PERFORMANCE TESTING OF HPC ON SUNSHINE BRIDGE Final Report 658 Prepared by: Tarif M. Jaber Jaber Engineering Consulting, Inc. 10827 E. Butherus Drive Scottsdale, Arizona 85255 September 2009 Prepared for: Arizona Department of Transportation in cooperation with U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration The contents of the report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Arizona Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. Trade or manufacturers’ names which may appear herein are cited only because they are considered essential to the objectives of the report. The U.S. Government and The State of Arizona do not endorse products or manufacturers. This report can also be found on our web site… http://www.dot.state.az.us/ABOUT/atrc/Publications/Publications.htm Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. FHWA-AZ-09-658 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date September 2009 6. Performing Organization Code Performance Testing of HPC on Sunshine Bridge SPR-658 7. Author Tarif M. Jaber, P.E. FACI 8. Performing Organization Report No. 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. JEC Project JEC 64-107 11. Contract or Grant No. T0402A0002 SPR 658 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13.Type of Report & Period Covered Arizona Department of Transportation 206 S. 17th Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85007 Project Manager: Christ Dimitrplos 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 15. Supplementary Notes Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration 16. Abstract The deck of the Sunshine Bridge overpass, located westbound on Interstate 40 (I-40) near Winslow, Arizona, was replaced on August 24, 2005. The original deteriorated concrete deck was replaced using high performance concrete (HPC), reinforced with low-carbon, low-corrosion reinforcing steel. HPC is a new technology in Arizona. This report documents the first survey of the deck's condition and recommends that ADOT embark on a monitoring program to evaluate the performance of HPC. The ADOT monitoring program should consist of visual observation of the deck condition and concrete sampling and testing to measure and document HPC performance. The survey presented in this report was performed on December 18, 2007, which represents the first field survey since concrete deck placement. Visual observation and test results show the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. The concrete has a very low chloride permeability. The concrete has significantly slowed down and/or prevented chloride penetration through the bridge deck. The average air-void parameters of HPC do not meet the industry standards for frost resistant concrete. The deck surface appears to have minimal wear from snow removal equipment and shows no signs of concrete cracking. HPC appears to perform very well during the monitoring period despite the lower than recommended air void system. There were no signs of deterioration or adverse field conditions. It is recommended that bridge deck monitoring and concrete testing be done annually or biennially throughout the bridge's estimated 50-year service life to confirm long-term performance of HPC. It is also recommend that the next monitoring survey be initiated and conducted before the end of the year 2009. 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement High performance concrete, bridge decks, low carbon steel, chloride permeability, rapid chloride penetration, air void parameters, concrete cracking, HPC monitoring, long term performance of HPC Document is available to the U.S. public through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161 19. Security Classification 21. No. of Pages 20. Security Classification 13 Unclassified Unclassified 22. Price 23. Registrant's Seal inches feet yards miles in ft yd mi 3 milliliters liters cubic meters cubic meters 28.35 0.454 0.907 MASS grams kilograms megagrams (or “metric ton”) foot candles foot-Lamberts fc fl 10.76 3.426 ILLUMINATION 5(F-32)/9 or (F-32)/1.8 lux candela/m2 Celsius temperature 4.45 6.89 newtons kilopascals 2 C N kPa lx cd/m2 º g kg mg (or “t”) mL L m3 m3 mm m2 m2 ha km2 m m km mm Symbol C 2 N kPa lx cd/m2 º g kg Mg mL L m3 m3 mm m2 m2 ha km2 m m km mm Symbol 0.035 2.205 1.102 MASS 0.034 0.264 35.315 1.308 VOLUME 0.0016 10.764 1.195 2.47 0.386 AREA 3.28 1.09 0.621 0.039 LENGTH Multiply By ounces pounds short tons (2000lb) fluid ounces gallons cubic feet cubic yards 0.0929 0.2919 ILLUMINATION 1.8C + 32 foot-candles foot-Lamberts Fahrenheit temperature newtons kilopascals 0.225 0.145 poundforce poundforce per square inch FORCE AND PRESSURE OR STRESS lux candela/m2 Celsius temperature feet yards miles inches To Find square inches square feet square yards acres square miles TEMPERATURE (exact) grams kilograms megagrams (or “metric ton”) milliliters liters Cubic meters Cubic meters Square millimeters Square meters Square meters hectares Square kilometers meters meters kilometers millimeters When You Know APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS SI is the symbol for the International System of Units. Appropriate rounding should be made to comply