333.79 346.30 397.03 412.90 523 507 454 Very Low
Bottom 102 52 298.97 28.3 23 22.2 27 333.16 403.27 505 438 Very Low
Top 102 50 421.38 20.3 22 15.9 24 483.03 575.54 368 319 Very Low
57 10/03/2011 Middle 102 51 394.15 398.25 21.6 21 16.4 24 445.06 478.91 546.44 599.45 380 352 330 Very Low
Bottom 102 51 379.22 18.9 0 8.1 0 508.64 676.37 307 266 Very Low
MIX #35
Cast Date: 12/01/2011
RCPT RCPT RCPT

[mA] [C] [mA]
Top 102 51 324.30 23.8 22 19.4 26 403.92 467.67 444 385 Very Low
29 10/02/2011 Middle 102 52 316.95 322.86 24.8 22 19.6 26 380.18 460.17 451.56 469.55 451 434 391 Very Low
Bottom 101 52 327.34 15.5 23 18.0 26 596.42 489.41 408 361 Very Low
Top 102 50 461.22 19.9 22 15.2 24 492.74 600.00 353 306 Very Low
57 10/03/2011 Middle 102 50 451.45 449.58 20.8 22 14.7 24 471.42 528.25 601.70 666.98 352 323 305 Very Low
Bottom 102 50 436.06 15.8 0 11.2 0 620.60 799.24 265 230 Very Low
MIX #36
Cast Date: 17/01/2011
RCPT RCPT RCPT

[mA] [C] [mA]
Top 102 50 294.74 25.7 23 23.2 26 381.54 407.31 520 451 Very Low
29 15/02/2011 Middle 102 52 303.02 287.47 27.5 23 22.7 25 342.85 346.57 401.68 402.77 507 512 440 Very Low
Bottom 102 52 264.65 29.9 23 22.5 26 315.33 399.32 510 442 Very Low
Top 102 50 365.75 22.7 24 20.1 26 431.96 473.82 447 388 Very Low
57 15/03/2011 Middle 102 50 355.46 354.95 15.7 27 16.9 24 624.56 496.80 567.83 524.16 373 406 324 Very Low
Bottom 102 50 343.63 22.6 22 17.4 25 433.87 530.83 399 346 Very Low
MIX #37
Cast Date: 17/01/2011
RCPT RCPT RCPT

[mA] [C] [mA]
Top 102 52 275.54 28.1 23 23.9 26 335.53 382.09 533 462 Very Low
30 16/02/2011 Middle 102 52 250.28 263.72 29.7 23 23.8 26 317.45 326.03 377.84 383.11 539 532 468 Very Low
Bottom 102 52 265.33 29.0 23 23.4 26 325.12 389.39 523 454 Very Low
Top 103 50 302.13 26.0 23 18.6 25 384.57 493.09 438 373 Very Low
57 15/03/2011 Middle 102 50 304.31 304.17 25.1 23 18.0 25 390.66 385.57 503.09 498.84 421 425 365 Very Low
Bottom 102 51 306.08 25.2 23 17.9 25 381.48 500.35 415 360 Very Low
210
MIX #38
Cast Date: 17/01/2011
RCPT RCPT RCPT

[mA] [C] [mA]
Top 102 51 204.90 38.2 22 35.9 27 251.66 269.67 770 668 Very Low
29 15/02/2011 Middle 102 52 205.26 204.59 35.5 23 31.5 26 265.59 255.03 295.15 290.52 690 704 599 Very Low
Bottom 101 52 203.60 37.3 23 29.1 27 247.84 306.73 651 576 Very Low
Top 102 50 274.72 29.7 23 22.4 25 330.15 417.75 507 440 Very Low
56 14/03/2011 Middle 102 50 271.49 278.80 29.1 23 20.7 25 336.96 334.31 444.96 436.51 476 486 413 Very Low
Bottom 102 50 290.19 29.2 22 20.4 25 335.81 446.83 474 411 Very Low
MIX #41
Cast Date: 17/01/2011
RCPT RCPT RCPT

[mA] [C] [mA]
Top 102 52 304.64 25.0 23 22.6 26 377.14 391.64 520 451 Very Low
29 15/02/2011 Middle 102 52 284.45 284.51 33.8 23 24.5 26 278.95 309.00 358.54 368.33 568 554 493 Very Low
Bottom 102 52 264.43 34.8 23 25.5 27 270.93 354.80 574 498 Very Low
Top 102 50 367.65 23.4 23 18.4 25 419.04 509.13 416 361 Very Low
58 16/03/2011 Middle 102 50 354.52 356.51 21.8 23 17.4 25 449.80 427.73 538.93 518.59 393 406 341 Very Low
Bottom 102 51 347.37 23.2 23 17.8 25 414.37 507.69 409 355 Very Low
MIX #42
Cast Date: 17/01/2011
RCPT RCPT RCPT

[mA] [C] [mA]
Top 102 52 222.37 36.0 23 25.2 26 261.90 344.59 591 513 Very Low
30 16/02/2011 Middle 102 52 232.29 225.86 35.3 23 27.9 26 267.09 266.90 326.37 340.70 624 598 541 Very Low
Bottom 102 52 222.93 34.7 23 25.4 26 271.71 351.13 580 503 Very Low
Top 103 50 302.93 26.2 22 21.5 0 381.63 447.15 483 411 Very Low
58 16/03/2011 Middle 102 50 296.30 302.96 26.9 24 21.5 26 364.52 370.22 431.36 440.85 491 484 426 Very Low
Bottom 102 50 309.66 26.9 22 20.8 25 364.52 444.02 477 414 Very Low
MIX #43
Cast Date: 17/01/2011
RCPT RCPT RCPT

[mA] [C] [mA]
Top 102 51 298.62 32.9 23 25.0 26 292.20 368.17 564 489 Very Low
29 15/02/2011 Middle 102 51 272.35 281.81 32.8 23 21.8 26 293.09 297.80 400.09 393.15 519 529 450 Very Low
Bottom 102 51 274.45 31.2 23 21.4 26 308.12 411.18 505 438 Very Low
Top 102 50 302.30 28.7 23 21.0 26 341.66 440.33 481 417 Very Low
56 14/03/2011 Middle 102 51 314.80 305.13 25.4 22 19.2 25 378.48 354.49 480.66 458.45 432 457 375 Very Low
Bottom 102 51 298.28 28.0 22 19.7 25 343.33 454.37 457 396 Very Low
MIX #24b
Cast Date: 18/01/2011
RCPT RCPT RCPT

[mA] [C] [mA]
Top 102 51 103.93 79.4 22 61.1 30 121.07 150.91 1376 1194 Low
29 16/02/2011 Middle 102 49 97.67 100.33 83.0 22 58.9 30 120.55 124.38 162.87 152.06 1327 1387 1151 Low
Bottom 102 51 99.38 73.1 23 67.4 31 131.51 142.42 1458 1265 Low
Top 102 50 145.07 56.9 21 51.7 28 172.33 192.55 1100 954 Very Low
57 16/03/2011 Middle 102 50 132.86 142.05 62.9 0 50.9 0 155.89 167.05 190.13 203.80 1114 1047 966 Very Low
Bottom 102 50 148.21 56.7 22 41.9 28 172.94 228.73 926 803 Very Low
MIX #25e
Cast Date: 18/01/2011
RCPT RCPT RCPT

