Citation
Concrete maturity

Material Information

Title:
Concrete maturity step function curing effects using a high performance mix design
Creator:
Holck, Erik
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
118 leaves : ; 28 cm

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Master's ( Master of science)
Degree Grantor:
University of Colorado Denver
Degree Divisions:
Department of Civil Engineering, CU Denver
Degree Disciplines:
Civil engineering

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Concrete -- Curing ( lcsh )
Concrete -- Effect of temperature on ( lcsh )
Concrete -- Testing ( lcsh )
Concrete -- Curing ( fast )
Concrete -- Effect of temperature on ( fast )
Concrete -- Testing ( fast )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 116-118).
General Note:
Department of Civil Engineering
Statement of Responsibility:
by Erik Holck.

Record Information

Source Institution:
|University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
|Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
51805471 ( OCLC )
ocm51805471
Classification:
LD1190.E53 2002m .H64 ( lcc )

Full Text
CONCRETE MATURITY: STEP FUNCTION CURING EFFECTS
USING A HIGH PERFORMANCE MIX DESIGN
by
Erik Hoick
B.S., University of Colorado at Denver, 1998
A thesis submitted to the
University of Colorado at Denver
in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science
Civil Engineering
2002


This thesis for the Master of Science
degree by
Erik Hoick
has been approved
by
/ Bate
Brian Brady


Hoick, Erik (M.S., Civil Engineering)
Concrete Maturity: Step Function Curing Effects Using A High Performance Mix
Design
Thesis directed by Associate Professor Kevin L. Rens
ABSTRACT
This thesis details the findings of the second year of a 3-year project funded by the
National Science Foundation (NSF) to determine the early age affects that curing
temperature has on concrete strength based on the maturity method. The goal of the
second year of the study is to determine the time when temperature no longer affects
the limiting strength of concrete, verify the validity and accuracy of the rate constant
and sensitivity factor equations proposed by Carino (1982 and 1984), and to make
recommendations as to possible variable temperature curing curves to be used in the
third year of the study. This will be accomplished by mixing and curing concrete at
stepped temperature intervals. In other words, the concrete will start curing at one
constant temperature, and at a particular time, will be moved to a different constant
temperature for the duration of the curing process. This thesis covers the objective
as it pertains to a high performance concrete mix design.
There were four distinct cycles during this phase of the study. Each cycle had
cylinders move from one temperature to another, and they were: warm to cold, cold
m


to warm, hot to warm, and warm to hot. The cold, warm and hot temperatures were
5C, 25C, and 50C respectively. The study concluded that the time when
temperature no longer affects the limiting strength was between 5 and 7 days. The
third year of the study will examine the same affects using a variable temperature
curve. That curve will start at a set temperature, follow the curve to a peak
temperature and follow the curve back down to the original temperature. The peak,
and period of that temperature curve will be based on the recommendations of this
thesis. The recommended peaks for the third year are 2 days, 3 days, and 5 days,
with a period of 7 days.
This abstract accurately represents the content of the candidates thesis. I
recommend its publication.
IV


DEDICATION
I dedicate this thesis to my grandmother, the late Ruby Hoick, who instilled in me a
quest for knowledge that has kept my interest in learning going strong throughout
my life.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to thank Professor Kevin Rens for all of his encouragement and
guidance throughout this last year. His professionalism and work ethic have taught
me what it means to be a professional. He managed to convince me to keep going
forward last year when the project looked like it might be discontinued all together.
I would like to thank the University of Colorado at Denver, and the Civil
Engineering Departments faculty and staff for providing this educational
experience. Acknowledgement is also given to the National Science Foundation for
funding this research project.
I need to acknowledge all of the students involved with the maturity project
including: Mohammad Abu-Hassan, Trieu Hoang, Saharat Buddhawanna, Cindy
Moe, Paul Free, Taewan Kim, and Stacy Johnson for all of their help in mixing
concrete. We all know how much hard work went into this project.
I would like to thank Professor Judy Stalnaker for all of her guidance
throughout my educational career at UCD, as well as serving on my thesis
committee. And I would also like to thank Professor Brian Brady for challenging
me in technical mathematical applications to engineering, as well as serving on my
thesis committee.


Finally, I would like to thank my mom and dad, Richard and Candy Hoick
for all of their support, both financially and emotionally, through my entire
academic career.


TABLE OF CONTENTS
Figures...................................................................x
Tables ................................................................:...xi
Chapter
1. Introduction.......................................................1
1.1 NSF Maturity Proj ect..............................................2
1.1.1 Year 1.............................................................3
1.1.2 Year 2.............................................................4
1.1.3 Year 3.............................................................4
1.2 Previous Studies at the University of Colorado at Denver...........5
1.3 Data Acquisition System............................................5
1.4 Mix Design.........................................................8
2. Year 1 Data.......................................................11
2.1 Determination of Rate Constant and Sensitivity Factor.............12
2.2 Analysis of the Year 1 Data.......................................16
2.3 Analysis of the Constant Temperature HPC Data (2002)..............23
2.4 Conclusions.......................................................27
3. Year 2 Data Summary...............................................29
3.1 Determination of Compressive Strength.............................29
3.2 Compressive Strength Data.........................................31
3.3 Trends in the Strength Data.......................................33
3.4 Conclusions Based on Strength Data................................38
4. Maturity Calculations, ASTM C 1074-98............................ 39
4.1 Equivalent Age Calculations.......................................39
4.2 Theoretical Limiting Strength Calculations........................41
4.3 Equivalent Age Data Analysis......................................42
4.4 Theoretical Limiting Strength Analysis........................'...53
4.5 Conclusions.......................................................57
5. Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations.........................58
5.1 Summary...........................................................58
5.1.1 Errors............................................................59
5.2 Conclusions.......................................................63
viii


5.3 Recommendations................................................65
Appendix
A. Compressive Strength Data Sheets...............................66
B. Non Destructive Evaluation Summary Data.......................113
Bibliography........................................................116
IX


FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Concrete Curing Tanks........................................6
Figure 1.2 DAQ Computer System..........................................7
Figure 1.3 Wiring Switchgear............................................8
Figure 2.1 Cylinder Caps and Neoprene Pads.............................12
Figure 2.2 Rate Constant versus Temperature............................17
Figure 2.3 Comparison of Cold, Warm, and Hot Strength Data for 2001....19
Figure 2.4 Comparison of Cold, Warm, and Hot Strength Data for 2002....19
Figure 2.5 Screen Capture Showing Heat of Hydration, Warm Set..........22
Figure 2.6 Screen Capture Showing Heat of Hydration, Hot Set...........23
Figure 2.7 Rate Constant versus Temperature............................25
Figure 2.8 Cold Data Comparison........................................26
Figure 2.9 Warm Data Comparison........................................26
Figure 2.10 Hot Data Comparison.........................................27
Figure 3.1 Compression Testing Machine.................................30
Figure 3.2 Actual Age versus Actual Strength, Warm to Cold.............34
Figure 3.3 Actual Age versus Actual Strength, Cold to Warm.............35
Figure 3.4 Actual Age versus Actual Strength, Hot to Warm..............36
Figure 3.5 Actual Age versus Actual Strength, Warm to Hot..............37
Figure 4.1 Equivalent Age versus Actual Strength, Warm to Cold.........48
Figure 4.2 Equivalent Age versus Actual Strength, Cold to Warm.........49
Figure 4.3 Equivalent Age versus Actual Strength, Hot to Warm..........50
Figure 4.4 Equivalent Age versus Actual Strength, Warm to Hot..........51
Figure 4.5 Strength Behavior Cycle 1, Warm to Cold.....................55
Figure 4.6 Strength Behavior Cycle 2, Cold to Warm.....................55
Figure 4.7 Strength Behavior Cycle 3, Hot to Warm......................56
Figure 4.8 Strength Behavior Cycle 4, Warm to Hot......................56
x


TABLES
Table 1.1 Mix Design Proportions........................................9
Table 2.1 Year 1 Strength Data (2001)..................................16
Table 2.2 Rate Constant Summary........................................16
Table 2.3 Regression Analysis..........................................17
Table 2.4 Constant Temperature Strength Data (2002)....................24
Table 2.5 Rate Constant Summary........................................24
Table 2.6 Regression Analysis..........................................24
Table 3.1 Compressive Strength Data....................................32
Table 4.1 Temperature Time History Spreadsheet.........................39
Table 4.2 Equivalent Age Data Summary Warm to Cold.....................43
Table 4.3 Equivalent Age Data Summary Cold to Warm................... 44
Table 4.4 Equivalent Age Data Summary Hot to Warm......................45
Table 4.5 Equivalent Age Data Summary Warm to Hot......................46
Table 4.6 Theoretical Strength Behavior for Warm to Cold...............54
Table 4.7 Theoretical Strength Behavior for Cold to Warm...............54
Table 4.8 Theoretical Strength Behavior for Hot to Warm................54
Table 4.9 Theoretical Strength Behavior for Warm to Hot................54
Table 5.1 Calibration Factors..........................................60
xi


1.
Introduction
The scope of this thesis is based on the analysis of a portion of data taken from a
three-year study at the University of Colorado at Denver, and funded by the
National Science Foundation (NSF), to be completed during the period 2000 2003.
The NSF Project under the division of Civil and Mechanical Systems (CMS)
9988584, and is titled Concrete Maturity A Quantitative Understanding of How
Early Age Temperatures Affect the Maturity Concept. The idea of concrete
maturity was first conceived in the late 1940s and early 1950s in England and can
be traced to several papers on accelerated curing methods using steam cured
concrete (Nurse, 1949; McIntosh, 1949; Saul, 1950). The maturity method is a
quantitative technique that uses empirical data to predict the combined effects of
time and temperature on the strength development of a particular concrete mix. In
1987, the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) adopted a standard
practice for use of the maturity method in calculating in-place concrete strengths.
The standard is designated as ASTM C 1074-98 Standard Practice for Estimating
Concrete Strength by the Maturity Method.
This Thesis is based on the research conducted in Year 2 of the NSF Project. The
scope of this phase of the research is to determine the time at which temperature no
1


longer affects the limiting strength of a particular high performance concrete. This
time will be determined by curing an array of concrete samples at stepped curing
temperatures. The means that a particular set of concrete cylinders will be mixed
and cured for an initial period of time, and then subsequently moved to a different
temperature for the duration of the sets curing time. From this information,
recommendations will be made relating to future research and studies, including
recommendations that will specifically be employed in Year 3 of the NSF Project.
Year 1 of the study was completed to determine several maturity constants that will
be used in Years 2 and 3 of the study.
1.1 NSF Maturity Project
The NSF study is broken down into three phases. The phases are referred to as Year
1, Year 2, and Year 3 for reference convenience. In each phase of the research, two
distinct mix designs were analyzed. The first mix design has a w/c of 0.53 and is
referred to as the Normal Mix. The second mix design has a w/c+p of 0.28 and is
referred to as High Performance Concrete or HPC. The w/c is defined as the
water-cement ratio where the amount of water is measured by weight and the
cement included in the mix is measured in the same units as the water. The w/c+p is
the water-cement plus pozzolan ratio. It is the same as the w/c ratio except that the
weight of any additional cementitious material (pozzolans) is added to the reported
weight of the cement. A pozzolan is a siliceous or aluminosiliceous material that in
2


itself possesses little or no cementitious value but will, in finely divided form and in
the presence of water, chemically react with the calcium hydroxide released by the
hydration of Portland cement to form compounds possessing cementitious
properties, Kosmatka and Panarese (1988).
1.1.1 Year 1
Year 1 of the study was completed to develop a computerized system for data
acquisition and temperature control. Also in Year 1, control sets of concrete
samples were cured at 3 different constant temperatures for each mix. This constant
temperature data is used to calculate two important parameters in the maturity
calculation. These parameters are the rate constant, k, and the sensitivity factor, p.
A detailed discussion of this process and the HPC results of Year 1 will be
discussed later in Chapter 2 of this Thesis. Prior to the start of mixing, curing, or
testing, a questionnaire was sent the department of transportation in each of the 50
states. The objectives of the questionnaire were to utilized the DOTs expertise and
experience to:
Investigate the difficulties and limitations of the current ASTM standard
Provide guidance for the NSF Project with respect to curing temperatures,
w/c+p ratios, and temperature time histories
3


As much as possible, the advice and responses from these questionnaires were
incorporated into the NSF Project. For detailed results of the questionnaire
including responses refer to Hoang (2001).
1.1.2 Year 2
Year 2 of the NSF Project was to determine the time when curing temperature no
longer affects the ultimate strength of the concrete. To determine this parameter,
concrete was cured at stepped temperatures. There were four cycles in Year 2;
Cycle 1 (warm to cold), Cycle 2 (cold to warm), Cycle 3 (hot to warm), and Cycle 4
(warm to hot). The three temperatures labeled cold, warm, and hot were set at 5 C,
25 C, and 50 C respectively. The selection of these temperatures was based on
information taken from the questionnaire survey mentioned earlier. Each cycle was
composed of six sets of cylinders. For each set, the cylinders would be moved from
one temperature to another at different times. Each set in each cycle would have
cylinders tested at 2, 3, 5, 7, 14, 28, and 56 days for the HPC.
1.1.3 Year 3
In Year 3 of the NSF Project, concrete will be cured using variable temperature
curves. The time to peak for the temperature curve is dependant on the conclusions
found in Year 2 of the study as well as the recommendations of this Thesis. Year 3
.4


will also try and determine any correlations between the data collected in Years 1
and 2.
1.2 Previous Studies at the University of Colorado at
Denver
There have been many papers, presentations, and theses written and presented based
on the research conducted in this study. The first of which was a thesis written by
LaCome (2000). LaComes thesis was based on a pilot study conducted in 2000 to
investigate the combined effects of temperature and time as they relate to the
maturity concept. Recommendations made by LaCome prompted application to the
NSF for funding for future research. After funding was secured from the NSF to
expand the research effort, several reports and theses have been written including:
Hamamji (2001), Mezarina (2001), Hoang (2001), and Abu-Hassan (2002). A
summary of all of this work is described in more detail by Abu-Hassan (2002) and
Moe (2002).
1.3 Data Acquisition System
The data acquisition system (DAQ) was developed by LaCome in 2000 and further
refined in Year 1, and Year 2 of the study. The DAQ that was used in Year 2
consisted of four cylinder-curing tanks, a central computer, and data management
software. The tanks are household chest style freezers as shown in Figure 1.1. The
5


