Airport Paving Quality
I
n the Fall of 1993, the Vancouver
Airport Authority (YVRAA)
management made the decision to
prepare contract documents for a
pavement expansion project stating
that the contractor would be responsi-
ble for the quality control of the job.
Pavement work included 144,000 m*
( 172,224 yd*) of 380 mm (15 in.) thick
apron paving around the new intema-
tional terminal and 338,000 m*
(404,248 yd*) of 380 mm thick con-
crete in a new 3030 m (9941 ft) long
east-west runway and taxiways on the
north side of the existing airfield.
In addition to contractor quality con-
trol, the YVRAA also elected to follow
the recommendations of several con-
crete technologists knowledgeable in
quality control, and use the standard
compressive strength test for concrete
control.‘** The standard compressive
strength test was selected for the fol-
lowing reasons:
1. Actual variation in concrete
strength is reflected best in the com-
pressive strength test when compared
to other strength test methods.
2. Concrete can be sampled and
specimens can be fabricated in the
field instead of transporting them to
the laboratory.
3. Specimen size is more convenient
for handling in the field in comparison
(Design Concept 1
strength relationship.
4s
Flexural t%mngth
Fig. 1 - General design concept for flexural-compressive
to the flexural test specimen and is less
sensitive to curing conditions and
handling.
4. Cost of fabricating and testing
strength specimens is less.
5. Certified technicians are more fa-
miliar with the compressive strength
test which is more user friendly.
6. Standards for concrete control given
in AC1 214 apply to compressive
strength testing.
7. Proven concrete quality accep-
tance criteria already exists for the
compressive strength test including cri-
teria for investigation of low strength.
8. Quality control by compressive
strength is more likely to avoid low
strength problems resulting from ques-
tionable test results.
9. Acceptance criteria eliminates the
need for strength pay factor equations,
as applied by such agencies as the Fed-
eral Aviation Administration (payment
for pavement), and the contractor is not
likely to be penalized by improper test-
ing practices by subcontracted labora-
tory services.
Quality control program
A quality control/quality assurance
program and technical specifications
that met the design and construction
needs were developed. A quality assur-
ance manager and testing firm were re-
1 Fig. 2 - General design concept for compressive strength-
w/(c+p) relationship.
tained early to provide the quality
assurance aspects of the project; they-
had direct input into quality control and
pavement specifications prior to bid-
ding. The YVRAA stressed the desire
to have an organization in the field that
would work with the contractor’s per-
some1 as a construction team.
Provisions
The contract documents specified the
requirements for quality control. They
required the contractor to provide a
quality control manager and to prepare
a program for review that specifically
detailed how the quality of work would
be maintained by inspection and testing.
The contract documents also speci-
fied the qualification of inspection and
testing personnel within the quality
control organization, the laboratory re-
quirements, and the tests and testing
frequencies.
One month prior to submittal for ac-
ceptance, the contractor was required
to have the source of coarse and fine
aggregates tested by a certified labora-
tory. The contractor was then required
to prepare four laboratory trial mixes
with proposed materials at watcr-ce-
mentitious materials ratios (w/cm) of
0.40 to 0.55 in 0.05 increments at the
upper limit for slump and air content.
Testing of each mix included temper-
Concrete International
ature, slump, air content, unit weight,
time of setting, compressive strength at
7 and 28 days, and flexural strength at
7 and 28 days. The flexural test was
specified to be third-point loading. At
least three specimens were to be tested
at each age. The contractor was then re-
quired to prepare curves showing the
flexural-compressive strength and the
relationship of w/cm to compressive
strength, as depicted in Fig. 1 and 2.
These mixes were to be made within 45
days of submittal for acceptance.
Trial mix requirements stated, “Mix
proportions shall be selected to provide
the required workability, compactabili-
ty, and finishability for slipform and
side-formed paving work without ex-
cessive line aggregate content.” The in-
tent of this provision was to provide a
flag that excessive line aggregate con-
tent in paving mixes should be avoided.
Tests and testing frequency
Once the concrete mix was selected
that met the standards contained in the
specification criteria, quality control
consisted of routine aggregate produc-
tion control, concrete plant control, and
construction control at the placement.
Aggregate plant control was one grada-
tion test per day for each aggregate size
range and one test per week or 2000 m3
(2616 yd3) for flat and elongated parti-
cles, crushed particles, and sand
equivalent.
Routine concrete plant control con-
sisted of scale certification and mixer
performance tests at the start of produc-
tion. Aggregate moisture content of
each size range was determined before
the beginning of production each day
and during each shift thereafter or
whenever the material changed. One
gradation and crushed particles test