[mA] [C] [mA]
Top 102 51 107.24 76.5 23 63.0 30 125.66 150.25 1382 1199 Low
30 17/02/2011 Middle 102 51 99.11 101.07 84.1 23 54.3 29 114.31 121.73 164.41 154.87 1263 1334 1096 Low
Bottom 102 52 96.87 75.3 23 61.4 30 125.21 149.97 1358 1178 Low
Top 102 50 134.25 64.0 22 50.1 28 153.21 189.28 1119 971 Very Low
57 16/03/2011 Middle 102 50 138.09 134.82 62.0 21 51.8 28 158.15 153.09 184.66 188.85 1147 1115 995 Very Low
Bottom 102 51 132.13 65.0 23 48.0 29 147.90 192.62 1078 935 Very Low
211
MIX #26
Cast Date: 18/01/2011
RCPT RCPT RCPT

[mA] [C] [mA]
Top 102 52 100.95 79.2 23 58.4 30 119.05 154.99 1314 1140 Low
29 16/02/2011 Middle 101 51 95.06 102.61 81.7 23 57.3 30 115.37 121.24 158.44 156.68 1285 1291 1137 Low
Bottom 101 52 111.83 71.5 23 57.3 30 129.29 156.61 1275 1128 Low
Top 102 50 147.65 57.1 23 39.3 27 171.73 229.22 924 802 Very Low
59 18/03/2011 Middle 102 51 154.18 154.39 52.0 24 42.7 28 184.87 180.54 220.67 221.93 941 949 816 Very Low
Bottom 102 50 161.35 53.0 23 44.4 28 185.01 215.90 981 851 Very Low
MIX #27
Cast Date: 25/01/2011
RCPT RCPT RCPT

[mA] [C] [mA]
Top 102 49 86.56 93.7 24 66.4 32 106.78 144.66 1494 1296 Low
29 23/02/2011 Middle 102 49 86.65 89.19 92.1 24 56.3 31 108.64 110.05 164.85 150.78 1311 1420 1137 Low
Bottom 101 50 94.36 83.8 24 67.2 32 114.73 142.82 1454 1286 Low
Top 102 50 115.50 65.3 23 51.1 29 150.16 189.61 1117 969 Very Low
56 22/03/2011 Middle 102 50 120.70 119.64 61.1 24 48.0 30 160.48 156.78 201.52 195.27 1051 1085 912 Very Low
Bottom 102 50 122.72 61.4 23 49.6 29 159.70 194.67 1088 944 Very Low
MIX #29
Cast Date: 25/01/2011
RCPT RCPT RCPT

[mA] [C] [mA]
Top 102 49 90.62 88.4 23 71.3 33 113.19 131.94 1638 1421 Low
29 23/02/2011 Middle 102 50 96.10 94.72 89.1 23 69.7 32 110.05 112.87 138.34 133.06 1531 1604 1328 Low
Bottom 102 50 97.43 85.0 23 77.9 33 115.36 128.91 1643 1425 Low
Top 102 50 114.90 67.0 23 53.4 30 146.35 182.43 1161 1007 Low
56 22/03/2011 Middle 102 50 118.80 122.02 65.1 23 48.6 29 150.62 153.58 193.96 192.85 1092 1107 947 Very Low
Bottom 102 49 132.35 61.1 22 48.9 28 163.76 202.17 1069 927 Very Low
MIX #31
Cast Date: 25/01/2011
RCPT RCPT RCPT

[mA] [C] [mA]
Top 102 49 91.20 86.8 23 71.4 32 115.27 138.10 1565 1358 Low
29 23/02/2011 Middle 102 49 90.56 90.28 85.7 23 70.8 32 116.75 113.78 139.88 133.61 1545 1611 1340 Low
Bottom 102 50 89.09 89.7 22 81.0 32 109.31 122.85 1724 1495 Low
Top 102 50 134.63 66.0 23 49.1 29 148.57 195.75 1082 939 Very Low
56 22/03/2011 Middle 102 50 134.21 135.01 63.1 24 49.3 29 155.40 152.88 193.60 190.75 1094 1111 949 Very Low
Bottom 102 50 136.20 63.4 23 51.4 29 154.66 182.90 1158 1005 Low
MIX #44c
Cast Date: 26/01/2011
RCPT RCPT RCPT

[mA] [C] [mA]
Top 102 49 225.63 38.2 24 29.9 27 261.93 320.66 674 585 Very Low
29 24/02/2011 Middle 102 49 212.26 218.60 38.6 23 28.3 26 259.21 263.02 334.55 323.46 646 664 560 Very Low
Bottom 102 50 217.90 36.6 23 29.9 27 267.91 315.18 672 583 Very Low
Top 102 50 310.20 28.3 23 20.9 26 346.49 452.56 468 406 Very Low
56 23/03/2011 Middle 102 50 301.54 304.29 27.6 23 19.9 26 355.27 347.35 464.47 451.00 456 464 396 Very Low
Bottom 101 51 301.14 27.7 22 20.6 25 340.28 435.96 467 413 Very Low
MIX #45
Cast Date: 26/01/2011
RCPT RCPT RCPT

[mA] [C] [mA]
*
Top 102 50 215.63 25.2 24 11.6 26 - - 369 320 Very Low
28 23/02/2011 Middle 102 49 216.07 207.42 38.4 23 26.6 27 260.56 259.30 348.58 347.90 620 615 538 Very Low
Bottom 102 50 198.76 38.0 22 26.3 26 258.04 347.21 610 529 Very Low
Top 102 50 328.91 25.5 22 18.6 25 384.53 493.71 429 372 Very Low
56 23/03/2011 Middle 102 50 306.05 310.34 26.8 21 20.2 25 365.88 371.92 461.44 482.70 459 434 398 Very Low
Bottom 101 51 296.07 25.8 21 17.6 24 365.34 492.97 413 365 Very Low
*
212
MIX #46
Cast Date: 26/01/2011
RCPT RCPT RCPT

[mA] [C] [mA]
Top 102 50 218.18 29.4 24 24.0 26 333.52 388.62 545 473 Very Low
29 24/02/2011 Middle 102 50 211.76 212.85 36.4 23 26.7 26 269.38 293.59 344.39 367.07 615 575 533 Very Low
Bottom 101 50 208.60 34.6 23 24.0 25 277.87 368.20 564 499 Very Low
Top 102 50 326.22 27.1 23 19.3 25 361.83 479.18 442 383 Very Low
56 23/03/2011 Middle 102 50 332.96 329.66 26.8 23 19.3 26 365.88 370.25 471.71 478.52 449 443 389 Very Low
Bottom 102 50 329.80 25.6 23 19.2 25 383.03 484.67 437 379 Very Low
MIX #47
Cast Date: 26/01/2011
RCPT RCPT RCPT

[mA] [C] [mA]
Top 102 49 219.23 38.6 24 27.5 27 259.21 343.60 629 546 Very Low
29 24/02/2011 Middle 102 49 219.61 216.52 37.3 24 25.7 26 268.25 265.84 356.05 342.57 607 623 527 Very Low
Bottom 101 50 210.73 35.6 23 28.1 27 270.06 328.07 633 560 Very Low
Top 102 50 305.33 27.9 23 21.3 27 351.45 438.51 483 419 Very Low
56 23/03/2011 Middle 101 50 303.67 302.44 26.9 22 22.1 25 357.41 350.74 425.55 434.37 488 481 432 Very Low
Bottom 101 50 298.31 28.0 22 20.5 24 343.36 439.04 473 418 Very Low
MIX #48
Cast Date: 31/01/2011
RCPT RCPT RCPT

