teleconference meeting minutes spring 2014 aashto...

Name Affiliation Email Address

Abadie, Chris Louisiana Department of Transportation [email protected]

Ahlstrom, Gina FHWA [email protected]

Andrus, Scott Utah Department of Transportation [email protected]

Bailey, Bill Virginia Department of Transportation [email protected]

Belcher, John Michigan Department of Transportation [email protected]

Bergin, Michael Florida Department of Transportation [email protected]

Blackburn, Lyndi Alabama Department of Transportation [email protected]

Cowsert, Jack North Carolina Department of Transportation [email protected]

Felag, Mark Rhode Island Department of Transportation [email protected]

Geary, Georgene Georgia Department of Transportation [email protected]

Glass, Wesley Kentucky Transportation Cabinet [email protected]

Golden, Shannon Alabaman Department of Transportation [email protected]

Hainsworth, Greg Delaware Department of Transportation [email protected]

Harrigan, Ed NCHRP/HMCRP [email protected]

Horwhat, Robert Pennsylvania Department of Transportation [email protected]

Krstulovich, James Illinois Department of Transportation

Lee, Bryan Utah Department of Transportation

Lenker, Steve AMRL / CCRL [email protected]

Ley, Tyler Oklahoma State University [email protected]

Lundy, Larry Virginia Department of Transportation [email protected]

Maher, Michele Nevada Department of Transportation [email protected]

Malusky, Katheryn AASHTO [email protected]

Masten, Maria Minnesota Department of Transportation [email protected]

Meininger, Richard FHWA [email protected]

Prowell, Jan CCRL [email protected]

Santi, Mike Idaho Transportation Department [email protected]

Sheehy, Eileen New Jersey Department of Transportation [email protected]

Streeter, Don New York Department of Transportation [email protected]

Sutter, Larry Michigan Technological University [email protected]

Tobias, Daniel Illinois Department of Transportation Daniel.Tobias@illinois@gov

Waldorp, Drew Alabama Department of Transportation [email protected]

Wu, Peter Georgia Department of Transportation [email protected]

Yokotake, Kelly Nevada Department of Transportation

Syslo, Mick Nebraska Department of Roads [email protected]

Heyen, Wally Nebraska Department of Roads [email protected]

Halsey, Lieska Nebraska Department of Roads [email protected]

Knake, Maria AMRL [email protected]

2. Approve Fall 2013 Minutes (attached)

3. Guest: Pooled Fund and AASTHO Standards - Discussion by Dr. Tyler Ley

Tim Stallard from Michigan was present at the Fall committee meeting. His name was not in the meeting minutes for attendance.

The chair reviewed the minutes from the Fall 2013 meeting. Alabama commented in the fall minutes that Victoria Woods was not representing

Missouri at that time. Duly noted. A motion was made and seconded for the approval of the Fall 2013 Meeting minutes with the change of

Victoria Woods.

Dr. Tyler Ley, Professor at the University of Oklahoma, gave a presentation Title: Freeze and Thaw durability. Dr. Ley would like to have a

provisional for AASTHO. The chair of the committee would like to promote this provisional standard, Nebraska is very interested in this

provisional. Dr. ley asked for guidelines to get the provisional to AASTHO. Amir from NCHRP asked detailed information on this study. Amir's

concern was about needing more data for the correlation between the ASTM C 66 Vs. SAM. Mick mentioned the pooled fund and the moving

forward with writing of the provisional can be done along side of the research. Florida asked about temperature measured with the plastic

concrete cold vs hot. Tyler has that data but did not present it. Kentucky asked about how many states are participating in Dr. Ley's pooled

fund. Name the states are Kansas, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin Nebraska,etc.. Rhode Island agreed with

working concurrently. He suggested working on a draft provisional standard for the fall meeting, he also suggested introducing the draft in the

fall. Dr. Tyler Ley presentation has been added to the minutes.

1. Attendees

Teleconference Meeting Minutes

Spring 2014 AASHTO Subcommittee on Materials Teleconference Meeting Technical Section 3b

February 25, 2014; 1:30-3:30 pm EST Chair: Mick Syslo

Vice Chair: Wally Heyen

Dr. Ley presentation has been added to the minutes see below.

