Self-Consolidating Concrete for Cast-in-Place Bridge Components (2016)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

5 Research Approach 1.1 Literature Review and Survey An extensive literature review was conducted to determine the properties of self-consolidating concrete (SCC) that are relevant to the design and construction of cast-in-place bridge components and thus necessary to consider in the experimen- tal investigation; these properties are shown in Figure 1-1. Also, a survey of 17 state departments of transportation was conducted to identify the constituent materials, test methods, and performance requirements that are relevant for cast-in- place bridge construction. Findings of the literature review and survey results are summarized in Appendix A. 1.2 Experimental Investigation The experimental investigation was conducted on 40 normal- weight SCC mixtures containing two types of coarse aggregate (crushed limestone and natural gravel) with three nominal maximum sizes of aggregate (NMSAs) (¾, ½, and 3⁄8 in.), three types of supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) (Class C fly ash, Class F fly ash, and ground granulated blast-furnace slag [GGBFS]), and one filler (limestone powder [LSP]). LSP was included in some mixtures because some earlier stud- ies have indicated a possible synergistic effect/reaction with the C3A in the system that enhances the reactivity of the other con- stituents, such as cement and fly ash (Cost and Bohme, 2012; Beeralingegowda and Gundakalle, 2013; and Bucher, 2009). Six normal-weight conventionally vibrated concrete (CVC) mixtures that represent AASHTO LRFD Class A(AE) and Class C(AE) concrete were included in the experimental investigation as examples of mixtures commonly used in cast-in-place bridge design and construction (AASHTO, 2014; AASHTO, 2010). All SCC and CVC mixtures had port- land cement type I/II, AASHTO M 6 natural sand, and were air entrained. Table 1-1 lists the chemical composition of the cement, SCMs, and filler, and Figure 1-2 shows the particle size distribution of the fine and coarse aggregates used in the experimental investigation (details of the physical and chemical properties of the constituent materials are presented in Appen- dix B). The performance of CVC mixtures was compared to the performance of SCC mixtures especially when AASHTO LRFD evaluation criteria were not available. Table 1-2 lists the combi- nation of constituent materials considered in the experimental investigation, each of which represents a concrete mixture for a total of 46 mixtures (40 SCC and 6 CVC mixtures). The proce- dures for proportioning the SCC mixtures and testing the fresh, early-age, and hardened concrete properties are described in the following sections. 1.2.1 Proportioning SCC Mixtures Proportioning SCC mixtures is different from proportion- ing CVC mixtures because workability targets, rather than compressive strength, usually control the proportioning of the mixture. Workability targets were identified for the different geometric characteristics of bridge components and produc- tion and placement conditions. The geometric characteristics of a bridge component include length, depth, thickness, shape intricacy, formed surface quality, and level of reinforcement (i.e., intensity and spacing). Production and placement condi- tions include mixing energy, transport time, placement tech- nique, and temperature. For simplicity, each of the geometric characteristics was classified as either “high” or “low.” Table 1-3 shows the value/definition used to describe the classes of each geometric characteristic based on the literature (Daczko, 2012; EFNARC, 2005). Similarly, two classes were used to describe each of the three key workability properties of SCC: filling ability (FA), segregation resistance (SR), and passing ability (PA). Table 1-4 shows the value/range of the parameters used to describe the two classes of each workability property based on the literature (EFNARC, 2005; Daczko, 2012; ACI 237, 2007; Khayat and Mitchell, 2009); these values/ranges might be adjusted according to the production and placement condi- tions (PCI, 2003). C H A P T E R 1

SCC Properties Fresh Concrete Properties Rheology Workability Retention Air Content Workability Properties Filling Ability Passing Ability Static Stability Dynamic Stability Early-Age Concrete Properties Formwork Pressure Heat of Hydration Time of Setting Hardened Concrete Properties Mechanical Properties Compressive Strength Tensile Strength Modulus of Rupture Shear Resistance Bond Strength Modulus of Elasticity Visco-Elastic Properties Drying Shrinkage Restrained Shrinkage Creep Durability Properties Surface Resistivity Air Void System Figure 1-1. SCC properties considered in the experimental investigation. Component Component Content by Percentage for Type I/II Cement Class C Fly Ash Class F Fly Ash GGBFS Limestone Powder (coarse) SiO2 20.10 42.46 50.87 31.63 1.56 Al2O3 4.44 19.46 20.17 11.30 – Fe2O3 3.09 5.51 5.27 0.34 0.48 SO3 3.18 1.20 0.61 3.30 1.77 CaO 62.94 21.54 15.78 41.31 52.77 MgO 2.88 4.67 3.19 10.77 0.48 Na2O 0.10 1.42 0.69 0.19 0.03 K2O 0.61 0.68 1.09 0.36 0.09 P2O5 0.06 0.84 0.44 0.02 – TiO2 0.24 1.48 1.29 0.56 – SrO 0.09 0.32 0.35 0.04 – BaO – 0.67 0.35 – – LOI 2.22 0.19 0.07 – 42.50 Table 1-1. Chemical composition of cement, SCM, and filler. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0.1 1 10 100 Pe rc en ta ge pa ss in g Sieve size, mm Limestone 3/4 in. Limestone 1/2 in. Limestone 3/8 in. Gravel 3/4 in. Gravel 1/2 in. Gravel 3/8 in. Fine Aggregate Figure 1-2. Particle size distribution of fine and coarse aggregates.