was to be made per production shift.
One test per week was required for ag-
gregate specific gravity and absorption,
flat and elongated particles, and sand
equivalent.
Concrete plant control also included
one test for slump, air content, and tem-
perature for each of the first two batches
each day and each 100 m3 (131 yd3)
thereafter or whenever changes in the
uniformity of concrete were observed.
Routine construction control in the
field included one test for slump, air
content, and temperature for the first
load of each day’s production and for
each 1000 m2 (1308 yd2) placed after.
Finally, record tests were performed
on concrete plant samples. One record
test consisting of slump, air content,
September 1997
unit weight, yield, and compressive
strength at 7 and 28 days (two speci-
mens at each age) was required for each
500 m3 (654 yd3) batched but no less
than one test per shift during paving.
The batch to be sampled was randomly
selected.
For the runway and taxiways, two
record tests were required at the start of
paving and for each 25,000 m3 (32,700
yd3) batched but no less than once per
month to include flexural strength cor-
relation tests at 7 and 28 days (average
of three specimens at each age) on the
same batch of concrete. For apron pav-
ing, four flexural strength correlation
tests were required at the start of paving
and for each 5000 m3 (6540 yd3)
batched thereafter.
As seen from the previous criteria,
most of the concrete control, including
routine and record testing, was based
on concrete plant sampling and testing.
The reason for this was twofold. One, it
prevented unacceptable concrete from
leaving the plant and being placed.
Two, the tests on the plant samples
would be most representative of the ac-
tual uniformity of concrete produced
for the job and testing could be per-
formed under better conditions than at
the paver.
Furthermore, strength testing would
be more conservative since the con-
crete would be fresh from the plant and
would not be affected by haul distance,
loss of slump, loss of air, or gain in
temperature, all of which tend to in-
crease indicated strength.3 In other
words, concrete plant samples will nor-
mally produce lower strength than the
same concrete that is sampled at the
paver. Routine testing at the paver was
intended to monitor actual concrete
placed in the work and provide infor-
mation for adjustment of the mix at the
concrete plant.
To confirm that proper quality con-
trol was maintained, the quality assur-
ance organization conducted
companion testing at a rate of approxi-
mately 10 percent of the quality control
testing with the exception of compan-
ion testing for flexural strength, which
was required to be one test for every
two tests conducted by quality control.
Pavement
specification provisions
The contractor was required to select
the specified compressive strength
based on the laboratory trial mixes that
would produce the following:
1. 4 MPa (580 psi) flexural strength
at 28 days on runway and taxiways
except Taxiway 14.
2.4.8 MPa (696 psi) flexural strength
at 28 days on apron paving and Taxi-
way 14.
The contractor was then required to
select a w/cm and submit mix propor-
tions that would produce a compressive
strength of 15 percent above the speci-
fied compressive strength.
The specifications provided for the
adjustment of concrete mixes based on
statistical analysis, satisfactory perfor-
mance, and correlation tests comparing
flexural and compressive strength.
During production, 7-day compressive
strength was monitored and, if found to
be less than 75 percent of the specified
28-day strength, the mix was immedi-
ately checked and adjusted to meet the
criteria.
The concrete mix was required to
meet the compressive strength require-
ments of CAN/CSA-A23.1.4 For stan-
dard cured cylinders, the strength level
of each class of concrete would be con-
sidered satisfactory if the averages of
all sets of three consecutive strength
tests for that class at one age equaled or
exceeded the specified strength, and no
individual strength test was no more
than 3.5 MPa (508 psi) below the spec-
ified strength.
CANICSA-A23.1 a l s o p r o v i d e d
means to address strength issues should
the compressive strength tests fail to
meet the above requirements. If the test
results indicated that the concrete was
not of the specified quality, the owner
would have the right to require one or
more of the following:
a. Changes in the mix proportions for
the remainder of the work.
b. Additional curing on portions of
the pavement represented by the test
specimens that failed to meet the spec-
ified requirements.
c. Nondestructive testing.
d. Cores be drilled from the portions
of the pavement in question and tested.
e. Additional tests that the owner
may specify.
Acceptance criteria for core tests
Concrete in the area represented by the
core tests would be considered adequate:
a. If the average of each set of three
cores from the portion of the pavement
in question equaled at least 85 percent
of the specified strength.
b. If no single core was less than 75
percent of the specified strength.
If, after carrying out the appropriate
47
 6. A nominal maximum size coarse
Table 1 - Laboratory trial mix data aggregate of 40 mm (l-1/2 in.) which
was required to be separated into two
size ranges of approximately equal pro-
portion for gradation control.
7. A limit on variation in the fine-
ness modulus of the fine aggregate to
+/- 0.10.