[mA] [C] [mA]
Top 102 50 222.85 39.1 23 33.3 27 250.78 288.16 735 638 Very Low
28 28/02/2011 Middle* 102 50 196.77 226.15 - - - - - 254.96 - 298.37 - 704 - -
Bottom 101 50 229.45 37.1 23 29.8 27 259.14 308.57 673 595 Very Low
Top 102 48 265.48 31.9 24 23.5 25 320.19 404.82 545 473 Very Low
56 28/03/2011 Middle 101 49 250.70 265.14 31.2 24 24.6 26 314.44 323.15 375.05 403.23 565 534 500 Very Low
Bottom 101 49 279.25 29.3 23 21.4 25 334.83 429.83 493 436 Very Low
*
Sample dropped and split after Merlin test, but before RCPT
MIX #49 - 1
Cast Date: 31/01/2011
RCPT RCPT RCPT

[mA] [C] [mA]
Top 102 49 296.66 16.9 23 17.2 25 592.05 544.39 397 344 Very Low
28 28/02/2011 Middle 102 50 298.75 294.09 28.3 22 21.7 26 346.49 425.17 422.75 458.15 501 473 435 Very Low
Bottom 102 50 286.87 29.1 22 22.5 25 336.96 407.31 520 451 Very Low
Top 102 49 374.81 23.2 23 18.5 25 431.28 509.72 424 368 Very Low
56 28/03/2011 Middle 102 49 383.36 386.13 22.9 23 17.5 25 436.93 444.16 532.32 545.04 406 401 352 Very Low
Bottom 102 48 400.22 22.0 23 16.0 25 464.28 593.08 372 323 Very Low
MIX #49 - 2
Cast Date: 31/01/2011
RCPT RCPT RCPT

[mA] [C] [mA]
Top 102 50 302.14 29.0 23 22.9 26 338.12 405.75 522 453 Very Low
28 28/02/2011 Middle 102 50 303.68 304.05 29.1 23 22.0 25 336.96 345.06 412.86 415.30 513 507 445 Very Low
Bottom 101 50 306.32 26.7 22 21.5 25 360.08 427.30 486 430 Very Low
Top 102 49 385.09 22.4 24 18.1 25 446.68 529.71 408 354 Very Low
56 28/03/2011 Middle 102 49 355.15 376.16 23.7 23 18.9 25 422.18 436.92 513.35 534.55 421 402 365 Very Low
Bottom 101 49 388.25 22.2 22 16.2 24 441.91 560.60 378 334 Very Low
MIX #51
Cast Date: 31/01/2011
RCPT RCPT RCPT

[mA] [C] [mA]
Top 103 49 309.71 29.5 23 24.0 26 345.86 405.11 544 463 Very Low
29 01/03/2011 Middle 102 50 306.71 316.24 16.9 23 16.8 25 580.21 453.31 586.70 476.77 361 463 313 Very Low
Bottom 102 50 332.29 22.6 22 21.9 25 433.87 438.51 483 419 Very Low
Top 102 48 401.67 22.6 23 16.7 25 451.95 561.39 393 341 Very Low
57 29/03/2011 Middle 102 49 356.13 377.67 23.3 23 17.9 25 429.43 441.37 524.57 549.10 412 397 357 Very Low
Bottom 102 49 375.22 22.6 23 16.3 24 442.73 561.36 385 334 Very Low
213
MIX #52
Cast Date: 31/01/2011
RCPT RCPT RCPT

[mA] [C] [mA]
Top 102 50 305.56 27.1 23 20.3 26 361.83 451.60 469 407 Very Low
29 01/03/2011 Middle 102 50 302.25 314.10 28.5 21 20.9 25 344.05 364.48 432.24 451.15 490 470 425 Very Low
Bottom 102 50 334.50 25.3 21 19.7 24 387.57 469.62 451 391 Very Low
Top 102 48 340.93 25.2 24 18.9 26 405.32 504.86 437 379 Very Low
56 28/03/2011 Middle 102 49 351.01 355.15 23.9 23 18.5 25 418.65 420.00 509.72 525.06 424 413 368 Very Low
Bottom 101 49 373.52 22.5 22 16.1 24 436.02 560.60 378 334 Very Low
MIX #53
Cast Date: 31/01/2011
RCPT RCPT RCPT

[mA] [C] [mA]
Top 102 50 320.55 17.5 22 22.4 26 560.32 432.24 490 425 Very Low
28 28/02/2011 Middle 102 50 304.46 302.82 15.5 23 17.1 25 632.62 515.76 550.13 471.54 385 449 334 Very Low
Bottom 101 51 283.46 26.6 22 20.4 25 354.35 432.26 471 417 Very Low
Top 102 49 386.52 22.6 23 18.0 25 442.73 528.42 409 355 Very Low
57 29/03/2011 Middle 102 49 401.32 395.35 22.0 22 17.0 24 454.80 450.57 552.74 553.38 391 389 339 Very Low
Bottom 101 49 398.21 21.6 21 15.6 23 454.19 578.98 366 324 Very Low
MIX #50
Cast Date: 12/05/2011
RCPT RCPT RCPT

[mA] [C] [mA]
Top 102 54 178.70 43.8 23 39.8 28 207.29 223.36 878 762 Very Low
28 09/06/2011 Middle 102 55 159.74 169.86 43.7 30 39.3 28 203.98 204.23 219.55 225.71 877 859 761 Very Low
Bottom 101 54 171.13 44.2 21 36.3 25 201.40 234.21 821 726 Very Low
Top 102 50 268.62 27.7 23 22.8 26 353.99 419.41 505 438 Very Low
56 07/07/2011 Middle 102 50 271.95 267.25 28.6 23 23.4 26 342.85 343.08 411.26 418.66 515 506 447 Very Low
Bottom 102 50 261.19 29.5 23 21.4 26 332.39 425.30 498 432 Very Low
214
Appendix I: Statistical Analysis of Compressive Strength Results at 28 Days with a 90%

Confidence Level
215
t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances
Comparable Compressive Strengths to 35 MPa Control (Mix #1 = Variable 1) at 28 Days Above 35 MPa
Mix #18 Mix #13

Variable 1 Variable 2 Variable 1 Variable 2
Mean 41.9776859 50.84468872 Mean 41.9776859 45.83946087
Variance 0.129186883 1.11575897 Variance 0.129186883 3.700830087
Observations 2 2 Observations 2 2
Pooled Variance 0.622472926 Pooled Variance 1.915008485
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 2 df 2
t Stat -11.23871382 t Stat -2.790625845
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.003912157 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.054001216
t Critical one-tail 6.964556734 t Critical one-tail 6.964556734
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.007824314 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.108002433
t Critical two-tail 9.9248432 t Critical two-tail 9.9248432
Conclusion: Conclusion:
|t(stat)| > t(crit two-tail) Therefore, the difference between the |t(stat)| < t(crit two-tail) Therefore, the difference between the
means is statistically significant at 90% level of confidence means is not statistically significant at 90% level of confidence
Mix #10 Mix #27

Mean 41.9776859 43.1298681 Mean 41.9776859 42.45357181
df 2 df 2
t Stat -3.319779881 t Stat -0.420235703
|t(stat)| < t(crit two-tail) Therefore, the difference between the |t(stat)| < t(crit two-tail) Therefore, the difference between the
means is not statistically significant at 90% level of means is not statistically significant at 90% level of confidence
confidence
Mix #20 Mix #11