Coarse Aggregate SCC Mixtures CVC Mixtures Number of Mixtures Type NMSA (in.) Cement Type I/II+ 25% Class C Fly Ash Cement Type I/II+ 25% Class F Fly Ash Cement Type I/II+ 30% GGBFS Cement Type I/II+ 20% Class F Fly Ash + 15% LSP Cement Type I/II + 25% Class F Fly Ash Low Slump Flow High Slump Flow Low Slump Flow High Slump Flow Low Slump Flow High Slump Flow Low Slump Flow High Slump Flow Crushed Limestone (AASHTO M 43) 3/4 (No. 67) X X X X X X X X X 9 1/2 (No. 78) X X X X X X X X X 9 3/8 (No. 8) X X X X X 5 Natural Gravel (AASHTO M 43) 3/4 (No. 67) X X X X X X X X X 9 1/2 (No. 78) X X X X X X X X X 9 3/8 (No. 8) X X X X X 5 Number of Mixtures 4 6 4 6 4 6 4 6 6 46 Table 1-2. Constituent materials of SCC and CVC mixtures. Component Geometric Characteristic Class Value/Definition Length Low ≤ 33 ft High > 33 ft Depth Low ≤ 16 ft High > 16 ft Thickness Low ≤ 8 in. High > 8 in. Shape Intricacy Low Concrete flows in a single direction High Concrete flows around corners and cutouts Formed Surface Quality Low Unexposed to the traveling public High Exposed to the traveling public Level of Reinforcement Low Large spacing between bars (≥ 3 in.) High Small spacing between bars (< 3 in.) Table 1-3. Classes of component geometric characteristics. Workability Property Class Value/Range Application Filling Ability (FA) FA1 22 in. ≤ Slump Flow < 26 in. Simple sections FA2 26 in. ≤ Slump Flow ≤ 30 in. Complex sections or high formed surface quality Passing Ability (PA) PA1 80% > Filling Capacity ≥ 70% 2 in. < J-Ring ∆D ≤ 4 in. 0.6 in. < J-Ring ∆H ≤ 0.8 in. Wide spacing between reinforcing bars PA2 Filling Capacity ≥ 80% J-Ring ∆D ≤ 2 in. J-Ring ∆H ≤ 0.6 in. Narrow spacing between reinforcing bars Segregation Resistance (SR) SR1 10% < Column Segregation ≤ 15% 0.5 in. < Penetration ≤ 1 in. VSI = 1 Short or shallow components SR2 Column Segregation ≤ 10% Penetration ≤ 0.5 in. VSI = 0 Long or deep components Table 1-4. Classes of SCC workability properties.

8Figure 1-3 illustrates the process for selecting the work- ability target value/range for a specific bridge component based on its geometric characteristics. This process results in a three-digit identification (one of the eight identifications shown at the bottom of Figure 1-3) that describes the desired target workability with respect to FA, SR, and PA classes. For example, the 111 identification indicates a mixture with the workability properties FA1, SR1, and PA1. Table 1-5 shows the proposed workability targets for examples of substructure and superstructure bridge components; these workability targets were used to proportion SCC mixtures for the experimental investigation. In addition, requirements for hardened con- crete properties, such as compressive strength and air void system, were suggested based on the survey findings and were Figure 1-3. Process for determining workability targets. Component Category Bridge Component Component Geometric Characteristics SCC Workability Targets Length Depth Thickness Shape Intricacy Formed Surface Quality Level of Reinforce- ment Workability Property Classes* ID Su bs tr uc tu re Footing Low Low High Low Low Low FA1, SR1, PA1 111 Pile Cap Low Low High Low Low High FA1, SR1, PA2 112 Wing Wall Low Low High Low Low Low FA1, SR1, PA1 111 Abutment Wall High High High Low Low Low FA1, SR2, PA1 121 Pier Wall Low High High High High Low FA2, SR2, PA1 221 Pier Column Low High High Low High High FA2, SR2, PA2 222 Strut or Tie Low Low High Low High Low FA2, SR1, PA1 211 Pier Cap Low Low High Low High High FA2, SR1, PA2 212 Su pe rs tr uc tu re Box Girder High Low Low High High High FA2, SR2, PA2 222 Stringer Low Low High Low Low High FA1, SR1, PA2 112 Floor Beam Low Low High Low Low Low FA1, SR1, PA1 111 Girder High Low Low Low High High FA2, SR2, PA2 222 Arch High High High Low High Low FA2, SR2, PA1 221 * For long/deep components, SR1 could be acceptable if free-fall height/free-travel distance are controlled (e.g., tremie pipe). Table 1-5. Proposed workability targets for examples of cast-in-place bridge components.

9 considered in proportioning the SCC mixtures. Also, the prop- erties of constituent materials, such as aggregate shape, angu- larity and absorption, and SCM/filler type and fineness, could affect the proportioning of the mixtures. Several approaches for proportioning SCC mixtures reported in the literature were reviewed and evaluated (Okamura and Ozawa, 1995; EFNARC, 2002; Bui, Akkaya, and Shah, 2002; PCI, 2003; GRACE, 2005; ACI 237, 2007; Koehler and Fowler, 2007; Domone, 2009; Kheder and Al Jadiri, 2010). The mixture proportioning procedure for SCC proposed by Koehler and Fowler (2007) was chosen for cast- in-place bridge application because it considers the effect of aggregate gradation, shape, and angularity and uses stan- dard workability test methods to identify necessary param- eters. However, consideration was given to the water content requirement for different NMSAs proposed in ACI 211 (2008); and the powder content and aggregate volume recommended in ACI 237 (2007). CVC mixtures were proportioned accord- ing to ACI 211.4R-08 procedures. The selected SCC mixture proportioning procedure uses the 0.45 power curve (Shilstone, 1990) to determine the sand- to-aggregate (S/A) ratio that provides the optimum combined gradation of fine and coarse aggregates. This gradation pro- duces a high packing density, reduces the demand for high- range water-reducing admixture (HRWRA), and improves plastic viscosity. The optimal S/A ratios for the mixtures used in the project were 0.45 for ¾ in. NMSA, 0.47 for ½ in. NMSA, and 0.5 for 3⁄8 in. NMSA (more information on this procedure is provided in Attachment B). Tables 1-6 and 1-7 show the proportions of SCC and CVC mixtures containing limestone and gravel aggregate, respec- tively, used in the experimental investigation. Aggregate weights shown in these tables were calculated using saturated surface dry conditions. The unit weight measured for the mix- tures ranged from 135 to 146 lb/ft3, which meets the AASHTO LRFD definition for normal-weight concrete. The weight of the limestone powder was included in the total powder content and in calculating the water/powder (W/P) ratio. Table 1-8 lists the proposed test methods, test standard/source, target values/ ranges, and time(s) of testing, which were selected based on the literature review findings and current practices of state depart- ments of transportation. Table 1-9 lists the properties tested and the number of specimens for each test for the mixtures containing one type of aggregate; the same test matrix was con- ducted for the mixtures containing the other type of aggregate. 1.2.2 Fresh Concrete Properties Rheology Rheological properties of all SCC and CVC mixtures were characterized using mortar and concrete rheometers (one sample for each rheometer). Mortar samples were sieved using a No. 4 sieve and tested using a mortar rheometer according to ASTM C1749 to determine the Bingham model parameters— dynamic yield stress and plastic viscosity (ACI 237, 2007). Other rheological properties, such as static yield stress and thixotropy, were also determined using the mortar rheometer. The sample was placed in a 2 in. diameter by 4 in. tall cylin- drical vessel and sheared by a 0.6 × 1.2 in. vane spindle using a predetermined loading history. The rheological properties of the mortar were determined from the shear stress versus shear rate relationship. For the concrete rheometer, each concrete sample was poured in a bowl for testing using an H-shaped impeller (Hu and Wang, 2011). To obtain a uniform sample, the concrete sample was pre-sheared at 0.2 rev/sec for 25 sec, stopped for 25 sec, loaded for 100 sec by increasing impeller speed from 0 to 1 rev/sec, and finally unloaded for 100 sec by decreasing impeller speed to 0. Basic concrete rheological properties (i.e., yield stress and viscosity) were determined from the flow curve for each sample obtained by plotting the torque versus speed. Workability Properties The key workability properties of SCC mixtures are FA, PA, and stability (static and dynamic). These properties (except dynamic stability) were evaluated using the standard test method (no standard test method is available for dynamic stability). The FA of SCC mixtures was determined according to the slump flow test method (AASHTO T 347) using the inverted mold procedure. The average final diameter of SCC spread in two perpendicular directions (slump flow) and the time it takes the outer edge of concrete to reach the 20 in. diameter mark on the base plate (T50) were determined. The PA of all SCC mixtures was determined using the J-ring test method (AASHTO T 345) and described by two param- eters: DD—the difference between the slump flows measured in restrained and unrestrained conditions (i.e., with and without J-ring) and DH—the difference between the height of the concrete patty in the middle of the J-ring and the aver- age height at four points around the perimeter of the J-ring. The caisson test method (AASHTO T 349) was used to mea- sure the filling capacity of SCC, which is the ability of fresh SCC to fill the forms while passing through cross bars located at 2 in. spacing in the horizontal and vertical directions with- out segregation. This test is suited for reinforced concrete sec- tions with congested reinforcement. The static stability of SCC mixtures was determined using four test methods: penetration (ASTM C1712), column segre- gation (ASTM C1610), visual stability index (VSI) (AASHTO T 351), and hardened visual stability index (HVSI) (AASHTO PP 58). The penetration test was conducted twice: one time