Figure 1.1 Concrete Curing Tanks
entire system was controlled by the central computer running the laboratory
management and data acquisition software LabVIEW1. The computer system is
shown in Figure 1.2. Using the software to control the temperature, three
thermocouples were inserted into each tank to monitor the current temperature.
Two of the thermocouples were inserted into the center of two concrete samples
when the cylinders were cast. These samples were referred to as smart samples.
1 LabVIEW 161. Version 2000, Laboratory Software, National Instruments, 11500 North Mopac
Expressway, Austin, Texas, 78759-3504.
6


Figure 1.2 DAQ Computer System
The other thermocouple was coated with a corrosion resistant compound and put
directly into the water. The DAQ would calculate the average of the two smart
samples and compare that value to the temperature of the water bath. If the samples
average temperature was more that 0.5 C different from the set point, the DAQ
would then turn on the heater or the freezer to bring the samples back into the
designated range. The software controlled the heaters and freezers through
electronic switchgear shown in Figure 1.3. In addition to controlling the
temperature of the concrete, the DAQ was programmed to record the three
7


Figure 1.3 Wiring Switchgear
temperature readings at 10-minute intervals. This temperature data was then used to
develop the temperature-time history used in the maturity calculation.
1.4 Mix Design
The high performance mix design was completed prior to commencement of Year 1
of the research. It was necessary to use the same mix in each of the three years of
research. Some guidance and direction for the final mix design was taken from the
questionnaires sent out in 1998 and 2000, for more information see Hoang (2001).
8


The mix was designed for low water cementitious ratio of 0.28. In order to achieve
this low w/c+p ratio, a high range water-reducing admixture was used to make the
concrete workable. The admixture that was used was Rheobuild 3000 FC
manufactured by Master Builders. During the Year 2 research, Master Builders
discontinued the manufacturing of Rheobuild, and substituted a product called
Glenium 3000 NS. According to Master Builders, Glenium is the exact same
chemical composition as Rheobuild with the only difference being the name of the
product and the color. The HPC mix used materials in the proportions given in
Table 1.1. Originally, in Year 1 a slightly different mix design was used. The
Table 1.1 Mix Design Proportions
High Performance Mix Design
Ingredient Proportion Quantity for 10 Samples (gm)
Cement 17.21% 9158
Fly Ash 2.52% 1340
Silica Fume 1.49% 795
Sand . 30.99% 16490
Gravel 40.36% 21479
Rheobuild 1.41% 750
Water 6.02% 3206
quantity of Rheobuild used in Year 1 varied from the cold mix, which used 1105
gm, to the warm and hot mixes, which used 917 gm. The reason for the difference
is due to the fact that the cold mix had a very high slump. In fact the slump could
not be measured because the concrete never stopped moving after the cone was
removed. Thus, the amount of Rheobuild was reduced to try and control the
9


workability of the warm and hot mixes and make them a bit stiffer. When preparing
the mix design prior to Year 2, the amount of Rheobuild was further reduced to 750
gm. These changes in mix proportions would have the tendency to add uncertainty
to the results. However, during the course of research during Year 2, all of the data
from Year 1 was reproduced using the same mix design. Chapter 2 describes in
detail the reasons for duplicating the work from Year 1. Also, during Year 1 it was
believed that the addition of Rheobuild to the mix would not increase the strength.
It was later discovered that the Rheobuild does increase the strength of the concrete.
A pilot study was conducted in Year 1 to analyze the affect of Rheobuild on the
strength. A summary of this pilot study was written by Hoang (2001).
10


2.
Year 1 Data
The following standards were followed for mixing, casting, curing, and testing the
concrete cylinders:
ASTM C 192 Practice for Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens in
the Laboratory
ASTM C 39 Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical
Concrete Specimens
ASTM C 1231 Standard Practice for Use of Unbonded Caps in
Determination of Compressive Strength of Hardened Concrete Cylinders
ASTM C 617 Practice for Capping Cylindrical Concrete Specimens
The mixing procedure used has been detailed by Abu-Hassan (2002). In lieu of
sulfur capping, it was decided to use metal caps with rubber pads for the
compression testing. Since there is an ASTM standard to follow, using pads instead
of sulfur capping was not expected to affect the results of the tests. The caps and
pads used can be seen in Figure 2.1.
11


Figure 2.1 Cylinder Caps and Neoprene Pads
2.1 Determination of Rate Constant and Sensitivity
Factor
In order to calculate the Maturity of a concrete mixture (ASTM 1074-98), the first
thing that must be completed is to mix and test three sets of concrete samples cured
at three different constant temperatures. It is recommended by the ASTM standard
that these temperatures be 5 C, 25 C, and 50 C. The temperatures are also based
on information gathered in the two questionnaires LaCome (2000), and Hoang
(2001). This part of the study was completed during Year 1 of the NSF study, or the
spring of 2001. At the time, it was the intention of the research team to use the data
12


collected in Year 1 for determination of the maturity constants for the analysis in
Year 2 and Year 3. Use of the data taken from Year 1 greatly reduces the number of
cylinders needed in Years 2 and 3, which would otherwise need to be repeated over
and over again. Specifically, any cylinder tested before a particular Year 2 set is
moved could be a cylinder previously tested in Year 1. For example, if Cycle 2, Set
4 is to be moved from cold to warm at 7 days, then data from Year 1 for the 2, 3,
and 5-day test could be used since those cylinders were constantly in the cold tank.
What this means is that for a given cycle, there are 6 sets, each set has 7 data points,
for each data point 4 cylinders are made, plus 2 smart cylinders for each set, for a
total of 180 cylinders per cycle. By using the constant temperature data from Year
1, this number is reduced to 100 cylinders per cycle. One of the limitations is due to
tank capacity, which is only 265 cylinders if filled to capacity. The data from Year
1 was to be calibrated to match the particular batch mixed in Year 2 or 3. The
calibration would be accomplished by making control samples that would be cured
at the cold, warm, or hot constant temperature and then tested at 28 days. The data
from the control set would be used to calibrate the Year 1 data by comparing the
two 28-day test results and developing a multiplicative calibration factor.
The samples from these three sets of HPC were tested in accordance with ASTM
C39 at ages of: 3 days, 5 days, 7 days, 14 days, 28 days, 56 days, and 77 days.
During the experiment, it was believed that the concrete had no strength until
13


approximately 3 days. This belief stems from the fact that the cold set was mixed
and tested first. The cold mix had no strength until 5 days. So when the warm and
hot cycles were conducted it was decide to start testing them at 3 days. The cold
samples were checked for initial set at ages earlier than 3 days, but were found to be
concrete cylinder. At the time, the actual moment of the initial set was unknown.
In performing the maturity analysis, the first thing that must be completed is to use
the strength versus calendar age data to determine the constants Su, k, and t0 from the
hyperbolic Equation 2.1. The basis for this equation is explained by Carino (1984),
and Knudsen (1980).
wet and could not be removed from the plastic forms without breaking the
(Eq. 2.1)
where:
strength at age t, (psi), (MPa),
t
calendar age of sample, (day),
k
S
limiting strength, (psi), (MPa),
rate constant, (day1),
t
o
time of initial set, beginning of strength development, (day).
14


Using the strength versus calendar age data for each temperature set, the three
constants are calculated using the regression analysis software KaleidaGraph2. This
analysis is performed independently for all three sets of data. This particular
method of analysis is described in great detail by Hoang (2001). This analysis
results in three different values for Su, k, and t0, one set for each constant
temperature. Using the three values for the rate constant, k, at each temperature,
another regression analysis is performed to find Ao, and P from Equation 2.2, which
is a simplified, suitable equation that resembles the Arrhenius Equation. This
reasoning is further described by Carino (1982), Tank and Carino (1991), and
Carino and Tank (1992).
k =
(Eq. 2.2)
where:
k rate constant, (day1),
A o - value of the rate constant at 0 C, (day1),
P = temperature sensitivity factor, ( C'1),
T concrete curing temperature set point, ( C).
2 KaleidaGraph (3.5). Synergy Software, 2457 Perkiomen Avenue, Reading, PA 19606.
15


This results in the determination of Ao, and (3 which are representative of the
particular concrete mix tested. These values will then be used in the remaining
calculations to determine the maturity of the concrete mix.
2.2 Analysis of the Year 1 Data
The data taken for the HPC mix in Year 1 is summarized in Table 2.1. This data
was analyzed using the method described earlier. The result of the analysis to
determine the value of the rate constant is summarized in Table 2.2.
Table 2.1 Year 1 Strength Data (2001)
Year 1 HPC Mix (2001)
Cold (5 deg C) Warm (25 deg C) Hot (50 deg C)
Age (days] fc (MPa) fc (Psi) Age (days) fc (MPa) fc (psi) Age (days) fc (MPa) fc (PSi)
3.0 0.00 0 3.3 31.90 4627 3.2 34.87 5058
5.4 8.05 1167 5.3 37.29 5409 5.3 42.96 6231
7.1 17.32 2512 7.0 40.18 5827 6.9 44.70 6483
14.1 34.19 4959 14.0 45.84 6649 14.0 49.91 7239
28.0 39.08 5668 27.9 51.32 7444 27.9 53.29 7729
56.2 45.75 6636 56.2 58.50 8485 56.1 57.50 8339
77.1 46.94 6808 77.1 62.80 9108 77.0 58.96 8551
Table 2.2 Rate Constant Summary
Mix k (day'1) Temp (C)
Cold 0.29817 5
Warm 0.0891 25
Hot 0.3834 50
16


Figure 2.2 depicts a graph of the rate constants versus the curing temperature, T vs.
k. The line shown in Figure 2.2 indicates the regression analysis fit to Equation 2.2,
with the regression data shown in Table 2.3.
Table 2.3 Regression Analysis
Value Error
Ao 0.17557 0.17271
B 0.012894 0.025263
Chisq 0.038367 NA
R 0.40426 NA
17


An R-value of 0.40426 indicates that this is not a very good fit to the data. In .fact it
is an extremely poor fit to the data, an R-value greater than 0.9 should be expected
for reasonable confidence in the data. Visual inspection of the graph of the data
shows that the data forms a curve of a parabola more than an exponential as
expected from the equation. It was suspected that there was something wrong with
the cold data taken in 2001. There were several reasons for this suspicion including
the fact that the amount of Rheobuild was different than that used for the warm and
the hot, as well as the fact that the comparison of the strength versus age graphs
comparing the cold, warm and hot together didnt indicate the cold attaining
strength greater than the other two as is expected. Normally, given enough time, the
cold set will attain higher strengths than both the warm and the hot cured samples.
This graph is shown in Figure 2.3. Also included is Figure 2.4, which shows the
same graph for the data that was redone.
18


Constant Temperature, Age vs. Strength (2001)
-Cold (2001)
Warm (2001)
Hot (2001)
Age (days)
Figure 2.3 Comparison of Cold, Warm, and Hot Strength Data for 2001
Constant Temperature, Age vs. Strength (2002)
70.00
60.00
£ 50.00
s
~ 40.00
I1 30.00
| 20.00
10.00
0.00
0.000 10.000 20.000 30.000 40.000 50.000 60.000
Age (days)
Figure 2.4 Comparison of Cold, Warm, and Hot Strength Data for 2002
19


All of these factors lead to one of two conclusions; first, there is something wrong
with the data, or second, there is something wrong with the maturity equations as
they relate to high performance concrete. Since the same analysis was being
performed at the same time for a normal strength concrete mixture, the research
team working with the normal concrete was consulted to see if the same problems
were present. As it turns out, the normal mix performed well, producing data that fit
quite nicely, statistically, with the maturity equations. This led to the conclusion
that there must have been something wrong with the raw data. Correspondence was
initiated with Dr. Nick Carino at the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST). Many of the equations used in the maturity method were developed and
modified by Carino in the early 1980s, and he assisted in drafting the proposal from
the University to the NSF for funding of this project. Carino requested a copy of the
raw data that was collected. Carino suggested that there was not enough early age
strength data to accurately determine the rate constant, k. He suggested that several
data points for strengths below 35 MPa were needed in order to accurately
determine the rate constant. The group working with the normal strength concrete
had strength data from 12 hours, and 24 hours. However, the HPC didnt seem to
develop strength until the third day, but when tested at 3 days, the Samples had
strength greater that 32 MPa for the warm and the hot sets. The cold set did have
some early strength data, almost by accident due to the fact that the initial set is
delayed until close to the 3-day test.
20


