Jennifer A. Abayon

Gaur P. Johnson

and

Ian N. Robertson

Research Report UHM/CEE/11-07

May 2011

DETERMINING IN-PLACE MATERIAL PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE IN DRILLED SHAFTS

ii

iii

DETERMINING IN-PLACE MATERIAL PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE IN DRILLED SHAFTS

Jennifer A. Abayon

Gaur P. Johnson

and

Ian N. Robertson

Research Report UHM/CEE/11-07

May 2011

iv

v

Abstract

Elastic modulus and compressive strength are the most valued material properties

of concrete in structural engineering. These properties are commonly measured because

of their significance in design, quality control and quality assurance. The purpose of this

research is to evaluate the material properties of hardened concrete in drilled shaft

foundation for the replacement of the North Kahana Stream Bridge. Generally, molded

test specimens are indicative of the actual properties of concrete in structures. However,

for the purpose of investigating the use of self-consolidating concrete with locally

available aggregates in drilled shafts, correlations between molded specimens and cores

from test drilled shafts were examined to determine the in-place material properties of

concrete. The results of this research are intended to assist in the study of SCC use in

Hawaii, in comparison with conventional concrete.

A series of tests and analyses were performed to calculate the dynamic and static

moduli of elasticity and compressive strength of concrete in one conventional concrete

drilled shaft and two SCC drilled shafts. Based on the results, it was determined that the

SCC drilled shafts have higher and more preferable material properties of hardened

concrete than the drilled shaft constructed with conventional concrete. There was also

less inconsistency observed in the SCC data to which less irregularity in concrete

performance could be attributed. It was concluded that the SCC and conventional

concrete mixture designs were both recommendable for use in the North Kahana Stream

Bridge drilled shaft construction.

vi

Acknowledgements

This report is based on a Masters Plan B research project by Jennifer Abayon

under the direction of Drs. Ian Robertson and Gaur Johnson at the Department of Civil

and Environmental Engineering at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. The authors would

like to acknowledge Dr. David Ma for reviewing this report and serving on the

presentation committee.

Appreciation is also extended to Mitchell Pinkerton and Miles Wagner for their

assistance in the laboratory.

Funding for this research was provided by the State of Hawaii Department of

Transportation. This funding is gratefully acknowledged.

vii

Table of Contents

Abstract ................................................................................................................................v

Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ vi

List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... ix

List of Tables in Appendix A ............................................................................................. ix

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

1 Introduction .....................................................................................................................1

1.1 Objective ................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Literature Review .................................................................................................... 1

1.2.1 Concrete Material Properties ........................................................................... 1

1.2.2 Self-Consolidating Concrete in Drilled Shaft Construction ............................ 4

1.3 North Kahana Stream Bridge Replacement ............................................................ 5

2 Test Methods ...................................................................................................................7

2.1 Test Specimens ....................................................................................................... 7

2.1.1 Test Cylinders .................................................................................................. 7

2.1.2 Test Shaft Cores ............................................................................................... 8

2.2 Fundamental Longitudinal Frequency Test ............................................................ 9

2.3 Static Modulus of Elasticity Test .......................................................................... 11

2.4 Compressive Strength Test ................................................................................... 13

viii

3 Test Results ...................................................................................................................15

3.1 Dynamic Modulus of Elasticity ............................................................................ 15

3.2 Static Modulus of Elasticity .................................................................................. 16

3.3 Compressive Strength ........................................................................................... 16

4 Data Analysis and Discussion .......................................................................................17

4.1 Dynamic Modulus of Elasticity ............................................................................ 17

4.2 Static Modulus of Elasticity .................................................................................. 19

4.3 Compressive Strength ........................................................................................... 20

4.4 In-Place Material Properties ................................................................................. 23

5 Error Analysis ...............................................................................................................43

6 Conclusions and Recommendations .............................................................................44

7 References .....................................................................................................................47

APPENDIX A ....................................................................................................................49

APPENDIX B ....................................................................................................................69

APPENDIX C ....................................................................................................................73

ix

List of Tables

Table 1 Concrete mix designs .......................................................................................... 6

Table 2 Average dynamic modulus of elasticity of test cylinders ................................. 15

Table 3 Average dynamic modulus of elasticity of test shaft cores .............................. 15

Table 4 Average raw static modulus of elasticity of test cylinders ............................... 16

Table 5 Average raw compressive strength of test cylinders ........................................ 17

Table 6 Average raw compressive strength of test shaft cores ...................................... 17

Table 7 Dynamic modulus comparison between test cylinders and cores ..................... 19

Table 8 Estimation of in-place static modulus of elasticity ........................................... 20

Table 9 Compressive strength ratios and computed correction factors, F ..................... 21

Table 10 Estimated in-place compressive strengths and theoretical static moduli ........ 22

Table 11 Summary of in-place material properties ........................................................ 24

Table 12 Compressive strength equations as a function of depth, z (ft) ........................ 33

Table 13 Static modulus of elasticity equations as a function of depth, z (ft) ............... 40

List of Tables in Appendix A

Table A 1 TSS: Dynamic modulus of elasticity calculation from test cylinders ........... 50

Table A 2 LTS: Dynamic modulus of elasticity calculation from test cylinders ........... 50

Table A 3 LTC: Dynamic modulus of elasticity calculation for test cylinders ............. 51

Table A 4 All: Dynamic modulus of elasticity calculation for test cylinder cores ........ 51

Table A 5 All: Dynamic modulus calculation from test shaft cores of various lengths 52

Table A 6 TSS: Dynamic modulus calculation from 5-inch test shaft cores ................. 53

x

Table A 7 LTS: Dynamic modulus calculation from 5-inch test shaft cores ................. 54

Table A 8 LTC: Dynamic modulus calculation from 5-inch test shaft cores ................ 55

Table A 9 TSS: Static modulus calculation from test cylinders .................................... 56

Table A 10 LTS: Static modulus calculation from test cylinders .................................. 56

Table A 11 LTC: Static modulus calculation from test cylinders ................................. 57

Table A 12 TSS: Raw compressive strength calculation from test cylinders ................ 57

Table A 13 LTS: Raw compressive strength calculation from test cylinders ................ 58

Table A 14 LTC: Raw compressive strength calculation from test cylinders ............... 58

Table A 15 TSS: Raw compressive strength calculation from test shaft cores ............. 59

Table A 16 LTS: Raw compressive strength calculation from test shaft cores ............. 60

Table A 17 LTC: Raw compressive strength calculation from test shaft cores ............. 61

Table A 18 Compressive strength adjustment for test cylinders ................................... 62

Table A 19 TSS: Estimation of in-place static modulus of elasticity ............................ 63

Table A 20 LTS: Estimation of in-place static modulus of elasticity ............................ 64

Table A 21 LTC: Estimation of in-place static modulus of elasticity ........................... 65

Table A 22 TSS: Estimation of in-place compressive strength ..................................... 66

Table A 23 LTS: Estimation of in-place compressive strength ..................................... 67

Table A 24 LTC: Estimation of in-place compressive strength .................................... 68

xi

List of Figures

Figure 1 Relationship between compressive strength and l/d ratio (Price, 1951) .......... 2

Figure 2 Typical concrete stress-strain curve .................................................................. 4

Figure 3 Test cylinder specimen size reduction ............................................................... 7

Figure 4 Labeled core samples; core with observed defects ............................................ 8

Figure 5 Signal analyzer (black box) and amplifier (blue box) ....................................... 9

Figure 6 Specimen test setup ......................................................................................... 10

Figure 7 Compression test machine; compressometer ................................................... 12

Figure 8 Specimen sizes and properties determined ...................................................... 14

Figure 9 Typical strength-gain curve (University of Memphis, 2010) .......................... 22

Figure 10 TSS: Predicted vs. measured Ec according to ACI 363 ................................. 25

Figure 11 TSS: Predicted vs. measured Ec according to Newtson & Pham .................. 25

Figure 12 LTS: Predicted vs. measured Ec according to ACI 363 ................................ 26

Figure 13 LTS: Predicted vs. measured Ec according to Newtson & Pham .................. 26

Figure 14 LTC: Predicted vs. measured Ec according to ACI 363 ................................ 27

Figure 15 LTC: Predicted vs. measured Ec according to Newtson & Pham ................. 27

Figure 16 SCC: Predicted vs. measured Ec according to ACI 363 ................................ 28

Figure 17 SCC: Predicted vs. measured Ec according to Newtson & Pham ................. 28

Figure 18 All: Predicted vs. measured Ec according to ACI 363 .................................. 29

Figure 19 All: Predicted vs. measured Ec according to Newtson & Pham .................... 29

Figure 20 TSS: Compressive strength vs. static modulus of elasticity .......................... 30

Figure 21 LTS: Compressive strength vs. static modulus of elasticity.......................... 31

Figure 22 LTC: Compressive strength vs. static modulus of elasticity ......................... 31

xii

Figure 23 SCC: Compressive strength vs. static modulus of elasticity ......................... 32

Figure 24 - All: Compressive strength vs. static modulus of elasticity ............................ 32

Figure 25 TSS: Compressive strength vs. depth ............................................................ 35

Figure 26 LTS: Compressive strength vs. depth ............................................................ 35

Figure 27 LTC: Compressive strength vs. depth ........................................................... 36

Figure 28 SCC: Compressive strength vs. depth ........................................................... 36

Figure 29 All: Compressive strength vs. depth .............................................................. 37

Figure 30 TSS: Unit weight vs. depth ............................................................................ 37

Figure 31 LTS: Unit weight vs. depth ........................................................................... 38

Figure 32 LTC: Unit weight vs. depth ........................................................................... 38

Figure 33 SCC: Unit weight vs. depth ........................................................................... 39

Figure 34 All: Unit weight vs. depth ............................................................................. 39

Figure 35 TSS: Static modulus of elasticity vs. depth ................................................... 40

Figure 36 LTS: Static modulus of elasticity vs. depth ................................................... 41

Figure 37 LTC: Static modulus of elasticity vs. depth .................................................. 41

Figure 38 SCC: Static modulus of elasticity vs. depth .................................................. 42

Figure 39 All: Static modulus of elasticity vs. depth ..................................................... 42

1

1 Introduction

1.1 Objective

The objective of this research was to determine the material properties of concrete

in trial drilled shafts that were constructed to evaluate the proposed concrete mixture

designs for the drilled shaft foundation of the new North Kahana Stream Bridge. The

overall project intends to study and develop specifications and mix design guidelines for

the use of self-consolidating concrete (SCC) in Hawaii. SCC and conventional concrete

mix designs were compared by investigating placement and post-placement performance.

This research focuses on analyzing the material properties of the hardened concrete,

namely the dynamic modulus of elasticity, static modulus of elasticity and compressive

strength. Field-cured test cylinders and test shaft cores were tested and correlated to

indicate the in-place properties of concrete in the drilled shafts.