AEA = air-entraining admixture Mixture Type SCMs/Fillers Flowability NMSA, in. 3/4 1/2 3/4 1/2 3/8 3/4 1/2 3/4 1/2 3/8 3/4 1/2 3/4 1/2 3/8 3/4 1/2 3/4 1/2 3/8 3/4 1/2 3/8 Mixture ID 111 121 211 221 222 111 121 211 221 222 111 121 211 221 222 111 121 211 221 222 No. 67 No. 78 No. 8 Cement Type I/II, lb/cy 531 535 568 572 587 531 535 568 572 587 521 525 539 543 558 456 460 488 491 504 494 553 572 SCM, lb/cy 177 178 189 191 196 177 178 189 191 196 223 225 231 233 239 140 141 150 151 155 165 184 191 Filler, lb/cy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 105 106 113 113 116 0 0 0 Coarse Agg., lb/cy 1,542 1,462 1,518 1,439 1,334 1,542 1,462 1,518 1,439 1,334 1,542 1,462 1,530 1,450 1,345 1,542 1,462 1,518 1,439 1,334 1,674 1,485 1,350 Natural Sand, lb/cy 1,262 1,297 1,242 1,276 1,334 1,262 1,297 1,242 1,276 1,334 1,262 1,297 1,252 1,286 1,345 1,262 1,297 1,242 1,276 1,334 1,193 1,271 1,356 Water, lb/cy 280 295 280 295 305 280 295 280 295 305 280 295 280 295 305 280 295 280 295 305 280 295 305 HRWRA, oz/cwt 12.0 14.0 12.0 16.0 13.0 6.0 4.0 8.0 8.0 13.0 12.0 10.0 18.0 16.0 15.0 11.0 9.0 12.0 12.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 VMA, oz/cwt 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 AEA, oz/cwt 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Total Weight, lb/cy 3,792 3,767 3,797 3,772 3,756 3,792 3,767 3,797 3,772 3,756 3,828 3,803 3,832 3,807 3,792 3,786 3,761 3,790 3,765 3,749 3,806 3,788 3,774 Total Aggregate, lb/cy 2,804 2,759 2,760 2,714 2,669 2,804 2,759 2,760 2,714 2,669 2,804 2,759 2,782 2,737 2,691 2,804 2,759 2,760 2,714 2,669 2,867 2,756 2,706 Total Powder, lb/cy 708 713 757 763 783 708 713 757 763 783 744 750 770 776 797 702 707 751 756 776 659 738 763 W/P Ratio 0.40 0.41 0.37 0.39 0.39 0.40 0.41 0.37 0.39 0.39 0.38 0.39 0.36 0.38 0.38 0.40 0.42 0.37 0.39 0.39 0.43 0.40 0.40 S/A Ratio 0.45 0.47 0.45 0.47 0.50 0.45 0.47 0.45 0.47 0.50 0.45 0.47 0.45 0.47 0.50 0.45 0.47 0.45 0.47 0.50 0.42 0.46 0.50 Paste Volume % 37.0% 38.0% 38.0% 39.0% 40.0% 37.0% 38.0% 38.0% 39.0% 40.0% 37.0% 38.0% 37.5% 38.5% 39.5% 37.0% 38.0% 38.0% 39.0% 40.0% 36.0% 38.5% 39.6% Coarse Agg. Vol. % 34.4% 32.6% 33.9% 32.1% 29.8% 34.4% 32.6% 33.9% 32.1% 29.8% 34.4% 32.6% 34.1% 32.4% 30.0% 34.4% 32.6% 33.9% 32.1% 29.8% 37.4% 33.1% 30.1% SCC Mixtures CVC Mixtures 25% Class C Fly Ash 25% Class F Fly Ash 30% GGBFS 20% Class F Fly Ash + 15% LSP 25% Class F Fly Ash Low slump flow High slump flow 2 - 4 in. slumpLow slump flow High slump flow Low slump flow High slump flow Low slump flow High slump flow Table 1-6. Proportions of SCC and CVC mixtures containing limestone aggregate.

