Concrete Technology for Transportation Applications (2019)

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.

145 Responses to Survey Questionnaire A P P E N D I X B The following 40 state departments of transportation responded to the survey questionnaire: 1. Alabama (AL) 2. Arizona (AZ) 3. Arkansas (AR) 4. Colorado (CO) 5. Connecticut (CT) 6. Delaware (DE) 7. Florida (FL) 8. Georgia (GA) 9. Idaho (ID) 10. Illinois (IL) 11. Kansas (KS) 12. Kentucky (KY) 13. Louisiana (LA) 14. Maine (ME) 15. Massachusetts (MA) 16. Michigan (MI) 17. Minnesota (MN) 18. Mississippi (MS) 19. Missouri (MO) 20. Montana (MT) 21. Nebraska (NE) 22. New Hampshire (NH) 23. New Jersey (NJ) 24. New York (NY) 25. North Carolina (NC) 26. North Dakota (ND) 27. Ohio (OH) 28. Oregon (OR) 29. Pennsylvania (PA)

146 Concrete Technology for Transportation Applications Questions and Responses 1. Are you the agency representative serving on AASHTO Committee on Materials and Pavements COMP)? Yes 17 No 23 2. Has your agency used the following new concrete technologies/materials in transportation applications? 3. Does your agency have specification or guidelines for following technologies/materials? Technology No. of states Users Availability of specification Self-Consolidating Concrete (SCC) 38 34 Ultra-High strength Concrete > 10,000 psi (UHSC) 15 9 High Early Strength Concrete (HESC) 37 31 Pervious Concrete (PC) 14 8 Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) 17 12 Ultra-High-Performance Concrete (UHPC) 22 19 30. Rhode Island (RI) 31. South Carolina (SC) 32. South Dakota (SD) 33. Tennessee (TN) 34. Texas (TX) 35. Utah (UT) 36. Vermont (VT) 37. Washington (WA) 38. West Virginia (WV) 39. Wisconsin (WI) 40. Wyoming (WY)

Responses to Survey Questionnaire 147 4. Please identify the most the common application(s) in pavement construction, overlay, or repair. Precast Concrete Pavement (PCP) 21 18 Very High Early Strength Concrete (VHESC) {Rapid-Hardening Concrete} 24 16 Latex Modified Concrete (LMC) 31 25 Polymer Concrete (Poly C) 20 14 Technology Application 1 Applications 2 Application 3 Application 4 SCC Bridge approach slabs Precast Pavement panels UHSC — — — — HESC Pavement repair Slab replacement Overlay Intersection construction PC Parking areas Sidewalks Alleyways RCC New construction Shoulder paving Industrial parking Local roads UHPC — — — — ICC Pavement construction TCMC — — — — LC Pavement overlay LCC Embankment fill Culvert repair PCP New construction Overlay Intersection construction Pavement repairs Internally Cured Concrete (ICC) 9 7 Temperature Control of Mass Concrete (TCMC) 30 23 Lightweight Concrete (LC) 29 22 Lightweight Cellular/Foamed Concrete (LCC) 24 14

148 Concrete Technology for Transportation Applications 5. Please identify application(s) in construction, overlay or repair of bridges, tunnels and other structure. Technology Application 1 Applications 2 Application 3 Application 4 SCC Precast bridge members & pier caps Precast inlets Drilled shafts Retaining and noise walls UHSC Piers Bridge construction Design build projects Voids between box beams HESC Bridge repairs Emergency repairs Closure pours Deck overlay PC — — — — RCC — — — — UHPC Shear key bridge overlays Joint filler in prefab. bridges ABC Construction ICC Bridge decks Approach slabs TCMC Bridge pier, pier caps and abutments Mass footings and spread foundations Drilled shafts Members thicker than 4ft, another state > 6 ft LC Bridge decks Filling grates in movable bridge decks LCC Filler behind abutments Drilled caissons in slope failures Fill lining of pipes and culverts Fill old culverts and tunnels PCP — — — — VHESC (PRHC) Partial deck repair Precast patching Emergency bridge joint repairs Deck overlay LMC Deck and other member repairs Deck overlays Substructure spall repairs Poly C Thin deck overlay Patching spalls Expansion joint repair VHESC (PRHC) Spall repairs Partial depth patches Maintenance repairs LMC Overlays Poly C — — — —

Responses to Survey Questionnaire 149 6. Please indicate, in your estimate, the number of projects where the technology/material has been used. Technology 1–5 projects 6–10 projects 11–25 projects More than 25 projects SCC 9* 2 7 20 UHSC 10 1 4 2 HESC 4 1 7 22 PC 8 2 2 1 RCC 11 4 — — UHPC 13 7 — 2 ICC 4 3 — 1 TCMC 9 4 6 10 LC 12 4 4 7 LCC 7 1 4 4 PCP 10 4 1 — VHESC (PRHC) 3 2 1 9 LMC 7 3 7 10 Poly C 5 3 2 7 * No. of states.