1.2 Literature Review

1.2.1 Concrete Material Properties

Material properties are significant in evaluating the performance of concrete

structures. The most common parameters used in describing concrete are compressive

strength and elastic modulus.

Compressive strength, fc, is accepted as the general measure of overall concrete

strength. Molded test cylinders that are cured similar to the structural element are

typically used to estimate the in-place strength of concrete. However, because it is

difficult to recreate the same curing conditions in the structure for the molded specimens,

2

samples may be obtained from the existing structure and tested for strength. The strength

determined from structure cores are representative of the in-place strength, with some

uncertainties. Compressive strength is not an absolute property, and test results are

dependent on several factors such as size, shape, aspect ratio, moisture condition, age at

testing, and others.

ASTM C 39/C 39M provides the standard test method for compressive strength of

cylindrical concrete specimens. The standard molded cylinder size is 6 inches in diameter

by 12 inches long. The measured compressive strength is controlled by the weakest part

of the specimen, and theoretically, smaller specimens are less probable to have large

defects. Therefore, as specimen size decreases, the measured compressive strength is

generally expected to increase. For higher strength concrete, size has a greater influence

in the measured strength.

Figure 1 Relationship between compressive strength and l/d ratio (Price, 1951)

3

The standard length-diameter (l/d) ratio of test specimens is 2. As illustrated in

Figure 1, compression tests yield higher strengths for smaller l/d ratio specimens with the

same diameter. This is attributed to the restraint provided by friction between the load

frame and the test specimen at the ends of the cylinder. This friction restricts diametric

expansion at the specimen ends, and will have a greater influence on short specimens.

The static modulus of elasticity, Ec, is approximately proportional to the square

root of the compressive strength. For concrete with strength up to 6000 psi, Ec can be

calculated in psi by the following equation (ACI 318, 2008).

'33 5.1 cc fwE (1)

where w = concrete unit weight, lb/ft3

fc = compressive strength, psi

For high strength concrete with strengths between 6000 psi and 12000 psi, ACI

Committee 363 recommends the following equation that is valid for strengths ranging

from 3000 to 12000 psi (ACI 363, 1992).

6100.1'000,40 cc fE (2)

The ACI equations typically overestimate the actual static modulus of elasticity of

concrete made using Hawaiian aggregates. Newtson and Pham (2001) developed an

equation that estimates Ec for concrete made with Hawaiian aggregates.

Ec = 26.73w1.71( fc )0.378 (3)

4

The static modulus of elasticity can also be measured by testing cylindrical

specimens according to the standard compressive test method, ASTM C 469. This

property is simply the stress to strain ratio of concrete, during the initial elastic response.

Another elastic property of concrete that is not as commonly quantified is the

dynamic modulus of elasticity. The dynamic modulus is an intrinsic property that is

mainly used as a measure of deterioration in concrete specimens. ASTM C 215 is a

nondestructive standard method for measuring the fundamental frequencies of concrete,

which is used to calculate the dynamic modulus. This property is approximately equal to

the initial tangent modulus in the stress-strain curve, shown in Figure 2, and is therefore

greater than the static modulus of elasticity.

Figure 2 Typical concrete stress-strain curve

1.2.2 Self-Consolidating Concrete in Drilled Shaft Construction

A drilled shaft is a reinforced concrete foundation constructed in a drilled hole.

Drilled shafts are designed to resist vertical and lateral loads, and overturning moment.

Because of dense reinforcing cages required by design, passing ability, flowability and

5

resistance to segregation are desirable characteristics of fresh concrete for use in drilled

shafts. Self-consolidating concrete (SCC) possesses these qualitiesit flows freely

without mechanical vibration and, ideally, remains homogeneous. Several research

programs have been conducted to investigate the use of SCC in drilled shafts, and it has

been concluded that SCC is a viable material in this application. In this research, the

material properties of SCC drilled shafts are evaluated as well as a conventional concrete

drilled shaft.

1.3 North Kahana Stream Bridge Replacement

This research project encompasses the analysis of three test drilled shafts that

were built to investigate the proposed SCC mixture design, compared to conventional

concrete, for the North Kahana Bridge drilled shaft construction.

The use of SCC in drilled shafts has been increasingly popular in many parts of

the world, but because of the high angularity and high absorption of Hawaiian

aggregates, further investigation is needed for local application.

The test shafts are approximately 59 inches in diameter and 160 feet deep. Two

test shafts were made of SCC and one was made using conventional concrete. The

mixture designs and the properties of the design fresh concrete are given in Table 1.

Adjustments to water content were made during field placement to meet the desired

workability.

6

Table 1 Concrete mix designs

* S.G. - Specific gravity SSD - Saturated surface dry w/c - water/cementitious material The following nomenclature will be used in this paper to present the data for the

different concrete mixes:

TSS Trial Shaft using SCC (cast on January 22, 2010)

LTS Load Test Shaft using SCC (cast on January 28, 2010)

LTC Load Test Shaft using conventional concrete (cast on February 3, 2010)

SCC TSS and LTS data combined

All TSS, LTS and LTC data combined

Mix Design SCC Conventional Concrete

Material Absorption S.G.* SSD weight, lb/yd3 Hawaiian cement (Type I/II) 3.15 799 799 Kapaa sand 4.5 2.65 1272 1442 Maui dune sand 2.0 2.65 305 360 Kapaa 3/8 chip 3.5 2.70 1200 927 Water 1 358 358

Admixtures Dosage, oz/sk Pozzolith 220N 0 - 3 Pozzolith 100XR 5 - 8 5 - 8 Glenium NS 8 - 10 VMA 4

Properties Unit weight, lb/ft3 145.7 143.9 w/c ratio 0.45 0.45

7

2 Test Methods

2.1 Test Specimens

For each test shaft, the concrete was poured in multiple batches, and standard

sized test cylinders were made from each batch. Cores were later obtained throughout the

depth of the shafts for testing.

2.1.1 Test Cylinders

Figure 3 illustrates the size reduction of the test cylinders as required by the test

methods. The static modulus of elasticity and 28-day strength were determined by testing

two or more standard sized test cylinders.

Figure 3 Test cylinder specimen size reduction

The full size test cylinders were then trimmed by approximately 1 from the top

and bottom for segregation analysis (D. Johnson, 2010), leaving 6x10 test cylinders.

The 6x10 cylinders were tested to acquire the dynamic modulus of elasticity and static

modulus of elasticity of the field-cured concrete. Some were then selected to be cored

8

into 2.22 diameter cores. The 2.22x10 cores were again tested for dynamic modulus,

then cut into approximately 5 lengths with a wet saw. The 2.22x5 test cylinder cores

and the remaining 6x10 test cylinders were loaded to failure to determine the

compressive strength. Every specimen tested was labeled with its trial shaft name and

batch number.

2.1.2 Test Shaft Cores

Two 2-3/8 inch diameter cores were obtained along the full depth of each test

shaft. The core pieces were labeled according to the test shaft name and location depth

and stored in boxes as shown in Figure 4.

By means of visual inspection, core samples were selected to be tested due to

observed defects, blemishes, cavities, poor recovery, segregation and other damages.

Core samples were also collected for testing at 20-foot intervals throughout the depth of

each shaft. The samples with varying lengths were cut at each end with a wet saw and

tested for dynamic modulus. The samples were then cut into 5 lengths and crushed to

determine strength. Each core sample was labeled with the mix group name and location

depth. Comprehensive descriptions of the tests are given in the following sections.

Figure 4 Labeled core samples; core with observed defects

9

2.2 Fundamental Longitudinal Frequency Test

Fundamental frequency tests were performed as described in ASTM C 215 for the

purpose of determining the dynamic modulus of elasticity of the concrete specimens. In

this research, the impact resonance method was used to measure the longitudinal

frequencies of the samples.

The apparatus for this test method consists of the following components:

Impact hammer

Accelerometer

Signal Analyzer dsp Technology SigLab Model 20-22A

Amplifier PCB Piezotronics Model 482A16

Computer with SigLab with Matlab software (using vna application)

Specimen Support Frame

Figure 5 Signal analyzer (black box) and amplifier (blue box)

10

Figure 6 Specimen test setup

For every specimen, the mass in kilograms was measured as well as the average

length and diameter in inches, converted to meters. The specimen was marked at mid-

length to serve as a guide for mounting. The specimen was mounted in the support frame,

as illustrated in Figure 6, where free vibration in the longitudinal direction was allowed.

The accelerometer was then attached at the approximate center of the bottom end of the

specimen. Detailed instructions for starting up and operating the analyzer are provided in

Appendix B. Using the impact hammer, the specimen was tapped at the center of its top

end, and the response was analyzed by the computer setup. This process was repeated

11

three times and the average longitudinal frequency detected by the analyzer was recorded

as well as the quality, Q, of the test. The dynamic modulus of elasticity, Ed, was

calculated in Pascals according to the equation below and was converted to kilo pounds

per square inch.

2)'(nDMEd

where D = 5.093 (L/d2), Ns2(kgm2)

L = length of specimen, m

d = diameter of specimen, m

M = mass of specimen, kg

n = fundamental longitudinal frequency, Hz

2.3 Static Modulus of Elasticity Test

The 6x10 test cylinders were tested for static modulus of elasticity in

compression, with ASTM C 469 as a standard guide. The test was performed on a

RIEHLE Universal Test Frame using a Humboldt compressometer with a dial gauge,

shown in Figure 7. The compressometer is designed for testing full size, 6x12

cylinders, but due to the shorter length of the specimen, the specimen was not capped

before testing. Capping the specimen typically is desired when applying axial load for

perpendicularity and planeness, but because the ends of the cylinders were saw-cut,

uncapped testing was acceptable. The diameter of the specimen was verified by

averaging two diameters measured perpendicular to each other, with the use of a tape

measure.

12

Figure 7 Compression test machine; compressometer

Prior compressive strength testing of full size cylinders from each mix group

determined the average ultimate load, Pult. The compressometer was attached to the

specimen and was approximately centered on the testing machine. The specimen was

loaded to 10% and 40% of Pult, and the measured displacement at each loading point was

recorded. This process was performed three times, and the first data set was discarded.

The displacement is recorded in ten thousandths of an inch (0.0001).

The compressive stresses, 1 and 2, were calculated by dividing 0.10Pult and

0.40Pult by the cross-sectional area of the specimen. The longitudinal strain was

determined by the formula: n = 0.0001xn / 2Lg, where xn was the measured displacement

of the gauge (n = 1, 2), and Lg = 8 was the original length of the gauge. The measured xn

13

was twice the actual specimen displacement. The static modulus of elasticity was

calculated using the following formula:

12

12

cE

where Ec = static modulus of elasticity, psi

2 = stress corresponding to 40% of ultimate load, psi

1 = stress corresponding to 10% of ultimate load, psi

2 = longitudinal strain produced by 2

1 = longitudinal strain produced by 1

2.4 Compressive Strength Test

The compressive strength was determined by testing the 6x10 test cylinders,

2.22x5 test cylinder cores and 2.38x5 trial shaft cores. Prior to testing, the diameter,

length and mass of each specimen were remeasured, and the cross-sectional area and unit

weight were calculated. The specimens were then capped in compliance with ASTM C

617. Each specimen was placed and centered on the compression machine and loaded at a

rate of 0.40 revolutions per minute until failure. The maximum load carried by the

specimen was recorded, and the compressive strength, fc, was calculated by dividing the

failure load by the specimen cross-sectional area.