1994 apron paving

requirements, the owner was not satis-
tied that the concrete in the pavement
was of the specified quality, he could
require replacement of those portions
deemed unsatisfactory.
Other requirements of the concrete
mix included a minimum cementitious
content of 300 kg/m3 (506 lb/yd3) and
supplementary cementing material
(Class F fly ash) not to exceed 25 per-
cent by mass.
Prior to producing the concrete, the
contractor was required to verify the
flexural strength/compressive strength
relationship for the selected mix with
full-size batches using the plant and
The contract was awarded and notice to
proceed was given in mid-March,
1994. The construction schedule re-
quired completion of 27,600 mZ
(33,000 yd2) of apron paving by July
15, 1994 to permit relocation of aircraft
parking for the construction of the new
terminal. Scheduled completion of the
work was critical.
The contractor made two series of
laboratory trial mixes which were com-
pleted in May; one series with a high
fineness modulus (FM = 3.10) manu-
factured line aggregate and one series
with a medium fineness modulus (FM
= 2.70) local natural sand.
Because of the harsh nature of the
concrete made with the manufactured
fine aggregate, the contractor elected to
use the natural sand fine aggregate.
The trial mix series and test results
with the natural sand are given in Table 1.
This series of trial mixes contained all
of the materials that the contractor pro-
posed for the work. Although the labo-
ratory trial mixes did not follow the
specified water-cement plus pozzolan
ratios [w/(c+p)], they did cover a sufft-
cient range to develop a reasonable flex-
ural-compressive strength relationship.
The relationship is shown in Fig. 3,
and indicated that the 4.8 MPa (696
psi) specified flexural strength required
Additional provisions
for the apron paving could be achieved
In addition to strength provisions, other at a compressive strength of 33.2 MPa
provisions were included for the pro- (4814 psi). Therefore, the paving mix
duction of concrete for pavement to as- should be proportioned at a w/(c+p)
sure uniform, high-quality concrete. that would produce a 15 percent over-
The provisions included: design compressive strength of 38.2
1. An on-site central mix, computer MPa (5539 psi).
controlled, automatic batching plant. Fig. 4 shows the compressive
2. A minimum of 60 percent crushed strength-to-w/(c+p) relationship. The
particles in the coarse aggregate frac- indicated w/cm was 0.42. Using an av-
tion (at least one fractured face). erage water demand of 13 1 l/m3 (221
3. Stockpiling of coarse aggregate in lb/yd3) from the laboratory mixes, the
horizontal layers not to exceed 1.5 m required cementitious materials con-
(4.9 ft). tent would be 312 kg/m3 (526 lb/yd3).
4. Coarse aggregate cleanness that All laboratory trial mixes were made
limited the passing 80 micron seive with 20 percent fly ash by mass of to-

processed materials proposed for the
work. The mix or materials could not
be changed without approval and if a
materials source changed, the proposed
mix had to be resubmitted.
I
size fines to less than 0.50 percent and
was more restrictive than ASTM C 33.
5. A limit of 15 percent flat and elon-
gated particles in coarse aggregate
(length-to-thickness ratio greater than 5).
/
tal cementitious material.
The contractor had the on-site batch
plant certified and ready for concrete
production in early May. This was nec-
essary for the production of a ce-

48 Concrete International
 /Laboratory Trial Mixtures - Mav 1994 1 1Laboratow Trial Mixtures - Mav 1994 1

4.5 5 5.5
28 W Flexural Strength, MP~
0.472 o’5
0.56

Fg:3- Results of laboratory trial mixes forflexural-compressive Fig. 4 - Results of laboratory trial mixes for compressive
strength relationship. strenath-w/(c+d relationshio.