For more information on the Pooled Fund refer to the following link: http://www.pooledfund.org/Details/Solicitation/1338

Meeting Minutes by Wally Heyen 1/5

Item Number: Description:

Affirmative: 43 of 53

Negative: 2 of 53

No Vote: 8 of 53

Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (Allen

H Myers) ([email protected])

If no interest exists in maintaining this method and the decision is to delete it,

please remember that AASHTO T 26 is referenced in at least one other standard,

AASHTO M 157.

Affirmative

Chair Response:

Missouri Department of Transportation

(David D Ahlvers)

([email protected])

Recommend approve M-157 references T26 in section 4.1.4 and Table 2, these

references need to be updated to reflect the deletion, particularly as section 4.1.4

states "It (water) shall be tested in accordance with T26 . . "

Affirmative

Chair Response:

Illinois Department of Transportation

(David L. Lippert)

([email protected])

The T-26 test method is currently used to verify water compliance by Illinois. The

procedures found in T-26 are relevant and if removed would require a significant

revision to our current testing regimen and the IL DOT Standard Specifications.

Negative

Chair Response:

Arkansas State Highway and

Transportation Department (Michael

Benson)

([email protected]

m)

M157-13 still contains references to this standard. Removal needs to be

concurrent. Negative

Chair Response:

Iowa Department of Transportation

(Greg L Mulder)

([email protected])

Y, will this be added in fall? M157 still refers toT26 Affirmative

Chair Response:

Washington State Department of

Transportation (Kurt R Williams)

([email protected])

AASHTO M 157 Standard Specification for Ready-Mixed Concrete in Section 2.1

references AASHTO T 26. Recommend that AASHTO M 157 be updated to refer to

an ASTM standard.

Affirmative

Chair Response:

Pennsylvania Department of

Transportation (Robert D Horwhat)

([email protected])

Limits for water quality given in T 26 have been linked to published research

papers. If T 26 is removed, then links need to be established between the water

quality limits in M 157 and published research.

Affirmative

Chair Response:


(Brett Steven Trautman)

([email protected])

Recommend approve-M157 references T26 in section 4.1.4 and Table 2, these

references need to be updated to reflect the deletion, particularly as section 4.1.4

states " It [water] shall be tested in accordance with T26..."

Affirmative

Chair Response:

The chair gave a brief overview of the history of T 318 and asked Minnesota DOT represented by Maria

Masten to give a brief description of the changes to the Standard. Minnesota has used T 318, "Water

Content of Freshly Mixed Concrete Using Microwave Oven Drying", for the past 19 years. She explained the

specification of her own state and also discussed this specification has been implemented for about 15

years. Maria presented/explained her review of the AASTHO specification.

Concurrent ballot to remove T 26.

Agree and references will be updated in M 157.



Nonpersuasive. We have resolved the negative.




Larry Sutter mentioned in 5.1 (Microwave Oven), what Maria had written does allow for a higher wattage

microwave if one so desires. He also spoke about the precision and bias. Currently, the standard is

written with a single operator standard deviation and he said the multilabatory standard deviation could be

calculated and included in the standard, but is okay without it.

Status after Semi-Annual Spring

Call Meeting:

The chair will have this standard put on the Spring Ballot.


4. Review T 318 - Water Content of Freshly Mixed Concrete Using Microwave Oven Drying by

Maria Masten (MnDOT)

5. Review 2013 SOM Fall Ballot Items 55 through 59

(See the Attachment: Fall 2103 3b Detailed Report)

55



Call Meeting:



Negative: 0 of 53

No Vote: 9 of 53



([email protected])

Recommend approve-no comments

Brett, delete the following:

It requires that the cone be inverted, the ASTM gives the option of inverting, a

minor discrepancy

Affirmative

Chair Response:


Call Meeting:



Negative: 1 of 53

No Vote: 8 of 53

Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (Allen

H Myers) ([email protected])

AASHTO TP 90 is indicated as the ballot item, but the correct standard should be

AASHTO TP 93. Our affirmative vote is contingent upon the assumption that Ballot

Item 57 involves AASHTO TP 93.