Mean 41.9776859 42.3551257 Mean 41.9776859 40.63028765
df 2 df 2
t Stat -0.128054312 t Stat 1.929817137
confidence
216
Mix #12 Mix #26
Mean 41.9776859 40.33252416 Mean 41.9776859 40.27362718
df 2 df 2
t Stat 2.40727179 t Stat 1.212326195
confidence
Mix #29 Mix #25e

Mean 41.9776859 39.3192366 Mean 41.9776859 38.31483645
df 2 df 2
t Stat 2.5062609 t Stat 6.533030504
confidence
Mix #24b Mix #5

Mean 41.9776859 37.07687771 Mean 41.9776859 36.25104041
df 2 df 2
t Stat 12.33557698 t Stat 3.277335099
217
Mix #31
Variable 1 Variable 2
Mean 41.9776859 45.58643529
Variance 0.129186883 2.766304265
Observations 2 2
Pooled Variance 1.447745574
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 2
t Stat -2.999235726
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.047753939
t Critical one-tail 6.964556734
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.095507877
t Critical two-tail 9.9248432
Conclusion:
|t(stat)| < t(crit two-tail) Therefore, the difference between the
means is not statistically significant at 90% level of
confidence
Comparison of Compressive Strengths at 28 Days Between Two Mixes
Variable 1 = Mix #2, Variable 2 = Mix #8

Mean 31.51159986 34.16834489
Variance 12.77738841 0.52714945
Observations 2 2
df 2
t Stat -1.030065823
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.20562509
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.41125018
Conclusion:
confidence
218
Comparable Compressive Strengths to 50 MPa Control (Mix #32d = Variable 1) at 28 Days Above 50 MPa
Mix #33 Mix #49-2

Mean 72.10501118 70.62704584 Mean 72.10501118 70.12578645
df 2 df 2
t Stat 1.852186802 t Stat 1.12308039
confidence
Mix #44c Mix #34

Mean 72.10501118 68.72677121 Mean 72.10501118 66.4593187
df 2 df 2
t Stat 2.305562032 t Stat 1.506227373
confidence
Mix #51 Mix #47

Mean 72.10501118 65.77332789 Mean 72.10501118 64.56056355
df 2 df 2
t Stat 1.468784118 t Stat 3.862353943
confidence
219
Mix #37 Mix #49-1
Mean 72.10501118 64.39378545 Mean 72.10501118 63.91263597
df 2 df 2
t Stat 3.912542689 t Stat 2.765596953
confidence
Mix #42 Mix #38

Mean 72.10501118 62.01967604 Mean 72.10501118 60.98424277
Variance 0.402176856 0 Variance 0.402176856 11.47394592
df 2 df 2
t Stat 22.4903801 t Stat 4.563651319
Mix #46 Mix #35

Mean 72.10501118 60.63404568 Mean 72.10501118 59.96491057
df 2 df 2
t Stat 8.525321614 t Stat 2.056388476
confidence
220
Mix #43 Mix #48
Mean 72.10501118 59.92080853 Mean 72.10501118 58.97194162
df 2 df 2
t Stat 4.087340612 t Stat 11.63472991
|t(stat)| < t(crit two-tail) Therefore, the difference between the |t(stat)| > t(crit two-tail) Therefore, the difference between the
means is not statistically significant at 90% level of means is statistically significant at 90% level of confidence
confidence
Mix #50 Mix #36

Mean 72.10501118 56.19930465 Mean 72.10501118 55.44543232
df 2 df 2
t Stat 13.27263579 t Stat 5.961526649
Mix #52 Mix #45

Mean 72.10501118 70.21480925 Mean 72.10501118 69.44418928
df 2 df 2
t Stat 0.756993595 t Stat 1.199010471
confidence
221
Mix #41 Mix #53
Mean 72.10501118 67.74283586 Mean 72.10501118 64.24993327
df 2 df 2
t Stat 3.88435904 t Stat 8.272305923
confidence
Comparison of Compressive Strengths at 28 Days Between Two Mixes
Variable 1 = Mix #49-1, Variable 2 = Mix #49-2

Mean 63.91263597 70.12578645
Variance 17.14761173 5.809352307
Observations 2 2
df 2
t Stat -1.833874631
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.104057742
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.208115485
Conclusion:
confidence
222
Appendix J: Ground Surface Smoothness at Age of 56 Days ASTM C 39 Check

223
MIX #44c
Cast Date: 26/01/2011
Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg.

Days (after Thickness Thickness Thickness Thickness Thickness Thickness
Date Notes
cast) Cylinder Cylinder Cylinder Cylinder Cylinder Cylinder
#1 - TOP #1 - BOT #2 - TOP #2 - BOT #1 #2
56 23/03/2011 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.08 0.06 Fail
MIX #45
Cast Date: 26/01/2011

Date Notes
#1 - TOP #1 - BOT #2 - TOP #2 - BOT #1 #2
56 23/03/2011 0.06 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.07 0.07 Fail
MIX #46
Cast Date: 26/01/2011

Date Notes
#1 - TOP #1 - BOT #2 - TOP #2 - BOT #1 #2
56 23/03/2011 0.10 0.06 0.09 0.06 0.08 0.07 Fail
MIX #47
Cast Date: 26/01/2011

Date Notes
#1 - TOP #1 - BOT #2 - TOP #2 - BOT #1 #2
56 23/03/2011 0.08 0.05 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.07 Fail
MIX #48
Cast Date: 31/01/2011

Date Notes
#1 - TOP #1 - BOT #2 - TOP #2 - BOT #1 #2
56 28/03/2011 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.06 Fail
MIX #49 - 1
Cast Date: 31/01/2011

Date Notes
#1 - TOP #1 - BOT #2 - TOP #2 - BOT #1 #2
56 28/03/2011 0.08 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.05 Fail #1, Pass #2
224
MIX #49 - 2
Cast Date: 31/01/2011

Date Notes
#1 - TOP #1 - BOT #2 - TOP #2 - BOT #1 #2
56 28/03/2011 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.07 Fail
MIX #51
Cast Date: 31/01/2011

Date Notes
#1 - TOP #1 - BOT #2 - TOP #2 - BOT #1 #2
56 28/03/2011 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.05 Fail #1, Pass #2
MIX #52
Cast Date: 31/01/2011

Date Notes
#1 - TOP #1 - BOT #2 - TOP #2 - BOT #1 #2
56 28/03/2011 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.07 Fail
MIX #53
Cast Date: 31/01/2011

Date Notes
#1 - TOP #1 - BOT #2 - TOP #2 - BOT #1 #2
56 28/03/2011 0.08 0.05 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.08 Fail

225
Appendix K: Statistical Analysis of Linear Drying Shrinkage Results at 35 Days with a

90% Confidence Level
226
Linear Interpolation for 35 Day Data of Mix #s 1, 2, 5, 9, 52, 53, 49-1 and 49-2
Mix #1 Mix #2
Days (after Length Length Length Days (after Length Length Length
cast) Change Change Change cast) Change Change Change
Prism #1 [%] Prism #2 [%] Prism #3 [%] Prism #1 [%] Prism #2 [%] Prism #3 [%]
28 -0.0246 -0.0246 -0.0235 28 -0.0184 -0.0259 -0.0218
42 -0.0395 -0.0399 -0.0374 42 -0.0317 -0.0363 -0.0366
Linear Interpolation for 35 days: Linear Interpolation for 35 days:
35 -0.0321 -0.0322 -0.0304 35 -0.0251 -0.0311 -0.0292
Mix #5 Mix #9
28 -0.0365 -0.0231 -0.0260 28 -0.0295 -0.0250 -0.0251
42 -0.0508 -0.0377 -0.0391 42 -0.0426 -0.0392 -0.0374
35 -0.0436 -0.0304 -0.0325 35 -0.0361 -0.0321 -0.0313
Mix #52 Mix #53