14

Figure 8 Specimen sizes and properties determined

15

3 Test Results

3.1 Dynamic Modulus of Elasticity

The calculated dynamic modulus of elasticity from each specimen is shown in

Tables A 1-8 in Appendix A. Table 2 summarizes the average dynamic modulus for the

6x10 test cylinders and 2.22x10 test cylinder cores for each mix group. Table 3

shows the averages for the test shaft cores of various lengths. Also shown in the tables

are the average ages of the specimens, in days, at the time of testing.

Table 2 Average dynamic modulus of elasticity of test cylinders

6x10 2.22x10

Mix Ed Age Ed Age

(ksi) (days) (ksi) (days)

TSS 4153 170 4315 260

LTS 3965 164 4185 254

LTC 3501 158 3748 248

SCC 4030 166 4239 256

All 3850 163 4043 253

Table 3 Average dynamic modulus of elasticity of test shaft cores

Ed

(ksi) Age

(days)Mix

TSS 4498 205

LTS 4411 209

LTC 4094 194

SCC 4464 207

All 4325 202

16

3.2 Static Modulus of Elasticity

Table 4 presents the average static modulus of elasticity for each mix group for

the test cylinders. The data for the full size, 6x12 cylinders were provided by Dr.

Robertson. The complete table of data showing the raw static modulus of each specimen

can be found in Tables A 9-11 in Appendix A.

Table 4 Average raw static modulus of elasticity of test cylinders

6x12 6x10

Mix Ec Age Ec Age

(ksi) (days) (ksi) (days)

TSS 3525 28 3575 200

LTS 3319 28 3350 194

LTC 3136 28 3118 188

SCC 3422 28 3427 196

All 3326 28 3332 194

3.3 Compressive Strength

The compressive strength was determined for a select number of 6x10 test

cylinders from each mix group. The rest of the test cylinders were cored and sliced into

2.22x5 cylinders and crushed to obtain the compressive strength. The averages of the

raw strength values are presented in Table 5. The average raw compressive strengths for

the 2.38x5 test shaft cores from each mix group are shown in Table 6. Refer to Tables

A 12-17 in Appendix A for the complete tables of data.

17

Table 5 Average raw compressive strength of test cylinders

6x12 6x10 2.22x5

Mix fc Age fc Age fc Age

(psi) (days) (psi) (days) (psi) (days)

TSS 7055 28 7144 340 8748 280

LTS 6827 28 7422 334 8569 274

LTC 5439 28 5684 328 6704 268

SCC 6941 28 7343 336 8620 276

All 6440 28 6906 334 7981 273

Table 6 Average raw compressive strength of test shaft cores

fc

(psi) Age

(days)Mix

TSS 8799 225

LTS 8589 229

LTC 8205 214

SCC 8719 227

All 8526 222

4 Data Analysis and Discussion

4.1 Dynamic Modulus of Elasticity

ASTM C 215 poses a limitation on the dimensional ratio of the specimen, stating

that it is preferable to have an aspect ratio between 3 and 5, and must be at least 2.

However, in this research, this requirement was not satisfied by the available 6x10 test

cylinders. All of the cores, however, were tested before sizing down to 5 lengths and

generally fulfilled the desired aspect ratio.

18

Another reason why the core specimens were tested with long lengths, and not

after being trimmed to 5 inches, was because of the sensitivity of the accelerometer.

Testing a 5-inch long specimen yielded a longitudinal frequency greater than 10,000 Hz.

At this point, the sensors sensitivity had begun to deviate, generating unreliable results.

There were no adjustments made to the calculated dynamic moduli presented in

Tables 2 and 3. As shown in Table 7, the average dynamic moduli from the 2.22x10

test cylinder cores are greater than the average values from the 6x10 test cylinders by

approximately 4.8%. Also given in Table 7 are the average l/d ratios of the specimens for

each mix group. The 6x10 test cylinder specimens do not satisfy the 1/d ratio limitation

of 2, having an overall average of 1.63. The overall average aspect ratio of the 2.22x10

test cylinder cores is 4.39, which falls within the preferred range of 3 to 5. Therefore, the

calculated dynamic moduli from the test cylinder cores are assumed to be more reliable.

As previously seen in Figure 4, the test shaft cores were broken up into varied

lengths, and were therefore tested with different lengths after saw-cutting the ends. The

varying aspect ratios of these specimens generally fulfilled the l/d ratio limit. Unlike the

test cylinder results, where there is no pattern among the different batches, the dynamic

modulus from the test shaft increases with depth, which can be seen in Appendix A. This

observation is expected because the material properties of concrete are presumably better

at the bottom of the structure due to possible segregation, bleeding, and varying curing

conditions. As shown in Tables 2 and 3, the SCC has a greater dynamic modulus of

elasticity than the conventional concrete. Also, as indicated in Table 7, the percentage

difference between the Ed results from test cylinders and their cores show a larger

inconsistency for the LTC mixture.

19

Table 7 Dynamic modulus comparison between test cylinders and cores

6x10 2.22x10 Ed Difference

(%) Mix

l/d ratio Ed (ksi) l/d ratio Ed

(ksi) TSS 1.65 4153 4.44 4315 3.8% LTS 1.63 3965 4.40 4185 5.2% LTC 1.61 3501 4.36 3748 6.6% SCC 1.64 4030 4.42 4239 4.9% All 1.63 3850 4.39 4043 4.8%

4.2 Static Modulus of Elasticity

The in-place static modulus was estimated based on the measured static moduli

from the test cylinders. The average Ec from the 6x10 cylinders were compared with

the values from the full size cylinders to confirm the precision of the results. Table 8 lists

the percentage difference between the Ec of the standard test cylinders and the 6x10

cylinders. Because only minor differences were observed in the averages, the measured

Ec of the 6x10 cylinders were considered acceptable.

The dynamic and static moduli of elasticity of concrete are intrinsic properties,

thus it was presumed that the in-place static modulus can be estimated based on the

static-to-dynamic modulus ratio determined from the field-cured test cylinders. Because

it was deduced in the previous section that the measured dynamic moduli from the test

cylinder cores were more accurate, those values were used in the ratio calculations. The

equation below shows how the in-place static modulus was computed.

.var38.2,102.2,

106,, xd

xd

xcplaceInc EE

EE

20

The Ec / Ed ratios of the test cylinders and the averages of the approximated in-

place Ec are also presented in Table 8. The measured in-place Ec were found to be on the

low to mid-range of the typical static modulus of concrete.

Table 8 Estimation of in-place static modulus of elasticity

4.3 Compressive Strength

Because the specimens available were not of standard size, the calculated

compressive strengths derived from the standard test method need to be adjusted for

several factors. ACI 214.4R presents correction factors for adjusting core strengths to

equivalent in-place strengths. However, due to conditions unique to this research,

correction factors were generated in relation to the material properties determined from

the test cylinders. The ratios between the compressive strengths of the 6x10 and 6x12

test cylinders, as well as between the 2.2x5 and 6x12, are shown in Table 9. The

compressive strengths of the test cylinders and test cylinder cores were adjusted

according to the fc ratios, shown in Table A 18 in Appendix A.

Ec

Difference (%)

Ec / Ed In-place

Ec (ksi)

Mix

TSS -1.42% 0.83 3726

LTS -0.94% 0.80 3531

LTC 0.56% 0.83 3406

SCC -0.16% 0.81 3610

All -0.16% 0.82 3564

21

Table 9 Compressive strength ratios and computed correction factors, F

Test Cylinders In-Place

Mix 6x10 2.22x5 2.38x5

fc ratio fc ratio F

TSS 0.99 0.81 0.85

LTS 0.92 0.80 0.83

LTC 0.96 0.81 0.85

SCC 0.95 0.81 0.84

All 0.93 0.81 0.84

The correction factors, F, for determining the in-place strengths were computed

by linearly interpolating between the fc ratios based on the average l/d ratios of the

specimens. For each mix group, the correction factor, which was assumed to include

adjustments for l/d ratio, diameter and drilling damage, was calculated, also shown in

Table 9. Additionally, a correction factor for dried specimens of 0.96 was used to adjust

for moisture content as suggested by ACI 214.4R. To estimate the in-place compressive

strength, the raw compressive strength of the test shaft core was multiplied by the

correction factor that accounts for l/d ratio, diameter and drilling damage, as well as the

correction for moisture content. The calculated in-place strengths are listed in Table 10.

The in-place strengths of the test shafts calculated in this research were adjusted

relative to the 28-day strength of the full size cylinders. Concrete gains strength as it

hydrates, and after 28 days, a considerable amount of hydration has already occurred.

Under ideal conditions, concrete should continue to strengthen as it ages, but

theoretically, over 90% of its strength is achieved in 28 days. The specimens were tested

22

between the ages 7 to 12 months. As shown in Figure 9, no substantial strength gain is

believed to occur after 28 days, thus the in-place strengths were not adjusted for age.

Figure 9 Typical strength-gain curve (University of Memphis, 2010)

Design equation values for the static modulus were also calculated. The average

in-place compressive strengths for all mixture groups were greater than 6000 psi, hence

the ACI Committee 363 equation for high strength concrete was used to predict values

for Ec. The Ec values based on the equation derived by Newtson and Pham (2001) were

also computed. Table 10 shows the predicted static moduli as well as the average unit

weight of each mixture group.

Table 10 Estimated in-place compressive strengths and theoretical static moduli

In-place

fc (psi)

w (lb/ft3)

ACI 363 Ec

(ksi)

Newtson & Pham

Ec (ksi)

%Difference

PN

ACIPN

EEE

&

& Mix

TSS 7189 145.0 4389 3805 -15.3

LTS 6811 144.8 4294 3723 -15.3

LTC 6657 141.4 4260 3544 -20.2

SCC 7021 144.9 4347 3769 -15.3

All 6849 143.6 4306 3678 -17.1

56

23

It can be noted that the static moduli predicted by Newtson and Pham are

significantly lower than the ACI 363 predictions. The ACI committee 363 high strength

equation for Ec is expected to overestimate the static moduli. Also, Ec of concrete is

influenced by the strength of aggregate. Because similar aggregates were used by

Newtson and Pham and in this research, their equation was expected to give better

approximations of Ec.