Affirmative

Chair Response:

I am not able to find anything in the minutes or the appendixes regarding

discussions or recommended intentions for TP90. I was not aware of what that

test related to so I looked it up in our current Provisional Tests.

According to my set of AASHTO Provisional Tests, TP90-10 (2013) is "Measuring

Interfacial Fracture Energy of Hot-Poured Crack Sealant Using a Blister Test".

Unless I've mis-read my standards, this does not seem related to this committee.

Chair Response:


(David D Ahlvers)

([email protected])

Should be TP93. Affirmative

Chair Response:



Benson)

([email protected]

Is this TP93? Affirmative

Chair Response:

Nebraska Department of Roads (Mick

Syslo) ([email protected]) should be TP 93 Affirmative

Chair Response:

Florida Department of Transportation

(Timothy J. Ruelke)

([email protected])

Assumes this was ment to be TP 93 Affirmative

Chair Response:

Washington State Department of

Transportation (Kurt R Williams)

([email protected])

Comment: Can't find TP 90 discussed in this ballot? Should be some explanation

on why this is being done. Not apposed to moving forward if standard is being

used, just I couldn't find any discussion/justification in the ballot.

Affirmative

Chair Response:



([email protected])

Recommend approve- If is referencing TP 93: Determining formwork pressure of

fresh self-consolidating concrete using pressure tranducers rather than TP: 90:

Measuring interfacial fracture energy of hot-poured crack sealant using a blister

test.

Affirmative

Chair Response:


Call Meeting:

New Mexico Department of

Transportation (Bryce Simons)

([email protected])

Negative

TP 93 is the correct specification.


TP 93 will move forward to a full standard.

Concurrent ballot to adopt TP 80 as a full standard.

Will accept specification as written. Will discuss at the spring and fall meeting to potentially be a

concurrent ballot.





Negative has been resolved.

57Concurrent ballot to adopt TP 90 as a full standard.


The Chair provided an overview of the status of this standard. New Jersey made a motion to find the

negatives nonpersuasive and seconded by Louisiana. The negatives where found to be nonpersuasive.

This standard T-26 will be removed as a standard.

56

TP 80 will become a full standard. The comments from Missouri will be added to the new standard and

will be put on the Fall Ballot.




Negative: 1 of 53

No Vote: 8 of 53 Georgia Department of Transportation

(Georgene M Geary)

([email protected])

Typo in item description. Should be TP 93 as per minutes. Affirmative

Chair Response:

TP 93 was included in the minutes as being balloted to a full standard. Should this

ballot item be for TP 93???

For TP 83 - Affirmative

For TP 93 - Affirmative - There is no reference in the standard for most of the Notes.

Chair Response:



Benson)

([email protected]

m

While this practice appears to be a well-developed method for the fabrication of 50-

mm (2-in.) cube specimens of grout (non-shrink) or mortar, the reason for the

method is unclear. The information does provide further instruction for

development of cubes for evaluation (possibly of compressive strength per

C1107); however, it would appear that the purpose for the cube specimens would

need to be included in the document

Negative

Chair Response:



([email protected])

Recommend approve-If references changing TP 83 from a provisional standard to

a recommended practice Affirmative

Chair Response:


Call Meeting:

Agree.

The Chair explained his reasoning on the negative to be nonpersuasive. Iowa made a motion to find the

negative nonpersuasive and seconded by New Jersey. The motion passed finding the negative

nonpersuasive. Kentucky mentioned TP 83 was balloted as a Standard Recommended Practice "R"

designation. The Chair will work with Maria Knake (AMRL) to see how TP 83 was balloted. If balloted as

Recommended Practice TP 83 will become a full standard. If balloted otherwise, TP 83 will be changed to

Recommended Practice as an editorial change an become a full standard.

59Concurrent ballot item to adopt the revised TP 83 as a full standard.

This ballot was for TP 83 and TP 93 was ballot item 57.

Rhode Island Department of

Transportation (Mark E. Felag)

([email protected])

Affirmative

This ballot was for TP 83 and TP 93 was ballot item 57.

Nonpersuasive. Will move forward with adopting as a standard. Will address comments in the spring/fall

meeting.