with Section 4 of ASTM E380 poundforce poundforce per square inch FORCE AND PRESSURE OR STRESS Fahrenheit temperature lbf lbf/in2 29.57 3.785 0.028 0.765 VOLUME meters meters kilometers millimeters To Find square millimeters square meters square meters hectares square kilometers TEMPERATURE (exact) ounces pounds short tons (2000lb) F º oz lb T fluid ounces gallons cubic feet cubic yards fl oz gal ft3 yd3 645.2 0.093 0.836 0.405 2.59 AREA 0.305 0.914 1.61 25.4 LENGTH Multiply By NOTE: Volumes greater than 1000L shall be shown in m . square inches square feet square yards acres square miles in ft2 yd2 ac mi2 2 When You Know Symbol APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS SI* (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS F lbf lbf/in2 fc fl º oz lb T fl oz gal ft3 yd3 in2 ft2 yd2 ac mi2 ft yd mi in Symbol Table of Contents Executive Summary .............................................................................................................1 Introduction..........................................................................................................................2 Project Background .............................................................................................................2 Scope of Work ......................................................................................................................2 Work Performed ..................................................................................................................3 1. Field Sampling .....................................................................................................................3 2. Field Observation.................................................................................................................3 3. a. b. c. Laboratory Testing..............................................................................................................3 Rapid chloride permeability ..............................................................................................3 Air void analysis................................................................................................................4 Chloride ion content ..........................................................................................................4 Findings.................................................................................................................................5 Recommendations ................................................................................................................5 References .............................................................................................................................6 Appendix ...............................................................................................................................7 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 - Cores Information....................................................................................................3 Table 2 - RCP Results.............................................................................................................4 Table 3 - Air Void Analysis Results .......................................................................................4 Table 4 - Chloride Ion Content Results...................................................................................4 Table 5 - ASTM C1202 ..........................................................................................................5 APPENDIX LIST OF PHOTOS Photo 1- Coring location A .....................................................................................................7 Photo 2- Coring location A .....................................................................................................7 Photo 3- Coring location B .....................................................................................................8 Photo 4- Coring location C .....................................................................................................8 Photo 5- Concrete cores ..........................................................................................................9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The deck of the Sunshine Bridge overpass, located westbound on Interstate 40 (I-40) near Winslow, Arizona, was replaced on August 24, 2005. The original deteriorated concrete deck was replaced using high performance concrete (HPC), reinforced with low-carbon, lowcorrosion reinforcing steel. HPC is a new technology in Arizona. This report documents the first survey of the deck's condition and recommends that ADOT embark on a monitoring program to evaluate the performance of HPC. The ADOT monitoring program should consist of visual observation of the deck condition and concrete sampling and testing to measure and document HPC performance. The survey presented in this report was performed on December 18, 2007, which represents the first field survey since concrete deck placement. Visual observation and test results show the following: 1. The concrete has a very low chloride permeability. 