/ Plant Trial Mixtures - May 1994 1

1Plant Trial Mixtures - May 1994 1
80 I

0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55

4.5 5 5.5 8 6.5
wl(c+P)
26 Oay Flemal Strength. MPa

Fig. 5 - Results of plant trial mixes for flexural-compressive Fig. 6 - Results of plant trial mixes for compressive strength-
strength relationship. w/fc+d relationshin.

ment-stabilized base that was required
prior to portland cement concrete pav-
ing work. In addition, the construction
schedule required that the concrete
paving begin by the end of May to
complete the critical 1994 apron work
by July 15. Accordingly, there was no
time to wait for the completion of the
laboratory trial mix program before
making plant trial batches to confirm
laboratory proportions. Therefore,
plant trial mixes began on May 12.
Three series of the trials were con-
ducted with 2 m3 (2.6 yd3) batches at
cementitious materials ratios of 300,
345, and 390 kg/m3 (506,582, and 658
lb/yd3) for each series between May 12
and May 26. Each series contained a
slightly different coarse aggregate
blend.
It became apparent that the contrac-
tor would not have 28-day test results
in time to develop a mix that would
meet the specified criteria, and still
meet the construction schedule. The
only recourse was to propose a conser-
vative mix based on both laboratory tri-
als and early strengths on plant trials,
and offer to conduct comparative flex-
Ural-compressive strength testing that
could be used for the remaining paving.
The mix selected contained 345 kg/m3
(582 lb/yd3) of cementitious material.
Both the mix and testing was agreed to
by the YVBAA.
The 28-day test results of the plant
trial mixes are shown in Fig. 5. As can
be seen, the curve for the flexural-com-
pressive strength relationship did not
agree with the laboratory trial mixes.
The curve for the plant trials appeared
to be much flatter. For the specified 4.8
MPa (696 psi) paving mix, the corre-
sponding specified compressive
strength was 34.9 MPa (5061 psi). For
the 15 percent overdesign factor, it was
40.1 MPa (5815 psi).
The plot of compressive strength ver-
sus w/(c+p) in Fig. 6 showed unusually
low compressive strength at the indi-
cated w/cm. Even though the contractor
stated that the water meter had been cal-
ibrated, the batch water or w/cm did not
correspond well with the laboratory tri-
als. In addition, the indicated water de-
mand, which averaged 118 l/m3 (199
lb/yd3) in the plant trials, was well be-
low what the author had experienced
with similar materials and mixes.
Another manner of examining the re-
sults of both the laboratory and plant
trial mix would be to relate compres-
sive strength to the content of cementi-
tious material for both the laboratory
and plant-mixed specimens. This is
shown in Fig. 7 and 8, respectively.
Again, the plant trial mixes indicated an
unusually high value for content of ce-
mentitious material considering the
quality of materials used.
The contractor began concrete pav-
ing on May 3 1 - the submitted mix is

September 1997 49
I Laboratory Trial Mixtures - May 1994 1 Plant Trial Mixtures - May 1994 1

3or...--- _ 1 , , I :. --l-

mo 250 300 350 400 450 200 250 300 350 400 4x
I Cementltious Metarial, kg/m3

Fig. 7- Results of laboratory trial mixes for compressive Fig. 8 - Results of plant trial mixes for compressive strength-
strenoth-cementitious materials relationship. cementitious materials relationship.