AEA = air-entraining admixture Mixture Type SCMs/Fillers Flowability NMSA, in. 3/4 1/2 3/4 1/2 3/8 3/4 1/2 3/4 1/2 3/8 3/4 1/2 3/4 1/2 3/8 3/4 1/2 3/4 1/2 3/8 3/4 1/2 3/8 Mixture ID 111 121 211 221 222 111 121 211 221 222 111 121 211 221 222 111 121 211 221 222 No. 67 No. 78 No. 8 Cement Type I/II, lb/cy 494 498 568 572 587 494 498 568 572 587 485 489 539 543 558 440 444 488 491 504 459 516 534 SCM, lb/cy 165 166 189 191 196 165 166 189 191 196 208 209 231 233 239 135 137 150 151 155 153 172 178 Filler, lb/cy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 102 102 113 113 116 0 0 0 Coarse Agg., lb/cy 1,580 1,497 1,530 1,450 1,344 1,580 1,497 1,530 1,450 1,344 1,580 1,497 1,543 1,462 1,355 1,567 1,486 1,530 1,450 1,344 1,674 1,485 1,350 Natural Sand, lb/cy 1,292 1,328 1,252 1,286 1,344 1,292 1,328 1,252 1,286 1,344 1,292 1,328 1,262 1,296 1,355 1,282 1,317 1,252 1,286 1,344 1,277 1,358 1,455 Water, lb/cy 280 295 280 295 305 280 295 280 295 305 280 295 280 295 305 280 295 280 295 305 260 275 285 HRWRA, oz/cwt 5.0 5.0 9.0 5.0 8.0 7.0 4.0 7.0 5.0 5.5 6.0 5.0 10.0 7.0 7.5 3.0 3.0 6.0 7.5 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 VMA, oz/cwt 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 AEA, oz/cwt 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Total Weight, lb/cy 3,811 3,784 3,819 3,793 3,776 3,811 3,784 3,819 3,793 3,776 3,844 3,818 3,854 3,829 3,812 3,807 3,781 3,813 3,787 3,769 3,823 3,806 3,803 Total Aggregate, lb/cy 2,872 2,825 2,782 2,736 2,688 2,872 2,825 2,782 2,736 2,688 2,872 2,825 2,805 2,758 2,711 2,849 2,803 2,782 2,736 2,688 2,951 2,843 2,805 Total Powder, lb/cy 659 664 757 763 783 659 664 757 763 783 692 698 770 776 797 677 683 751 756 776 612 688 713 W/P Ratio 0.43 0.44 0.37 0.39 0.39 0.43 0.44 0.37 0.39 0.39 0.40 0.42 0.36 0.38 0.38 0.41 0.43 0.37 0.39 0.39 0.43 0.40 0.40 S/A Ratio 0.45 0.47 0.45 0.47 0.50 0.45 0.47 0.45 0.47 0.50 0.45 0.47 0.45 0.47 0.50 0.45 0.47 0.45 0.47 0.50 0.43 0.48 0.52 Paste Volume % 36.0% 37.0% 38.0% 39.0% 40.0% 36.0% 37.0% 38.0% 39.0% 40.0% 36.0% 37.0% 37.5% 38.5% 39.5% 36.5% 37.5% 38.0% 39.0% 40.0% 33.9% 36.3% 37.4% Coarse Agg. Vol. % 34.7% 32.9% 33.6% 31.9% 29.5% 34.7% 32.9% 33.6% 31.9% 29.5% 34.7% 32.9% 33.9% 32.1% 29.8% 34.5% 32.7% 33.6% 31.9% 29.5% 37.4% 33.1% 30.1% SCC Mixtures CVC Mixtures Low slump flow High slump flow 2 - 4 in. slumpLow slump flow High slump flow Low slump flow High slump flow Low slump flow High slump flow 25% Class C Fly Ash 25% Class F Fly Ash 30% GGBFS 20% Class F Fly Ash + 15% LSP 25% Class F Fly Ash Table 1-7. Proportions of SCC and CVC containing gravel aggregate.

12 while performing the slump flow test and another time while performing the J-ring test as recommended in practice. The HVSI test was conducted on three hardened concrete cylin- ders for quality assurance. The flow trough test was selected to evaluate the dynamic stability of SCC mixtures because of its simplicity (Lange et al., 2008). Twelve high slump flow SCC mixtures with ¾, ½, and 3⁄8 in. nominal maximum size limestone aggregate were tested using the original flow trough test. The test was then modified, and 12 high slump flow SCC mixtures with ¾, ½, and 3⁄8 in. nominal maximum size gravel aggregate were tested using the modified flow trough test. The original trough is made of wood with internal dimensions of 6 × 6 × 72 in. and an inclined angle of 7°. SCC samples are taken using 4 × 8 in. cylinders before and after flowing in the trough, and the paste is washed on a No. 4 sieve. The dynamic segregation index is determined from change in coarse aggregate content between the two samples (similar to the column segregation procedure). Two modifications were proposed to make the test more operator friendly and enhance the sampling qual- ity. These modifications, shown in Figure 1-4, include using 6 in. diameter PVC half pipe inside the form to accelerate the concrete flow and reduce the amount of concrete needed to conduct the test and using 6 in. × 6 in. cylinders to collect con- crete before and after flowing, which simplifies the sampling process and increases the sample size. With these modifications, Property Test Method Standard/Source Target Values/Ranges Time(s) of Testing Mortar Rheometer ASTM C1749 For Comparison Only Immediate Concrete Rheometer Hu and Wang (2011) For Comparison Only Immediate Filling Ability Slump Flow and T50 AASHTO T 347 22 - 30 in., 1 - 6 sec Immediate J-Ring AASHTO T 345 ∆D ≤ 2 in., ∆Η ≤ 0.6 in. Immediate Caisson AASHTO T 349 ≥ 70% Immediate Visual Stability Index (VSI) AASHTO T 351 0 , 1 Immediate Hardened Visual Stability Index (HVSI) AASHTO PP 58 0 , 1 28 days Column Segregation ASTM C1610 ≤ 15% Immediate Penetration ASTM C1712 ≤ 1 in. Immediate Dynamic Stability Flow Trough Lange, et al. (2008) ≤ 20% Immediate Workability Retention Slump Flow Retention Khayat and Mitchell (2009) ≤ 2.5 in. per 30 min 30, 60, 90 min Air Content Pressure Method AASHTO T 152 6 ± 1.5% Immediate Formwork Pressure Pressure Vessel Assaad, et al. (2003) P <= Phydrostatic 1 - 12 hr Isothermal Calorimetry ASTM C1702 For Comparison Only 0 - 24 hr Semi-Adiabatic Calorimetry RILEM 119-TCE For Comparison Only 0 - 24 hr Time of Setting Penetration Resistance AASHTO T 197 For Comparison Only 3 - 12 hr Compressive Strength Compressing 4x8 in. Cylinders AASHTO T 22 min 4,000 - 6,000 psi 7, 14, 28, 56 days Modulus of Elasticity Compressometer for 4x8 in. Cylinders ASTM C469 AASHTO LRFD 5.4.2.4 28 days Tensile Strength Splitting 4x8 in. Cylinders AASHTO T 198 AASHTO LRFD 5.4.2.7 28 days Modulus of Rupture Simple Beam with Third-Point Loading AASHTO T 97 AASHTO LRFD 5.4.2.6 28 days Pull-out of Vertical Bars RILEM/CEB/FIB. 1970 Comparison to CVC 28 days Pull-out of Horizontal Bars RILEM/CEB/FIB. 1970 Comparison to CVC 28 days Push-off Test Mattock and Hawkins, 1972 AASHTO LRFD 5.8.4.1 28 days Beam Test Lachemi, et al., 2005 AASHTO LRFD 5.8.3.3 28 days Drying Shrinkage AASHTO T 160 AASHTO LRFD 5.4.2.3.3 7, 14, 28, 56 days Restrained Shrinkage ASTM C1581 Comparison to CVC 28 days Creep Two 6x12 in. Cylinders ASTM C512 AASHTO LRFD 5.4.2.3.2 28 - 365 days Air Void System Linear-Traverse Method ASTM C457 For Comparison Only 28 days Surface Resistivity Four Point Wenner Array Probe AASHTO TP 95 For Comparison Only 28 days H ar de ne d C on cr et e Pr op er tie s Bond Strength Shear Resistance Shrinkage Fr es h C on cr et e Pr op er tie s Rheology Passing Ability Static Stability Ea rl y- A ge C on cr et e Pr op er tie s Heat of Hydration Table 1-8. SCC test methods and target values/ranges.