The unit weights were calculated as required by the Newtson and Pham equation

for Ec. It can be observed that the actual unit weight of the LTC shaft is slightly less than

the design unit weight presented in Table 1. As seen in Tables A 15-17 in Appendix A, w

deviates along the depth of the test shafts, suggesting nonuniformity of concrete.

4.4 In-Place Material Properties

Table 11 summarizes the average material properties calculated for each mixture

group. As seen in the table, the TSS trial shaft had the highest strength and highest elastic

moduli. On the other hand, the LTC trial shaft had the lowest material properties. This

could be due to poor placement of the concrete. Based on these results, it can be

concluded that the SCC mix design had better hardened concrete material properties than

the conventional concrete mix. Overall, the three test shafts demonstrated desirable

properties, and both the SCC and conventional concrete mix designs were feasible to be

used for the North Kahana bridge drilled shaft construction.

24

Table 11 Summary of in-place material properties

fc

(psi)

ACI 363 Ec

(ksi)

Newtson & Pham

Ec (ksi)

Measured Ec

(ksi)

Ed (ksi) Mix

TSS 7189 4389 3805 3726 4498 LTS 6811 4294 3723 3531 4411 LTC 6657 4260 3544 3406 4094 SCC 7021 4347 3769 3610 4464 All 6849 4306 3678 3564 4325

According to Figures 10, 12, 14, 16 and 18, the static modulus of elasticity was

greatly overestimated by the ACI 363 equation for high strength concrete. Particularly,

Figure 14 shows that the Ec values for the LTC test shaft were overestimated by up to

40%. Figures 11, 13, 15, 17 and 19 reveal that the calculated in-place Ec was also

overestimated by the Newtson and Pham equation but with only 10% error. Newtson

and Pham gave a closer estimation of the in-place static modulus.

It is also possible that the experimental Ec were not accurate, considering that they

were estimated based on the dynamic modulus of elasticity. However, because the

measured Ec are close to the predictions by Newtson and Pham, these values were

deemed to be acceptable.

25

Figure 10 TSS: Predicted vs. measured Ec according to ACI 363

Figure 11 TSS: Predicted vs. measured Ec according to Newtson & Pham

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500

EcACIHighStrength(ksi)

EcMeasured(ksi)

TSS

Error:+40%+30%+20%+10%

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500

EcNew

tson

&Pha

m(k

si)

EcMeasured(ksi)

TSS

Error:+10%+5%5%10%

26

Figure 12 LTS: Predicted vs. measured Ec according to ACI 363

Figure 13 LTS: Predicted vs. measured Ec according to Newtson & Pham

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500

EcACIHighStrength(ksi)

EcMeasured(ksi)

LTS

Error:+40%+30%+20%+10%

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500

EcNew

tson

&Pha

m(ksi)

EcMeasured(ksi)

LTS

Error:+10%+5%5%10%

27

Figure 14 LTC: Predicted vs. measured Ec according to ACI 363

Figure 15 LTC: Predicted vs. measured Ec according to Newtson & Pham

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500

EcACIHighStrengh(ksi)

EcMeasured(ksi)

LTC

Error:+40%+30%+20%+10%

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500

EcNew

tson

&Pha

m(ksi)

EcMeasured(ksi)

LTC

Error:+10%+5%5%10%

28

Figure 16 SCC: Predicted vs. measured Ec according to ACI 363

Figure 17 SCC: Predicted vs. measured Ec according to Newtson & Pham

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500

EcACIHighStrength(ksi)

EcMeasured(ksi)

TSSLTS

Error:+40%+30%+20%+10%

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500

EcNew

tson

&Pha

m(ksi)

EcMeasured(ksi)

TSSLTS

Error:+10%+5%5%10%

29

Figure 18 All: Predicted vs. measured Ec according to ACI 363

Figure 19 All: Predicted vs. measured Ec according to Newtson & Pham

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500

EcACIHighStrength(ksi)

EcMeasured(ksi)

TSSLTSLTC

Error:+40%+30%+20%+10%

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500

EcNew

tson

&Pha

m(ksi)

EcMeasured(ksi)

TSSLTSLTC

Error:+10%+5%5%10%

30

Figures 20 to 24 show comparisons between the experimental Ec values and the

ACI 363 and Newtson and Pham predictions. Figure 22, the comparison chart for the

LTC shaft, notably shows a larger difference between the predicted Ec and the calculated

in-place Ec. This is believed to be because the concrete in the LTC shaft has a smaller

unit weight compared to the two SCC shafts. The Ec curves according to Newtson and

Pham were calculated based on the average unit weights for each of the mixtures.

Majority of the plotted points lie under the predicted Ec curves.

Figure 20 TSS: Compressive strength vs. static modulus of elasticity

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000 8500 9000

Ec(k

si)

fc(psi)

TSSMeasured

ACIHighStrength

Newtson&Pham

31

Figure 21 LTS: Compressive strength vs. static modulus of elasticity

Figure 22 LTC: Compressive strength vs. static modulus of elasticity

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000 8500 9000

Ec(k

si)

fc(psi)

LTSMeasured

ACIHighStrength

Newtson&Pham

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000 8500 9000

Ec(k

si)

fc(psi)

LTCMeasured

ACIHighStrength

Newtson&Pham

32

Figure 23 SCC: Compressive strength vs. static modulus of elasticity

Figure 24 - All: Compressive strength vs. static modulus of elasticity

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000 8500 9000

Ec(k

si)

fc(psi)

TSSMeasured

LTSMeasured

ACIHighStrength

Newtson&Pham

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000 8500 9000

Ec(k

si)

fc(psi)

TSSMeasuredLTSMeasuredLTCMeasuredACIHighStrengthNewtson&Pham

33

The adjusted strengths were plotted against the location depth of each test shaft

core specimen to evaluate the change in strength along the depth of the shaft as shown in

Figures 25 to 29. A best fit linear trendline was drawn which reveals that the concrete at

the top of the test shaft had lower compressive strength, and the bottom of the shaft had

higher strength. This was expected because of the difference in curing effects at different

locations in the shafts, and possibly differences in density with depth. The equation of the

trendline represents an estimation of the strength of concrete at any location along the

depth of the test shaft. Table 12 shows the derived compressive strength equation as a

function of depth, z in feet, for each mix group.

Table 12 Compressive strength equations as a function of depth, z (ft)

Mix fc,ave (psi) fc(z) (psi)

TSS 7189 (fc,ave 395) + 5.1z LTS 6811 (fc,ave 743) + 12.0z LTC 6657 (fc,ave 929) + 12.7z SCC 7021 (fc,ave 530) + 7.3z All 6849 (fc,ave 635) + 8.7z

As observed from the slopes of the trendlines, the compressive strength varied

greatly down the depth of the shafts. In theory, core elevation has little to no effect on

high strength concrete because of little bleeding. However, this was not the case for the

test drilled shafts according to the research results. The strength at the top of the TSS

shaft was approximately 11% weaker than that at the bottom. The TSS shaft

demonstrated the least strength difference based on location, while the top and bottom

locations of the LTS and LTC shaft had a percentage difference of 24% and 26%

respectively. The combined SCC data resulted in a 15% strength difference, while all

data combined had 18% difference.

34

The increase in compressive strength is partially attributed to the increase

pressure with depth in the drilled shaft. High pressure reduces the size of the air bubbles

in concrete. This will result in higher density and consequent higher strength and

stiffness. As shown in the unit weight versus depth plots in Figures 30 to 34, the unit

weight of concrete increases with depth of the drilled shafts. Smaller air content results to

higher density, which in turn increases the compressive strength. The percentage

differences between the unit weights at the top and bottom of the test shafts for mix

groups TSS, LTS, LTC, SCC and All are 1.3%, 6.8%, 3.6%, 2.8% and 2.9%,

respectively.

For comparison purposes, the adjusted strengths of the test cylinders and test

cylinder cores were also plotted against the approximated locations in Figures 25 to 27.

During field placement, the tremie pipe method was used, making it difficult to determine

the exact location of each batch in the test shaft. For purposes of comparing concrete

strengths, it was assumed that the first pour filled the bottom of the shaft, and the last

batch filled the top. All the test cylinders underwent the same curing conditions, and as

seen in the charts, the cylinder strengths appeared to be independent of depth. However,

the test cylinder strengths of the LTC mix group are notably lower than the in-place

concrete strengths. Possible reasons for this and other result discrepancies are discussed

in the next section.

35

Figure 25 TSS: Compressive strength vs. depth

Figure 26 LTS: Compressive strength vs. depth

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

Dep

th(ft)

fc(psi)

TSSCoresTSSTestCylinders

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

Dep

th(ft)

fc(psi)

LTSCoresLTSTestCylinders

36

Figure 27 LTC: Compressive strength vs. depth

Figure 28 SCC: Compressive strength vs. depth

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

Dep

th(ft)

fc(psi)

LTCCoresLTCTestCylinders

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

Dep

th(ft)

fc(psi)

TSSLTS

37

Figure 29 All: Compressive strength vs. depth

Figure 30 TSS: Unit weight vs. depth

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

Dep

th(ft)

fc(psi)

TSSLTSLTC

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

125 150 175

Dep

th (f

t)

Unit Weight (lb/ft3)

TSS

38

Figure 31 LTS: Unit weight vs. depth

Figure 32 LTC: Unit weight vs. depth

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

125 150 175

Dep

th (f

t)

Unit Weight (lb/ft3)

LTS

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

125 150 175

Dep

th (f

t)

Unit Weight (lb/ft3)

LTC

39

Figure 33 SCC: Unit weight vs. depth

Figure 34 All: Unit weight vs. depth

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

125 150 175

Dep

th (f

t)

Unit Weight (lb/ft3)

TSSLTS

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

125 150 175

Dep

th (f

t)

Unit Weight (lb/ft3)

TSSLTSLTC

40

Experimental Ec versus depth plots are shown in Figures 35 to 39, including the

best fit trendlines. Table 13 presents the derived equations for static modulus of elasticity

as a function of depth, z in feet. Similar to the compressive strength, the static modulus of

elasticity in the test shafts increases with depth due to differing curing conditions and

increased concrete density. The percent difference of Ec between the top and bottom of

the shafts is roughly 15% for all the mix groups.