With regard to the cold set; during the Year 2 mixing and testing, the data for the
cold to warm cycle had strengths much greater than the cold set from Year 1, in
particular, the 28-day control set. In Year 1 the strength of the 28-day sample was
39.08 MPa while the 28-day control sample was 58.18 MPa. This raised the
question as to the validity of the Year 1 data for the cold set. There were many
factors that contributed to the greater strengths of the concrete in Year 2 compared
to similarly cured samples from Year 1. First, in Year 1 the concrete was mixed by
hand using shovels. This method of mixing was described by Hoang (2001), Abu-
Hassan (2002), and the Year 1 NSF Report that can be found at:
http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~krens/Nsf research.htm. In Year 2 all of the concrete
was mixed using an electric mixer. Additionally, the research team gained a great
deal of experience in mixing concrete from the initial trials of Year 1 to the mixes
during Year 2. In Year 1, the HPC mix design was still being developed and
modified during some of the testing cycle. All of these factors led to the conclusion
that the mix from Year 1, specifically, the cold set was not of the same quality or
strength as that in Year 2. It was decided to mix an additional set of cold HPC
samples to replace the original Year 1 constant temperature data. This work was
performed concurrently with the other Year 2 experiments.
Later, after discovering the problem with the data analysis and the lack of early age
data for the warm and hot mixes, it was decided to mix an additional set of warm
21


and hot HPC samples to replace the rest of the Year 1 data. This test was performed
with samples checked every 6 hours for the onset of the initial set. By doing this, it
was found that the initial set occurred at approximately 30 hours for both the warm
and the hot sets. Additional early age tests were performed to provide sufficient
early age data that could be used in the maturity method calculations. Figures 2.5
and 2.6 are screen captures from the DAQ, which show a peak in the temperature of
the concrete samples. This peak indicates the onset of the initial set and the increase
in the heat of hydration.
Tank4.vi
File Edit Operate Tools Browse Window Help
iriBire

Tank 4 Temperature Control
Pre-Test Setup Info:
Data File Narine ft|C:\CureData\wrrn1 _02151501 .dat
running
Channels for In & Out: j
l fmust match hardware] j
1 Temp. Freezer|7] ;
ijgul Heater js] I
2/15/02
3:01 PM
loop interval, min.
data interval, min. f) 10.66
j Conrol Parameters: (Heater/Freezer on if Conrete out of SP Range, unless Water beyond Offset)
Set Point ir~25] Water High Offset^ Concrete t/c for control jBj Heater On
(R+a" i ris] Water Low Offset fp5] IFjj Freezer On
____________T emperature History
26-r
C 25-
?y..*

SP
C1
/V
, ! ...v - - , i' 's1, ' '
" I I I I I I I I I I
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0 160.0 180.0
C2 |A;
W '_i
['2575
f25!5
25.2
J .25Ji.j
Concrete
Temp
for control
Elapsed Time ] 167.88
hours
STOP
Figure 2.5 Screen Capture Showing Heat of Hydration, Warm Set
22


jj>i Tank3.vi
File Edit Operate Jools Browse Window Help 139 3
jnlifc I ?j II
Pre-Test Setup Info:
Tank 3 Temperature Control
j (must match hardware ;
] Temp. Freezer^|T i
I fl 0:2 1 Heater | Jo j
Data File Name ft |C: \CureD ata\hot1 _02151451 .dat
running
2/15/02
2:51 PM
loop interval, min. ai 5.00
data interval, min. fjj 10.00
Conrol Parameters: (Heater/Freezer on if Conrete out of SP Range, unless Water beyond Offset)
Set Point
Range
(+ or -)
I
50j Water High OffsetO Concrete t/c for control
0 5j Water Low Offset 5~f |j1& 2
Heater On
Freezer On

/'j 1 49.5) 1 49.8
/V i 49 7 Concrete
j 48781 Temp for contro
STOP
Figure 2,6 Screen Capture Showing Heat of Hydration, Hot Set
2.3 Analysis of the Constant Temperature HPC
Data (2002)
Table 2.4 summarizes the second set of constant temperature cured HPC. All three
of these data sets were analyzed using the statistical analysis software described
earlier. The statistical analysis found the rate constants for the three new sets as
shown in Table 2.5.
23


Table 2.4 Constant Temperature Strength Data (2002)
Year 1 HPC Mix (2002)
Cold (5 deg C) Warm (25 deg C) Hot (50 deg C)
Age (days] fe (MPa) fc (psi) Age (days) fc (MPa) (Psi) Age (days) fc (MPa) fc (Psi)
1.251 1.76 255 1.279 1.46 212
1.478 6.90 1001 1.507 21.25 3082
1.781 19.61 2844 1.810 30.58 4435
2.063 30.92 4485 2.092 35.92 5210
3.013 1.92 278 3.262 40.59 5887 3.291 43.33 6284
5.147 22.67 3288 5.269 45.79 6642 5.298 48.40 7020
6.901 34.14 4952 7.074 49.02 7110 7.104 51.97 7537
14.118 46.12 6689 14.088 58.41 8472 14.117 56.15 8144
28.108 52.92 7676 27.963 58.48 8482 27.993 59.30 8601
56.066 56.17 8147 56.109 61.70 8949 56.146 61.91 8979
Table 2.5 Rate Constant Summary
Mix k (day'1) Temp (C)
Cold 0.30196 5
Warm 0.91094 25
Hot 1.7871 50
Figure 2.7 shows the graph of the temperature versus the rate constant using the new
constant temperature data. The line indicates the regression fit of the data to
Equation 2.2. The regression data is summarized in Table 2.6.
Table 2.6 Regression Analysis
Value Error
Ao 0.35544 0.1056
B 0.032539 0.006482
Chisq 0.025899 NA
R 0.98831 NA
24


This new set of data and the subsequent regression analysis to determine the
maturity method constant fits much better statistically, with an R-value of 0.98831,
compared to the data taken in Year 1. Figures 2.8,2.9, and 2.10 graphically depict
the comparison of the data collected during Year 1 and the new constant
temperature data.
25


Cold Data Comparison
CO
Q_
2
B)
c
ffi
k>
vt
m Cold 2002
------2001
.....-2002
Cold 2001
Figure 2.8 Cold Data Comparison
Warm Data Comparison
re
Q.
O)
c

CO
Age (days)
Warm 2002
----2001
---2002
Warm 2001
Figure 2.9 Warm Data Comparison
26


Hot Data Comparison
n
Q_
O)
c
£
CO
Hot Data 2002
-----2001
-----2002
Hot Data 2001
Figure 2.10 Hot Data Comparison
2.4 Conclusions
In the end, it is clear that it was necessary to redo the mixes from Year 1. The
reason for this may not be so much that the strength data was wrong, but there
wasnt enough of the critical data taken at the very early ages. By redoing the work,
there is a great deal more confidence in the numbers that have been generated from
this preliminary analysis, which instills more confidence in proceeding with the
remaining investigation of the maturity method as it pertains to high performance
concrete, and the accurate determination of the time when temperature no long
affects the limiting strength. The final results of the redone constant temperature
data confirm the validity of the equations proposed by Carino (1982 and 1984),
27


Tank and Carino (1991), and Carino and Tank (1992) used to determine the rate
constant and the sensitivity factor for this high performance concrete mix.
28


3. Year 2 Data Summary
In completing this study several different forms of data had to be collected.
Significant to the maturity concept are the temperature time history data that was
recorded for each set for the duration of the curing process. The DAQ records the
temperature time history that is then downloaded and copied to a spreadsheet. The
DAQ, as well as the curing tanks were manually checked for proper operation and
potentials problems every 24 hours at a minimum.
In addition to the temperature time history data, actual curing time data, as well as
compressive strength data were recorded on a data management spreadsheet.
Copies of these spreadsheets for each cycle are included in Appendix A. The
spreadsheets were laid out so that the actual age of each set could easily be
determined when a particular test took place.
3.1 Determination of Compressive Strength
All of the cylinders cast for testing in Year 2 were mixed and molded in accordance
with ASTM C 192. The cylinders were formed in 4 x 8 plastic cylindrical molds
with tight sealing lids. The compression testing was performed in accordance with
ASTM C 39, on a hydraulic testing machine shown in Figure 3.1. All cylinders
29


Figure 3.1 Compression Testing Machine
were tested with steel caps with neoprene pad as described in Chapter 2. The
compression-testing machine was originally calibrated in 2000, and then
recalibrated in December 2001. It was believed by some that the high forces needed
to fail the typical HPC cylinder may have thrown the machine out of calibration, but
it was found that the amount of adjustment needed to recalibrate was minor. The
ultimate capacity of the machine is 250,000 pounds of force, and the highest of the
HPC cylinders failed at approximately 135,000 pounds. When the machine was
30


calibrated in December it was found to be out of calibration by less than 3000
pounds, which in this case amounts to approximately 240 psi.
3.2 Compressive Strength Data
All of the compressive strength data is summarized in Table 3.1. The shaded values
are taken from the constant curing temperature Year 1 data. These data have been
calibrated appropriately using the correction factors determined by comparing the
28-day control sets from Year 2 with the 28-day Year 1 data.
31


Table 3.1 Compressive Strength Data
NSF Concrete Maturity Project
High Performance Concrete (HPC) Stepped Curing Temperatures
Compressive Strength Data (MPa)
Phase 2, Cycle 1, Warm to Cold
days curing H11(2d) H12(3d) H13(5d) H14(7d) H15(14d) H16(28d)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 30.58 . T .30,92 . 31.65 31.65 31.65 ; 31.65
3 35.83 . 40.59 41.55 41.55 41.55 . 41,55
5 37.62 38.49 .46.88 . 46.88 . 46.88 . 46.88
7 40.77 38.99 45.86 50.18 50,18 ..... 50.18
14 45.20 39.58 46.75 48.40 .59.80 59.80
28 49.18 45.57 47.10 51.62 53.89 . 59,87
56 54.02 52.66 47.44 51.79 55.53 60.60
Phase 2, Cycle 2, Co d to Warm
days curing H21(2d) H22(3d) H23(5d) H24(7d) H25(14d) H26(28)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 29.99 2.11 . 1,92 1.92 1.92 1.92
5 46.44 42.51 22.67 22.67 . 22.67 22.67
7 47.03 47.72 43.88 34,14 .34.14 .34.14
14 58.27 55.85 51.23 51.23 . ..46.12 . 46.12
28 61.16 65.31 63.80 63.62 61.02 .52,92
56 67.92 71.02 66.09 66.22 64.90 63.85
P hase 2, Cycle 3, Hot to Warm
days curing H31(2d) H32(3d) H33(5d) H34(7d) H35(14d) H36(28d)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 44.38 43.10 . .'. 43.44 43.44 43.44 43.44
3 48.08 51,99 52.40 52.40 52.40 52.40
5 49.16 56.49 58.53 58.53 58.53 58,53
7 52.06 57.09 59.42 62.84 62.84 62.84
14 54.30 61.98 59.23 65.27 67.90 67.90
28 57.45 61.34 61.66 67.46 65.91 71.71
56 62.80 68.56 56.67 63.96 66.00 68.24
P hase 2, Cycle 4, Warm to Hot
days curing H41 (2d) H42(3d) H43(5d) H44(7d) H45(14d) H46(28d)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 32.27 29.58 31.51 31.51 31.51 31.5.1
3 47.17 . 38.83 4137 41.37 41.37 41.37
5 54.25 54.21 ....... 46.67 46.67 46,67 46.67
7 62.20 58.46 50.64 49,96 .49.96 . 49,96
14 68.79 65.96 57.59 58.96 . ... 59.53 59.53
28 68.46 66.46 59.60 62.71 66.55 .. 59.60
56 74.50 72.99 63.62 68.10 69.97 70.80
Indicates calibrated Year 1 data
32


3.3 Trends in the Strength Data
A simple analysis was performed on this data. Four graphs were developed that
compare the actual age versus actual strength data with the constant cure
temperature data from Year 1. These graphs are given as Figures 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, and
3.5.
33


Figure 3.2 Actual Age versus Actual Strength, Warm to Cold
Actual Age vs. Actual Strength (Cycle 1)
10
30 40 50
Actual Age (days)
0
20
60


Figure 3.3 Actual Age versus Actual Strength, Cold to Warm
Actual Age vs. Actual Strength (Cycle 2)


Figure 3.4 Actual Age versus Actual Strength, Hot to Warm
Actual Age vs. Actual Strength (Cycle 3)
80.00
70.00
60.00
| 50.00
£
O)
| 40.00
(/>
75
2 30.00
<
20.00
10.00
0.00


* : *"
H31 (2d) * H32(3d) ---*H33(5d) - * H34(7d) *H35(14d) - H36(28d) IYear 1 Hot



i 1 1 1 1
10
30 40
Actual Age (days)
0
20
50
60


Figure 3.5 Actual Age versus Actual Strength, Warm to Hot
Actual Age vs. Actual Strength (Cycle 4)
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
---a H43(5d)
H44(7d)
-*H45(14d)
-* H46(28d)
hYear 1 Warm
0.00
10
T
40
0
20
30
Actual Age (days)
50
60


3.4 Conclusions Based on Strength Data
Very little can be taken from the actual strength versus actual age graphs in terms of
determining the time when temperature no longer affects the limiting strength of the
particular high performance concrete mix. In fact, Cycles 2 and 3 show no trend at
all when compared to the constant temperature graph. Examining Cycles 1 and 4
show that only the last set (moved at 28 days) actually agrees with the constant
temperature data. Therefore, it is inconclusive as to the time when temperature no
longer affects the limiting strength based on this part of the analysis.
38