Shaded cells indicate the mixtures tested for the corresponding property and the number inside each cell represents the number of tested specimens. * Test was conducted on ready-mixed concrete mixtures containing limestone aggregate only ** Test was conducted on mixtures containing limestone aggregate only Mixtures Type SCMs/Fillers Flowability NMSA, in. 3/4 1/2 3/4 1/2 3/8 3/4 1/2 3/4 1/2 3/8 3/4 1/2 3/4 1/2 3/8 3/4 1/2 3/4 1/2 3/8 3/4 1/2 3/8 Mixture ID 111 121 211 221 222 111 121 211 221 222 111 121 211 221 222 111 121 211 221 222 No. 67 No. 78 No. 8 Rheology (Mortar rheometer) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Rheology (Concrete rheometer) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Filling Ability (Slump flow) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Passing Ability (J-Ring) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Passing Ability (Caisson) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Static Stability (VSI) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Static Stability (HVSI) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Static Stability (Column segregation) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Static Stability (Penetration) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Dynamic Stability (Flow trough) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Workability Retention** 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Air Content (Pressure method) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Formwork Pressure 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Heat of Hydration (Isothermal) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Heat of Hydration (Adiabatic) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Time of Setting 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Compressive Strength 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Splitting Strength 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Modulus of Rupture 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Modulus of Elasticity 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Bond Strength (Pull-out of vertical bars) 3 3 3 3 3 3 Bond Strength (Pull-out of horizontal bars)* 18 18 18 Shear Resistance (Push-off) 2 2 2 2 2 2 Shear Resistance (Beam test)* 6 6 6 Drying Shrinkage 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Restrained Shrinkage 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Creep 2 2 2 2 2 Air Void System 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Surface Resistivity 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 High slump flow Low slump flow High slump flow 2 - 4 in. slump 25% Class F Fly Ash SCC Mixtures CVC Mixtures 30% GGBFS 20% Class F Fly Ash + 15% LSP High slump flow Low slump flowLow slump flow High slump flow Low slump flow H a r d e n e d C o n c r e t e P r o p e r t i e s F r e s h C o n c r e t e P r o p e r t i e s E a r l y - A g e C o n c r e t e P r o p e r t i e s 25% Class C Fly Ash 25% Class F Fly Ash Table 1-9. Test matrix for SCC and CVC mixtures for each aggregate type.

14 the test has shown higher repeatability than the original test. Figure 1-5 shows a sketch of the modified flow trough with dimensions. Workability Retention The rate of workability loss was determined for eight SCC mixtures containing ½ in. nominal maximum size crushed limestone aggregate, four different SCM/fillers, and two lev- els of flowability. The slump flow test (AASHTO TP 74) was conducted at 8, 30, 60, and 90 minutes after adding the water to the mixtures (Khayat and Mitchell, 2009). The relationship between initial slump flow and rate of losing slump flow with time was determined to evaluate the effect of initial slump flow on workability retention. 1.2.3 Early-Age Concrete Properties Formwork Pressure The lateral pressure of concrete was monitored for CVC mixtures and a set of SCC mixtures with different rheological properties using the device shown in Figure 1-6. The device consists of a 3 ft tall, 8-in. diameter PVC rigid pipe with remov- able steel end caps. Three flush diaphragm pressure sensors were installed along the side of the pipe to measure the pres- sure distribution over the height of the column. An air pres- sure gauge and an air valve were installed at the top cap to increase the air pressure at the top portion of the concrete column (Assaad, Khayat, and Mesbah, 2003). Approximately 40 minutes after mixing, concrete was poured in the pipe at a rate of 6 in./min to simulate a common concrete placement rate in column applications of 30 ft/hr. The CVC mixtures were consolidated with an internal vibrator in 12 in. lifts; no mechanical consolidation was used for the SCC mixtures. When the concrete was filled up to 12 in. above the top sen- sor, air was pumped into the pipe at the same rate up to 30 psi to simulate 30 ft of concrete head. The pressure at each sensor was recorded every minute until the lateral pressure reached a constant value. The ratio of maximum lateral pressure to hydrostatic pressure was compared for the different concrete mixtures to evaluate the effects of time and rheological prop- erties on formwork pressure. Heat of Hydration Semi-adiabatic and isothermal calorimeters were used to assess the heat emissions during cement hydration of the SCC and CVC mixtures. The semi-adiabatic calorimeter was used to monitor temperature changes of four concrete cylinders from each mixture for 24 hr after mixing (RILEM TC 119-TCE, 1997). The increase in temperature and the time elapsed to reach the maximum temperature for different mixtures were examined to study the effect of different SCMs/fillers. The Figure 1-4. Original (left) and modified (right) flow troughs used for evaluating dynamic stability. Figure 1-5. Modified flow trough used for evaluating dynamic stability.

