Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 19
19
0.700
Mortar Pull-Out 0.1-in Slip Stress (ksi)
0.600
y = 1.7413x + 0.7656
2
R = 0.6818
0.500
Specified Pull-
Out Stress 0.400
Threshold
0.300
Change in Corr. Pot. (V)
0.200 Prediction Interval Lower Bound
Threshold on Change in Corr. Pot. (V)
0.100
0.000
-0.35 -0.3 -0.25 -0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0
Change in Corr. Pot. (V)
Change in Corr Pot.
where pull-out
threshold intersects
prediction interval
Figure 3. Threshold determination using the prediction interval.
Excel worksheet was developed that demonstrates the calcu- a middle-range performer in that particular test during the
lation of prediction intervals for single- and multiple-predictor correlation testing. The results of this testing were developed
regressions. This tool employs the calculation outlined in according to ASTM practice and are reported based on the
Appendix B. standard deviations measured among the test results. A deter-
mination of bias in the testing methods is not possible at this
time since a known reference sample can not be selected in a
Selection of Confidence Level
universally acceptable manner.
For the threshold determinations performed based on the
data collected in this study, the confidence level was taken
Supplemental Investigations
as 90%. This means that for a given surface and chemical test
of Strand Bond
result, 10% of the pull-out results would be expected to fall
below that prediction interval. This confidence level is lower In addition to testing performed to evaluate the proposed
than the 95% confidence interval that is most commonly used QC testing methods, supplemental investigations were con-
as the basis for probabilistic design in structural engineering ducted to provide insight into the causes of poor bond. These
analysis. Using a confidence level as high as 95% will result in investigations aided in the development and interpretation of
very conservative thresholds for the surface and chemical tests, the results of the QC tests. The supplemental investigations
so a 90% confidence level was used instead. included studies of: (1) surface roughness and distribution
of lubricant residue, (2) the concrete/strand interface, and
(3) local variation of strand diameter. The studies of surface
Precision
roughness included metallographic studies of strand from
A final round of testing using the QC methods that corre- poor and good bonding sources, scanning electron micro-
lated well with bond performance was conducted to provide scopical studies of the strand surface, and study of surface
the basis for a precision statement to be included in the test roughness by electrochemical impedance spectroscopy. Inves-
methods. To determine the precision (i.e., the repeatability) tigation of the concrete/strand interface included a study of the
of the methods, the selected tests were repeated up to six cement hydration at the strand interface, and a petrographic
times on samples of strand obtained from the same source. and chemical investigation of the strand/concrete interface in
This testing was conducted on a single source identified as transfer length prisms in which poor bond was observed.