150 Concrete Technology for Transportation Applications 7. Please indicate the range of service lives (years) of the projects where the technology/material has been used. (Service life refers to age from construction to present time). Technology Less than 2 yrs. 2–5 yrs. 6–10 yrs. More than 10 yrs. SCC 3* 3 4 25 UHSC 1 4 1 9 HESC 1 3 9 18 PC 3 3 3 3 RCC 2 2 6 5 UHPC 1 9 1 9 ICC 3 2 — 2 TCMC 1 1 10 15 LC — 6 4 23 LCC 1 3 4 12 PCP 2 4 3 10 VHESC (PRHC) — 3 5 6 LMC — 3 5 6 Poly C 0 2 4 5 * No. of states.

Responses to Survey Questionnaire 151 What, in your opinion, are the most common problems, distresses or challenges, when using the technology/material? Technology Challenge 1 Challenge 2 Challenge 3 Challenge 4 SCC Familiarity of agency & construction personnel Segregation & other Q/C issues Proper form tightness Appropriate aggregate sizes UHSC Experience Q/C issues Cracking High cost HESC Agency familiarity Balancing F/T durability needs with early strength Maintain slump for consolidation and finishing. Early age cracking PC Experience of local contractors Mix design issues Surface smoothness Freeze/Thaw durability RCC Experience and availability of special paving machine Compaction & achieving proper density Surface roughness Long term durability UHPC Experience and qualifications Surface preparation and Joint forming High cost of proprietary systems Availability of non-proprietary systems ICC Moisture conditioning of lightweight aggregate Mix design issues TCMC Experience of contractors & proper pre-construction planning. Requirement for insulation and other temperature control measures. Contractors’ complaints Inspection and data interpretation LC Accurate mixture proportioning Storage and conditioning of aggregate Aggregate availability locally Curing and Longevity LCC Availability of suppliers and equipment Mix variability and poor Q/C Maintaining required density Experience and Cost PCP Preparation of base layer Ensuring panel surface level with surrounding Long term maintenance and performance Cost VHESC (PRHC) High cost Heat generation, shrinkage and cracking Production handling and placement Setting time LMC Experience and material cost Mix design issues Bonding delamination Surface smoothness Poly C Surface preparation Contractor experience Poor ride quality Cost effectiveness 8.

152 Concrete Technology for Transportation Applications Other Technologies Technology/ Material (state) Used For pavements, structures or both? Experimental or Implemented? Number of Projects Uses/Benefits Shrinkage- reducing admixtures (DE) Both Implemented 6-10 Less shrinkage in concrete High Friction Surface treatment (DE) Pavements Implemented 6-10 Improved skid resistance Fly ash alternatives (FL) Both Experimental — Compensate for fly ash shortage Fibers in concrete (FL) Structures Implemented More than 10 Crack reduction and steel replacement Optimizing aggregate gradation and cement content (FL) Both Experimental — Reduce heat and cracking Recycled asphalt pavement (RAP) in concrete (FL) Pavements Experimental — Reduce the use of virgin aggregate 14 Has your agency evaluated or implemented other new or promising concrete technologies/materials? Yes No 26 10. Please fill out the information on any other new or promising concrete technology/material your agency has evaluated or implemented in construction projects. 9. Prevent C (GA) Structures Implemented 2 Control cracking