15 isothermal calorimeter was used to monitor the rate of energy generation in a temperature control chamber for four mortar samples sieved from each concrete mixture. Approximately 100 g of mortar was poured into each 125 ml plastic cup and then each cup was placed onto the sample holders of the calo- rimeter in accordance with ASTM C1702. The readings were recorded every 30 sec up to 24 hr. The rate of energy generation and the time elapsed to reach the peak value for different mix- tures were examined to study the effect of different SCMs/fillers. Time of Setting The time of initial setting of 16 SCC mixtures and two CVC mixtures was measured according to AASHTO T 197. All mix- tures had ½ in. NMSA, half of which contained crushed lime- stone aggregate while the other half contained gravel aggregate. The mixtures had different SCMs/fillers and levels of flow- ability to evaluate their effects on the time of initial setting. The time of initial setting for each mixture was obtained by sieving a sample of fresh concrete on a No. 4 sieve and measuring the mortar resistance to penetration at different times. The time of initial setting was that corresponding to a penetration stress of 500 psi. 1.2.4 Hardened Concrete Mechanical Properties Compressive Strength Compressive strength ( fc) of the SCC and CVC mixtures was determined at ages 7, 14, 28, and 56 days according to AASHTO T 22 as the average value of three tests on 4 in. × 8 in. cylinders. The average ratios of the 7-day, 14-day, and 56-day compressive strength of SCC to compressive strength at 28-days were compared to those predicted by the ACI 209 model for CVC. The effect of aggregate type and SCM/filler type on the compressive strength was also examined. The modulus of elasticity (MOE) (Ec) and split tensile strength ( ft) were determined at 28 days according to ASTM C469 and AASHTO T 198, respectively, as the average value of three tests on 4 in. × 8 in. cylinders. The modulus of rupture (MOR) ( fr) was also determined at 28 days according to AASHTO T 97 as the average value of three tests on 6 in. × 6 in. × 20 in. prisms. The purpose of the fc, Ec, and fr tests was to determine whether AASHTO LRFD models for predicting CVC properties are appropriate for predicting SCC properties or whether changes are necessary. Bond Strength Pull-out tests were conducted on three specimens of each of six SCC mixtures and six CVC mixtures (i.e., a total of 36 specimens) to evaluate the bond strength of uncoated, deformed, vertical reinforcing steel bars in tension accord- ing to RILEM/CEB/FIP (1970). For each concrete type, three mixtures contained crushed limestone aggregate with ¾, ½, and 3⁄8 in. NMSA, and the other three mixtures contained gravel aggregate with ¾, ½, and 3⁄8 in. NMSA; all mixtures had the same SCM (25% Class F fly ash). Each specimen was prepared by placing a #6 Grade 60 deformed bar vertically (as in columns) in the center of an 8 in. wooden cube, attaching a rigid plastic sheathing to the top 4.25 in. of the bar, and then placing the concrete in the form (resulting in a bonded length of 3.75 in.). Forms were stripped after 24 hr and the specimens were moist cured until 28 days. A pull-out force was applied at a rate of 0.05 in./min, Figure 1-6. Form pressure device.

16 and the slip at the other end of the bar was measured using two linear variable differential transformers (LVDTs) as shown in Figure 1-7. The average compressive strength of the speci- mens at the time of testing ranged from 4.0 to 8.7 ksi. The bond strength of each specimen was calculated at different slippage values (0.01 in. and 0.1 in.) and the ultimate force was recorded. The bar direction has a significant effect on the bond strength (CEB-fib, 2000). Horizontal bars have a large area under which bleed water could accumulate. To evaluate the bond strength of horizontal bars (such as in beams) as well as the top-bar effect, six wall specimens were cast, each measuring 48 in. × 48 in. × 8 in. Two of the specimens were cast with high slump flow SCC, two with low slump flow SCC, and two with CVC. Each wall specimen had nine #6, Grade 60, uncoated, deformed horizontal steel bars located horizontally in three rows, as shown in Figure 1-8. The concrete was cast from the top using ready-mixed concrete that had an average com- pressive strength ranging from 7.1 to 8.3 ksi at the time of testing. Using the same test setup and procedures used for pull-out of vertical bars, each of the 54 #6 steel bars were pulled out to evaluate the effect of bar location and concrete type on the bond strength of horizontal bars. Shear Resistance Push-off tests were conducted on two specimens of each of the six SCC mixtures and six CVC mixtures (i.e., a total of 24 specimens) to evaluate the interface shear resistance according to Mattock and Hawkins (1972). Three of the mixtures of each concrete type contained crushed limestone aggregate with ¾, ½, and 3⁄8 in. NMSA and the other three mixtures contained gravel aggregate with ¾, ½, and 3⁄8 in. NMSA; all mixtures had the same SCM (25% Class F fly ash). Figure 1-9 shows the test setup. Each specimen had two #3, Grade 60, deformed bars across a shear plane that was approxi- mately 9 in. deep and 5 in. wide (i.e., the reinforcement ratio was about 0.5%). An additional 16 specimens were cast using ready-mixed concrete, half of which were cast without rein- forcement across the shear plane while the other half were cast with two #3 bars. Forms were stripped after 24 hr and specimens were moist cured for 28 days. A push-off force was applied at a rate of 0.05 in./min and the horizontal and verti- cal displacements across the shear plane were monitored using three LVDTs. Average compressive strength ranged from 4.0 to 8.7 ksi at the time of testing. Interface shear resistance of SCC mixtures was compared to that of CVC mixtures and to the values predicted by AASHTO LRFD for CVC with and without interface shear reinforcement. Tests were conducted on 18 beam specimens (6 with high slump flow SCC, 6 with low slump flow SCC, and 6 with CVC) to evaluate the shear resistance at different levels of transverse reinforcement according to Lachemi, Hossain, and Lambros (2005). The six beams of each concrete mixture included two beams with no transverse reinforcement, two beams with two #3 stirrups at 8 in. spacing (reinforcement ratio = 0.35%), and two beams with two #3 stirrups at 4 in. Figure 1-7. Pull-out test setup.

17 spacing (reinforcement ratio = 0.69%). Each beam specimen was 60 × 12 × 8 in. and longitudinally reinforced using two #6 Grade 60 bars at the bottom and two #4 Grade 60 bars at the top (Figure 1-10). The specimens were cast using ready-mixed concrete; the average concrete strength at the time of testing ranged from 7.1 to 8.3 ksi. Tests were conducted using a three- point loading arrangement; mid-span deflection and bottom bar slippage were monitored using LVDTs. Test results were compared to the values predicted by AASHTO LRFD for CVC at different levels of transverse reinforcement. 1.2.5 Hardened Concrete Visco-Elastic Properties Drying (Free) Shrinkage The change in length of hardened concrete due to drying shrinkage was measured for the SCC and CVC mixtures according to AASHTO T 160. Three 4 × 4 × 11.25 in. con- crete prisms were cast from each mixture, moist cured for 7 days (Figure 1-11), and then stored for 56 days in a dry- ing room maintained at 50% ± 4% relative humidity and Figure 1-8. Details of wall-out wall specimens.