4.
Maturity Calculations, ASTM C 1074-98
4.1 Equivalent Age Calculations
In Chapter 2 the procedure to determine the rate constant, k, and the sensitivity
factor, p, was described. That process is only the first step in the maturity
calculations. The next step in the process is to determine the equivalent age of the
concrete at any given time. This is done by first recording the temperature time
history that the DAQ downloads onto a spreadsheet. This temperature time history
is a record of the temperature of the concrete at any give time during the curing
Table 4.1 Temperature Time History Spreadsheet
Phase II
Variable temperature "Cold to Warm 5 days
Time Temp. CW1 CW2 cwavg EAcw
min C c C C
10 5 21.33928 21.24363 21.29145
20 5 22.0648 21.68804 21.87642 0.006273
30 5 21.81739 21.46304 21.64022 0.012499
40 5 21.64867 21.29989 21.47428 0.01869
50 5 21.51367 21.17611 21.34489 0.024856
60 5 20.66957 20.28671 20.47814 0.03085
70 5 19.40222 19.18804 19.29513 0.036618
80 5 18.68623 18.58471 18.63547 0.042264
90 5 18.22933 18.16727 18.1983 0.047829
100 5 17.96413 17.93591 17.95002 0.05335
110 5 17.77789 17.74966 17.76377 0.058838 B = 0.032539
120 5 17.6029 17.59725 17.60008 0.064296
130 5 17.50128 17.50128 17.50128 0.069737 Ts = 25
140 5 17.39401 17.37707 17.38554 0.075158
150 5 17.28108 17.2472 17.26414 0.080557
160 5 17.18508 17.16249 17.17378 0.08594
170 5 17.08342 17.06083 17.07213 0.091305
180 5 17.02694 17.00435 17.01565 0.096661
39


process. Table 4.1 shows a portion of a temperature time history spreadsheet. This
example shows only the first 180 minutes of curing, the entire spreadsheet is
approximately 8,000 rows long, or 56 days x 24 hours x 6 data point per hour =
7,776 data points. One of these spreadsheets exists for each set of concrete
cylinders or 24 spreadsheets. The column EACW stands for the equivalent age for
cold to warm. To calculate this column the simplified rate equation is used as given
by Carino (1992), and as shown in Equation 4.1.
P = temperature sensitivity factor, 1/C
T = average concrete temperature during time interval At, C
Ts = reference temperature, C.
This equation is a simplification of the Arrhenius rate equation originally proposed
by Freiesleben, Hansen, and Pedersen (1977) and later modified by Brown and
LeMay (1988). Equation 4.2 is the modified Arrhenius rate equation from Carino
and Lew (2001).
/
t, = t
(Eq. 4.1)
0
where:
(Eq. 4.2)
o
where:
te = the equivalent age at the reference temperature,
40


E = apparent activation energy, J/mol,
R = the universal gas constant, 8.314 J/mol K,
T = average absolute temperature of concrete during interval At, K,
Ts= absolute reference temperature, K.
However, Carino and Lew (2001) state that this simplified equation has the
following benefits over the Arrhenius rate equation:
The temperature sensitivity factor, P, has more physical significance
compared with the apparent activation energy: for each temperature
increment of 1/p, the rate constant for strength development increases by a
factor of approximately 2.7.
Temperatures do not have to be converted to the absolute temperature scale.
Equation 4.1 is simpler than the Arrhenius equation.
By using the spreadsheet and Equation 4.1, the equivalent age at any given actual
age can be determined. The equivalent age versus actual strength can then be
analyzed graphically to determine if there are any trends in the data. This will be
detailed later in this Chapter.
4.2 Theoretical Limiting Strength Calculations
The next step in determining the maturity is to calculate the limiting strength of the
particular set of samples given its temperature time history, rate constant, sensitivity
41


factor, and equivalent age. This is accomplished by using Equation 4.3, as given in
Carino (1992).
S = SU
l + A(te-t)
(Eq. 4.3)
where:
S = actual strength at age t, psi, or MPa
Sy = limiting strength, psi, MPa
A = equivalent age constant, 1/day
tc = equivalent age, day
teo = equivalent age at start of strength development, day.
In order to determine Su5 A, and teo, the statistical analysis software KaleidaGraph is
used. A detailed explanation of the use of KaleidaGraph can be found in Hoang
(2001).
4.3 Equivalent Age Data Analysis
The equivalent age was calculated for each test, for each set, of each cycle. The
equivalent age calculations as well as the calibrated actual strength data are
summarized as follows: Table 4.2 Cycle 1 (warm to cold)
Table 4.3 Cycle 2 (cold to warm)
Table 4.4 Cycle 3 (hot to warm)
Table 4.5 Cycle 4 (warm to hot)
42


Table 4.2 Equivalent Age Data Summary Warm to Cold
Equivalent Age Analysis, Cycle 1 (Warm to Cold) H11(2d) H14(7d)
Actual Age (days) Equivalent Age (days) Strength (psi) Strength (Mpa) Actual Age (days) Equivalent Age (days) Strength (psi) Strength (Mpa)
1.962 1.982728 4435 30.58 2.063 2.087755 4590 31.65
3.013 2.683462 5197 35.83 3.262 3.30771 6026 41.55
5.008 3.739258 5456 37.62 5.269 5.345573 6799 46.88
7.167 4.883343 5913 40.77 7.074 7.178935 7278 50.18
14.049 8.529289 6556 45.20 13.934 10.76514 7020 48.40
27.999 15.9291 7133 49.18 27.948 18.19312 7487 51.62
55.959 30.71996 7835 54.02 55.968 33.01248 7511 51.79
H12(3d) H15(14d)
Actual Age (days) Equivalent Age (days) Strength (psi) Strength (Mpa) Actual Age (days) Equivalent Age (days) Strength (psi) Strength (Mpa)
2.063 2.087755 4485 30.92 2.063 2.087755 4590 31.65
3.262 3.30771 5887 40.59 3.262 3.30771 6026 41.55
4.984 4.094543 5582 38.49 5.269 5.345573 6799 46.88
7.142 5.348542 5655 38.99 7.074 7.178935 7278 50.18
14.025 8.998175 5741 39.58 14.088 14.300061 8673 59.80
27.973 16.39432 6609 45.57 27.939 21.43527 7816 53.89
55.936 31.18883 7637 52.66 55.959 36.25831 8054 55.53
H13(5d) H16(28d)
Actual Age (days) Equivalent Age (days) Strength (psi) Strength (Mpa) Actual Age (days) Equivalent Age (days) Strength (psi) Strength (Mpa)
2.063 2.087755 4590 31.65 2.063 2.087755 4590 31.65
3.262 3.30771 6026 41.55 3.262 3.30771 6026 41.55
5.269 5.345573 6799 46.88 5.269 5.345573 6799 46.88
7.031 6.060539 6652 45.86 7.074 7.178935 7278 50.18
13.954 9.733503 6781 46.75 14.088 14.300061 8673 59.80
27.969 17.16142 6831 47.10 27.963 28.387259 8683 59.87
55.983 31.98818 6881 47.44 55.954 42.94545 8790 60.60

43


Table 4.3 Equivalent Age Data Summary Cold to Warm
Equivalent Age Analysis, Cycle 2 (Cold to Warm)
H21 (2d)
Actual Age Equivalent Strength Strength
(days) Age (days) (psi) (Mpa)
3.171 2.274884 4349 29.99
5.206 4.34077 6735 46.44
7.143 6.306489 6821 47.03
14.091 13.354819 8452 58.27
28.193 27.669933 8870 61.16
56.098 55.992438 9851 67.92
H22(3d)
Actual Age Equivalent Strength Strength
(days) Age (days) (psi) (Mpa)
3.013 1.592917 306 2.11
5.183 3.790525 6165 42.51
7.119 5.752591 6921 47.72
14.069 12.807963 8101 55.85
28.169 27.116025 9473 65.31
56.075 55.445646 10301 71.02
H23(5d)
Actual Age Equivalent Strength Strength
(days) Age (days) (psi) (Mpa)
3.013 1.592917 278 1.92
5.147 2.722302 3288 22.67
6.965 4.890091 6364 43.88
14.182 12.1699 7431 51.23
28.171 26.372411 9254 63.80
56.131 54.753866 9586 66.09
H24(7d)
Actual Age Equivalent Strength Strength
(days) Age (days) (psi) (Mpa)
3.013 1.592917 278 1.92
5.147 2.722302 3288 22.67
6.901 3.653043 4952 34.14
14.171 11.339936 7431 51.23
28.157 25.535402 9228 63.62
56.119 53.889969 9605 66.22
H25(14d)
Actual Age Equivalent Strength Strength
(days) Age (days) (psi) (Mpa)
3.013 1.592917 278 1.92
5.147 2.722302 3288 22.67
6.901 3.653043 4952 34.14
14.118 7.4756 6689 46.12
28.149 22.011768 8850 61.02
56.113 50.380441 9413 64.90
H26(28d)
Actual Age Equivalent Strength Strength
(days) Age (days) (psi) (Mpa)
3.013 1.592917 278 1.92
5.147 2.722302 3288 22.67
6.901 3.653043 4952 34.14
14.118 7.4756 6689 46.12
28.108 14.897299 7675 52.92
56.107 43.673355 9261 63.85
44


Table 4.4 Equivalent Age Data Summary Hot to Warm
Equivalent Age Analysis, Cycle 3 (Hot to Warm)
H31(2d)
Actual Age (days) Equivalent Age (days) Strength (psi) Strength (Mpa)
1.97 3.882269 6437 44.38
3.286 5.214952 6974 48.08
5.181 7.139842 7130 49.16
7.095 9.085619 7550 52.06
14.118 16.21317 7875 54.30
28.308 30.61465 8333 57.45
55.879 58.58618 9108 62.80
H32(3d)
Actual Age (days) Equivalent Age (days) Strength (psi) Strength (Mpa)
2.092 4.642849 6251 43.10
3.291 7.315336 7541 51.99
5.163 8.60223 8193 56.49
7.075 10.49887 8280 57.09
14.098 17.67567 8989 61.98
28.288 32.07714 8896 61.34
55.861 60.04869 9944 68.56
H33(5d)
Actual Age (days) Equivalent Age (days) Strength (psi) Strength (Mpa)
2.092 4.642849 6300 43.44
3.291 7.315336 7600 52.40
5.298 11.775926 8489 58.53
7.130 13.47245 8618 59.42
14.122 20.57241 8591 59.23
28.105 34.75882 8943 61.66
56.147 63.18876 8220 56.67
H34(7d)
Actual Age Equivalent Strength Strength
(days) Age (days) (psi) (Mpa)
2.092 4.642849 6300 43.44
3.291 7.315336 7600 52.40
5.298 11.775926 8489 58.53
7.104 15.789853 9114 62.84
14.115 22.84256 9466 65.27
28.085 37.01488 9784 67.46
56.141 65.45892 9276 63.96
H35(14d)
Actual Age Equivalent Strength Strength
(days) Age (days) (psi) (Mpa)
2.092 4.642849 6300 43.44
3.291 7.315336 7600 52.40
5.298 11.775926 8489 58.53
7.104 15.789853 9114 62.84
14.117 31.283251 9848 67.90
28.070 45.35668 9559 65.91
56.134 73.80776 9572 66.00
H36(28d)
Actual Age Equivalent Strength Strength
(days) Age (days) (psi) (Mpa)
2.092 4.642849 6300 43.44
3.291 7.315336 7600 52.40
5.298 11.775926 8489 58.53
7.104 15.789853 9114 62.84
14.117 31.283251 9848 67.90
27.993 62.11798 10401 71.71
56.128 90.60014 9897 68.24
45


Table 4.5 Equivalent Age Data Summary Warm to Hot
Equivalent Age Analysis, Cycle 4 (Warm to Hot) H41(2d) H44(7d)
Actual Age Equivalent Strength Strength Actual Age Equivalent Strength Strength
(days) Age (days) (psi) (Mpa) (days) Age (days) (psi) (Mpa)
2.08 2.20982 4680 32.27 2.063 2.087755 4570 31.51
3.185 4.661571 6841 47.17 3.262 3.30771 6000 41.37
5.213 9.170996 7869 54.25 5.269 5.345573 6769 46.67
7.123 13.413728 9022 62.20 7.074 7.178935 7246 49.96
14.128 28.953463 9977 68.79 13.917 22.541056 8551 58.96
28.166 60.213274 9930 68.46 28.073 54.053392 9095 62.71
56.114 122.33028 10805 74.50 56.102 116.35218 9877 68.10
H42(3d) H45(14d)
Actual Age Equivalent Strength Strength Actual Age Equivalent Strength Strength
(days) Age (days) (psi) (Mpa) (days) Age (days) (psi) (Mpa)
2.063 2.087755 4290 29.58 2.063 2.087755 4570 31.51
3.262 3.30771 5632 38.83 3.262 3.30771 6000 41.37
5.198 7.829822 7862 54.21 5.269 5.345573 6769 46.67
7.106 12.054773 8479 58.46 7.074 7.178935 7246 49.96
14.112 27.61004 9566 65.96 14.088 14.300061 8634 59.53
28.151 58.869903 9639 66.46 28.067 46.204215 9652 66.55
56.01 120.78472 10587 72.99 56.098 108.12958 10149 69.97
H43(5d) H46(28d)
Actual Age Equivalent Strength Strength Actual Age Equivalent Strength Strength
(days) Age (days) (psi) (Mpa) (days) Age (days) (psi) (Mpa)
2.063 2.087755 4570 31.51 2.063 2.087755 4570 31.51
3.262 3.30771 6000 41.37 3.262 3.30771 6000 41.37
5.269 5.345573 6769 46.67 5.269 5.345573 6769 46.67
7.128 9.664913 7345 50.64 7.074 7.178935 7246 49.96
13.992 24.788601 8353 57.59 14.088 14.300061 8634 59.53
28.08 56.300983 8644 59.60 27.963 28.387259 8644 59.60
56.105 118.58431 9228 63.62 56.096 90.930836 10268 70.80

46


Based on the data in these four tables, a set of four graphs were compiled to
compare each cycles equivalent age versus strength with the equivalent age versus
strength graph of the constant temperature concrete from Year 1 (later redone).
These four graphs are given as Figures 4.1 4.4. It can be seen in Figure 4.1, Cycle
1 (warm to cold), that the set H16 follows closely the graph of the constant
temperature data.
47


Figure 4.1 Equivalent Age versus Actual Strength, Warm to Cold
Equivalent Age versus Strength (warm to cold)


Figure 4.2 Equivalent Age versus Actual Strength, Cold to Warm
Equivalent Age versus Strength (cold to warm)