28 -0.0399 -0.0351 -0.0382 28 -0.0415 -0.0403 -0.0401
36 -0.0365 -0.0325 -0.0363 36 -0.0371 -0.0352 -0.0376
35 -0.0369 -0.0329 -0.0365 35 -0.0376 -0.0358 -0.0379
Mix #49-1 Mix #49-2

28 -0.0443 -0.0424 -0.0445 28 -0.0471 -0.0414 -0.0456
36 -0.0432 -0.0398 -0.0426 36 -0.0427 -0.0366 -0.0401
35 -0.0433 -0.0401 -0.0429 35 -0.0432 -0.0372 -0.0408
227
Comparable Linear Drying Shrinkage (OPSS Method) to 35 MPa Control (Mix #1 = Variable 1) at 35 Days
Mix #2 Mix #5
Mean -0.031585807 -0.028451614 Mean -0.031585807 -0.035520229
Variance 9.8221E-07 9.45116E-06 Variance 9.8221E-07 5.06635E-05
Pooled Variance 5.21669E-06 Pooled Variance 2.58229E-05
df 4 df 4
t Stat -1.680637163 t Stat 0.948253256
means is not statistically significant at 90% level of means is not statistically significant at 90% level of
confidence confidence
Mix #9 Mix #18

Mean -0.031585807 -0.033145724 Mean -0.031585807 -0.040981238
df 4 df 4
t Stat 0.981049059 t Stat 15.23128461
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.191057182 P(T<=t) one-tail 5.41748E-05
means is not statistically significant at 90% level of means is statistically significant at 90% level of confidence
confidence
Mix #31
Mean -0.031585807 -0.060288321
Variance 9.8221E-07 4.26121E-05
Observations 3 3
Pooled Variance 2.17971E-05
df 4
t Stat 7.52949293
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.00083299
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.001665979
Conclusion:
|t(stat)| > t(crit two-tail) Therefore, the difference between the
means is statistically significant at 90% level of confidence
228
Comparison of Linear Drying Shrinkage (OPSS Method) at 35 Days Between Two Mixes

Mean -0.028451614 -0.055290169
Variance 9.45116E-06 1.1155E-05
Observations 3 3
df 4
t Stat 10.24050206
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.000256283
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.000512566
Conclusion:
Comparable Linear Drying Shrinkage (OPSS Method) to 50 MPa Control (Mix #32d = Variable 1) at 35 Days
Mix #44c Mix #46

Mean -0.034199135 -0.038712951 Mean -0.034199135 -0.032432065
df 4 df 4
t Stat 4.162812784 t Stat -2.071675714
means is not statistically significant at 90% level of means is not statistically significant at 90% level of
confidence confidence
Mix #33 Mix #41

Mean -0.034199135 -0.039657873 Mean -0.034199135 -0.046959985
df 4 df 4
t Stat 11.40672227 t Stat 10.77707956
|t(stat)| > t(crit two-tail) Therefore, the difference between the |t(stat)| > t(crit two-tail) Therefore, the difference between the
means is statistically significant at 90% level of confidence means is statistically significant at 90% level of confidence
229
Mix #45 Mix #52
Mean -0.034199135 -0.040134273 Mean -0.034199135 -0.03544126
df 4 df 4
t Stat 7.831440174 t Stat 0.926865545
means is statistically significant at 90% level of confidence means is not statistically significant at 90% level of
confidence
Mix #53
Mean -0.034199135 -0.037122037
Variance 3.35028E-07 1.23636E-06
Observations 3 3
df 4
t Stat 4.03862701
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.007810858
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.015621717
Conclusion:
confidence
Comparison of Linear Drying Shrinkage (OPSS Method) at 35 Days Between Two Mixes

Mean -0.042104723 -0.040383177
Variance 2.93288E-06 9.20171E-06
Observations 3 3
df 4
t Stat -0.855986633
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.220126469
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.440252938
Conclusion:
confidence
230
Appendix L: Average Mass of Prism Specimens vs. Age

231
Average Mass of Prism Specimens vs. Age (35 MPa Mixes)
4400 Control, 35 MPa (Mix #1, 360 kg/m3)

Optimized, 35 MPa (Mix #2, 360 kg/m3)
4300
Average Mass of Prism Specimens (g)
4200 Optimized, 35 MPa (Mix #9, 360 kg/m3)


3900
Optimized, 35 MPa (Mix #24b, 330 kg/m3)
Optimized, 35 MPa (Mix #25e, 330 kg/m3)
3700 Control (reduced cement), 35 MPa (Mix #29, 330 kg/m3)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Age (Days)
Average Mass of Prism Specimens vs. Age (50 MPa Mixes)

Control, 50 MPa (Mix #32d, 465 kg/m3)
4500
Average Mass of Prism Specimens (g)

4300
Optimized, 50 MPa (Mix #44c, 390 kg/m3)
4200 Control (reduced cement), 50 MPa (Mix #45, 390 kg/m3)
Optimized, 50 MPa (Mix #49-1, 390 kg/m3)
Optimized, 50 MPa (Mix #49-2, 390 kg/m3)
4000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Optimized, 50 MPa (Mix #53, 390 kg/m3)
Age (Days)
232
Appendix M: Statistical Analysis of Linear Drying Shrinkage Test Methods at 35 Days

with a 90% Confidence Level
233
Comparison of Linear Drying Shrinkage Testing Methods at 35 Days: OPSS vs. ASTM (modified)
Linear Interpolation for 35 Day Data of Mix # 1
Mix #1 OPSS LS-435 R23 ASTM C 157 (Modified)

Length Length Length Length Length Length
Days (after cast) Change Change Change Change Change Change
Prism #1 Prism #2 Prism #3 Prism #1 Prism #2 Prism #3
[%] [%] [%] [%] [%] [%]
28 -0.0246 -0.0246 -0.0235 -0.0190 -0.0198 -0.0172
42 -0.0395 -0.0399 -0.0374 -0.0339 -0.0350 -0.0310
Linear Interpolation for 35 days:
35 -0.0321 -0.0322 -0.0304 -0.0265 -0.0274 -0.0241
35 MPa Control, Mix #1:
Variable 1 = OPSS Method, Variable 2 = ASTM (modified)

Mean -0.0315858 -0.0259892
Variance 9.8221E-07 2.9012E-06
Observations 3 3
df 4
t Stat -4.9190022
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.00396753
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.00793507
Conclusion:
50 MPa Control, Mix #32d:
Variable 1 = OPSS Method, Variable 2 = ASTM (modified)

Mean -0.0341991 -0.0296961
Variance 3.3503E-07 3.3701E-07
Observations 3 3
df 4
t Stat -9.5140756
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.00034066
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.00068133
Conclusion:
234
Appendix N: Statistical Analysis of Merlin Bulk Resistivity Results with a 90% Confidence
Level
235
Comparable Merlin Bulk Resistivity to 35 MPa Control (Mix #1 = Variable 1) at 28 Days
Mix #13 Mix #5