Responses to Survey Questionnaire 153 EdenCrete (GA) Pavements Implemented More than 5 Increases strength and Durability Shrinkage reducing admixtures (IL) Structures Experimental 2 To mitigate deck cracking Shrinkage Compensating cementitious materials (IL) Structures Experimental 2 To mitigate deck cracking Air Void Analyzer (KS) Structures Implemented 50 Produces better air spacing factors Surface resistivity (LA) Structures Implemented All projects Increase service life “Lafarge Ductil” (ME) Structures Implemented 3 To produce 20,000 psi deck panel joint fill Steel fibers (ME) Structures Implemented 3 To produce non- shrink deck panel joint filler CTS Komponent (ME) Structures Implemented More than 20 Non-shrink deck Panel/keyway grouts Prevent C (ME) Structures Experimental 1 Bridge crack control Steel & synthetic fibers (MO) Structures Experimental 17 Deck overlay and repairs. Reduce cracking Recycled concrete aggregate (MO) Pavements Experimental 2 Sustainability. Utilize closer aggregate sources Two-lift pavement (MO) Pavements Experimental 1 Excellent wearing surface on layer with soft aggregates or RCC Performance based mixtures (NY) Both Implemented More than 20 pavements & 5 structures Lower cement content & permeability. High strength & durability

154 Concrete Technology for Transportation Applications Alternative deicers (NY) Both Experimental Multiple projects Cost effective de- icing Alternative SCMs/additiv es (NY) Structures Experimental 5 Reduce cement content. (No real performance improvements noticed) Macro Fibers (OH) Pavements Experimental 6-10 Mitigate cracking Ultra - thin Overlay (OH) Pavements Experimental 1 Heavy truck in rural areas Mixture design optimization (PA) Pavement Implemented 5 — Super Air Meter (VT) Structures Experimental More than 20 Determines if internal air structure is sufficient for freeze/thaw resistance High Friction surface treatment (WV) Pavements Implemented 10 High skid resistance Shrinkage reducing (WV) Structures Implemented 8 Reduce deck cracking Shrinkage reducing admixtures (WV) Structures Implemented 3 Reduce cracking in UHPC mixes. Shrinkage resistance admixture (SRA) (WY) Structures Implemented 3 Crack reduction in UHPC bridge deck overlays. 11. Please indicate whether or not your agency has developed specifications and/or construction guidelines.

Responses to Survey Questionnaire 155 Technology / Material (state) Specification (Yes, No) Challenges Shrinkage reducing admixtures (DE) Yes High cost High Friction Surface treatment (DE) Yes High cost Fly ash alternatives (FL) Yes Availability of quality alternative, price, and availability of large volume of raw material. Fibers in concrete (FL) Yes Distribution and orientation of fibers in pavement. Buy American limitations. Optimizing aggregate gradation and cement content. (FL) No Potential industry resistance Recycled asphalt pavement (RAP) in concrete. (FL) No Concrete plants not willing to use another aggregate source not from materials mined and supplied by their parent company. Prevent C (GA) No EdenCrete (GA) No Cost is extremely high Shrinkage reducing admixtures (IL) Yes Negative impact on mixture air content Shrinkage Compensating cementitious materials (IL) Yes May result in limiting expansion of fresh concrete when used in mixtures with Class C fly ash. Also, if concrete not mixed sufficiently, blisters may form on the deck surface. Air Void Analyzer (KS) Yes High cost of test equipment Surface Resistivity (LA) Yes 12. What in your opinion are the top two concerns, challenges or problems your agency has with these technologies/materials?

156 Concrete Technology for Transportation Applications Steel & synthetic fibers (MO) Yes Criteria on the use of fibers, determining fiber dosage Recycled concrete aggregate (MO) Yes Economical consideration when deciding to use RCA vs. availability of virgin aggregate Two-lift pavement (MO) Yes Cost Performance engineered mixtures (PEM) (NY) Yes Industry acceptance to new testing protocols for PEM, and capability of some plants to handle additional materials. Alternative deicers (NY) Yes Damage to deck surface and variability of materials. Alternative SCMs/additives (NY) No Macro Fibers (OH) Yes Even distribution in the concrete mixture Ultra - thin Overlay (OH) Yes Cost Mixture design optimization (PA) Yes Getting all involved up to speed with the technology and producing materials meeting specifications Super air meter (VT) Yes More expensive device High Friction surface treatment (WV) Yes Good results Shrinkage reducing admixture (WV) Yes Good results Shrinkage reducing admixture (SRA) (WY) Yes “Lafarge Ductil” (ME) Yes High Cost Steel fibers (ME) No Safety concerns handling the fibers. CTS Komponent (ME) No Prevent C (ME) No