Negative: 1 of 53

No Vote: 8 of 53


(David D Ahlvers)

([email protected])

Temperature curing requirements in T23 should be incorporated into section 7.6. Affirmative

Chair Response:

Section 7.6 - Should there be a field curing option as in T23?

Section 7.7.1 / 7.7.2 - Recommend specifying a maximum time for transporting

cubes to the final curing location. "Immediately" is not specific and may vary

when specimens are fabricated in the field.

Chair Response:



Benson)

([email protected]

m)

While this practice appears to be a well-developed method for the fabrication of 50-

mm (2-in.) cube specimens of grout (non-shrink) or mortar, the reason for the

method is unclear. The information does provide further instruction for

development of cubes for evaluation (possibly of compressive strength per

C1107); however, it would appear that the purpose for the cube specimens would

need to be included in the document

Negative

Chair Response:

Recommend approve-no comments

Brett, delete the following:

section 7.6 is revised to "provide the same temperature protection as provided for

the structure." This is vague, particularly compared to the curing section in T23:

Making and curing concrete test specimens in the field that gives a specific

temperature range to be met.

Chair Response:

6. New Business

7. Adjourn

ACTION ITEMS

3. TP 80 will become a full Standard.


6. TP 83 will become a full Standard Recommended Practice. Mick Syslo and Maria Knake will check into the "R" designation prior to becoming

a Standard.


8. TP 83 editorial changes (Item #58-Curing options) will be placed on Spring Ballot.

4. TP 80 - Allow the option of inverting the cone (Missouri Comments) and place on the Fall Ballot.

1. T 318 will be added to the Spring Ballot.

2. T-26 will be removed as a Standard.

58Concurrent ballot to revise TP 83. See pages 24 - 29.

Will move forward with adopting as a standard. Will address comments in the spring/fall meeting.

The Chair talked about Missouri's and Rhode Island's comments on curing. Nebraska has reviewed and

agreed with their comments and included verbage about curing in TP 83. TP 83 will move forward as a full

standard and the additional comments will be balloted during the Spring Ballot.


Call Meeting:

WASHTO Conference in Omaha, Nebraska March 31 through April 3th. Mick welcomed anybody to wish to attend.

Follow Link: http://www.transportation.nebraska.gov/mat-n-tests/WASHTO/washto2014.html


The Chair explained his reasoning on the negative to be nonpersuasive. Iowa made a motion to find the

negative nonpersuasive and seconded by New Jersey. The motion passed finding the negative

nonpersuasive. Move forward to move to put it in the spring ballot for voting.

Rhode Island Department of

Transportation (Mark E. Felag)

([email protected])

Affirmative


No persuasive. Will move forward with adopting as a standard. Will address comments in the spring/fall

meeting.



([email protected])

Affirmative


A New Test Method to Measure the Freeze Thaw Durability of

Fresh Concrete

Braden Tabb, Robert Felice, John Michael Freeman, Robert Frazier, David Welchel

Tyler Ley, P.E., Ph. D

Acknowledgements

• Oklahoma Transportation Center • CP Tech Center • Portland Cement Association

Summary

• Some basics of air entrained concrete… • The Super Air Meter • The future

What is…

Concrete

PCA Photo

What is…

Air-entrained concrete

Why Do We Add Air to Concrete?

• Air-entrained bubbles are the key to the freeze-thaw resistance of concrete Air volume = Freeze Thaw Performance

• Smaller bubbles are more effective in providing freeze-thaw resistance than larger bubbles

• Volume of air provided is the same for both circumstances.

• Case B has a lower spacing factor and a higher specific surface.

A B

What Do You Want in an Air-Void System?

A B

• Volume of air provided is the same for both circumstances.

• Case B has a lower spacing factor and a higher specific surface.

What Do You Want in an Air-Void System?

Current Measuring Techniques

PCA photo

ASTM C 231 PCA photo

ASTM C 173 ASTM C 138

These only measure volume!!!