Mean 152.5166667 179.0133333 Mean 152.5166667 169.88
df 4 df 4
t Stat -3.898846337 t Stat -1.510416451
means is not statistically significant at 90% level of confidence means is not statistically significant at 90% level of confidence
Mix #8 Mix #2
Mean 152.5166667 163.9633333 Mean 152.5166667 147.4266667
df 4 df 4
t Stat -0.65832923 t Stat 0.616682143
Mix #9 Mix #4
Mean 152.5166667 144.59 Mean 152.5166667 137.9133333
df 4 df 4
t Stat 1.011516044 t Stat 2.630672366
236
Mix #20 Mix #10
Mean 152.5166667 131.59 Mean 152.5166667 127.43
df 4 df 4
t Stat 3.921044494 t Stat 4.033845997
Mix #18 Mix #11

Mean 152.5166667 124.0066667 Mean 152.5166667 123.6133333
df 4 df 4
t Stat 5.191813354 t Stat 3.969584438
Mix #12 Mix #26

Mean 152.5166667 112.74 Mean 152.5166667 102.6133333
df 4 df 4
t Stat 6.141584955 t Stat 6.995892161
237
Mix #25e Mix #24b
Mean 152.5166667 101.0733333 Mean 152.5166667 100.3266667
df 4 df 4
t Stat 8.494001495 t Stat 9.489882201
Mix #29 Mix #31

Mean 152.5166667 94.71666667 Mean 152.5166667 90.28333333
df 4 df 4
t Stat 10.36475704 t Stat 11.94468669
Mix #27
Mean 152.5166667 89.19
Variance 80.26583333 20.0487
Observations 3 3
df 4
t Stat 10.9512912
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.000197468
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.000394935
Conclusion:
238
Comparison of Merlin Bulk Resistivity at 28 Days Between Two Mixes

Mean 147.4266667 163.9633333
Variance 124.1121333 826.7044333
Observations 3 3
df 4
t Stat -0.928881321
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.202764611
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.405529223
Conclusion:
means is not statistically significant at 90% level of confidence
Comparable Merlin Bulk Resistivity to 35 MPa Control (Mix #1 = Variable 1) at 56 Days
Mix #9 Mix #5
Mean 155.58 170.7366667 Mean 155.58 170.195
df 4 df 3
t Stat -2.931784356 t Stat -2.006244072
Mix #18 Mix #13

Mean 155.58 167.2233333 Mean 155.58 163.4333333
df 4 df 4
t Stat -2.083440316 t Stat -1.511310024
239
Mix #11 Mix #10
Mean 155.58 163.2366667 Mean 155.58 162.5133333
df 4 df 4
t Stat -0.997456201 t Stat -0.755153315
Mix #20 Mix #8

Mean 155.58 161.41 Mean 155.58 161.1433333
df 3 df 4
t Stat -0.804229739 t Stat -0.872982816
Mix #2 Mix #12

Mean 155.58 160.865 Mean 155.58 157.1066667
df 3 df 4
t Stat -0.559084469 t Stat -0.154125842
240
Mix #26 Mix #4
Mean 155.58 154.3933333 Mean 155.58 152.7533333
df 4 df 4
t Stat 0.183377956 t Stat 0.475012262
Mix #24b Mix #31

Mean 155.58 142.0466667 Mean 155.58 135.0133333
df 4 df 4
t Stat 1.95044606 t Stat 3.988429573
Mix #25e Mix #29

Mean 155.58 134.8233333 Mean 155.58 122.0166667
df 4 df 4
t Stat 3.836865597 t Stat 4.559564519
241
Mix #27
Mean 155.58 119.64
Variance 78.6708 13.8748
Observations 3 3
df 4
t Stat 6.470842249
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.001469304
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.002938608
Conclusion:

Mean 160.865 161.1433333
Variance 164.34845 43.16643333
Observations 2 3
df 3
t Stat -0.033354581
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.487743467
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.975486934
Conclusion:
Comparable Merlin Bulk Resistivity to 50 MPa Control (Mix #32d = Variable 1) at 28 Days
Mix #35 Mix #51

Mean 332.9933333 322.8633333 Mean 332.9933333 316.2366667
df 4 df 4
t Stat 0.897773021 t Stat 1.238748727
242
Mix #52 Mix #49-2
Mean 332.9933333 314.1033333 Mean 332.9933333 304.0466667
df 4 df 4
t Stat 1.265752 t Stat 2.650259686
Mix #53 Mix #34

Mean 332.9933333 302.8233333 Mean 332.9933333 302.07
df 4 df 4
t Stat 1.976021238 t Stat 1.890752142
Mix #49-1 Mix #33

Mean 332.9933333 294.0933333 Mean 332.9933333 292.3833333
df 4 df 4
t Stat 3.395949648 t Stat 3.638652901
243
Mix #36 Mix #41
Mean 332.9933333 287.47 Mean 332.9933333 284.5066667
df 4 df 4
t Stat 2.858041894 t Stat 3.05108977
Mix #43 Mix #37

Mean 332.9933333 281.8066667 Mean 332.9933333 263.7166667
df 4 df 4
t Stat 3.724816174 t Stat 5.288020584
means is not statistically significant at 90% level of confidence means is statistically significant at 90% level of confidence
Mix #48 Mix #42

Mean 332.9933333 226.15 Mean 332.9933333 225.8633333
df 3 df 4
t Stat 7.510199146 t Stat 9.463261935
244
Mix #44c Mix #47
Mean 332.9933333 218.5966667 Mean 332.9933333 216.5233333
df 4 df 4
t Stat 9.926072753 t Stat 10.3674382
Mix #46 Mix #45

Mean 332.9933333 212.8466667 Mean 332.9933333 207.415
df 4 df 3
t Stat 10.71423301 t Stat 8.140761609
Mix #38 Mix #50

Mean 332.9933333 204.5866667 Mean 332.9933333 169.8566667
df 4 df 4
t Stat 11.81783828 t Stat 13.40219417
245

Mean 294.0933333 304.0466667
Variance 40.22443333 4.468933333
Observations 3 3
df 4
t Stat -2.578740498
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.030704517
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.061409034
Conclusion:
Comparable Merlin Bulk Resistivity to 50 MPa Control (Mix #32d = Variable 1) at 56 Days
Mix #35 Mix #34

Mean 349.21 449.5766667 Mean 349.21 398.25
df 4 df 4
t Stat -11.16496268 t Stat -3.660261773
Mix #53 Mix #49-1

Mean 349.21 395.35 Mean 349.21 386.13
df 4 df 4
t Stat -6.696201063 t Stat -4.05483479
246
Mix #51 Mix #49-2
Mean 349.21 377.6733333 Mean 349.21 376.1633333
df 4 df 4
t Stat -2.005109487 t Stat -2.291080731
Mix #33 Mix #41

Mean 349.21 369.4566667 Mean 349.21 356.5133333
df 4 df 4
t Stat -3.71823392 t Stat -0.924199068
Mix #52 Mix #36

Mean 349.21 355.1533333 Mean 349.21 354.9466667
df 4 df 4
t Stat -0.542592102 t Stat -0.695566588
247
Mix #46 Mix #45
Mean 349.21 329.66 Mean 349.21 310.3433333
df 4 df 4
t Stat 3.512930963 t Stat 3.523725915
Mix #43 Mix #37

Mean 349.21 305.1266667 Mean 349.21 304.1733333
df 4 df 4
t Stat 6.117940167 t Stat 8.43832037
Mix #42 Mix #47