Responses to Survey Questionnaire 157 15. Agency action No. of states Conduct research to optimize concrete mixes, improve design and construction quality to extend service life of pavements and structures. 12 Import quality aggregates. 9 Modify specifications to relax some stringent aggregate requirements for use in non-structural concrete. 9 Use more pozzolanic materials in concrete mixes to prevent the adverse effects of reactive aggregates being used in non-structural application. 9 Expand the use of recycled concrete aggregates in paving mixes. 7 Other responses: • Support continued mining of local aggregates. • Be more restrictive of limestone aggregate use in concrete. • Use quality aggregates only when needed. Availability of Fly Ash The conversion to gas as fuel in power plants has or will reduce the availability of fly ash. Is the shortage of fly ash an issue in your state? Yes, presently 13 Yes, in the future 15 No 12 Depletion of Quality Aggregates 13. Does your state have a problem of depletion of quality aggregates? Yes, presently 3 Yes, in the future 13 No 24 14. Please select from the following, the possible agency actions to address this challenge.

158 Concrete Technology for Transportation Applications Other responses: • Allow easy switch between approved fly ash sources. • Conduct research on feasibility of using rice hall ash. • Import ash from overseas. • Conduct research on a variety of ash alternatives. • Do not allow the use of reactive aggregates to reduce the need for fly ash. • Smart use of flay ash by avoiding the use of large projects that can cause supply problems. • Use Slag instead of flay ash in ASR mitigation. • Allow flexibility in switching fly ash sources in active projects. • Further process bottom ash for reuse. • Need industry innovation for alternatives. • States should encourage research and innovations. • Use straight cement in mixtures. Use of Recycled, Landfilled/Reclaimed Materials 17. Does your agency allow the use of recycled concrete aggregate (RCA) in concrete mixes for pavements? Yes 15 No 25 16. How does or will your agency address the problem? Please select all that apply from the following: Agency Action No. of states Expand the use of slag and increase its proportion in the mix. 22 Allow and expand the use of alternative pozzolans such as metakaolin. 15 Allow the use of imported high LOI fly ash after second stage burning to lower LOI. 6 Use volcanic ash. 1 Conduct research on feasibility of using wood burning ash from biomass plants and paper mills. 1

Responses to Survey Questionnaire 159 20. Select the most common replacement proportion of RCA for coarse aggregate in the concrete mix. Responses: 0 5%–10% 10%–20% 20%–30% 30%–40% 40%–50% Pavements 1 1 1 1 1 Structures — — — — 1 21. 22. Has your agency allowed the use of the following land-filled/reclaimed materials in concrete mixes? Is the concrete containing the land-filled/reclaimed material used in the applications below? Land filled/reclaimed material Used in Applications Research Projects Nonstructural Pavements Structures Granulated glass 3* — 2 — — Shredded/crumbed tire rubber 2 2 — 4 — Fibers from plastic bottles 1 1 1 — — 18. Does your agency allow the use of recycled concrete aggregate (RCA) in concrete mixes for structural applications? Yes 7 No 33 Do you have RCA specification? Availability of RCA Specification No. of states Yes, stand-alone specification 2 Yes, incorporated in aggregate specification 6 No, special provisions are used for RCA 1 No 19 19.

160 Concrete Technology for Transportation Applications No specifications or construction guidelines available 23 Industry resistance 21 Not sufficient time available to be devoted to new technologies 16 Bad experience with construction or performance of the technology/material 13 Resistance to change or to explore new technologies 12 Weather conditions not permitting 5 Other responses: • Lack of experience by agency and local industry. • Concern about potential reduction in concrete mixture quality. • Ability to assess long term concrete durability with some technologies. • Time and cost effectiveness. • Implementation challenges. • Different environmental conditions of jobsite compared to research phase. • Finding an application to justify time and cost to use the technology. 23. Ash from municipal solid waste 2 — 2 — — Recycled construction debris — 2 1 — — Bottom ash 2 — 2 — — Ash from Biomass plants or paper mills 1 — 1 — — * No. of states. Barriers to Technology Implementation Please select/write-in what you think are possible barriers to implementation of new concrete technologies/materials. (check all that apply). Barriers to Technology Implementation No. of states Technology not sufficiently proven to be adopted 30 Too expensive to use 28 Not enough training to use the technology 27

Responses to Survey Questionnaire 161 Case Examples 24. The synthesis will include “Case Examples” of five agencies with extensive experience in new concrete technologies, and two other agencies with little or no experience with most technologies. Would you be interested in participating on behalf of your agency in this effort? Yes 24 No 16