Table 13 Static modulus of elasticity equations as a function of depth, z (ft)

Mix Ec,ave (ksi) Ec(z) (ksi)

TSS 3726 (Ec,ave 190) + 2.5z LTS 3531 (Ec,ave 277) + 4.6z LTC 3406 (Ec,ave 172) + 2.4z SCC 3610 (Ec,ave 221) + 3.1z All 3564 (Ec,ave 199) + 2.8z

Figure 35 TSS: Static modulus of elasticity vs. depth

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Dep

th(ft)

Ec(psi)

TSSCoresTSSTestCylinders

41

Figure 36 LTS: Static modulus of elasticity vs. depth

Figure 37 LTC: Static modulus of elasticity vs. depth

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Dep

th(ft)

Ec(psi)

LTSCoresLTSTestCylinders

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Dep

th(ft)

Ec(psi)

LTCCoresLTCTestCylidners

42

Figure 38 SCC: Static modulus of elasticity vs. depth

Figure 39 All: Static modulus of elasticity vs. depth

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Dep

th(ft)

Ec(psi)

TSSLTS

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Dep

th(ft)

Ec(psi)

TSSLTSLTC

43

5 Error Analysis

There are a few factors in this research that might have caused inconsistencies in

the results. As previously mentioned, ASTM C 215, for determining the dynamic

modulus, advises against comparing results from specimens of different sizes. It also

recommends that specimens have a length-diameter ratio of at least 2. Because the test

cylinders in this research did not fulfill the l/d requirement, the test cylinder core dynamic

moduli were used along with the test cylinder static moduli to estimate the static modulus

of the test shaft cores. Because the difference between the dynamic moduli of the test

cylinders and their cores was only approximately 5%, this was assumed to be acceptable.

Also, the dynamic moduli of the test shaft cores were determined from specimens with

varying lengths, which again disregards the suggestion to not compare results between

different sized specimens. However, because the values fall within a reasonable range,

this was also accepted.

Another uncertainty arises from the fact that the compressive strength adjustments

were based on a small sample of data for full size cylinder strengths. Particularly for the

LTC full size cylinders, some data needed to be ignored to produce consistent results.

For the overall research, a few data had to be removed because of drastic

deviation from the rest of the results, causing a considerable change in the averages. The

test shafts also did not have equal numbers of test specimens, which could have had an

effect on calculating the averages of combined data. The results of this research are not

indicative of general SCC and conventional concrete performance in drilled shafts, but

rather are specific to the mixture designs and the test shafts investigated.

44

6 Conclusions and Recommendations

For the replacement of the North Kahana Bridge, three test drilled shafts were

constructed to evaluate the suggested concrete mixture designs to be used for the drilled

shafts supporting the bridge. A series of tests were performed on several molded test

cylinders and cores obtained from the shafts to determine the dynamic and static moduli

of elasticity and the compressive strength of the concrete. Using the results from the test

cylinders, correction factors were produced to convert the test shaft core results to

estimated in-place material properties of the concrete in the drilled shafts. Equations were

also developed to estimate the compressive strength of concrete at any particular location

in the test shafts.

The three test shafts were found to have satisfactory material properties, with an

overall average dynamic modulus of 4325 ksi, static modulus of 3564 ksi, and

compressive strength of 6849 psi. The concrete in the test shafts was determined to be

high strength concrete. However, ACI committee 363, which proposes as elastic modulus

equation for high strength concrete, greatly overestimates the static modulus in the test

shafts. Newtson and Pham (2001) give a better approximation of the static modulus with

the equation derived from concrete made with Hawaiian aggregates, which are

comparable to the materials used in this research.

It was found that the SCC shafts have higher and more desirable properties over

the LTC shaft. Also, there was less discrepancy between the results from the SCC shafts

compared to the conventional concrete shaft. This suggested better homogeneity along

the depth of the SCC shafts, meaning no significant segregation occurred, and possible

concrete placement problems for the LTC shaft. It was also found that the compressive

45

strength and static modulus of elasticity increased with the depth of the shafts. Based on

the results of this research, it was concluded that the SCC mixture design had better

hardened concrete material properties than the conventional concrete mixture.

For similar testing in the future, it is recommended to use the standard size

specimens as suggested by the standard test methods for more reliable results. It is also

preferable to have equal quantities of specimens when making comparisons between

different mix designs or drilled shafts.

46

47

7 References

ACI 214.4R, 2010, Guide for Obtaining Cores and Interpreting Compressive Strength Results,

ACI Committee 214 Report, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2010.

ACI 318, 2008, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary, ACI

Committee 318 Report, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2008.

ACI 363R, 1992, State-of-the-Art Report on High Strength Concrete, ACI Committee 363

Report, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1992.

ASTM Standard C39/C39M, 2004a, "Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of

Cylindrical Concrete Specimens," ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2004,

DOI: 10.1520/C0039-04A.

ASTM Standard C215, 2002, "Standard Test Method for Fundamental Transverse, Longitudinal,

and Torsional Resonant Frequencies of Concrete Specimens," ASTM International, West

Conshohocken, PA, 2002, DOI: 10.1520/C0215-02.

ASTM Standard C469, 2002, "Standard Test Method for Static Modulus of Elasticity and

Poissons Ratio of Concrete in Compression," ASTM International, West Conshohocken,

PA, 2002, DOI: 10.1520/C0469-02.

Hodgson, D. et al., 2004, Self-Consolidating Concrete for use in Drilled Shaft Applications,

ASCE Materials Journal Paper: MT-22816.

Johnson, D., 2010, Quantifying Segregation in Self-Consolidating Concrete through Image

Analysis, Masters Thesis Report, Department of Civil and Environmental

Engineering, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI.

48

Kumar, M. et al., 2005, Non-destructive Evaluation of Dynamic Properties of Concrete,

Department of Civil Engineering, Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology,

Patiala, India, 2005.

Lamond, J. and Pielert, J., 2006, Significance of Tests and Properties of Concrete & Concrete-

Making Materials, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2006.

Newtson, C. and Pham, P., 2001, Properties of Concrete Produced with Admixtures Intended to

Inhibit Corrosion, UH Research Report UHM/CE/01-01, Honolulu, HI,

www.cee.hawaii.edu/reports/UHM-CE-01-01.pdf

Price, W. H., Factors Influencing Concrete Strength, Proceedings, Vol. 47, American Concrete

Institute, 1951, pp. 417-432.

Properties of Concrete. 2010. University of Memphis, Department of Civil Engineering, Retrieved

April 2011 from http://www.ce.memphis.edu/1101/notes/concrete/section_3_

properties.html.

49

APPENDIX A

50

Table A 1 TSS: Dynamic modulus of elasticity calculation from test cylinders

Specimen Cast Mass Length Diameter Ini. Freq Fund Q Dyn E Dyn E Name Date (kg) (in) (in) (Hz) (Hz) (Pa) (ksi)

T TSS 1 1/22/2010 10.226 9.750 9.813 6.000 6.063 6950.0 6933.3 89.8648 2.65E+10 3844 TSS 2 1/22/2010 TSS 3 1/22/2010

C TSS 4 1/22/2010 10.428 9.813 9.875 5.938 5.938 7050.0 7042.4 132.3446 2.90E+10 4200 T TSS 5 1/22/2010 10.719 10.000 10.000 6.000 6.000 7100.0 7089.2 95.3135 3.00E+10 4352 C TSS 5* 1/22/2010 10.513 9.938 10.000 5.938 5.938 6900.0 6896.2 64.5634 2.83E+10 4111

TSS 6 1/22/2010 C TSS 7 1/22/2010 10.352 9.750 9.750 5.938 5.938 7050.0 7039.6 59.6818 2.84E+10 4126 T TSS 8 1/22/2010 10.612 9.938 9.938 5.938 5.938 7000.0 7014.0 32.6138 2.95E+10 4280

TSS 9 1/22/2010 C TSS 10 1/22/2010 10.551 9.875 9.938 5.938 5.938 7050.0 7028.4 111.9278 2.94E+10 4259 T TSS 10* 1/22/2010 10.451 9.875 9.875 5.938 5.938 7050.0 7030.0 99.6806 2.90E+10 4208 C TSS 11* 1/22/2010 10.302 9.750 9.813 6.000 6.000 7000.0 6985.6 94.7030 2.74E+10 3972

TSS 12 1/22/2010 T TSS 13 1/22/2010 10.435 9.875 9.875 6.000 6.000 7100.0 7084.5 107.4616 2.88E+10 4178

TSS 14 1/22/2010 TSS 15 1/22/2010

Average 4153

Table A 2 LTS: Dynamic modulus of elasticity calculation from test cylinders

Specimen Cast Mass Length Diameter Ini. Freq Fund Q Dyn E Dyn E

Name Date (kg) (in) (in) (Hz) (Hz) (Pa) (ksi) T LTS 1 1/28/2010 10.097 9.688 9.688 6.000 6.000 7050.0 7057.9 76.4869 2.71E+10 3936 C LTS 2 1/28/2010 9.972 9.688 9.750 6.000 6.000 7000.0 6994.3 54.5450 2.64E+10 3830 T LTS 2* 1/28/2010 10.191 9.750 9.813 6.000 6.000 7000.0 6956.5 33.5924 2.69E+10 3897 C LTS 3 1/28/2010 10.026 9.750 9.750 6.000 6.000 7000.0 6987.8 81.8290 2.66E+10 3856 T LTS 4 1/28/2010 10.036 9.688 9.750 6.000 6.000 6900.0 6893.0 53.7864 2.58E+10 3744 C LTS 4* 1/28/2010 10.120 9.688 9.750 6.000 6.000 6950.0 6946.4 54.7483 2.64E+10 3834 T LTS 5 1/28/2010 9.730 9.563 9.563 5.938 5.938 6900.0 6883.4 96.0646 2.51E+10 3637 C LTS 5* 1/28/2010 9.887 9.750 9.750 5.938 5.938 6700.0 6655.8 90.5111 2.43E+10 3523 T LTS 5** 1/28/2010 10.131 9.750 9.688 5.938 5.938 7000.0 6984.1 94.1692 2.73E+10 3962 C LTS 6 T LTS 7 1/28/2010 10.203 9.750 9.750 5.938 5.938 7050.0 7055.9 80.6864 2.82E+10 4085 C LTS 7* 1/28/2010 10.090 9.625 9.688 5.938 5.938 7050.0 7041.0 82.6193 2.75E+10 3984 T LTS 8 1/28/2010 10.396 9.813 9.750 5.938 5.938 7200.0 7186.9 90.6333 2.99E+10 4333 C LTS 9 1/28/2010 10.374 9.813 9.750 6.000 6.000 7200.0 7198.4 79.0963 2.93E+10 4248 C LTS 10 1/28/2010 10.213 9.813 9.813 6.000 6.000 7050.0 7039.2 82.9177 2.77E+10 4011 T LTS 11 1/28/2010 10.207 9.813 9.750 5.938 5.938 7000.0 6992.2 86.3307 2.78E+10 4027 C LTS 12 1/28/2010 10.199 9.813 9.750 6.000 6.000 6925.0 6913.7 81.8719 2.66E+10 3852 T LTS 13 1/28/2010 10.273 9.813 9.750 6.000 6.000 7100.0 7077.5 107.0082 2.80E+10 4066 C LTS 14 1/28/2010 10.350 9.813 9.813 5.938 5.938 7225.0 7212.9 68.6085 3.01E+10 4359 T LTS 15 1/28/2010 10.331 9.813 9.750 6.000 6.000 7150.0 7135.9 77.6077 2.87E+10 4157