Hardened Air Void Analysis

From Hover

Open symbols failed ASTM C666

0.004

0.006

0.008

0.010

0.012

0.014

0.016

0.018

0.020

0.022

0.024

2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 8.0% 9.0%

Sp

acin

g F

acto

r (i

n)

Air Content of Concrete (Pressure)

No Polycarboxylate


Freeman et al., 2012

0.004

0.006

0.008

0.010

0.012

0.014

0.016

0.018

0.020

0.022

0.024

2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 8.0% 9.0%

Sp

acin

g F

acto

r (i

n)

Air Content of Concrete (Pressure)

No Polycarboxylate

Polycarboxylate



0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%0

- 10

10 -

2020

- 30

30 -

4040

- 50

50 -

6060

- 70

70 -

8080

- 90

90 -

100

100

- 110

110

- 120

120

- 130

130

- 140

140

- 150

150

- 160

160

- 170

170

- 180

180

- 190

190

- 200

200

- 210

210

- 220

220

- 230

230

- 240

240

- 250

250

- 260

260

- 270

270

- 280

280

- 290

290

- 300

300

- 310

310

- 320

320

- 330

330

- 340

340

- 350

350

- 360

360

- 370

370

- 380

380

- 390

390

- 400

400

- 410

410

- 420

420

- 430

430

- 440

440

- 450

450

- 460

460

- 470

470

- 480

480

- 490

490

- 500

500

- 550

550

- 600

600

- 650

650

- 700

700

- 750

750

- 800

800

- 850

850

- 900

900

- 950

950

- 100

010

00 -

1200

1200

- 14

0014

00 -

1600

1600

- 18

0018

00 -

2000

2000

+

norm

alize

d Ai

r Con

tent

Fra

ctio

n

Chord Size, microns

WROS OnlyPC1 + WROS


small voids large voids

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%0

- 10

10 -

2020

- 30

30 -

4040

- 50

50 -

6060

- 70

70 -

8080

- 90

90 -

100

100

- 110

110

- 120

120

- 130

130

- 140

140

- 150

150

- 160

160

- 170

170

- 180

180

- 190

190

- 200

200

- 210

210

- 220

220

- 230

230

- 240

240

- 250

250

- 260

260

- 270

270

- 280

280

- 290

290

- 300

300

- 310

310

- 320

320

- 330

330

- 340

340

- 350

350

- 360

360

- 370

370

- 380

380

- 390

390

- 400

400

- 410

410

- 420

420

- 430

430

- 440

440

- 450

450

- 460

460

- 470

470

- 480

480

- 490

490

- 500

500

- 550

550

- 600

600

- 650

650

- 700

700

- 750

750

- 800

800

- 850

850

- 900

900

- 950

950

- 100

010

00 -

1200

1200

- 14

0014

00 -

1600

1600

- 18

0018

00 -

2000

2000

+

norm

alize

d Ai

r Con

tent

Fra

ctio

n

Chord Size, microns

WROS OnlyPC1 + WROS

Look at the difference in the volume of the air voids!!!


small voids large voids

Summary • It is common to require a certain

volume of air in concrete in order to obtain freeze thaw durability

• The volume of air does not equal air void system quality

• Although, a hardened air void analysis (ASTM C 457) can measure the air-void quality it is not practical to run regularly

What do we need? • We need a test that can quantify air-

void systems quickly in fresh concrete • Investigate a sample of significant size • Economical • Field ready

Super Air Meter (SAM) • We have modified a typical ASTM C

231 pressure meter so that it can hold larger pressures

• We have replaced the typical gage with a digital one

• The test takes 8 minutes

digital gauge

Six clamps!

How does it work? • Use ASTM C 231 procedures to fill the

measurement bowl • Secure the lid • Add water through the petcocks

top chamber

bottom chamber

0

15

30

45

60

75

90

0

App

lied

Pres

sure

(psi

)

Time

Top Chamber, Pc1

Bottom Chamber, Pa1

Equilibrium Pressure, P2When both chambers are in contact with one another

Top Chamber

Bottom Chamber

0

15

30

45

60

75

90

0

App

lied

Pres

sure

(psi

)

Time

Top Chamber, Pc1

Bottom Chamber, Pa1


0

15

30

45

60

75

90

0

App

lied

Pres

sure

(psi

)

Time

Top Chamber, Pc1

Bottom Chamber, Pa1


release pressure in both chambers

0

15

30

45

60

75

90

0

App

lied

Pres

sure

(psi

)

Time

Top Chamber, Pc1

Bottom Chamber, Pa1


0

15

30

45

60

75

90

0

App

lied

Pres

sure

(psi

)