Figure 4.3 Equivalent Age versus Actual Strength, Hot to Warm
Equivalent Age versus Strength (hot to warm)
Equivalent Age (days)


Figure 4.4 Equivalent Age versus Actual Strength, Warm to Hot
Equivalent Age versus Strength (warm to hot)
Equivalent Age (days)


The other 5 graphs fall off of the constant temperature graph after the cylinders are
moved. One could argue that the time that temperature no longer affects this cycle
(warm to cold) is sometime between 14 and 28 days.
The data for Cycle 2 (cold to warm) is more difficult to visually determine the set
that follows the constant temperature graph. It seems that all of the sets increase in
strength after being moved. However, close inspection of the H23 set shows that
the 14 day test is in close agreement with the constant temperature set. From this it
can be argued that sometime between 7 and 14 days is the time at which
temperature is no longer affected for this cycle.
Close examination of the equivalent age graph for Cycle 3 (hot to warm) indicates
that set H32 had 5, 7, and 14-day tests that agree with the curve for the constant
temperature set. Then for some reason the 28, and 56-day tests fall off from the
constant temperature curve. Therefore, since H32 was moved from the hot tank at 3
days, it is argued that the time at which the temperature no longer affects this set is
between 3 and 5 days for this cycle.
Analysis of the data for Cycle 4 (warm to hot) shows that sets H41 and H42 follow
the constant temperature curve after being moved. The H41 set has 5-day data that
lies close to the constant temperature graph. The H42 set has 5, and 7-day data in
52


agreement with the constant temperature graph. For this the argument can be made
that between 2 and 3 days is the time at which temperature no longer affects the
limiting strength. In the next section, determination of the time when temperature
no longer affects the limiting strength will be examined using yet another method.
In all there are three methods that will be used for this analysis. The same three
methods were used by Abu-Hassan (2002).
4.4 Theoretical Limiting Strength Analysis
This analysis takes into consideration the limiting strength, SU5 which is found by
performing the maturity calculations described earlier in this chapter, specifically,
applying Equation 4.3. To determine the time at which temperature no longer
affects a particular concrete mix, the behavior of Su is analyzed with respect to the
time that the cylinders were moved. The constant temperature data redone for Year
1 used in the Su calculations is calibrated both between Year 1 and Year 2, as well
as from mix day to mix day based on the control samples mixed on each mixing
day. It is this calibrated data that is used in the maturity calculations. Tables 4.6,
4.7,4.8, and 4.9 summarize the maturity data for each of the cycles. Then Figures
4.5 - 4.8 depict graphs of the theoretical S0 versus age at moving for each cycle.
53


Table 4.6 Theoretical Strength Behavior for Warm to Cold
Theoretical Strength Be havior of Cycle 1 (warm to cold)
Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4 Set 5 Set 6
Moved at Age (days) 2 3 5 7 14 28
Theoretical Sy (MPa) 52.350 48.909 51.123 54.522 58.813 62.094
Table 4.7 Theoretical Strength Behavior for Cold to Warm
Theoretical Strength Be lavior of Cycle 2 (cole to warm)
Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4 Set 5 Set 6
Moved at Age (days) 2 3 5 7 14 28
Theoretical Su (MPa) 64.485 69.782 67.793 68.382 67.501 64.665
Table 4.8 Theoretical Strength Behavior for Hot to Warm
Theoretical Strength Be havior of Cycle 3 (hot to warm)
Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4 Set 5 Set 6
Moved at Age (days) 2 3 5 7 14 28
Theoretical Su (MPa) 58.870 65.730 61.667 66.859 67.347 69.368
Table 4.9 Theoretical Strength Behavior for Warm to Hot
Theoretical Strength Be havior of Cycle 4 (warm to hot)
Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4 Set 5 Set 6
Moved at Age (days) 2 3 5 7 14 28
Theoretical Su (MPa) 71.381 69.568 60.807 64.258 67.379 65.631
54


Long Term Strength Behavior, Cycle 1
Figure 4.5 Strength Behavior Cycle 1, Warm to Cold
Long Term Strength Behavior, Cycle 2
Figure 4.6 Strength Behavior Cycle 2, Cold to Warm
55


Long Term Strength Behavior, Cycle 3
Age at Moving (days)
Figure 4.7 Strength Behavior Cycle 3, Hot to. Warm
Long Term Strength Behavior, Cycle 4
Figure 4.8 Strength Behavior Cycle 4, Warm to Hot
56


From analysis of these four graphs, it is clear that the time at which temperature no
longer affects the limiting strength lies sometime between 5 and 7 days for the high
performance mix. This can be seen by looking at the 2, 3, and 5 day moving data
points. These data points dont tend to line up or form any kind of a trend.
However, when examining the 7, 14, and 28 day moving data points they all tend to
go horizontal after the 5 day data point.
4.5 Conclusions
It is clear that the theoretical limiting strength analysis more accurately defines the
time at which temperature no longer affects the limiting strength when compared to
the results found from the equivalent age versus strength analysis. The calibrated
data takes into account the variations inherent between mix days, as well as not
relying heavily on the Year 1 data being assimilated into the Year 2 data. It is this
assimilation that leads to uncertainty in making observations and conclusions based
on the equivalent age data, even after calibrating the data to be used in the
equivalent age analysis. Therefore, based on the theoretical limiting strength
analysis, the time when temperature no longer affects the limiting strength is
between 5 and 7 days for the high performance concrete mix.
57


5.
Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations
5.1 Summary
Three methods of analysis were performed to analyze the data and determine the
time when temperature no longer affects the limiting strength of this particular high
performance concrete mix. The methods were: actual strength versus calendar age
analysis, actual strength versus equivalent age analysis, and finally the theoretical
limiting strength analysis. The conclusions of all three methods will be discussed in
this chapter. The basis of the last two of the techniques is the maturity concept,
while the first is more traditional and more limited.
In repeating the constant curing temperature sets for Year 1 it was learned that it is
critical to the determination of the maturity rate constant and the sensitivity factor
that enough early age data is collected. Specifically, data is needed as close to the
onset of the initial set as possible, as well as several data points before the strength
reaches 30 35 MPa. In the case of the high performance mix, the strength gain to
30 MPa happens rapidly after the initial set. Therefore, close and frequent
monitoring of the concrete is necessary to take the needed data and to make accurate
maturity calculations. In addition, the equations used to determine the rate constant
58


and the sensitivity factor were validated and found to be accurate for this high
performance concrete mix.
During the data analysis, the data from Year 1 was initially calibrated using an
average of all of the control sets for a particular temperature cycle. Later, all of the
data was calibrated for each individual control set with each individual cycle as
well. This provided calibration both between Year 1 and Year 2, as well as, from
mix day to mix day. In the end, it was discovered that the equivalent age
calculations were fairly insensitive to the additional calibration. However, for
completeness of the data set, the fully calibrated data set is presented in this thesis.
5.1.1 Errors
During the course of the laboratory phase of the study, several areas of concern
arose. One of these issues has to do with the numerous variables that go into mixing
concrete. These variables include: ambient temperature, humidity of room, mixing
technique, equipment, material quantities (even if the same proportion), experience
of labor, and many other conditions. A study is currently underway at the
University of Alabama that is examining all of these potential variables in mixing
concrete, and will be reported by Johnson, (2002). To aid in quantifying these
issues, control samples were cast at the same time each mix was performed. The
control samples were cured at the starting temperature and remained constant for
59


28-days. They were then tested and compared with the 28-day data from Year 1.
This process afforded the opportunity to calibrate each mix both between Year 1
and Year 2, as well as between mix days in Year 2. This method seemed to work
quite well. The largest difference between the controls and Year 1 data occurred for
the mix of H33(5d) H36(28d). The 28-day Strength of the control set was 71.71
MPa, while the Year 1 redo hot mix had a 28-day strength of 59.30 MPa. This
accounts for a difference of 21% difference. However, the rest of the mixes were
more typical of the mix for H21(2d) H22(3d). The 28-day strength of the control
set was 58.18 MPa, while the cold mix from Year 1 redo set had a 28-day strength
of 52.92 MPa, for a difference of 9.9%. Table 5.1 illustrates the calibration factors
for all mixes. There was no calibration set done for the first cold mix, it was after
that mix that it was decided that a control set was needed for each mix day. The
calibration factor listed is calculated as a percentage of the control set. So when the
Table 5.1 Calibration Factors
Control Sets Sets Mix Date Age f'c (MPa) f'c (Psi) Calibration Factor
Warm 1,2 20-Jul NA
Warm 3,4,5,6 27-Jul 27.912 59.87 8684 1.02375
Cold 1,2 24-Aug 28.174 58.18 8439 1.09931
Cold 3,4,5,6 14-Dec 28.108 52.93 7676 1.00011
Hot 1,2 26-Oct 28.293 71.16 10321 1.19996
Hot 3,4,5,6 2-Nov 28.070 71.71 10401 1.20924
Warm 1,2 30-Nov 28.156 55.94 8114 0.95654
Warm 3,4,5,6 7-Dec 28.047 59.60 8644 1.01913
60


calibration factor is listed as 1.20924, that means that there is 20.9% difference
between the two strength values. In general, with the exception of the 20.9 %
difference in H33-H36, all batching appeared to be fairly consistent.
Another area of concern is with what is known as self desiccation. This is the
process whereby the concrete strength is reduced due to 100% consumption of the
water. This is normally a concern only for high performance mixes where the
water-cement ratio is quite low, or when the cylinders are cast using a mold with a
tight sealing cap, which is the case here. A study has been performed and this
phenomenon is described in detail by Kim (2002). It is believed that signs of self
desiccation were evident at times during the laboratory work. There were occasions
when cylinders were taken out of the water bath and the caps on the plastic forms
were collapsed inward. It is believed that in these cases, the caps were sealed
watertight, thus limiting the amount of water available for hydration consumption to
whatever was in the mix. Originally, it was the intention to prevent water ingress
into the cylinder molds. This led to the selection of the tight sealing molds. Most of
the cylinders did not seal watertight and when opened water was visible on top of
the cured sample. Additionally, when a low water-cement ratio flashes or
undergoes self desiccation, micro cracking is evident in the specimen. Micro
cracking was not observed. However, some of the curves seem to flatten out at
61


older ages, which is indeed a self desiccation phenomenon, and could cause the
theoretical Su to be lower than it really should be.
The next area of possible error introduction is due to the use of the neoprene pads
instead of sulfur capping. The standard is vague concerning the number of cycles
for which a set of pads can effective be used. There was one occasion where it is
believed that excessively worn pads may have led to reduced strength values. While
these reductions are not viewed to be significant, it is necessary to identify the
problem. After this potential problem was discovered, a log was developed to keep
track of the number of cycles that each pad was used. Now, before the pads get to
100 cycles they are changed out for a new set.
During the normal concrete Year 2 study, some of the temperature time history data
was lost due to a malfunction of the DAQ. A problem such as this did not occur in
the HPC Year 2 study. However, in order to replace the. lost temperature data, an
average temperature was used for the missing data points. A sensitivity analysis
was performed to identify errors with this method and is detailed in Abu-Hassan
(2002). It was determined by Abu-Hassan that replacing the lost data with an
estimated average temperature data did not significantly affect the equivalent age of
the set in question. This is true if there is only a small portion of the data missing,
say 1 week out of the entire 8 week curing cycle. The effect of larger chunks of
62


missing data was not analyzed. The data that was missing was known to be at a
relatively small temperature range of less than 5C of variation, and the sensitivity
of a larger variation was not analyzed.
When performing the statistical analysis to determine the rate constant, k, and the
sensitivity factor, p, the analysis output identifies a value for the error in both, k and
(3. An investigation by Abu-Hassan (2002) into the effects of this range of error
determined that the effects on the equivalent age due to this error are negligible.
The error bars shown on the graphs in Chapter 2 come from the statistical analysis
using the Kaleidagraph software. When the theoretical strength data equation is
reported, it includes a plus minus range of error. That range is indicated on the
appropriate figures.
5.2 Conclusions
The first of the three data analysis techniques was the actual calibrated strength
versus actual age. This analysis produced data that was inconclusive as to the time
which temperature no longer affects the limiting strength for the particular high
performance concrete mix. This conclusion is to be expected. That is one of the
benefits of the maturity method, in that it makes it easier to compare concrete cured
at one temperature to the same mix cured at another.
63


The second method used was the actual calibrated strength versus the equivalent
age. This analysis technique yielded different conclusions for each of the cycles.
For Cycle 1 it was determined that the time was between 14 and 28 days. For Cycle
2 the time was determined to be between 7 and 14 days. For Cycle 3, it was
concluded that the time was between 3 and 5 days. Finally, for Cycle 4 the time
was found to be between 2 and 3 days. So the only conclusion that could be argued
for the mix as a whole would be that the time was sometime before 28 days. This is
not a very accurate assessment. However, Cycles 1 and 2 are cycles that go through
the cold tank at some point. For Year 3, the temperature variations will be starting
at 25C and going up to 40C, 50C, and 60C. This trial is design to approximate
field curing conditions in the spring, summer and fall in Colorado. So, the results
for Cycles 1 and 2 are not as critical for identifying the temperature curves that will
be used in Year 3 of the study.
The last method used was to compare the theoretical limiting strength of each set at
the time that the set was moved for each cycle. All four cycles yielded the same
conclusion that the time which temperature no longer affected the limiting strength
was between 5 and 7 days. The results from the equivalent age analysis for Cycles
3 and 4 also indicate that this point in time is something less than 7 days. So for
these Cycles, there is agreement in the results.
64