Average 3965

51

Table A 3 LTC: Dynamic modulus of elasticity calculation for test cylinders

Specimen Cast Mass Length Diameter Ini. Freq Fund Q Dyn E Dyn E

Name Date (kg) (in) (in) (Hz) (Hz) (Pa) (ksi) C LTC 1 2/3/2010 9.500 9.813 9.750 6.000 6.000 6575.0 6559.1 99.5922 2.23E+10 3229 T LTC 2 2/3/2010 9.625 9.750 9.688 6.000 6.000 6750.0 6738.6 106.9039 2.37E+10 3431 C LTC 3 2/3/2010 9.659 9.688 9.750 5.938 5.938 6850.0 6831.7 128.9784 2.49E+10 3614 C LTC 4 2/3/2010 9.441 9.625 9.688 6.000 6.000 6600.0 6595.0 109.7867 2.21E+10 3203 T LTC 5 2/3/2010 9.509 9.750 9.688 6.000 6.000 6800.0 6787.8 104.0748 2.37E+10 3440 C LTC 6 2/3/2010 9.683 9.688 9.750 6.000 6.000 6950.0 6922.7 105.7779 2.51E+10 3643 T LTC 7 2/3/2010 9.656 9.750 9.750 6.000 6.000 6800.0 6785.2 54.3356 2.41E+10 3501 C LTC 8 2/3/2010 9.712 9.625 9.688 6.000 6.000 7050.0 7040.6 99.1341 2.59E+10 3755 T LTC 9 2/3/2010 9.455 9.688 9.688 6.000 6.000 6750.0 6759.5 92.2606 2.33E+10 3381 C LTC 10 2/3/2010 9.550 9.688 9.625 6.000 6.000 6850.0 6856.5 40.4864 2.41E+10 3502 T LTC 11 2/3/2010 8.643 8.625 8.625 6.000 6.000 7875.0 7876.1 85.0532 2.58E+10 3736 T LTC 12 2/3/2010 9.574 9.688 9.625 6.000 6.000 6850.0 6877.8 31.7940 2.44E+10 3533 C LTC 13 2/3/2010 9.568 9.563 9.625 6.000 6.000 7000.0 6997.1 73.4784 2.50E+10 3630 T LTC 14 2/3/2010 9.515 9.563 9.625 6.000 6.000 6900.0 6923.2 71.6061 2.44E+10 3535 C LTC 15 2/3/2010 9.480 9.625 9.625 6.000 6.000 6800.0 6775.2 120.0507 2.33E+10 3384

Average 3501

Table A 4 All: Dynamic modulus of elasticity calculation for test cylinder cores

Specimen Cast Mass Length Diameter Ini. Freq Fund Q Dyn E Dyn E

Name Date (kg) (in) (in) (Hz) (Hz) (Pa) (ksi) C TSS 4 1/22/2010 1.471 9.875 9.813 2.219 2.219 7125.0 7134.9 75.2149 3.00E+10 4356 C TSS 5* 1/22/2010 1.487 10.000 9.938 2.219 2.219 7025.0 7021.9 104.8764 2.98E+10 4318 C TSS 7 1/22/2010 1.464 9.813 9.750 2.219 2.219 7175.0 7174.8 104.4274 3.00E+10 4355 C TSS 10 1/22/2010 1.489 9.938 9.875 2.219 2.219 7100.0 7093.2 78.0720 3.02E+10 4385 C TSS 11* 1/22/2010 1.459 9.813 9.750 2.219 2.219 7025.0 7025.5 97.2141 2.87E+10 4162

Average 4315

C LTS 2 1/28/2010 1.409 9.625 9.688 2.219 2.219 7075.0 7070.9 115.0390 2.77E+10 4020 C LTS 3 1/28/2010 1.420 9.688 9.750 2.219 2.219 7050.0 7029.5 87.0846 2.78E+10 4029 C LTS 5* 1/28/2010 1.397 9.750 9.750 2.219 2.219 6825.0 6848.3 76.3499 2.60E+10 3774 C LTS 9 1/28/2010 1.471 9.750 9.813 2.219 2.219 7300.0 7312.0 110.7222 3.13E+10 4544 C LTS 10 1/28/2010 1.449 9.813 9.813 2.219 2.219 7200.0 7198.6 99.2784 3.00E+10 4353 C LTS 12 1/28/2010 1.441 9.750 9.813 2.219 2.219 7000.0 6993.1 88.2015 2.81E+10 4073 C LTS 14 1/28/2010 1.460 9.813 9.813 2.219 2.219 7300.0 7294.3 71.6925 3.10E+10 4502

Average 4185

C LTC 1 2/3/2010 1.340 9.750 9.750 2.219 2.219 6700.0 6706.1 88.1333 2.39E+10 3471 C LTC 3 2/3/2010 1.358 9.750 9.688 2.219 2.219 6950.0 6980.9 69.6639 2.62E+10 3799 C LTC 4 2/3/2010 1.317 9.688 9.688 2.219 2.219 6775.0 6783.3 84.1319 2.39E+10 3468 C LTC 6 2/3/2010 1.362 9.750 9.688 2.219 2.219 7000.0 7015.6 108.3241 2.65E+10 3848 C LTC 8 2/3/2010 1.364 9.688 9.625 2.219 2.219 7200.0 7241.6 44.8728 2.81E+10 4081 C LTC 10 2/3/2010 1.346 9.625 9.688 2.219 2.219 7025.0 7030.8 79.0114 2.62E+10 3796 C LTC 13 2/3/2010 1.342 9.563 9.625 2.219 2.219 7200.0 7207.3 110.9487 2.72E+10 3951 C LTC 15 2/3/2010 1.342 9.625 9.625 2.219 2.219 6850.0 6838.5 114.6362 2.46E+10 3568

Average 3748

52

Table A 5 All: Dynamic modulus calculation from test shaft cores of various lengths

Specimen Location Mass Length Diameter Ini. Freq Fund Q Dyn E Dyn E Name (ft) (kg) (in) (in) (Hz) (Hz) (Pa) (ksi)

TSS-1 6'-8' 3.159 19.063 19.063 2.375 2.375 3662.5 3668.4 81.9023 2.88E+10 4178 TSS-1 21'-22' 3.199 19.063 19.063 2.375 2.375 3712.5 3711.1 83.6310 2.99E+10 4330 TSS-1 38'-40' 2.776 16.688 16.688 2.375 2.375 4200.0 4205.4 80.7713 2.91E+10 4224

* TSS-2 47-48 2.395 14.313 14.375 2.375 2.375 4900.0 4891.6 119.4720 2.92E+10 4237 * TSS-2 58-59 2.019 11.938 11.938 2.375 2.375 6150.0 6142.6 113.0075 3.23E+10 4688

TSS-1 59'-60' 2.262 13.250 13.250 2.375 2.375 5500.0 5503.3 84.5141 3.23E+10 4680 * TSS-2 -62 3.010 17.688 17.625 2.375 2.375 4212.5 4219.7 110.4453 3.36E+10 4879 * TSS-1 68-69 2.278 13.625 13.625 2.375 2.375 5300.0 5294.0 134.0185 3.09E+10 4485 * TSS-1 69-70 1.965 11.813 11.750 2.375 2.375 6050.0 6074.6 108.2703 3.04E+10 4405

TSS-1 79' 2.580 15.250 15.250 2.375 2.375 4725.0 4731.1 71.5030 3.13E+10 4541 TSS-1 100'-101' 3.642 21.563 21.625 2.375 2.375 3375.0 3370.8 90.8399 3.18E+10 4608

* TSS-2 113-114 2.066 12.313 12.375 2.375 2.375 5800.0 5782.4 106.7172 3.03E+10 4396 * TSS-2 117- 1.572 9.438 9.500 2.375 2.375 7700.0 7722.7 104.0438 3.15E+10 4576

TSS-1 119' 1.611 9.500 9.500 2.375 2.375 7700.0 7689.6 84.0178 3.22E+10 4666 TSS-1 120' 2.020 11.875 11.875 2.375 2.375 6200.0 6189.8 77.1770 3.27E+10 4739

* TSS-1 135- 1.518 9.188 9.188 2.375 2.375 8000.0 7982.9 108.7874 3.16E+10 4582 * TSS-1 139 1.976 11.750 11.813 2.375 2.375 6250.0 6243.6 128.4083 3.23E+10 4678

TSS-2 140' 2.911 17.000 17.000 2.375 2.375 4225.0 4219.4 80.2323 3.13E+10 4543 TSS-2 158' 2.461 13.938 13.938 2.375 2.375 5550.0 5535.6 87.6586 3.74E+10 5419 LTS-2 2'-3' 3.271 20.125 20.063 2.375 2.375 3312.5 3312.0 92.7623 2.56E+10 3717 LTS-2 21'-22' 3.824 22.563 22.563 2.375 2.375 3137.5 3146.7 39.9963 3.04E+10 4405 LTS-1 40'-41' 2.752 16.688 16.688 2.375 2.375 4175.0 4172.2 97.7081 2.84E+10 4121 LTS-2 59'-61' 3.675 21.000 21.000 2.375 2.375 3537.5 3533.7 81.9304 3.43E+10 4969 LTS-2 66- 1.457 8.625 8.625 2.375 2.375 8550.0 8554.2 75.8887 3.27E+10 4742

* LTS-1 -67 1.501 9.188 9.188 2.375 2.375 7800.0 7808.4 94.2631 2.99E+10 4334 * LTS-2 -68 1.484 8.813 8.875 2.375 2.375 8250.0 8273.2 88.1399 3.19E+10 4630 * LTS-1 69- 1.671 10.125 10.125 2.375 2.375 7000.0 6996.2 90.5264 2.94E+10 4269 * LTS-1 81'-82' 3.485 20.625 20.688 2.375 2.375 3462.5 3464.8 125.3199 3.07E+10 4455

LTS-2 100'-101' 3.836 22.500 22.250 2.375 2.375 3125.0 3125.4 87.5546 2.98E+10 4322 LTS-2 118-118.5 2.441 14.000 14.000 2.375 2.375 5400.0 5405.1 80.5043 3.55E+10 5147 LTC-2 0'-1' 2.283 14.625 14.563 2.375 2.375 4525.0 4515.7 91.5092 2.41E+10 3502 LTC-2 25'-27' 3.578 21.813 21.813 2.375 2.375 3075.0 3071.7 90.7703 2.62E+10 3796 LTC-1 39'-40' 3.675 22.188 22.188 2.375 2.375 3150.0 3149.0 70.1913 2.87E+10 4169 LTC-1 SEG 50 1.594 9.750 9.813 2.375 2.375 7300.0 7284.4 118.8321 2.94E+10 4265 LTC-1 SEG 56- 1.861 11.625 11.688 2.375 2.375 5850.0 5868.9 121.6537 2.66E+10 3853