Mean 349.21 302.9633333 Mean 349.21 302.4366667
df 4 df 4
t Stat 7.131363799 t Stat 8.311746128
248
Mix #38 Mix #50
Mean 349.21 278.8 Mean 349.21 267.2533333
df 4 df 4
t Stat 9.053536994 t Stat 13.42011381
Mix #48
Mean 349.21 265.1433333
Variance 81.5412 203.8606333
Observations 3 3
df 4
t Stat 8.618984022
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.000498074
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.000996148
Conclusion:

Mean 386.13 376.1633333
Variance 167.1717 333.6665333
Observations 3 3
df 4
t Stat 0.771368364
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.241763481
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.483526962
Conclusion:
249
Appendix O: Statistical Analysis of Bulk Resistivity Test Methods at 28 Days and 56 Days
with a 90% Confidence Level
250
Comparison of Bulk Resistivity Testing Methods: Merlin vs. RCPT
35 MPa Control, Mix #1:
Merlin vs. 5-minute RCPT at 28 days Merlin vs. 5-minute RCPT at 56 days
Variable 1 = Merlin, Variable 2 = 5-minute RCPT Variable 1 = Merlin, Variable 2 = 5-minute RCPT
Mean 152.5166667 135.139382 Mean 155.58 196.1743581
df 4 df 4
t Stat 2.525705062 t Stat -4.353630111
Merlin vs. 6-hour RCPT at 28 days Merlin vs. 6-hour RCPT at 56 days
Variable 1 = Merlin, Variable 2 = 6-hour RCPT Variable 1 = Merlin, Variable 2 = 6-hour RCPT
Mean 152.5166667 149.344287 Mean 155.58 250.3994096
df 4 df 4
t Stat 0.242129028 t Stat -5.54482582
5-minute RCPT vs. 6-hour RCPT at 28 days 5-minute RCPT vs. 6-hour RCPT at 56 days
Variable 1 = 5-minute RCPT, Variable 2 = 6-hour RCPT Variable 1 = 5-minute RCPT, Variable 2 = 6-hour RCPT
Mean 135.1393816 149.344287 Mean 196.1743581 250.3994096
df 4 df 4
t Stat -1.104215 t Stat -2.999008301
251
50 MPa Control, Mix #32d:
Merlin vs. 5-minute RCPT at 28 days Merlin vs. 5-minute RCPT at 56 days
Variable 1 = Merlin, Variable 2 = 5-minute RCPT Variable 1 = Merlin, Variable 2 = 5-minute RCPT
Mean 332.9933333 323.934154 Mean 349.21 545.294819
df 4 df 4
t Stat 0.494572429 t Stat -1.913665925
Merlin vs. 6-hour RCPT at 28 days Merlin vs. 6-hour RCPT at 56 days
Variable 1 = Merlin, Variable 2 = 6-hour RCPT Variable 1 = Merlin, Variable 2 = 6-hour RCPT
Mean 332.9933333 406.791482 Mean 349.21 558.5835802
df 4 df 4
t Stat -3.58312666 t Stat -8.450330682
5-minute RCPT vs. 6-hour RCPT at 28 days 5-minute RCPT vs. 6-hour RCPT at 56 days
Variable 1 = 5-minute RCPT, Variable 2 = 6-hour RCPT Variable 1 = 5-minute RCPT, Variable 2 = 6-hour RCPT
Mean 323.9341541 406.791482 Mean 545.294819 558.5835802
df 4 df 4
t Stat -3.61927303 t Stat -0.126366503
252
Appendix P: Statistical Analysis of 35 MPa Mixes Meeting All Criteria with a 90%
Confidence Level
253
Comparison of 35 MPa Control (Mix #1), Mix #2 - Particle packing model (binary, Stage 1) [Toufar] and Mix #5 - Particle packing model
(ternary, Stage 1) [Toufar]
Compressive Strength at 28 days: Linear Drying Shrinkage at 35 days (OPSS method):

Mean 41.9776859 36.25104041 Mean -0.031585807 -0.035520229
Variance 0.129186883 5.977264381 Variance 9.8221E-07 5.06635E-05
Pooled Variance 3.053225632 Pooled Variance 2.58229E-05
df 2 df 4
t Stat 3.277335099 t Stat 0.948253256
|t(stat)| < t(crit two-tail) Therefore, the difference between the |t(stat)| < t(crit two-tail) Therefore, the difference between the means
means is not statistically significant at 90% level of confidence is not statistically significant at 90% level of confidence
Bulk Resistivity (Merlin test) at 28 days: Bulk Resistivity (Merlin test) at 56 days:

Mean 152.5166667 169.88 Mean 155.58 170.195
df 4 df 3
t Stat -1.510416451 t Stat -2.006244072
Workability - Slump: Workability - Static Yield Stress:

Mean 230 227.5 Mean 553.95 586.35
Variance 0 12.5 Variance 17168.045 27777.245
df 2 df 2
t Stat 1 t Stat -0.216131424
254
Workability - Dynamic Yield Stress: Workability - Plastic Viscosity:

Mean 144.15 80.35 Mean 60.9 58.95
df 2 df 2
t Stat 0.808009016 t Stat 0.076259051

Mean 41.9776859 31.51159986 Mean -0.031585807 -0.028451614
df 2 df 4
t Stat 4.119967491 t Stat -1.680637163

Mean 152.5166667 147.4266667 Mean 155.58 160.865
df 4 df 3
t Stat 0.616682143 t Stat -0.559084469
255

Mean 230 230 Mean 553.95 585.75
Variance 0 0 Variance 17168.045 55544.445
Pooled Variance 0 Pooled Variance 36356.245
df 2 df 2
t Stat 65535 t Stat -0.166777558
P(T<=t) one-tail #NUM! P(T<=t) one-tail 0.441441024
P(T<=t) two-tail #NUM! P(T<=t) two-tail 0.882882048
|t(stat)| > t(crit two-tail) Therefore, the difference between the |t(stat)| < t(crit two-tail) Therefore, the difference between the means
means is statistically significant at 90% level of confidence is not statistically significant at 90% level of confidence

Mean 144.15 78.9 Mean 60.9 62.15
df 2 df 2
t Stat 0.817925295 t Stat -0.049196492

Mean 31.51159986 36.25104041 Mean -0.028451614 -0.035520229
df 2 df 4
t Stat -1.547702786 t Stat 1.579081897
256

Mean 147.4266667 169.88 Mean 160.865 170.195
df 4 df 2
t Stat -1.853388233 t Stat -0.937580724

Mean 230 227.5 Mean 585.75 586.35
df 2 df 2
t Stat 1 t Stat -0.002939593

Mean 78.9 80.35 Mean 62.15 58.95
df 2 df 2
t Stat -0.071173199 t Stat 1.059335537
257
Appendix Q: Statistical Analysis of 50 MPa Mixes Meeting All Criteria with a 90%
Confidence Level
258
Comparison of 50 MPa Control (Mix #32d) with Mix #33 - Talbot's Grading Curve (binary, Stage 3) [n=0.45], Mix #37 - Talbot's
Grading Curve (binary, Stage 3) [n=0.50], Mix #44c - Talbot's Grading Curve (binary, Stage 4) [n=0.50], and Mix #46 - Talbot's
Grading Curve (binary, Stage 4) [n=0.45]
Variable 1 = Mix #32d, Variable 2 = Mix #33

Mean 72.10501118 70.62704584 Mean -0.034199135 -0.039657873
df 2 df 4
t Stat 1.852186802 t Stat 11.40672227

Mean 332.9933333 292.3833333 Mean 349.21 369.4566667
df 4 df 4
t Stat 3.638652901 t Stat -3.71823392
259