Therefore based on the conclusion of the theoretical limiting strength method, the
time at which temperature no longer affects the limiting strength of this high
performance concrete mix is between 5 and 7 days. In practical terms, this means
that after 7 days, the temperature no longer is important to the limiting strength of
the concrete. For example, if a specification states that concrete must be cured at
temperatures greater than 40F (~4C), then after 7 days, it wouldnt matter if the
temperature dropped below the specified level or not.
5.3 Recommendations
Based on this conclusion, it is recommended that during the Year 3 phase of the
NSF study, the peak temperatures should be attained before this point when
temperature no longer affects the limiting strength. Therefore, it is recommended
that the peak temperature should be attained at 2, 3, and 5 days. The temperature
cycle (the time it takes the variable temperature function to return to the initial
temperature) shall be 7 days. This means that all of the temperature variation shall
be completed before the upper limit in time determined by this thesis.
65


APPENDIX A
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH DATA SHEETS
66


I Test Data management |
'WaJniToToH
0 20
Set 1
Samples were moved to cold tank at 2 days
iCycran-------------r
[W/U 1
Mm Begin
7/292001 17:1S
Forming begin
7/207001 17:28
Forming finish____
7/207001 18:18
Sit-mp (inch)
_________NA
sample ID DalaTrie sample made Date Removed from system sample weight Kg Date Test (mo-day-year) Age Elapsed time Avg. Age Avg. Age
hours Days
H11/2/1 7/20/2001 17:53 7727001 16:30 3.964 7/227001 16:54 47:01:00 47:04:40 1.962
H11/2/2 7/20/2001 17:53 7727001 16:30 3.906 7727001 16:57 47:04:00
H11/2/3 7/20/2001 17:53 7727001 16:30 3.848 7727001 17:02 47:09:00
H11/2/4 7/20/2001 17:53 7727001 16:30 3.899
H11/3/1 7/20/2001 17:53 7737001 17:16 3.841 7737001 16:09 72:16:00 72:19:20 3.013
H11/3/2 7/207001 17:53 7737001 17:16 3.922 7737001 18:12 72:1900
H11/3/3 7/207001 17:53 7737001 17:16 3.902 7737001 18:16 72:23:00
H11/3/4 7/207001 17:53 7737001 17:16 3.953
H11/5/1 7/207001 17:53 7757001 17:03 3.950 7757001 18:01 120:08:00 120:11:20 5.008
H11/5/2 7/207001 17:53 7757001 17:03 3.924 7757001 18:03 120:10:00
H11/5/3 7/207001 17:53 7757001 17:03 3.906 7757001 18:09 120:16:00
H11/5/4 7/207001 17:53 7757001 17:03 3.928
H11/7/1 7/207001 17:53 7777001 20:25 3.B71 7/277001 21:S0 171:57:00 172:00:00 7.167
H11/7/2 7/207001 17:S3 7777001 20:25 3.861 7777001 21:53 172:00:00
H11/7/3 7/207001 17:53 7777001 20:25 3.902 7777001 21:56 172:03:00
H11/7/4 7/207001 17:53 7777001 20:25 3.914
H11/14/1 7/207001 17:53 6/37001 18:00 3925 8/37001 19:00 337:07:00 337:10:00 14.049
H11/14/2 7/207001 17:53 8/37001 18:00 3.666 8/37001 19:03 337:10:00
H11/14/3 7/207001 17:53 8/37001 18.00 3.912 8/37001 19:06 337:13.00
H11/14/4 7/207001 17:53 B/37001 18:00
H11/28/1 7/207001 17:53 8/177001 15:40 3.900 8/177001 17:49 671:56:00 671:58:20 27.999
H11/28/2 7/207001 17:53 8/177001 15:40 3.902 8/177001 17:51 671:5B:00
H11/28/3 7/207001 17:53 8/177001 15:40 3.930 8/177001 17:54 672:01:00
H11/28/4 7707001 17:53 8/177001 15:40 3.929
H11/56/1 7707001 17:53 9/147001 15:15 3.938 9147001 16:50 1342:57:00 1343.00:40 55.959
H11/56/2 7707001 17:53 9/147001 15:15 3.910 9147001 16:54 1343:01:00
H11/56/3 7707001 17:53 9/147001 15:15 3.907 9147001 16:57 1343:04:00
H11/56/4 7707001 17:53 9/147001 15:15 3.970
Type ol failure
A) Cone C) Cone and Shear x E) Columnar i i
B) Cone and Split i D) Shear F) noneol the above
/
67


US Units
2 days
3 days
5 days
7 days
14 days
28 days
56 days
2days
3 days
5 days
7 days
14 days
28 days
56 days
Sample Load (lbs) sample area In* Compressive strength Psi Avg Compressive strength Psi Type of failure Amount ol aggregate shear
H11/2/1 58000 12.571 4614 E Moderate
H11/2/2 56750 12.571 4514 4435 E Moderate
H11/2/3 52500 12.571 4176 F Minor
H11/3/1 61000 12.571 4852 F Moderate
H11/3/2 66000 12.571 5409 5197 E Moderate
H11/3/3 67000 12571 5330 0 Moderate
H11/5/1 72250 12.571 5747 D Moderate
H11/5/2 65000 12571 5171 5456 F Moderate
H11/5/3 68500 12571 5449 D Moderate
H11/7/1 77250 12.571 6145 F Moderate
H11/7/2 76250 12.571 6066 5913 F Moderate
H11/7/3 69500 12571 5529 C Moderate
H11/14/1 82750 12571 6583 C Major
H11/14/2 83000 12.571 6602 6556 C Major
H11/14/3 81500 12571 6483 D Major
H11/28/1 88500 12571 7040 0 Major
H11/28/2 89500 12571 7120 7133 C Major
H11/28/3 91000 12.571 7239 c Major
H11/56/1 100000 12571 7955 C Major
H11/56/2 95000 12571 7557 7835 F Major
H11/56/3 100500 12.571 7995 F Major
SI units
Sample Load N sample area mm* Compressive strength MPa (N/mnf) Avg. Compressive strength MPa Type of failure Amount at aggregate shear
H11/2/1 257997 8110.30635 31.81 E Moderate
H11/2/2 252437 8110.30636 31.13 30.58 E Moderate
H11/2/3 233532 8110.30636 28.79 F Minor
H11/3/1 271342 8110.30636 33.46 F Moderate
H11/3/2 302479 8110.30638 37.30 35.83 E Moderate
H11/3/3 ' 298031 8110.30636 36.75 D Moderate
H11/5/1 321384 8110.30636 39.63 D Moderate
H11/5/2 289134 8110.30636 35.65 37.62 F Moderate
H11/5/3 304703 8110.30636 37.57 D Moderate
H11/7/1 343625 8110.30636 42.37 F Moderate
H11/7/2 339177 6110.30636 41.82 40.77 F Moderate
H11/7/3 309151 6110X636 38.12 C Moderate
H11/14/1 368090 8110.30636 45.39 C Major
H11/14/2 369202 8110.30636 45.52 45.20 C Major
H11/14/3 3625X 8110X636 44.70 D Major
H11/28/1 393668 8110.30636 48.54 D Major
H11/28/2 393116 8110X636 49.09 49.18 C Major
H11/28/3 404786 8110.X636 49.91 C Major
H11/56/1 444822 8110.30636 54 85 C Major
H11/56/2 422581 8110.X636 52.10 54.02 F Major
H11/56/3 447046 B110.30635 55.12 F Major
68


I Test Data management \
'WamTlTCoB
_______0.28
ICycleT
W7C~
Set 2
Samples were moved to cold tank at 3 days
Mix Beg in
7/202001 18:15
Forming begin_____
7/202001 18:20
Forming finish____
7/202001 18:55
Slimp (inch)
________ NA
sample ID DaleTme sample made Dale Removed (mm system sample weight Kg Dais Test (mo-day-year) Age Elapsed time Avg. Age Avg. Age
hours Days
H12/5/1 7/202001 18:37 7252001 17:03 3.889 7252001 18:11 119:33:30 119.36:30 4.984
H12/5/2 7/202001 18:37 7252001 17:03 3.680 7252001 18:14 119:36:30
H12/5/3 7/202001 18:37 7252001 17:03 3864 7252001 18:17 119:39:30
H12/5/4 7202001 18:37 7252001 17:03 3.882
H12/7/1 7202001 18:37 7272001 20:25 3874 7272001 21:59 17121:30 171:23:50 7.142
H12/7/2 7202001 18:37 7272001 2025 3.673 7272001 22:01 171:2330
H12/7/3 7202001 18:37 7272001 20:25 3904 7272001 22:04 171:26:30
H12/7/4 7202001 18:37 7272001 20:25 3863
H12/14/1 7202001 18:37 8/32001 18:00 3.893 8/32001 19:10 336:32:30 336:35:30 14.025
H12/14/2 7202001 18 37 8/32001 18.00 3.904 8/32001 19:13 336:35:30
H12/14/3 7202001 18:37 8/32001 18:00 3.911 8/32001 19:16 336:38:30
H12/14/4 7202001 18.37 8/32001 1B:00
H12/28/1- 7202001 18:37 8/172001 15:40 3.917 8/172001 17:57 671:1930 671:21:30 27.973
H12/28/2 7202001 18:37 8/172001 15:40 3.950 8/172001 17:59 671:21:30
H12/28/3 7202001 18:37 8/172001 15:40 3919 6/172001 18:01 671:2330
H12/28/4 7202001 18:37 8/172001 15:40 3.889
H12/56/1 7202001 18:37 9/142001 15:15 3905 9T142001 17:01 13422330 1342:27:30 55.936
H12/56/2 7202001 18:37 9/142001 15:15 4.003 9142001 17:05 1342:27:30
H12/56/3 7202001 18:37 9/142001 15:15 3.905 9/142001 17:09 1342:31:30
H12/56/4 7202001 18:37 9/142001 15:15 3.953
69


US Units
5 days
7 days
14 days
28 days
56 days
5 days
7 days
14 days
28 days
56 days
Sample Load (lbs) sample area In2 Compressive strength Psi Avg. Compressive strength Psi Type of failure Amount of aggregate shear
H12/5/1 76000 12.571 6046 F Moderate
H12/5/2 66750 12.571 5310 5582 E Minor
H12/5/3 67750 12.571 5389 B Minor
H12/7/1 77000 12.571 6125 E Moderate
H12/7/2 70000 12.571 5568 5655 B Moderate
H12/7/3 66250 12.571 5270 B Moderate
H12/14/1 72750 12.571 5787 C Moderate
H12/14/2 73750 12.571 5867 5741 B Moderate
H12/14/3 70000 12.571 5568 F Moderate
H12/28/1 86500 12.571 6861 B Moderate
H12/28/2 80250 12.571 6384 6609 B Moderate
H12/28/3 82500 12.571 6563 C Moderate
H12/56/1 95000 12.571 7557 F Major
H12/56/2 100000 12.571 7955 7637 B Major
H12/56/3 93000 12.571 7398 D Major
SI units
Sample Load N sample area mm2 Compressive strength MPa (N/mm2) Avg. Compressive strength MPa Type of failure Amount ot aggregate shear
H12/5/1 338065 8110.30636 41.68 F Moderate
H12/5/2 296919 8110.30636 36.61 38.48 E Minor
H12/5/3 301367 8110.30636 37.16 B Minor
H12/7/1 342513 8110.30636 42.23 E Moderate
H12/7/2 311376 8110.30636 38.39 38.99 B Moderate
H12/7/3 294695 8110.30636 36.34 B Moderate
H12/14/1 323608 8110.30636 39.90 C Moderate
H12/14/2 328056 8110.30636 40.45 39.58 B Moderate
H12/14/3 311376 8110.30636 38.39 - F Moderate
H12/28/1 384771 8110.30636 47.44 B Moderate
H12/28/2 356970 8110.30636 44.01 45.57 B Moderate
H12/28/3 366978 8110.30636 45.25 C Moderate
H12/56/1 422581 8110.30636 52.10 F Major
H12/56/2 444822 8110.30636 54.85 52.65 B Major
H12/56/3 413685 8110.30636 51.01 D Major
70