18 Figure 1-9. Push-off test setup. Figure 1-10. Beam shear test setup.

19 73 ± 2°F temperature. Length change readings were taken at 3, 7, 14, 28, and 56 days after the curing period. The average shrinkage strain of each set of three prisms at different ages was compared to the values predicted by the AASHTO LRFD model for CVC. Also, the effect of SCM/filler and aggregate type/size on the drying shrinkage was studied. Restrained Shrinkage Restrained shrinkage tests were performed to assess the cracking potential of SCC and CVC mixtures using a modi- fied ASTM C1581 procedure. Two concrete rings (Figure 1-12) were made from each mixture; paraffin wax was used to seal the top surface of the ring and allow moisture loss only from the side. The changes in steel strain due to concrete shrinkage were monitored by two strain gauges mounted on the inner face of the ring. Data were recorded every 1 min (until the concrete cracked or the test terminated at 28 days) to calcu- late the average stress rate (psi/day) and the time of cracking (day) for each mixture—indicators of the cracking potential of that mixture. Mixtures with a time-to-cracking duration of less than or equal to 7 days and an average stress rate greater than or equal to 50 (psi/day) have high cracking potential (ASTM C1581). The effects of SCMs/fillers and NMSA on the cracking potential of SCC were examined. Creep Creep was measured for eight SCC mixtures and two CVC mixtures according to ASTM C512 (half of the mixtures of each concrete type contained 3⁄8 in. nominal maximum size gravel aggregate and the other half contained 3⁄8 in. nominal maximum size limestone aggregate). These mixtures were expected to have the highest creep strains because of their high paste volume. Specimens from six SCC mixtures and the two CVC mixtures were loaded at an age of 28 days. The specimens from the other two SCC mixtures (both contained gravel—one contained fly ash Type F and the other contained slag) were loaded at an age of 56 days to ensure that the com- pressive strength had reached the specified value prior to load- ing. Two sets, each consisting of two 6 × 12 in. cylinders, were obtained from each mixture; one set was loaded to 40% of its 28-day or 56-day average compressive strength, and the other set was kept unloaded and monitored for deformations due to shrinkage and temperature effects (Figure 1-13). All cylinders were instrumented using three pairs of detachable mechanical gauges distributed around the cylinders to mea- sure the length change over 8 in. distance using a dial gauge. The deformations for both sets were recorded every day for a week, then every 7 days for a month, and then every 30 days up to 230–360 days after time of loading. Average creep strains were calculated by subtracting the average deformation of the unloaded cylinders from those of the loaded cylinders. Also, measurements from the three pairs of gauges were compared to check the uniformity of loading. The relative humidity of the creep specimens was also recorded and considered in pre- dicting the creep coefficient according to AASHTO LRFD. 1.2.6 Hardened Concrete Durability Properties Air Void System The parameters of the air void system in hardened concrete (i.e., air content, spacing factor, and specific surface) were determined for the SCC and CVC mixtures using the linear- traverse method (ASTM C457). For each mixture, two square samples were taken from the top and bottom of a 28-day old cylinder and tested using the Rapid Air 457 air void analyzer. Air content of 6±1.5%, specific surface ≥ 24 mm2/mm3, and spacing factor ≤ 0.20 mm were proposed as guidelines for proportioning of mixtures as they are expected to result Figure 1-11. Drying shrinkage specimens. Figure 1-12. Restrained shrinkage specimen.

20 in adequate freeze-thaw resistance (PCA, 2009; FHWA, 2006). Other values may be proposed for different exposure categories. Surface Resistivity Results obtained from surface resistivity tests (AASHTO TP 95) have been shown to have a strong correlation with the results obtained from rapid chloride penetrability tests (RCPTs) (AASHTO T 277; LADOTD, 2011; FDOT, 2011; INDOT, 2013; FHWA, 2013). Also, surface resistivity tests pro- vide faster results and are simpler to conduct. Surface resistivity tests were conducted on the SCC and CVC mixtures using a four-point Wenner probe array. Three 4 × 8 in. concrete cylin- drical specimens were prepared from each mixture and stored in a moisture room at 73°F after casting. The test was con- ducted at 1, 3, 7, 28, and 56 days and results were recorded as the average value of three specimens. Table 1-10 shows proposed RCPT classes for 28-day surface resistivity ranges according to AASHTO standards. Figure 1-13. Creep test setup. AASHTO T 277 RCPT class AASHTO T 277 charge passed (Coulombs) AASHTO TP 95 28-day surface resistivity (kΩ-cm) High > 4,000 < 12 Moderate 2,000 – 4,000 12 – 21 Low 1,000 – 2,000 21 – 37 Very Low 100 – 1,000 37 – 254 Negligible <100 > 254 Table 1-10. Correlation between RCPT and surface resistivity results.

21 1.3 Full-Scale Bridge Components To evaluate the constructability and structural performance of cast-in-place bridge components made using SCC, one full- scale substructure specimen (bridge pier) and one full-scale superstructure specimen (post-tensioned box girder) were fabricated. The 19.5 ft high bridge pier consisted of a footing, two columns, and a pier cap; dimensions and reinforcement details are shown in Figures 1-14 and 1-15. The 40 ft long box girder consisted of a tub section and top flange; dimensions and re inforcement details are shown in Figures 1-16 and 1-17. The box girder specimen was fabricated with two 3 in. diameter post-tensioning corrugated metal ducts at the bottom flange and anchor blocks at each end to accommodate 18 Grade 270 low Figure 1-14. Views of the bridge pier specimen.

22 Figure 1-15. Reinforcement details and cross sections of the bridge pier specimen.

Figure 1-16. Views of the bridge post-tensioned box girder specimen.