Table 2 - Submitted mix proportions for

11994 Apron Paving 1994 paving
Portland cement,* kg/m3 (Ib/yd3) 1 276 (465) 1

1Class F fly ash,’ kg/m’ (Ib/yd3)

Coarse aggregate’
40 to 20 mm (l’/* to 3/4 in.), kg/m3 (lb/yd3) [35 percent]
20 to 5 mm (3/4 in. to No. 4). kg/m3 (lb/yd3) [28 percent]

Fine aggregate: kg/m3 (Ib/yd3) [37 percent] 693 (1168)

Water, l/m3 (lb/yd3) 122 (206)

flex. avg.=5.4
1AEA, l/m3 (ozfyd)) 1 0.173 (4.5) 1

WRA, l/m3 (oz/yd3) 0.656 (16.9)

Unit weight, kg/m3 (lb/ft3) 2370 (148)

Fig. 9 - Results of 1994 apron paving for flexural-compressive

strenath relatiOnShiD.

11994 Apron Paving given in Table 2. Between May 31 and

July 7, 47 comparative record tests were
60 c 1 made on the submitted mix during the
1994 apron paving. Average. maximum-
g 55 47 Tests Laboratory
Trial Mixtures“l minimum values on the batch weights.
sip 50 1 / slump, air content, unit weight. yield. and
strength are given in Table 3.
e!
m
a l 45 Strength test results
3
fg 4 0 l The comparative results on the flexural-
E compressive strength tests at 28 days for
s 35
the 1994 paving are shown in Fig. 9. Re-
P sults indicate a slightly flatter correlation
n flex. avg.=5.4 curve than provided by the laboratory trial
R 30
mixes, as shown in Fig. 10. The plant trial
25
---a
k 1 I I , ,
mix correlation curve is below actual pro-
4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 duction values (see Fig. 11) but appears to
28 Day Flexural Strength, MPa be reasonably parallel.
The average 7-day compressive strength
Fig. 10 - Results of 1994 apron paving for flexural-compressive strength was 97.9 percent of the specified compres-
relationship including the curve for laboratory trial mixes. sive strength of 33.2 MPa (48 14 psi). The

50 Concrete International
lowest individual test value was 67.8
percent of the specified compressive lame 3 - summary OT oarcn welgntsm
strength and occurred early in the pav-
ing work. At no time did the average 7-
day compressive strength fall below 75
percent of the specified compressive
strength.