2. The concrete has significantly slowed down and/or prevented chloride penetration through the bridge deck. 3. The average air-void parameters of HPC do not meet the industry standards for frost resistant concrete. 4. The deck surface appears to have minimal wear from snow removal equipment and shows no signs of concrete cracking. HPC appears to perform very well during the monitoring period despite the lower than recommended air void system. There were no signs of deterioration or adverse field conditions. We recommend that bridge deck monitoring and concrete testing be done annually or biennially throughout the bridge's estimated 50-year service life to confirm long-term performance of HPC. We also recommend that the next monitoring survey be initiated and conducted before the end of the year 2009. 1 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this work was to collect information on the performance of the high performance concrete (HPC), placed on the deck of the Sunshine Bridge overpass on I-40. The bridge deck was constructed on August 24, 2005, as a pilot project under ATRC Project SPR 538 to evaluate the feasibility of using HPC technology on bridges in Arizona. PROJECT BACKGROUND Work under SPR 538 consisted of replacing the deteriorated concrete deck slab with a durable cast-in-place HPC deck. The HPC was designed to achieve four main objectives: • • • • Higher durability under freeze-thaw exposure. Lower permeability to salt penetration. Lower shrinkage potential. Reduced steel corrosion. Quality control and quality assurance programs were implemented during concrete placement to collect and document information regarding concrete properties at the time of placement. Concrete sampling and testing were performed during construction to measure the in-place properties of HPC. This work is a part of a long-term program to monitor the performance of HPC during service life to: 1. Establish a baseline for concrete properties in the field. 2. Compare the baseline of concrete properties against those measured during concrete placement. The baseline established in this work will be used as a benchmark for evaluating concrete properties and performance during the service life of the concrete bridge deck. Jaber Engineering Consulting, Inc. (JEC) has completed the work on this project according to the scope of work outlined in the project statement dated December 7, 2007. SCOPE OF WORK 1. 2. 3. Visually examine the bridge deck and barriers and document any cracking. If cracking is found, identify the type and cause. Obtain concrete cores from the deck and measure the following: a. Rapid chloride permeability (RCP) according to ASTM 1202 Method for Electrical Indication of Concrete's Ability to Resist Chloride Ion Penetration. (ASTM 2009) b. Air voids by performing an analysis according to ASTM C 457-06 Method for Microscopical Determination of Parameters of the Air Void System in Hardened Concrete. (ASTM 2006) c. Chloride ion content (CIC) according to ASTM 1218 Method for Water-Soluble Chloride in Mortar and Concrete. (ASTM 2002). Measure the extent of chloride penetration through the concrete bridge deck. 2 WORK PERFORMED 1. Field Sampling JEC retained Western Technologies, Inc. (WTI) to perform concrete coring. WTI used ground penetrating radar (GPR) instruments to locate the reinforcing steel. Concrete coring locations were selected to avoid any damage to the reinforcing steel during coring operations. On December 18, 2007, concrete from the bridge deck was sampled at three locations and at least four cores were taken at each location. A schedule of the concrete core samples is presented in Table 1 and coring is shown in photos 1 through 5 in the Appendix. All concrete samples were less than 6 inches long to avoid penetration of the full depth of the deck. A non-shrink grout was used to patch all cored areas. Table 1 - Cores Information CORE INFORMATION AREA A B C 1 CORE LOCATION # CORES 14' S. of the north barrier and 23' W. of the E. end of the deck 12' S. of the north barrier and 94.5' E. of the W. end of the deck 12' S. of the north barrier and 23' E. of the W. end of the deck 5 4 4 DESIGNATION A1, A2, A3, A4, A51 B1, B2, B3, B4 C1, C2, C3, C4 Core A5 was damaged during coring and was discarded 2. Field Observation JEC made a visual observation of the concrete deck and its surface. There were no signs of deterioration, scaling, cracking, or similar adverse conditions. The deck surface showed light markings from snow removal blades and equipment. 