* LTC-2 60'-61' 3.708 21.938 21.938 2.375 2.375 3225.0 3230.6 51.6067 3.02E+10 4377 * LTC-1 65-66 2.292 14.000 14.000 2.375 2.375 5150.0 5130.9 130.5555 3.00E+10 4355

LTC-1 70-71 3.078 18.938 19.000 2.375 2.375 3750.0 3747.6 131.1151 2.91E+10 4228 * LTC-2 72-73 2.545 15.625 15.625 2.375 2.375 4400.0 4397.3 132.8420 2.73E+10 3964 * LTC-1 82'-83' 3.259 19.375 19.375 2.375 2.375 3612.5 3596.5 59.1092 2.90E+10 4210 * LTC-1 SEG 98- 1.611 10.125 10.125 2.375 2.375 6650.0 6667.4 129.2496 2.58E+10 3738

LTC-2 99'-100' 3.459 20.750 20.750 2.375 2.375 3300.0 3297.6 107.9228 2.77E+10 4024 * LTC-2 111-112 1.247 7.563 7.563 2.375 2.375 9600.0 9605.0 107.9867 3.09E+10 4485

LTC-2 112- 1.558 9.438 9.438 2.375 2.375 7600.0 7622.4 96.3284 3.04E+10 4403 * LTC-2 115-116 2.828 17.188 17.250 2.375 2.375 3950.0 3928.6 100.3401 2.67E+10 3875 * LTC-2 117'-118' 2.875 17.125 17.125 2.375 2.375 4162.5 4157.4 93.5229 3.02E+10 4387 * LTC-1 119- 1.251 7.688 7.688 2.375 2.375 9200.0 9197.0 74.9696 2.89E+10 4192

* Selected for testing due to inspected damages SEG Segregation observed

53

Table A 6 TSS: Dynamic modulus calculation from 5-inch test shaft cores

Source Average Average Source Specimen Source Location Lave Location Mass Length Diameter Fund Q Dyn E Dyn E Dyn E

Name (ft) (in) (kg) (in) (in) (Hz) (Pa) (ksi) (ksi) TSS-8 TSS-1 8'-9' 19.063 8.0 0.836 5.000 2.375 13755 48.0216 2.81E+10 4079 4178 TSS-8.5 8.5 0.841 5.000 2.375 13607 27.4816 2.77E+10 4014 4178 TSS-9 9.0 0.825 5.000 2.375 13438 51.1333 2.65E+10 3838 4178 TSS-21 TSS-1 21'-22' 19.063 21.0 0.837 5.000 2.375 13999 22.1572 2.92E+10 4229 4330 TSS-21.5 21.5 0.845 5.000 2.375 13967 42.7712 2.93E+10 4249 4330 TSS-39 TSS-1 39'-40' 16.688 39.0 0.830 5.000 2.375 13631 13.6123 2.74E+10 3974 4224 TSS-39.5 39.5 0.834 5.000 2.375 14088 38.3039 2.94E+10 4268 4224 TSS-40 40.0 0.827 5.000 2.375 13707 54.7422 2.76E+10 4007 4224 TSS-44 TSS-2 5.000 44.0 0.840 5.000 2.375 14063 52.8743 2.95E+10 4282 4282 TSS-47 TSS-2 47-48 14.344 47.0 0.837 5.000 2.375 13815 24.3167 2.84E+10 4116 4237 TSS-48 TSS-2 48.0 0.830 4.969 2.375 13920 62.5948 2.85E+10 4132 4237 TSS-50 TSS-2 50.0 0.837 5.000 2.375 13997 108.3605 2.91E+10 4228 4228 TSS-50.5 TSS-2 50.5 0.843 4.969 2.375 14105 73.0914 2.97E+10 4308 4308 TSS-51 TSS-2 51.0 0.839 5.000 2.375 14053 37.3950 2.94E+10 4269 4269 TSS-58 TSS-2 58-59 11.938 58.0 0.847 5.000 2.375 14439 62.1038 3.14E+10 4552 4688 TSS-59.1 TSS-2 59.0 0.856 5.000 2.375 14615 84.2540 3.25E+10 4712 4688 TSS-59.2 TSS-1 59'-60' 13.250 59.0 0.854 5.000 2.375 14349 124.6216 3.13E+10 4534 4680 TSS-60 60.0 0.851 5.000 2.375 15569 43.2167 3.67E+10 5316 4680 TSS-62 TSS-2 -62 17.656 62.0 0.856 5.000 2.375 14763 150.1483 3.31E+10 4808 4879 TSS-63 TSS-2 63.0 0.856 5.000 2.375 14613 67.3366 3.25E+10 4709 4879 TSS-63.5 TSS-2 63.5 0.858 5.000 2.375 14572 42.8423 3.24E+10 4699 4879 TSS-68 TSS-1 68-69 13.625 68.0 0.838 5.000 2.375 14249 33.2300 3.02E+10 4386 4485 TSS-69 TSS-1 69.0 0.838 5.000 2.375 14287 66.0493 3.04E+10 4407 4485 TSS-69.5 TSS-1 69-70 11.781 69.5 0.834 5.000 2.375 14191 73.0941 2.98E+10 4328 4405 TSS-70 TSS-1 70.0 0.836 5.000 2.375 14124 27.9998 2.96E+10 4297 4405 TSS-78.5 TSS-1 79' 15.250 78.5 0.845 5.000 2.375 14432 109.2651 3.13E+10 4538 4541 TSS-79 79.0 0.851 5.000 2.375 14414 41.6642 3.14E+10 4556 4541 TSS-79.5 79.5 0.840 5.000 2.375 14191 61.4525 3.01E+10 4359 4541 TSS-100 TSS-1 100'-101' 21.594 100.0 0.838 5.000 2.375 14364 44.1681 3.07E+10 4459 4608 TSS-100.5 100.5 0.849 5.000 2.375 14458 64.8744 3.16E+10 4576 4608 TSS-101 101.0 0.848 5.000 2.375 14331 32.5503 3.09E+10 4488 4608 TSS-101.5 101.5 0.849 5.000 2.375 14496 56.7564 3.17E+10 4596 4608 TSS-113 TSS-2 113-114 12.344 113.0 0.841 5.000 2.375 14230 39.9969 3.03E+10 4389 4396 TSS-114 TSS-2 114.0 0.838 4.969 2.375 14145 105.5585 2.97E+10 4309 4396 TSS-117 TSS-2 117- 9.469 117.0 0.840 4.969 2.375 14480 30.3180 3.12E+10 4524 4576 TSS-119 TSS-1 119' 9.500 119.0 0.851 5.000 2.375 14312 30.7605 3.10E+10 4491 4666 TSS-120 TSS-1 120' 11.875 120.0 0.848 5.000 2.375 14477 99.6756 3.16E+10 4584 4739 TSS-121 121.0 0.849 5.000 2.375 14676 36.9116 3.25E+10 4713 4739 TSS-135 TSS-1 135- 9.188 135.0 0.832 5.000 2.375 14418 63.6831 3.07E+10 4458 4582 TSS-139 TSS-1 139 11.781 139.0 0.838 5.000 2.375 14472 146.5977 3.12E+10 4526 4678 TSS-139.5 TSS-1 139.5 0.843 5.000 2.375 14672 34.8223 3.23E+10 4679 4678 TSS-140.1 TSS-1 140.0 0.837 5.000 2.375 14455 68.8896 3.11E+10 4509 4678 TSS-140.2 TSS-2 140' 17.000 140.0 0.851 5.000 2.375 14067 34.9649 2.99E+10 4339 4543 TSS-140.5 140.5 0.853 5.000 2.375 14212 83.0842 3.06E+10 4442 4543 TSS-141 141.0 0.857 5.000 2.375 14497 362.6095 3.20E+10 4641 4543

Average 4498

54

Table A 7 LTS: Dynamic modulus calculation from 5-inch test shaft cores

Source Average Average Source

Specimen Source Location Lave Location Mass Length Diameter Fund Q Dyn E Dyn E Dyn E Name (ft) (in) (kg) (in) (in) (Hz) (Pa) (ksi) (ksi)

LTS-2.5 LTS-2 2'-3' 20.094 2.5 0.808 5.000 2.375 13087 30.4796 2.46E+10 3567 3717 LTS-3 3.0 0.808 5.000 2.375 13166 94.0351 2.49E+10 3609 3717 LTS-3.5 3.5 0.802 5.000 2.375 13337 65.7782 2.54E+10 3678 3717 LTS-20.5 LTS-2 21'-22' 22.563 20.5 0.842 5.000 2.375 13953 48.5440 2.91E+10 4224 4405 LTS-21 21.0 0.844 5.000 2.375 14019 21.3573 2.95E+10 4278 4405 LTS-21.5 21.5 0.840 5.000 2.375 13978 34.2217 2.92E+10 4231 4405 LTS-22 22.0 0.835 5.000 2.375 14133 64.3311 2.96E+10 4300 4405 LTS-40 LTS-1 40'-41' 16.688 40.0 0.812 5.000 2.375 13501 52.3653 2.63E+10 3813 4121 LTS-40.5 40.5 0.828 5.000 2.375 13797 78.9618 2.80E+10 4063 4121 LTS-41 41.0 0.836 5.000 2.375 14242 142.2899 3.01E+10 4369 4121 LTS-59 LTS-2 59'-61' 21.000 59.0 0.863 5.000 2.375 14641 39.4415 3.29E+10 4768 4969 LTS-59.5 59.5 0.871 5.000 2.375 14547 106.4550 3.27E+10 4749 4969 LTS-60 60.0 0.876 5.000 2.375 14714 41.0178 3.37E+10 4887 4969 LTS-61 61.0 0.876 5.000 2.375 14607 50.2706 3.32E+10 4818 4969 LTS-66 LTS-2 66- 8.625 66.0 0.849 4.969 2.375 14594 42.5020 3.20E+10 4646 4742 LTS-67 LTS-1 -67 9.188 67.0 0.823 5.000 2.375 14154 65.8886 2.93E+10 4250 4334 LTS-67.5 LTS-2 -68 8.844 67.5 0.847 5.000 2.375 14416 90.7735 3.13E+10 4536 4630 LTS-69 LTS-1 69- 10.125 69.0 0.828 5.000 2.375 14015 72.6194 2.89E+10 4192 4269 LTS-70 LTS-1 70.0 0.827 5.000 2.375 14090 89.2974 2.92E+10 4231 4269 LTS-81 LTS-1 81'-82' 20.656 81.0 0.842 5.000 2.375 14553 60.9634 3.17E+10 4599 4455 LTS-81.5 81.5 0.848 5.000 2.375 14155 61.3317 3.02E+10 4381 4455 LTS-82 82.0 0.848 5.000 2.375 14070 34.7989 2.98E+10 4326 4455 LTS-82.5 82.5 0.846 5.000 2.375 13920 41.3487 2.91E+10 4224 4455 LTS-99.5 LTS-2 100'-101' 22.375 99.5 0.855 5.000 2.375 14543 58.3040 3.22E+10 4663 4322 LTS-100 100.0 0.849 5.000 2.375 14280 45.3170 3.08E+10 4461 4322 LTS-100.5 100.5 0.850 5.000 2.375 13995 74.3443 2.96E+10 4291 4322 LTS-101 101.0 0.847 5.000 2.375 14153 89.5298 3.01E+10 4372 4322 LTS-118 LTS-2 118-118.5 14.000 118.0 0.876 5.000 2.375 15129 37.8953 3.56E+10 5171 5147