Statistical summary
A statistical summary of 28-day
strength testing for the 47 tests is
shown in Table 4.
A standard deviation of 2.52 MPa
(365 psi) is considered to be excellent
control for general construction testing
of compressive strength according to
AC1 2 14.5 The coefficient of variation
was identical for both tests. Further-
more, the comparative testing suggests
a recommended maximum standard de- Test data
viation of approximately 0.40 MPa (58 Slump, mm (in.) 35 (1.4) 110 (4.3)
psi) for excellent general construction
Ah content, percent 6.1 8.5
control testing for flexural strength,
which is not currently covered in AC1 Concrete temperature, C (P) 21 (70) 25 (77)
2 14. The standard of control maintained Air temperature, C (P) 20 (68) 24 (75)
on this work certainly supports the ade- Unit weight, kg/m3 (lb/ft3) 2358 (147.2) 2416 (150.8)
quacy of the technical provisions that “8. ;, 1 0 3 . 7
Yteld factor 100.5
were incorporated into the contract.
Compressive strength, MPa (psi):
The three test-moving average as re-
3 days 24.3 (3524) 30.6 (4437)
quired for acceptance of strength tests
7 days 32.5 (4713) 36.6 (5307)
by CANICSA-A23.1 is shown in Fig. 14 days 36.7 (5322) 42.0 (6090)
12. No individual tests were below the 28 days 42.6 (6177) 49.1 (7120)
specified strength of 33.2 MPa (4814
Flexural strength, MPa (psi):
psi). Fig. 13 shows the three test-mov-
3 days 3.5 (508) 4.5 (653)
ing averages for flexural strength. 7 days 4.4 (638) 5.0 (725)
Only one individual test fell below the 14 days 4.8 (696) 5.7 (827)
specified flexural strength of 4.8 MPa 28 days 5.4 (783) 6.3 (914)
(696 psi). The individual value was 4.6 56 days 5.8 (841) 6.3 (914)
MPa (667 psi) and was the result of * Based on yield of 1.000 m3 (l.GOO yd3) and test data.
testing a batch of concrete with an air
content of 8.5 percent, which should
have been rejects d.
The statistical summary shows that Table 4 - Summary of 28-day strength testing
the mix containing 345 kg/m3 (582 Critical
Standard Coefficient of
lb/yd”) was conservative. The results averagefcr*
Average deviation qation, percent
show that the flexural strength contri-
bution was 5.41345 = 0.0157 MPalkg of Compressive 42.62 MPa 2.52 MPa
5.9
36.42 MPa
cementitious material. The optimum strength I (6180 psi) (365 psi) (5281 psi)
mix would be 5.4 - 5.21 = 0.19 MPa 5.40 MPa 0.32 MPa 5.21 MPa
Plexural strength 5.9
and 345 - (0.19/0.0156) = 333 kg/m3 (783 psi) (4 psi) (756 psi)
I
(561 lb/yd3) of cementitious material * Based en probability of one in 10 tests failing below the specified suenath.
for the 4.8 MPa (696 psi) flexural
strength requirement based on the con-
trol that was maintained. the predicted average compressive (5539 psi) compressive strength, which
A flexural-compressive strength rela- strength would be 39.46 MPa (5722 is the 15 percent overdesign strength
tionship was developed by the U.S. psi), which is 7.4 percent below the ac- based on the laboratory trial mixes, it
Army Engineer Waterways Experi- tual average value of 42.62 MPa (6 180 would not have produced an average
ment Station.6 Based on approximately psi) obtained. This difference would flexural strength sufficient for no more
190 series of testings, they obtained the support the need to develop the flexural- than 10 percent of the tests below 4.8
following compressive strength relationship for MPa (696 psi).
compressive strength (psi) = -2123 the specific materials used in each The comparative test data from this
+ (10.02 x flexural strength (psi)) project. project suggests that mix proportions
Using the average flexural strength Results also show that if the mix had should be selected to produce at least a
of 5.40 MPa (783 psi) from this project, been proportioned to produce 38.2 MPa 20 percent overdesign in compressive

September 1997 51
 / 1994 Apron Paving [ 1994 Apron Paving

L
$ 55 ; 47 Tests

f t
ii 45 F 1 fc avg.= 42.6
‘p 40 t n

5 35: n
c*
c- Trial Mixtures
[30; *CC--
/ flex. avg. = 5.4
25i.--. -L----J Fig. 12 -Three test-moving average on 28-day compressive
4 4.5 5 55 6 6.5
28 Day Flexural Stm@h. MPa strenath for 1994 apron pavina.

Fig. II- Results of 1994 apron paving forflexural-compressive

strenath relationshio includina the curve for plant trial mixes. I1994 Apron Paving 1
I
g 55 47 Tests
i 1994 Apron Paving 1

i flex. avg.=5 4

I
251, j ”
4 4.5 5 55 6 65
28 Day Flexural strer@h, MPa

Fig. 14-Results of 1994apron pavingforflexural-compressive

Fig. 13 - Three test-moving average on 28-day flexural strength relationship including critical average strength fcr
strength for 1994 apron paving. (dash lines) calculated from flexural strength test results.

,I994 Apron Paving 1 1

Fig. 15 - Critical average compressive strength fc, based on by
1994 apron paving flexural strength test results.
strength. Furthermore, a sufficient
number of comparative tests should be
made to establish the f,, for flexural
strength. This value should then be
used with the production correlation
curve to establish the fcr for compres-
sive strength, as shown in Fig. 14. The
specified compressive strength should
then be determined from the standard
deviation on comparative compressive
strength results, strength testing only. A factor in this
working backwards decision was that it was clear that the
from thex.r. The ad- minimum content of cementitious ma-
justed f,, and speci- terial of 300 kg/m3 (506 lb/yd3) would
fied compressive easily achieve the 4.0 MPa (580 psi)
strength are shown in flexural strength for the runway and
Fig. 15. This proce- taxiway paving with the control that
dure provides the was being maintained.
most reasonable and It is hoped that presentation of the data
accurate means of developed from the 1994 paving can be
establishing control used by others to better understand the
of flexural strength flexural-compressive strength relationship
compressive so that concrete control by compressive
strength testing. The strength will be more widely accepted.
disadvantage of us-
ing this procedure is on small paving
projects, where there may not be justi- Summary
fication for the extent of comparative The Vancouver International Airport
flexural-compressive strength testing Expansion Project was an excellent op-
needed. portunity to apply concrete control by
Despite the favorable results ob- compressive strength. It had manage-
tained from the 1994 apron paving ment support in the preparation of the
work, the contractor and YVRAA quality control/quality assurance provi-
agreed to discontinue comparative test- sions and pavement provisions for the
ing and complete work with flexural work.