3. Laboratory Testing ADOT retained one sample from each location to perform an in-house RCP testing. ADOT samples were marked A1, B1, and C1. The remaining samples were sent to WTI and Construction Technology Laboratory (CTL) in Skokie, Illinois, for testing. a. Rapid chloride permeability testing was performed by CTL using cores number A2, B2, and C2. For each core/location, (A, B, and C) the top ¾ inch of the concrete core was removed and discarded. A 2-inch thick sample was cut and labeled “TOP.” Another 1inch thick was cut and discarded and a 2-inch thick sample was cut and labeled 3 “BOTTOM.” The top and bottom samples for each location were tested and their average represented the RCP value at that location. Results are presented in Table 2. Table 2 - RCP Results RCP TEST RESULTS ASTM C 1202, COULOMB SAMPLE TOP 1 BOTTOM 2 AVERAGE 1 2 CORE A2 333 204 269 CORE B2 517 273 395 CORE C2 574 193 384 AVERAGE 349 The top of this 2-inch sample is ¾ inch from the top of the corresponding core/deck surface. The top of this 2-inch sample is 3¾ inch from the top of the corresponding core/deck surface. b. Air void analysis was performed by CTL using samples number A3, B3, and C3. Results are presented in Table 3. Table 3 - Air Void Analysis Results AIR VOID PARAMETERS ASTM C 457- 06 LOCATION SAMPLE ID CORE A3 CORE B3 CORE C3 AVERAGE (1) RECOMMENDED 1 TOTAL AIR CONTENT (A) (%) 3.4 6.2 9.3 6.3 6.5 ± 1.5 SPACING FACTOR (in) 0.013 0.012 0.006 0.010 < 0.008 SPECIFIC SURFACE in2/ in3 477 378 509 455 > 600 VOIDS PER INCH 4.1 5.8 11.9 7.3 1.5 TIMES A LENGTH OF TRAVEL (in) 90 90 90 90 90 NUMBER OF POINTS 1351 1350 1351 1351 Fr. Ch. 4, Section 4.4, Table 4.4.1 of Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete. (ACI 2002a) c. Chloride ion content testing was performed by Motzz Laboratory of Tempe, Arizona, (a sub-consultant to WTI) using samples number A4, B4, and C4. Results are presented in Table 4. Table 4 - Chloride Ion Content Results CHLORIDE ION CONTENT ASTM C 1218 - 02 REGION FROM SURFACE (IN) 0 TO 1 1 TO 2 2 TO 3 3 TO 4 4 TO 5 5 TO 6 BASE CONCRETE* ACI THRESHOLD(1) CORE A4 (%) (LB) 0.1800 0.2700 0.0120 0.0180 0.0086 0.0129 0.0096 0.0144 0.0089 0.0134 0.0092 0.0138 0.0087 0.0131 1.3 2 LBS CORE (%) 0.2100 0.0140 0.0096 0.0096 0.0080 0.0065 0.0087 1.3 B4 (LB) 0.3150 0.0210 0.0144 0.0144 0.0120 0.0098 0.0131 2 LBS CORE C4 (%) (LB) 0.2000 0.3000 0.0074 0.0111 0.0062 0.0093 0.0087 0.0131 0.0060 0.0090 0.0087 0.0131 1.3 2 LBS *Base concrete values were measured during concrete deck placement - August 24, 2005 1 Fr. Guide for Concrete Highway Bridge Deck Construction. (ACI 2002b). 4 AVERAGE (%) (LB) 0.1967 0.2950 0.1113 0.1670 0.0081 0.0122 0.0093 0.0014 0.0076 0.0115 0.0079 0.0118 0.0087 0.0131 1.3 2 LBS FINDINGS The average RCP value for concrete at all three locations was 349 coulombs. The average RCP for the concrete at the time of placement was 984 coulombs. This indicates that the concrete has gained significant resistance to chloride permeability since placement. This is attributed mainly to the effect of fly ash and silica fume on concrete. The concrete is currently considered to have very low chloride penetrability as shown in Table 5. Table 5 - ASTM C1202(1) Charge Passed (coulomb) Chloride Penetrability > 4000 2000 - 4000 1000 - 2000 100 - 1000 < 100 High Moderate Low Very Low Negligible 1 Fr Standard Test Method for Electrical Indication of Concrete's Ability to Resist Chloride Ion Penetration. (ASTM 2009). The air void analysis indicates that air void parameters do not meet recommended criteria by the American Concrete Institute in Guide to Durable Concrete (ACI 2008) and industry standards for frost resistant concrete. The lower air content is the result of the higher than expected concrete air loss during pumping. The chloride levels measured in three locations at varying deck depths indicate that the concrete has significantly prevented or slowed the penetration of chloride into the bridge deck. This correlates very well with the RCP test results measured, as shown in Table 2. RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend that a biennial monitoring program (visual observation, sampling, and testing of the concrete) be continued to monitor the development of HPC properties and confirm its performance in the field. Monitoring programs should continue for a minimum of 10 years, with intervals extended by one year each time until there is no significant change in concrete properties measured in the field. 5 REFERENCES 1. American Concrete Institute. 2002a. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete. ACI 318. Detroit, Michigan: American Concrete Institute. Chapter 4, Section 4.4, Table 4.4.1. 2. American Concrete Institute. 2002b. Guide for Concrete Highway Bridge Deck Construction. ACI 345. Detroit, Michigan: American Concrete Institute. Chapter 7, Section 7.3.4. 3. American Concrete Institute. 2008. Guide to Durable Concrete. ACI 201. Detroit, Michigan: American Concrete Institute. 4. American Society for Testing and Materials. 2002. Method for Water-Soluble Chloride in Mortar and Concrete. ASTM 1218-02. West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania: American Society for Testing and Materials. 5. American Society for Testing and Materials. 2006. Method for Microscopical Determination of Parameters of the Air Void System in Hardened Concrete. ASTM C457-06. West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania: American Society for Testing and Materials. . 6. American Society for Testing and Materials. 2009. Standard Test Method for Electrical Indication of Concrete's Ability to Resist Chloride Ion Penetration. ASTM C1202 – 09. West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania: American Society for Testing and Materials. Table 5. 6 APPENDIX Photo 1- Coring location A Photo 2- Coring location A 7 Photo 3- Coring location B Photo 4- Coring location C 8 Photo 5- Concrete cores 9