Mean 197.5 205 Mean 992.55 625.05
df 2 df 2
t Stat -0.24913644 t Stat 2.357216541

Mean 278.8 262.75 Mean 54.55 40.15
df 2 df 2
t Stat 0.168713924 t Stat 2.688654917
Variable 1 = Mix #32d, Variable 2 = Mix #44c

Mean 72.10501118 68.72677121 Mean -0.034199135 -0.038712951
df 2 df 4
t Stat 2.305562032 t Stat 4.162812784
260

Mean 332.9933333 218.5966667 Mean 349.21 304.2933333
df 4 df 4
t Stat 9.926072753 t Stat 7.494869496

Mean 197.5 202.5 Mean 992.55 1046.45
df 2 df 2
t Stat -0.175411604 t Stat -0.141444355

Mean 278.8 120.25 Mean 54.55 110.75
df 2 df 2
t Stat 1.710913305 t Stat -5.764633193
261

Mean 72.10501118 60.63404568 Mean -0.034199135 -0.032432065
df 2 df 4
t Stat 8.525321614 t Stat -2.071675714

Mean 332.9933333 212.8466667 Mean 349.21 329.66
df 4 df 4
t Stat 10.71423301 t Stat 3.512930963

Mean 197.5 220 Mean 992.55 673.65
df 2 df 2
t Stat -0.97618706 t Stat 1.663992469
262

Mean 278.8 100.25 Mean 54.55 91.3
df 2 df 2
t Stat 2.21360982 t Stat -3.39779282

Mean 70.62704584 60.63404568 Mean -0.039657873 -0.032432065
df 2 df 4
t Stat 6.987984603 t Stat -8.43861459

Mean 292.3833333 212.8466667 Mean 369.4566667 329.66
df 4 df 4
t Stat 20.74464124 t Stat 15.9050013
P(T<=t) one-tail 1.59514E-05 P(T<=t) one-tail 4.56696E-05
P(T<=t) two-tail 3.19028E-05 P(T<=t) two-tail 9.13392E-05
263

Mean 205 220 Mean 625.05 673.65
Variance 800 50 Variance 2556.125 27401.405
Pooled Variance 425 Pooled Variance 14978.765
df 2 df 2
t Stat -0.727606875 t Stat -0.397098517
Conclusion:

Mean 262.75 100.25 Mean 40.15 91.3
df 2 df 2
t Stat 2.977236782 t Stat -5.439565908
Variable 1 = Mix #37, Variable 2 = Mix #44c

Mean 64.39378545 68.72677121 Mean -0.053317347 -0.038712951
df 2 df 4
t Stat -1.826258693 t Stat -6.377426768
264

Mean 263.7166667 218.5966667 Mean 304.1733333 304.2933333
df 4 df 4
t Stat 5.438088573 t Stat -0.037870931

Mean 215 202.5 Mean 511.5 1046.45
df 2 df 2
t Stat 0.68680282 t Stat -1.525405086

Mean 164.6 120.25 Mean 44.2 110.75
df 2 df 2
t Stat 0.784837442 t Stat -7.779370203
265

Mean 72.10501118 64.39378545 Mean -0.034199135 -0.053317347
df 2 df 4
t Stat 3.912542689 t Stat 9.22845785

Mean 332.9933333 263.7166667 Mean 349.21 304.1733333
df 4 df 4
t Stat 5.288020584 t Stat 8.43832037

Mean 197.5 215 Mean 992.55 511.5
df 2 df 2
t Stat -0.759256602 t Stat 3.116289118
266

Mean 278.8 164.6 Mean 54.55 44.2
df 2 df 2
t Stat 1.347498488 t Stat 1.739987355

Anson-Cartwright Majella 201111 MASc Thesis PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Anson-Cartwright Majella 201111 MASc Thesis PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Optimization of Aggregate Gradation Combinations to

Improve Concrete Sustainability

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements

Copyright by Majella Anson-Cartwright 2011

Master of Applied Science

Department of Civil Engineering

improvement is currently limited by prescriptive grading specifications that require meeting

individual requirements for fine and coarse aggregates.

Standard Specification (OPSS) 1002 used for concrete aggregates.

Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ iv

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... viii

List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. xi

List of Appendices ..................................................................................................................... xviii

List of Abbreviations ..................................................................................................................... xx

Chapter 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background Information ...................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Research Objectives............................................................................................................. 3

1.3 Scope of Research................................................................................................................ 4

Chapter 2 Literature Review............................................................................................................ 6

2.1 Theoretical Particle Packing Models ................................................................................... 6

2.1.1 Modified Toufar Model ........................................................................................... 6

2.1.2 Theory of Particle Mixtures Particle Packing Model .............................................. 8

2.2 Empirical Charts ................................................................................................................ 10

2.2.1 Talbots Grading Curve ......................................................................................... 10

2.2.2 Shilstones Coarseness Factor Chart ..................................................................... 12

2.2.3 8-18 Distribution Chart .......................................................................................... 14

2.3 Summary of Recent Studies on Optimization Techniques for Combined Aggregate

2.4 Fresh Concrete Properties .................................................................................................. 17

2.4.1 Slump ..................................................................................................................... 17

2.4.2 Rheology ................................................................................................................ 17

2.5 Influence of Aggregate Shape and Texture ....................................................................... 26

2.6 Bulk Resistivity ................................................................................................................. 27

3.1 Materials for Laboratory Testing ....................................................................................... 29

3.1.1 Cementitious Material ........................................................................................... 29

3.1.2 Coarse Aggregate................................................................................................... 29

3.1.3 Fine Aggregate....................................................................................................... 34

3.1.4 Intermediate Aggregate ......................................................................................... 36

3.1.5 Chemical Admixtures ............................................................................................ 39

3.2 Mix Designs ....................................................................................................................... 39

3.3 Use of Existing Optimization Techniques to Design Mixtures ......................................... 40

3.3.1 Modified Toufar Particle Packing Model .............................................................. 40

3.3.2 Theory of Particle Mixtures Particle Packing Model ............................................ 41

3.3.3 Talbots Grading Curve ......................................................................................... 41

3.3.4 Shilstones Coarseness Factor Chart ..................................................................... 44

3.3.5 8-18 Distribution Chart .......................................................................................... 49

3.4 Range of Designed Combined Aggregate Gradations ....................................................... 52

3.5 Concrete Mix Design Methodology .................................................................................. 53

3.6 Mixing Procedure .............................................................................................................. 61

3.7 Workability Test Procedures ............................................................................................. 62

3.6.1 Air Content by Pressure Method ........................................................................... 63

3.6.2 Slump Test ............................................................................................................. 63

3.6.3 ICAR Rheometer ................................................................................................... 64

3.8 Evaluation of Fresh Concrete Properties ........................................................................... 73

3.10 Casting and Testing of Cylinder Procedures ..................................................................... 75

3.11 Casting and Testing of Concrete Prisms ............................................................................ 78

3.12 Curing Regime for Cylinders and Prisms .......................................................................... 79

Chapter 4 Results ........................................................................................................................... 80

4.1 Workability ........................................................................................................................ 80

4.2 Compressive Strength ........................................................................................................ 83

4.3 Linear Drying Shrinkage ................................................................................................... 85

4.4 Bulk Resistivity ................................................................................................................. 87

Chapter 5 Analysis and Discussion ............................................................................................... 90

5.1 Analysis of Optimization Techniques ............................................................................... 90