I Teat Data management 1
warm iocou
0 28
IGySleT
Set 3
Sanies weis moved to ookifank at 5 days
Mix Begin
7/27/2001 17:57
Forming begin_______
7/27/2001 18:10
Foiraing linish______
7/27/2001 19:02
SU*np (inch)
NA
sample ID DataTTime sample made Dale Remwed Iran system sample waght Kg Dale Test (mo-day-year) Age Elapsed lime Avg Ago Avg. Age
hours Days
H13W1 7/27/2001 18:36 8/3/2001 18:00 3.866 8/3/2001 19:19 168 43:00 168:45:20 7.031
H13/7/2 7/27/2001 18:36 8/3/2001 18:00 3.810 a/3/2001 19:21 168:45:00
H 13^7/3 7/27/2001 18:36 8/3/2001 18:00 3.852 8/3/2001 1924 168:48:00
H13/7/4 7/27/2001 18:36 8/3/2001 18:00
H13/14/1 7/27/2001 18:36 8/10/2001 16:00 3.859 a/10/2001 17:27 334:51:00 334:54:00 13.954
H13/14/2 7/27/2001 18:36 &/1Q/2001 16.00 3.664 8/10/2001 17:30 334:54:00
H13/14/3 7/27/2001 18:36 8/10/2001 16:00 3885 8/10/2001 17:33 334:57:00
H13/14/4 7/27/2001 18:36 8/10/2001 16:00 3.862
H13/28/1 7/27/2001 18:36 8/24/2001 16:10 3870 6/24/2001 17:48 871:12.00 671:14:40 27.969
H13/28/2 7/27/2001 18:36 8/24/2001 16:10 3.905 8/24/2001 17:51 671:15:00
H13/28/3 7/27/2001 18:36 S/24/2001 16:10 3.922 8/24/2001 17:53 671:17:00
H13/28/4 7/27/2001 18:36 8/24/2001 16:10 3.874
H13/56/1 7/27/2001 18:36 9/24/2001 16:35 3.859 921/2001 18:06 1343:30:00 1343:35:00 55.983
H13/56/2 7/27/2001 18:36 9/24/2001 16:35 3.825 921/2001 16:12 1343:36:00
H13/56/3 7/27/2001 18:36 9/24/2001 16:35 3864 921/2001 18:15 1343:3900
H13/56/4 7/27/2001 18:36 9/24/2001 16:35 3.860
US Units
Sample Load (lbs) sample area In 2 Compressive strength Psi Avg. Compressive strength Psi Type o( failure Amount ot aggregate shear
H13/7/1 69000 12.571 5489 B Moderate
H13/7/2 64250 12.571 6702 6652 C Moderate
H13/7/3 63000 12.571 6602 F Moderate
H13/14/1 83500 12.571 6642 C Moderate
H13/14/2 71250 12.571 5668 6781 C Moderate
H13/14/3 87000 12.571 6921 D Major
H13/28/1 58500 12.571 4654 F Minor
H13/28/2 90000 12.571 7159 6831 C Moderate
H13/28/3 81750 12.571 6503 B Moderate
H13/56/1 79000 12.571 6284 C Moderate
H13/56/2 80500 12.571 6404 6881 C Moderate
H13/56/3 100000 12.571 7955 A Major
SI units
Sample Load N sample area mm* Compressive strength MPa (N/mm*) Avg. Compressive strength MPa Type of failure Amount ol aggregate shear
H13/7/1 306927 8110.30636 37.84 B Moderate
H13/7/2 374763 8110.30636 46.21 45.87 C Moderate
H13/7/3 369202 8110.30636 45.52 F Moderate
H13/14/1 371427 8110.30636 45.80 C Moderate
H13/14/2 316936 8110.30636 39.08 46.76 C Moderate
H13/14/3 386995 8110.30636 47.72 D Major
H13/28/1 260221 8110.30636 32.09 F Minor
H13/28/2 400340 8110.30636 49.36 47.10 C Moderate
H13/28/3 363642 8110.30636 44.84 B Moderate
H13/56/1 351410 8110.30636 43.33 C Moderate
H13/56/2 358082 8110.30636 44.15 47.44 C Moderate
H13/56/3 444822 6110.30636 54.85 A Major
71


1 Teat Data management |
WaJffno'CoEJ
028
|uyctg 1 ~
|
Set 4
Samples wen? moved to cokt tank at 7 days
Mix Begin
7/27/2001 18:50
Forming begin_______
7/27/2001 19:02
Forming finish
7/27/2001 1925
Slifnp (inch)
NA
sample ID Dale/Time sample made Dale Removed from system sample weight Kg Date Test (mo-day-year) Age Elapsed time Avg. Age Avg Age
hours Days
H14/14/1 7/27/2001 19:13 8/102001 16:00 3.870 8/10/2001 17:36 334:22:30 334:25:30 13.934
H14/14/2 7/27/2001 19:13 8/10/2001 16:00 3873 8/102001 17:39 334:25:30
H14/14/3 7/27/2001 19:13 8/10/2001 16:00 3.876 8/102001 17:42 334:28:30
H14/14/4 7/Z7/2001 19:13 8/10/2001 16:00 3.870
H14/28/1 7/27/2001 19:13 8/24/2001 16:10 3.858 8242001 17:56 670:4230 670:44:50 27.948
H14/28/2 7/27/2001 19:13 8/24/2001 16:10 3.889 8242001 17:S8 670 44:30
HI 4/28/3 7/27/2001 19:13 8/24/2001 16:10 3.887 8242001 16:01 670:47:30
H14/28/4 7/27/2001 19:13 8/24/2001 16:10 3865
H14/56/1 7/27/2001 19:13 9/21/2001 16:35 3.662 9212001 18:25 1343:11:30 134313:30 55.968
H14/56/2 7/27/2001 19:13 921/2001 16:35 3.872 9212001 18:27 1343:1330
H14/56/3 7/27/2001 19:13 921/2001 16:35 3.839 9212001 18:29 1343:15:30
H14/56/4 7/27/2001 19:13 921/2001 16:35 3.848
US Units
Sample Load (lbs) sample area In2 Compressive strength Psi Avg. Compressive strength Psi Type of failure Amount of aggregate shear
H14/14/1 77000 12.571 6125 C Moderate
H14/14/2 89000 12.571 7080 7020 c Major
H14/14/3 87500 12.571 6960 D Major
H14/28/1 97000 12.571 7716 F Major
H14/28/2 91250 12.571 7259 7487 B Major
H14/28/3 83000 12.571 6602 B Moderate
H14/56/1 93000 12.571 7398 C Major
H14/56/2 91500 12.571 7279 7511 C Major
H14/56/3 98750 12.571 7855 C Major
SI units
Sample Load N sample area mm2 Compressive strength MPa (N/mm2) Avg. Compressive strength MPa Type of failure Amount of aggregate shear
H14/14/1 342513 8110.30636 42.23 C Moderate
H14/14/2 395892 8110.30635 48.81 48.40 C Major
H14/14/3 389219 8110.30635 47.99 D Major
H14/28/1 431478 8110.30636 53.20 F Major
H14/28/2 405900 8110.30636 50.05 51.62 B Major
H14/28/3 369202 8110.30636 45.52 B Moderate
H14/56/1 413665 8110.30636 51.01 C Major
H14/56/2 407012 8110.30636 50.18 51.78 C Major
H14/56/3 439262 81-10.30536 54.16 C Major
72


T
WSttHSToH]
0.2b|
S*5
Samples were moved la cold tank a/ M days
I
C^IeT
TOC"
Mb Begin
7/27/2001 19:15
Forming begin_______
7/27/2001 19:25
Forming finish______
7/27/2001 19:42
Slunp (inch)
NA
sample ID Dale/Timo sample made Date Removed from system sample weight Kg Date Test (mo-day-year) Age Elapsed time Avg. Age Avg. Age
hours Days
H15/28/1 7/27/2001 19:33 8/24/2001 16:10 3.865 8/24/2001 18:03 670:2930 670:32:50 27.939
H1&28/2 7/27/2001 19:33 8/24/2001 16:10 3.867 8/24/2001 18:06 670:32:30
H15/28/3 7/27/2001 19:33 8/24/2001 16:10 3.875 6/24/2001 16:10 670:36:30
H15/28/4 7/27/2001 19:33 8/24/2001 16:10 3.849
H15/56/1 7/27/2001 19.33 9/21/2001 16:35 3.8S9 521/2001 18:32 1342:58:30 1343:01:10 55.959
H15/56/2 7/27/2001 19:33 9/21/2001 16:35 3.664 521/2001 18:35 1343:01:30
H15/56/3 7/27/2001 19:33 9/21/2001 16:35 3.894 521/2001 18:37 1343:03:30
H15/56/4 7/27/2001 19:33 9/21/2001 16:35 3.878
H15/77/1 7/27/2001 19:33 10/12/2001 15:15 10/12/2001 1635 1845:01:30 184S:03:3D 76.877
H15/77/2 7/27/2001 19:33 10/12/2001 15:15 10/12/2001 16:39 1845:05:30
US Units
Sample Load (lbs) sample area lna Compressive strength Psi Avg. Compressive strength Psi Type of failure Amount of aggregate shear
H15/28/1 96500 12.571 7676 F Major
H15/28/2 100250 12.571 7975 7816 0 Major
H15/28/3 98000 12.571 7796 B Major
H15/56/1 103500 12.571 8233 F Major
H15/56/2 99000 12.571 7875 7809 C Major
H15/56/3 92000 12.571 7318 B Major
SI units
Sample Load N sample area mm2 Compressive strength MPa (N/mm2) Avg. Compressive strength MPa Type of failure Amount of aggregate shear
H15/28/1 429253 6110.30636 52.93 F Major
H15/28/2 445934 6110.30636 54.98 53.89 D Major
H15/28/3 435926 8110.30636 53.75 B Major
H15/56/1 460391 8110.30635 56.77 F Major
H15/56/2 440374 8110.30636 54.30 53.84 C Major
H15/56/3 409236 8110.30636 50.46 B Major
73


I Test Data management |
Warm lo (Jo id I
0 2b|
Sl6
Samples were moved to cold tank at 28 days
|Cy35T--------------r
Iw/i;
Mix Begin
7/27/2001 19:30
Formrig begin_______
7/27/2001 19:42
sample ID DaloTime sample made Date Removed from system sample weight Kg Date T est {mo-day-yaar) Age Elapsed time Avg. Age Avg. Age
hours Days
H16/56/1 7/27/2001 19:48 9/21/2001 16:35 3868 921/2001 18:40 1342:51:30 1342:53:50 55.954
H16/56/2 7/27/2001 19:48 9/21/2001 16:35 3897 921/2001 18:42 1342:53:30
H16/56/3 7/27/2001 19:48 9/21/2001 16:35 3.863 921/2001 18:45 1342:56:30
H16/56/4 7/27/2001 19:48 9/21/2001 16:35 3.868
Formnq finish
7/27/2001 19.55
Slunp (inch)
___________NA
US Units
Sample Load (lbs) sample area In2 Compressive strength Psi Avg. Compressive strength Psi Type of failure Amount of aggregate shear
H16/56/1 105500 . 12.571 8392 B Major
H16/56/2 102000 12.571 8114 8432 D Major
H16/56/3 110500 12.571 8790 D Major
SI units
Sample Load N sample area mm2 Compressive strength MPa (N/mm2) Avg. Compressive strength MPa Type of failure Amount of aggregate shear
H16/56/1 469287 8110.30636 57.86 B Major
H16/56/2 453719 8110.30636 55.94 58.14 D Major
H16/56/3 491528 8110.30636 60.61 D Major
74


I Teat Data managament ~ 1
Ioycie l
W7TT
warm
028
Control Sel For Mix on July 27,2001 (H1.3 HI.7)
Sarrptes were in warn tank
Mix Begin
7/27/2001 19.30
Forming begin_______
7/27/2001 19:42
Forming linish______
7/27/2001 19:55
Slimp (inch)
KiA
sample ID Dale/Time sanple made Dale Removed fromsyslem sample weight Kg Dale Test (mo-day-year) Age Elapsed time Avg. Age Avg. Age
hours Days
H727/2/1 7/27/2001 19:48 7/27/2001 20:25 3861 7/292001 21:09 4920:30 4922:00 2.067
H727/2/2 7/27/2001 19:48 7/27/2001 20:25 3.823 7/292001 21:12 4923:30
7/27/2001 19:48
7/27/2001 19:48
H727/28/1 7/27/2001 19:48 8/24/2001 16:10 3858 924/2001 17:38 669.4930 66953:10 27.912
H727/2S/2 7/27/2001 19:48 8/24/2001 16:10 3867 6/24/2001 17:41 6695230
H727/2S/3 7/27/2001 19:48 8/24/2001 16:10 3653 8/24/2001 17:46 66957:30
H727/28f4 7/27/2001 19.48 8/24/2001 16:10 3665
US Units
' Sample Load (lbs) sample area In2 Compressive strength Psi Avg. Compressive strength Psi Type of failure Amount of aggregate shear
H727/2/1 58500 12.571 4654 D Minor
H727/2/2 54500 12.571 4335 4494 B Minor
12.571 0
H727/28/1 105000 12.571 8432 D Major
H727/28/2 111500 12.571 8870 8684 D Major
H727/28/3 110000 12.571 8750 D Major
SI units
Sample Load N sample area mm2 Compressive strength MPa (N/mm2) Avg. Compressive strength MPa Type of failure Amount of aggregate shear
H727/2/1 260221 8110.30636 32.08522069 D Minor
H727/2/2 242428 8110.30636 29.89135945 30.98829007 B Minor
0 8110.30636 0 0 0
H727/28/1 471512 8110.30636 58.13732297 D Major
H727/28/2 495977 8110.30636 61.15388218 59.87412978 D Major
H727/28/3 489304 8110.30636 60.33118421 D Major
75