Average 4411

55

Table A 8 LTC: Dynamic modulus calculation from 5-inch test shaft cores

Source Average Average Source Specimen Source Location Lave Location Mass Length Diameter Fund Q Dyn E Dyn E Dyn E

Name (ft) (in) (kg) (in) (in) (Hz) (Pa) (ksi) (ksi) LTC-0 LTC-2 0'-1' 14.594 0.0 0.786 5.000 2.375 13379 43.3948 2.50E+10 3627 3502 LTC-1 1.0 0.789 5.000 2.375 12958 41.2999 2.35E+10 3415 3502 LTC-25 LTC-2 25'-27' 21.813 25.0 0.793 5.000 2.375 13199 62.5834 2.45E+10 3560 3796 LTC-26 26.0 0.812 5.000 2.375 13364 41.1683 2.58E+10 3737 3796 LTC-26.5 26.5 0.814 5.000 2.375 13080 54.2664 2.47E+10 3588 3796 LTC-27 27.0 0.827 5.000 2.375 13767 67.9629 2.78E+10 4038 3796 LTC-38.5 LTC-1 39'-40' 22.188 38.5 0.825 5.000 2.375 13730 45.3586 2.76E+10 4007 4169 LTC-39 39.0 0.830 5.000 2.375 13680 93.6584 2.76E+10 4005 4169 LTC-39.5 39.5 0.830 5.000 2.375 13797 38.3151 2.81E+10 4073 4169 LTC-40 40.0 0.825 5.000 2.375 13624 67.0920 2.72E+10 3948 4169 LTC-50 LTC-1 50 9.781 50.0 0.818 4.969 2.375 14053 81.4021 2.86E+10 4153 4265 LTC-56 LTC-1 56- 11.656 56.0 0.790 5.000 2.375 13716 87.0886 2.64E+10 3831 3853 LTC-56.5 LTC-1 56.5 0.806 5.000 2.375 13325 123.8117 2.54E+10 3687 3853 LTC-60 LTC-2 60'-61' 21.938 60.0 0.838 5.000 2.375 14067 37.2197 2.95E+10 4272 4377 LTC-60.5 60.5 0.845 5.000 2.375 13877 31.3232 2.89E+10 4195 4377 LTC-61 61.0 0.850 5.000 2.375 14181 39.6918 3.04E+10 4404 4377 LTC-61.5 61.5 0.843 5.000 2.375 14277 31.4132 3.05E+10 4428 4377 LTC-65 LTC-1 65-66 14.000 65.0 0.820 4.969 2.375 14268 88.0166 2.96E+10 4287 4355 LTC-66.1 LTC-1 66.0 0.822 5.000 2.375 14115 48.0343 2.91E+10 4219 4355 LTC-66.2 LTC-2 66- 14.625 66.0 0.820 5.000 2.375 14242 60.1963 2.96E+10 4288 4288 LTC-70 LTC-1 70-71 18.969 70.0 0.821 5.000 2.375 14078 58.3141 2.89E+10 4195 4228 LTC-71 LTC-1 71.0 0.822 5.000 2.375 14132 146.0119 2.92E+10 4232 4228 LTC-72.1 LTC-1 72.0 0.813 5.000 2.375 13695 84.9641 2.71E+10 3931 4228 LTC-72.2 LTC-2 72-73 15.625 72.0 0.811 4.969 2.375 13525 59.8034 2.63E+10 3813 3964 LTC-73 LTC-2 73.0 0.812 4.969 2.375 13799 112.8754 2.73E+10 3959 3964 LTC-82 LTC-1 82'-83' 19.375 82.0 0.832 5.000 2.375 13960 41.1985 2.88E+10 4180 4210 LTC-82.5 82.5 0.840 5.000 2.375 13966 30.6681 2.91E+10 4225 4210 LTC-83 83.0 0.841 5.000 2.375 13681 104.0671 2.80E+10 4060 4210 LTC-98 LTC-1 98- 10.125 98.0 0.790 4.969 2.375 13538 83.9120 2.57E+10 3723 3738 LTC-98.5 LTC-2 99'-100' 20.750 98.5 0.828 5.000 2.375 13942 89.6186 2.86E+10 4147 4024 LTC-99.1 99.0 0.826 5.000 2.375 13438 36.7605 2.65E+10 3844 4024 LTC-99.2 LTC-1 99.0 0.802 5.000 2.375 13543 47.3693 2.61E+10 3792 3738 LTC-99.5 99.5 0.828 5.000 2.375 13644 68.0142 2.74E+10 3975 4024 LTC-100 100.0 0.828 5.000 2.375 13858 48.8372 2.83E+10 4098 4024 LTC-111 LTC-2 111-112 7.563 111.0 0.829 5.000 2.375 14369 170.4060 3.04E+10 4414 4485 LTC-112 LTC-2 112- 9.438 112.0 0.829 4.969 2.375 14404 79.0070 3.05E+10 4421 4403 LTC-113.5 LTC-1 113.5 0.824 5.000 2.375 13918 158.4384 2.84E+10 4113 4113 LTC-115 LTC-2 115-116 17.219 115.0 0.818 4.969 2.375 14157 81.0184 2.89E+10 4197 3875 LTC-116 LTC-2 116.0 0.818 4.969 2.375 14238 64.2149 2.94E+10 4262 3875 LTC-117.1 LTC-2 117.0 0.823 5.000 2.375 14471 105.0997 3.06E+10 4440 3875 LTC-117.2 LTC-2 117'-118' 17.125 117.0 0.849 5.000 2.375 14165 32.4317 3.03E+10 4389 4387 LTC-117.5 117.5 0.838 5.000 2.375 14068 60.5561 2.95E+10 4274 4387 LTC-118 118.0 0.837 5.000 2.375 14553 22.5170 3.15E+10 4568 4387 LTC-119 LTC-1 119- 7.688 119.0 0.817 4.969 2.375 14199 89.9652 2.92E+10 4231 4192

Average 4094

56

Table A 9 TSS: Static modulus calculation from test cylinders

Average Full size Specimen Cast Length 1 2 3 Static E Static E

Name Date (in) 10% 40% 10% 40% 10% 40% (psi) (ksi) (ksi) TSS 1 1/22/2010 9.781 33 136 44 136 44 136 656.3 2625.2 0.00058 3424 TSS 2 1/22/2010 TSS 3 1/22/2010 TSS 4 1/22/2010 9.844 21 120 30 120 31 121 677.2 2708.7 0.00056 3612 TSS 5 1/22/2010 10.000 24 118 26 116 28 115 663.1 2652.6 0.00055 3597 TSS 5* 1/22/2010 9.969 23 134 42 134 43 135 677.2 2708.7 0.00058 3533 3452 TSS 6 1/22/2010 TSS 7 1/22/2010 9.750 24 119 32 119 33 119 677.2 2708.7 0.00054 3758 TSS 8 1/22/2010 9.938 21 120 32 118 33 119 677.2 2708.7 0.00054 3780 TSS 9 1/22/2010 TSS 10 1/22/2010 9.906 34 130 43 130 43 131 677.2 2708.7 0.00055 3715 3656 TSS 10* 1/22/2010 9.875 23 114 29 119 29 118 677.2 2708.7 0.00056 3632 TSS 11* 1/22/2010 9.781 23 124 30 124 31 124 663.1 2652.6 0.00058 3404 3468 TSS 12 1/22/2010 TSS 13 1/22/2010 9.875 34 139 42 139 43 139 663.1 2652.6 0.00060 3299 TSS 14 1/22/2010 TSS 15 1/22/2010

Average 3575 3525 0.1Pult 18750 psi; 0.4Pult 75000 psi

Table A 10 LTS: Static modulus calculation from test cylinders Average Full size

Specimen Cast Length 1 2 3 Static E Static E Name Date (in) 10% 40% 10% 40% 10% 40% (psi) (ksi) (ksi)

LTS 1 1/28/2010 9.688 30 120 34 121 34 121 663.1 2564.2 0.00054 3496 LTS 2 1/28/2010 9.719 38 138 47 144 47 144 663.1 2564.2 0.00061 3136 LTS 2* 1/28/2010 9.781 43 155 48 154 48 153 663.1 2564.2 0.00066 2883 LTS 3 1/28/2010 9.750 28 122 37 122 38 122 663.1 2564.2 0.00053 3600 3138 LTS 4 1/28/2010 9.719 31 134 34 134 35 134 663.1 2564.2 0.00062 3057 LTS 4* 1/28/2010 9.719 37 140 46 140 47 140 663.1 2564.2 0.00058 3253 LTS 5 1/28/2010 9.563 35 142 42 142 43 142 677.2 2618.4 0.00062 3122 LTS 5* 1/28/2010 9.750 32 140 45 144 45 144 677.2 2618.4 0.00062 3137 LTS 5** 1/28/2010 9.719 34 135 45 137 46 138 677.2 2618.4 0.00058 3376 LTS 6 1/28/2010 LTS 7 1/28/2010 9.750 34 139 41 139 41 139 677.2 2618.4 0.00061 3169 LTS 7* 1/28/2010 9.656 30 132 40 134 40 134 677.2 2618.4 0.00059 3304 LTS 8 1/28/2010 9.781 32 120 41 124 41 125 677.2 2618.4 0.00052 3720 LTS 9 1/28/2010 9.781 28 112 33 114 34 114 663.1 2564.2 0.00050 3778 LTS 10 1/28/2010 9.813 36 109 28 109 28 109 663.1 2564.2 0.00051 3755 3499 LTS 11 1/28/2010 9.781 42 142 53 149 53 149 677.2 2618.4 0.00060 3235 LTS 12 1/28/2010 9.781 30 135 44 135 44 136 663.1 2564.2 0.00057 3324 LTS 13 1/28/2010 9.781 28 122 34 127 34 127 663.1 2564.2 0.00058 3271 LTS 14 1/28/2010 9.813 33 124 36 124 37 125 677.2 2618.4 0.00055 3530 LTS 15 1/28/2010 9.781 29 124 37 124 37 124 663.1 2564.2 0.00054 3496

Average 3350 3319 0.1Pult 18750 psi; 0.4Pult 72500 psi

57

Table A 11 LTC: Static modulus calculation from test cylinders Average Full size

Specimen Cast Length 1 2 3 St