24 Figure 1-17. Reinforcement details of the box girder specimen. relaxation strands, each with a diameter of 0.6 in. (9 strands per duct). Anchorage blocks were detailed according to AASHTO LRFD specifications to evaluate the performance of SCC in highly disturbed regions (local zone and global zone). In addition, a 2 in. diameter dummy corrugated metal duct was installed in the 5 in. thick web to investigate concrete flow and consolidation in tight spaces. Column and tub sections were dimensioned and reinforced to simulate cases of narrow sections with congested reinforcement and evaluate concrete consolidation. Table 1-11 lists the mixture used in each component along with the placement method and rate, required and ordered concrete quantity, and duration of casting. All mixtures were proportioned using crushed limestone coarse aggregate, nat- ural sand, and Type IPF cement (a pre-blended Type I port- land cement with 25% Class F fly ash). This type of cement was used because of its availability at the nearby ready-mixed concrete plant and its common use in cast-in-place bridge construction in the state of Nebraska. Because a blockage of the 2 in. diameter pump hose occurred during concrete placement in the tub section, the tub section was not com- pletely filled in one batch (a large concrete quantity had to be disposed of and the remaining concrete was not sufficient). The remaining portion of the tub section (approximately two-thirds of the web along 12 ft from one end) and the top flange were filled with a second batch of the same SCC mix- ture using a 3 in. diameter pump hose. All batches were mixed at the same ready-mixed concrete plant and transported to the fabrication location using mix- ing trucks. Table 1-12 lists the SCC properties that were mea- sured, the test method used, and the frequency/location of testing. Component Mixture ID NMSA (in.) Ordered Quantity (cy) Required Quantity (cy) Duration of Casting (min) Placement Details Method Rate Footing 111 3/4 7 6.2 5 Truck chute (one location discharge) 1.3 cy/min First Column 221 1/2 3 2.05 35 ½ cy bucket with tremie pipe (5 ft free fall) 26 ft/hr (0.06 cy/min) Second Column 221 1/2 3 2.05 15 ½ cy bucket without tremie pipe (15 ft free fall) 60 ft/hr (0.14 cy/min) Pier Cap 121 1/2 4 3.15 45 ½ cy bucket (3 ft free fall) 0.07 cy/min Tub Section 222 3/8 7 5.0 40 Pumping with 2 then 3 in. diameter hose (one location discharge) 0.13 cy/min Top Flange 222 3/8 7 3.35 25 Pumping with 3 in. diameter hose (multiple locations discharge) 0.13 cy/min Table 1-11. Materials and placement details for SCC used in full-scale bridge components.

25 Rheology of each SCC batch was measured at the job site using a concrete rheometer. Test results were used to charac- terize the mixture in terms of dynamic yield stress and plas- tic viscosity. All other workability properties were measured only once at the job site except FA and static stability: these were measured at the plant and job site when a dosage of HRWRA was added. Air content was also measured using the pressure method at the plant and at the job site to evalu- ate the effect of transportation and HRWRA dosage. Form- work pressure was measured during SCC placement in the two columns using four pressure transducers located at different heights, as shown in Figure 1-14. Formwork pres- sure data were recorded for up to 75 minutes after concrete placement. Two different concrete placement rates (26 ft/ hr and 60 ft/hr) were used in the two columns to evaluate the effect of the SCC placement rate on formwork pressure. The pressure transducer located at 3 ft from the bottom of each column did not function properly; its readings were not included in the analysis. Six prisms were made from each of the four SCC mixtures used for fabricating full-scale bridge components to evaluate Property Test Method Test Location (Frequency per batch) Rheology Concrete Rheometer (Koehler and Fowler, 2004) Job site (1) Filling Ability (FA) Slump Flow (AASHTO T 347) Plant and Job site (2) Passing Ability (PA) J-Ring (AASHTO T 345) Job site (1) Caisson (AASHTO T 349) Job site (1) Static Stability Visual Stability Index (AASHTO T 351) Plant and Job site (3) Hardened Visual Stability Index (AASHTO PP 58) Lab (3) Column Segregation (ASTM C1610) Job site (1) Penetration (ASTM C1712) Job site (2) Dynamic Stability Flow Trough (Lange et al., 2008) Job site (1) Air Content Pressure Method (AASHTO T 152) Plant and Job site (2) Formwork Pressure* Pressure Transducers (AASHTO T 352) Job site (4) Compressive Strength Compressing 4 x 8 in. Cylinders (AASHTO T 22) Lab (15) Tensile Strength Splitting 4 x 8 in. Cylinders (AASHTO T 198) Lab (3) Flexural Strength Simple Beams with Third-Point Loading (AASHTO T 97) Lab (3) Modulus of Elasticity Compressometer for 4 x 8 in. Cylinders (ASTM C469) Lab (3) Drying Shrinkage ** Length Change of 4 x 4 x 11.25 in. Prisms (AASHTO T 160) Lab (6) Air Void System Linear-Traverse Method (ASTM C457) Lab (2) * for column batches only ** for batches of different mixtures only Table 1-12. Tests for the SCC mixtures used in fabricating full-scale specimens. the drying shrinkage (24 total). Three prisms of each mixture were moist cured for 7 days and the other three were moist cured for 28 days to evaluate the effect of the curing period. After curing, all specimens were stored in a drying room at 20% ± 4% relative humidity and 73°F ± 2°F temperature (the same conditions as those of the fabricated full-scale bridge components). Shrinkage measurements were recorded for up to 150 days after the end of curing and compared to the shrinkage predicted using the proposed model. The quality of the formed surface for SCC components was evaluated according to ACI 347.3R-13. Two 24 in. × 24 in. areas were selected on the surface of each component to determine the surface void ratio and maximum void diam- eter for different mixtures and placement methods. Each full-scale component was tested twice to evaluate structural performance under different cases of loading. In the first test of the bridge pier specimen, the pier cap was loaded at mid-span with a point load to evaluate its capacity (see Figure 1-18). In the second test, a lateral load was applied at mid-height of the pier cap to evaluate the flexural behavior of the columns (see Figure 1-19). For the bridge superstruc-

26 ture specimen, the box girder was post-tensioned to 75% of the strand ultimate strength with a mono-strand jack, and the ducts were grouted using flowable cementitious grout to allow for structural testing of a girder with bonded strands. Anchorage zones were inspected visually immediately after post-tensioning. In the first structural test, a vertical load was applied at the mid-span section to evaluate its flexural capac- ity (see Figure 1-20). In the second test, a vertical load was applied 8 ft from the girder end to evaluate its shear capacity (see Figure 1-21). In all tests, loading was stopped when the ultimate design capacity calculated according to AASHTO LRFD was reached to maintain the specimen stability and integrity for further testing. All components were saw cut at different locations, as noted in Figures 1-14 and 1-16, to evaluate the uniformity of coarse aggregate distribution (i.e., HVSI) and consolidation of con- crete around the reinforcement. Also, 3 in. diameter cores were extracted from different locations, as noted in Figures 1-14 and 1-16, to evaluate the effect of the placement method and rate on the air void system of the hardened SCC. The cores extracted from the pier cap were damaged during handling and were not used for air void system measurements. LOAD #1 String Potentiometer Strain Gauge First Column Second Column Figure 1-18. Pier cap test setup.

27 First Column Second Column String Potentiometer Strain Gauge Anchor Bolts and Plates Figure 1-19. Column test setup.

Figure 1-20. Setup of the flexure test of box girder specimen.

Strain Gauge String Potentiometer LVDT Figure 1-21. Setup of the shear test of box girder specimen.