Time

Top Chamber, Pc1

Bottom Chamber, Pa1

Equilibrium Pressure, P2

How does it work? • We use an algorithm to find a SAM

number. • The SAM number correlates to air

void distribution • The meter also measures air volume

How can we prove it? • We made 95 concrete mixtures • Different AEAs • Combinations of AEAs and PCs • Different w/cm (0.39 - 0.53) • Slumps from 0.25” to 10” • Air contents from 1.25% to 10% • Hardened air void analysis (ASTM C

457) was completed on each mixture • Values were compared to the SAM

number

0

0.002

0.004

0.006

0.008

0.01

0.012

0.014

0.016

0.018

0.02

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

Spac

ing

Fact

or (i

n)

SAM Number

WROS .45

SYNTH .45

WROS .53

WROS .41

WROS .39

WROS .45 + 575

SYNTH .45 + 575

WROS .45 + 20% Fly Ash

ACI 201

PASS

FAIL

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

Mod

ulus

(%)

SAM NumberSAM Number

PASS

FAIL

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

Chor

ds/i

n <

200

mic

rons

SAM Number

WROS .45SYNTH .45WROS .53WROS .41WROS .39WROS .45 + 575SYNTH .45 + 575WROS .45 + 20% Fly Ash

Observations • When the SAM number is below 0.2

then the spacing factor is below 0.008” for 90% of the samples and 98% of the samples had a spacing factor below 0.010”

• The SAM number seems to correlate with the amount of small bubbles in the sample

How Consistent Is It? • We ran the following on each of the 95

mixtures with two separate SAMs: – Air contents – SAM numbers – ASTM C 457 hardened air void analysis – Unit Weight

y = 1.015x - 0.0227R² = 0.9932

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

SAM

2 A

ir Co

nten

t (%

)

SAM 1 Air Content (%)

Mean Difference -0.005% Standard dev. 0.064%

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

SAM

Num

ber (

met

er 2

)

SAM Number (meter 1)


Mean Difference 0.006 Standard dev. 0.049

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

ASTM

C 4

57 H

arde

ned

Air (

%)

SAM Air (%)


y = 0.9982x + 0.2504

R² = 0.9668y = 0.9965x + 0.3611

R² = 0.9651

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Supe

r Air

(%)

Gravimetric Calculated Air (%)

What is happening???

2”

2” 0.75”

0.75”

Air pump

pressure step 0

atmospheric pressure synthetic AEA

pressure step 1

pressure step 2

pressure step 3

pressure step 4

pressure step 5

pressure step 6

pressure step 7

Atmospheric pressure

pressure step 0

atmospheric pressure

What is happening? • As you increase the pressure you are

driving small bubbles into solution • When you pressure the bubbles the

second time there are less small bubbles and so the concrete responds differently to the same pressures

The Future! • While this is a great achievement

more work is needed • A pooled fund research project is

starting March 1st • The project is lead by OSU with

collaborations from: – Jason Weiss - Purdue, – Larry Sutter - Michigan Tech, – Peter Taylor – Iowa State

Future SAM work • Field validation • Validation by other labs • Inter lab precision and bias • Finish freeze thaw testing • Impact of aggregate correction factor

and lightweight aggregates • Creation of AASHTO test method

Other Pooled Fund Work • Improved specifications for frost

durability of concrete with deicing solutions

• A new freeze thaw test that takes only a week!

How can this group help? • Tell someone else about the SAM! • I want to develop a new AASHTO test

method • I need field data • I need other labs to help validate the

meter and develop a precision and bias statement

www.superairmeter.com

SAMs should be available April 2014

Questions???

w/c ratio Cement

lb/yd ³ Paste

Content (%) Coarse lb/yd³ Fine lb/yd³ Water lb/yd³

0.41 611 29 1900 1217 250

0.45 611 30 1850 1203 275

0.53 611 33 1775 1150 324

Observations • Recall that the spacing factor

calculation is dependent on the specific surface calculation which is dependent on the voids per inch.

number of chords

traverse length

restraint cage

digital gauge

Schrader valve

teleconference meeting minutes spring 2014 aashto...

Documents