52 Concrete International
 The concept specified was a practical
means of developing the flexural-com-
pressive strength relationship and mon-
itoring actual concrete production.
Required materials and production fa-
cihties were intended to assure high
quality, consistent concrete from batch
to batch, which is essential in slipform
paving.
Because of constraints in the con-
struction schedule, proper prepaving
testing was not possible. However, the
decision on the concrete mix to be used
and on the extent of comparative test-
ing proved to be appropriate under the
conditions. Analysis of the quality con-
troi data showed that excellent con-
struction control was obtained in the
1994 apron paving work and that the
concrete mix proportions met specifi-
cation criteria. The coefficient of varia-
tion was identical (5.9 percent) for both
flexural and compressive strength test-
ing. The analysis also indicated that a
20 percent overdesign factor on com-
pressive strength is advisable in the se-
lection of mix proportions from the
flexural-compressive strength relation-
ship developed in the laboratory.
Finally, it is recommended that sufti-
cient comparative testing be used dur-
ing initial construction to develop anfCl
value for flexural strength and deter-
mine an appropriate specified compres-
sive strength based on that value.
Acknowledgment
This article is dedicated to Mr. Ken Strauss, Con-
struction Manager for the Vancouver Airport Ex-
pansion Project, who passed away of cancer
during the summer of 1994, during initial con-
struction of the project. Ken was the driving force
behind getting the concepts that are presented in
this article incorporated into the project specifi-
cations for the airfield paving work.
References
1. Walker, S., and Bloem, D.L., “‘Studies of
Flexural Strength of Concrete: Part 3 - Effects
of Variations in Testing Procedures,” Joint Re-
search Laboratory Publicarion No. 6, National
Sand and Gravel Association and National
Ready-Mixed Concrete Association, Aug. 1957.
2. Meininger, R.C., and Nelson, N.R., “Con-
Crete Mix Evaluation and Acceptance for Air
Field Pavements,” NRMCA Publication No. 178,
National Ready-Mixed Concrete Association,
Sept. 1991.
3. ‘Brthill, Lewis H., “Games People Play with
Concrete,” AC1 JOURNAL , Proceedings V. 73, No.
12, Dec. 1976, pp. 671-678.
4. “Concrete Materials and Methods of Con-
Crete Construction,” CAN/CSA-A23.1-M90, Ca-
nadian Standards Association, Mar. 1990.
5. AC1 214-77(89), Recommended Practice for
Evaluation of Sttength Test Results of Concrete,
MCP-2, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1989.
6. “Concrete Strength Relationships,” Army
Engineer Waterways Expertment Statton, Publr-
catmz AD/A-003 170, National Technical Infor-
mation Service, Dec. 1974.
Selected for reader interest by the editors.
AC1 Fellow Gary R.
: Mass is a concrete
consultant in Little-
ton, Colo. He was a
member of the
Denver Int’l Airport
project manage-
ment team for the
airfield pavement during construc-
tion of the airport, and was involved
in the quality control/quality assur-
ante program for the Vancouver,
British Columbia Airport paving ex-
pansion project. He is a member of
ACI Committees 210, Deterioration
of Concrete in Hydraulic Structures;
211, Proportioning of Concrete Mix-
tures; 221, Aggregates; 304, Mea-
suring, Mixing, Transporting, and
Placing Concrete; 309,
Consolida-
tion of Concrete; 325, Concrete
Pavements: and 552. Geotechnical
Cement Grouting.