I Tost Data management
uolatovTarm
________0,28
[Cycled
\WlS
Set 1
Samples were moved to warm tank at 2 days
Mix Begin
8/24/2001 13:41
Forming begin
8/24/2001 13:52
Forming finish
8/24/2001 14:35
Skmp (inch)
________ 10
sample ID DateTtme sample made Date Removed Irom system sample weight Kg Dale Test (mo-day-year) Age Elapsed tone Avg. Age Avg. Age
hours Days
H21/2/1 0:00-00 0:00.00
H21/2/2 0:00:00
H21/2/3 0:00:00
H21/2/4
H21/3/1 8/24/2001 14:13 8/27/200117:50 1922 8272001 18:17 76:03.30 76:06:30 3.171
H21/3/2 B/24/2001 14:13 8/27/2001 17:50 3.928 827/2C01 18:20 76:06:30
H21/3/3 8/24/2001 14:13 8/27/2001 17:50 3.922 8272001 18:23 76:09:30
H21/3/4 8/24/2001 14:13 8/27/2001 17:50 3.898
H21/5/1 B/24/2001 14:13 6/29/2001 17:27 3.940 8292001 19.07 124:53:30 124:56:50 5.206
H21/5/2 8/24/2001 14:13 8/29/2001 17:27 3.878 8292001 19:10 124:56:30
H21/5K3 8/24/2001 14:13 8/29/2001 17:27 3.936 8292001 19:14 125:00:30
H21/5W 824/2001 14:13 B/2 9/2001 17:27 3.942
H21/7/1 8/24/2001 14:13 831/2001 15:13 3.973 8/312001 17:37 171:23:30 171:26:10 7.143
H21/7/2 8/24/2001 14:13 8/31/2001 15:13 3.912 8/312001 17:40 171:26:30
H21/7/3 8/24/2001 14:13 8/31/2001 15:13 3.949 8212001 17:42 171:28:30
H21/7/4 6/24/2001 14:13 8/31/2001 15:13 3.900
H21/14/1 8/24/2001 14:13 9/7/2001 14:10 3.903 9/72001 16:22 338:06:30 338:11:30 14.091
H21/14/2 824/2001 14:13 9/7/2001 14:10 3.B95 9/72001 16:25 338:11:30
H21/14/3 8/24/2001 14:13 3/7/2001 14:10 3.926 972001 16:26 338:14:30
H21/14/4 8/24/2001 14:13 9/7/2001 14:10 3.927
H21/28/1 8/24/2001 14:13 921/2001 16:35 3.924 9212001 18:48 676:34:30 676:37:30 26.193
H21/28/2 8/24/2001 14:13 9/21/2001 16:35 3 939 9212001 18:51 676:37:30
H21/28/3 8/24/2001 14:13 921/2001 16:35 3.919 9212001 18:54 676:40:30
H21/28/4 &/24/2001 14:13 9/21/2001 16:35 3.940
H21/56/1 8/24/2001 14:13 10/192001 15:10 3.922 10/192001 16:31 1346:17:30 1346:21:30 56.098
H21/56/2 8/24/2001 14:13 10/192001 15:10 3.950 10/192001 16:35 1346:21:30
H21/56/3 8/24/2001 14:13 10/192001 15:10 3.928 10/192001 16:39 1346:25:30
H21/56/4 8/24/2001 14:13 10/192001 15:10 3.922
H21/77/1 8/24/2001 14:13 11/92001 15:00 3.934 11/92001 17:13 1850:59:30 1851:01:50 77.126
H21/77/2 8/24/2001 14:13 11/92001 15:00 3.939 11/92001 17:15 1851:01:30
H21/77/3 8/24/2001 14:13 11/92001 15:00 3.892 11/92001 17:18 1851:04:30
H21/77/4 8/24/2001 14:13 11/92001 15:00 3.971
76


US Units
2 days
3 days
5 days
7 days
14 days
28 days
56 days
2 days
3 days
5 days
7 days
14 days
28 days
56 days
Sarr£le Load (bs) sample area In * Compressive strength Psi Avg. Compressive strength Psi Type of failure Amount of aggregate shear
H21/2/1 12.571 0
H21/2/2 12.571 0 0
H21/2/3 12.571 0
H21/3/1 48000 12.571 3818 F Minor
H21/3/2 49000 12.571 3898 4349 E Minor
H21/3/3 67000 12.571 5330 E Minor
H21/5/1 66000 12.571 6841 B Moderate
H21/5/2 83000 12.571 6602 6735 D Moderate
H21/5/3 85000 12.571 6762 B Moderate
H21/7/1 87000 12.571 6921 B Moderate
H21/7/2 86000 12.571 6641 6821 B Moderate
H21/7/3 B4250 12.571 6702 C Moderate
H21/14/1 105000 12.571 8353 B Major
H21/14/2 90000 12571 7159 8452 B Moderate
H21/14/3 107500 12.571 8551 B Major
H21/28/1 99750 12.571 7935 D Major
H21/28/2 112000 12.571 8909 8870 D Major
H21/28/3 111000 12.571 8830 0 Major
H21/56/1 120500 12.571 9586 C Major
H21/56/2 119500 12.571 9506 9851 D Major
H21/56/3 131500 12.571 10461 D Major
SI units
Sanple Load N sample area mm2 Compressive strength MPa (N/mm2) Avg. Compressive strength MPa Type of failure Amount of aggregate shear
H21/2/1 0 6110.30636 0.00 0 0
H21/2/2 0 8110.30636 0.00 0.00 0 0
H21/2/3 0 8110.30636 0.00 0 0
H21/3/1 213514.64 8110.30636 26.33 F Minor
H21/3/2 217962.66 8110.30636 26.87 29.98 E Minor
H21/3/3 298030.85 8110.30636 36.75 E Minor
H21/5/1 382547.07 8110.30636 47.17 B Moderate
H21/5/2 369202.4 8110.30636 45.52 46.44 D Moderate
H21/5/3 378098.84 8110.30636 46.62 B Moderate
H21/7/1 386995.29 8110.30636 47.72 B Moderate
H21/7/2 382547.07 6110.30636 47.17 47.03 B Moderate
H21/7/3 374762.68 8110.30636 46.21 C Moderate
H21/14/1 467063.28 8110.30636 57.59 B Major
H21/14/2 400339.95 8110.30636 49.36 55.30 8 Moderate
H21/14/3 478163.83 8110.30636 58.96 B Major
H21/28/1 443710.11 8110.30636 54.71 D Major
H21/28/2 498200.83 611030636 61.43 59.01 0 Major
H21/28/3 493752.61 8110.30636 60.68 D Major
H21/56/1 536010.71 8110.30636 66.09 C Major
H21/56/2 531562.49 8110.30636 65.54 67.92 D Major
H21/56/3 584941.15 8110.30636 . 72.12 D Major
77


I Test Data management
uo IQ lo Warm
0.26
(Cycle!
WT-
Set 2
Samples were moved to warm tank al 3 days
Mix Begn
8/24/2001 14 20
Forming begin
8/24/2001 1435
Forming finish
8/24/2001 15:17
Slurp (inch)
10
sample ID Dala/Time sanple made Date Removed from system sample weight Kg Dade Test (mo-day-year) Age Elapsed time Avg. Age Avg Age
hours Days
H22/5/1 6/24/2001 14:56 8/29/2001 17:27 3.962 B/29/2001 19:17 124:21:00 124:23:40 5.183
H22/5/2 8/24/2001 14:56 8/29/2001 17:27 3.925 8/29/2001 19:20 124:24:00
H22/5/3 8/24/2001 14:56 8/29/2001 17:27 3.916 8/29/2001 19:22 124:26:00
H22/5W 8/24/2001 14:56 8/29/2001 17.27 3.891
H22/7/1 8/24/2001 14:56 8/31/2001 15:13 3.944 831/2001 17:44 170:46:00 170:50:40 7.119
H22/7/2 8/24/2001 14:56 8/31/2001 15:13 3.956 831/2001 17:47 170:51:00
H22/7/3 8/24/2001 14:56 8/31/2001 15:13 3.950 8/31/2001 17:49 170:5300
H22/7/4 8/24/2001 14:56 8/31/2001 15:13 3.876
H22/14/1 8/24/2001 14:56 9/7/2001 14:10 ' 3.884 9/7/2001 16:31 337:35:00 337:39:00 14.069
H22/14/2 6/24/2001 14:56 9/7/2001 14:10 3.948 97/2001 16:35 337:3900
H22M4/3 8/24/2001 14:56 9/7/2001 14:10 3.931 9/7/2001 16:39 337:43.00
H22/14/4 8/24/2001 14:56 97/2001 14:10 3.868
H22/20/1 8/24/2001 14:56 9/21/2001 16:35 3880 921/2001 18:56 676:00:00 676:03:20 28.169
H22/28/2 &/24/2001 14:56 9/21/2001 16:35 3.926 921/2001 19:00 676:04:00
H22/28/3 8/24/2001 14:56 9/21/2001 16:35 3.893 921/2001 19:02 676:06:00
H22/28/4 8/24/2001 14:56 9/21/2001 16:35 3.968
H22/56/1 8/24/2001 14:56 10/19/2001 15:10 3.940 10/192001 16:42 1345:46:00 1345:48:20 56.075
H22/56/2 8/24/2001 14:56 10/19/2001 15:10 3.920 10/192001 16:44 1345:4800
H22/56/3 8/24/2001 14:56 10/193001 15:10 3932 10/192001 16:47 1345:51:00
H22/56/4 8/24/2001 14:56 10/19/2001 15:10 3882
78


US Units
5 days
7 days
14 days
28 days
56 days
5 days
7 days
14 days
28 days
56 days
Sample Load (lbs) sample area In2 Compressive strength Psi Avg. Compressive strength Psi Type ot failure Amount of aggregate shear
H22/5/1 76500 12.571 6085 B Moderate
H22/5/2 80000 12.571 6364 6165 D Moderate
H22/5/3 76000 12.571 6046 B Moderate
H22/7/1 86250 12.571 6861 B Moderate
H22/7/2 88500 12.571 7040 6921 B Moderate
H22/7/3 86250 12.571 6861 C Moderate
H22/14/1 103500 12.571 8233 D Major
H22/14/2 100000 12.571 7955 8101 B Major
H22/14/3 102000 12.571 6114 C Major
H22/28/1 123000 12.571 9784 C Major
H22/28/2 117500 12.571 9347 9473 C Major
H22/28/3 116750 12.571 9207 F Major
H22/56/1 127000 12.571 10103 A Major
H22/56/2 136000 12.571 10819 10301 A Major
H22/56/3 125500 12.571 9983 B Major
SI units
Sample Load N sample area mm2 Compressive strength MPa (N/mm2) Avg. Compressive strength MPa Type of failure Amount ot aggregate shear
H22/5/1 340288.96 6110.30636 41.96 B Moderate
H22/5/2 355857.74 8110.30636 43.88 42.51 D Moderate
H22/5/3 336064.85 8110.30636 41.68 B Moderate
H22/7/1 383659.12 0110.30636 47.31 B Moderate
H22/7/2 393667.62 8110.30636 48.54 47.72 B Moderate
H22/7/3 383659.12 0110.30636 47.31 C Moderate
H22/14/1 460390.95 8110.30636 56.77 D Major
H22/14/2 444822.17 B110.30636 54.85 55.85 B Major
H22/14/3 453718.61 8110.30636 55.94 C Major
H22/28/1 547131.27 8110.30636 67.46 C Major
H22/28/2 522666.05 8110.30636 64.44 65.31 C Major
H22/28/3 519329.88 8110.30636 64.03 F Major
H22/56/1 564924.16 8110.30636 69.66 A Major
H22/56/2 604958.15 8110.30636 74.59 71.03 A Major
H22/56/3 558251.62 8110.30636 66.83 B Major
79


I Test Data management 1
uycie ^ | Lota io warm
028
Set 3
Samples were moved to warn lank al S days
Min Begin
12/14/2001 11:50
Forming begin_____
12/14/2001 12:03
Forming finish____
12/14/2001 12.35
Slimp (inch)
__________NA
sample (D Data/Time sample made Dale Removed from system sample weight Kg Dale Test (mo-day-year) Age Elapsed lime Avg Age Avg Age
hours Days
H23^7/1 12/14/2001 12:19 12/21/2001 9:40 3.875 12/21/2001 11:26 167:07:00 167:09:40 6.965
H23T7/2 12/14/2001 12:19 12/21/2001 9:40 3.845 12/21/2001 11:29 167:10:00
H23/7/3 12/14/2001 12:19 12/21/2001 9:40 3.685 12/21/2001 11:31 167:12:00
H23/7/4 12/14/2001 12:19 12/21/2001 9:40 3830
H23H4/1 12/14/2001 12:19 12/28/2001 15:30 3871 12/26/2001 16:39 340:20:00 340:22:40 14.182
H23H4/2 12/14/2001 12:19 12/28/2001 15:30 3883 12/28/2001 16:42 340:23:00
H23/14/3 12/14/2001 12:19 12/28/2001 15:30 3664 12/28/2001 16:44 340:25:00
H23/14/4 12/14/2001 12:19 12/28/2001 15:30 3883
H23/20/1 12/14/2001 12:19 1/11/2002 14:30 3.845 1/11/2002 16:23 676:04:00 676:05:40 28.171
H23/28/2 12/14/2001 12:19 1/11/2002 14:30 3.905 1/11/2002 16:25 676:06:00
H23/28/3 12/14/2001 12:19 1/11/200214:30 3.900 1/11/200216:26 676:07:00
H23/28/4 12/14/2001 12:19 1/11/200214:30
H23/56/1 12/14/2001 12:19 2/8/2002 14:20 3680 2/8/2002 15:25 1347:06:00 1347:08:00 56.131
H23/56/2 12/14/2001 12:19 2/8/2002 1420 3.887 2/8/2002 15:27 1347:08:00
H23/56/3 12/14/2001 12:19 2/8/200214:20 3.680 2/8/200215:29 1347:10:00
H23/56/4 12/14/2001 12:19 2/8/2002 14:20
US Units
Sample Load (lbs) sample area In2 Compressive strength Psi Avg. Compressive strength Psi Type of failure Amount of aggregate shear
H23/7/1 82500 12.571 6563 C Moderate
H23/7/2 77500 12.571 6165 6364 F Minor
H23/7/3 84000 12.571 6682 C Moderate
H23/14/1 95750 12.571 7617 C Major
H23/14/2 93000 12.571 7398 7431 C Major
H23/14/3 91500 12.571 7279 B Major
H23/28/1 112000 12.571 8909 A Major
H23/28/2 121500 12.571 9665 9254 A Major
H23/28/3 115500 12.571 9188 A Major
H23/56/1 124000 12.571 9864 B Major
H23/56/2 118000 12.571 9387 9625 B Major
H23/56/3 119500 12.571 9506 B Major
St units
Sample Load N sample area mm2 Compressive strength MPa (N/mm2) Avg. Compressive strength MPa Type of failure Amount of aggregate shear
H23/7/1 366978.29 8110.30636 45.25 C Moderate
H23/7/2 344737.18 8110.30636 42.51 43.88 F Minor
H23/7/3 373650.62 8110.30636 46.07 C Moderate
H23/14/1 425917.23 8110.30636 52.52 C Major
H23/14/2 413684.62 8110.30636 51.01 51.24 C Major
H23/14/3 407012.29 8110.30636 50.18 B Major
H23/28/1 498200.63 8110.30636 61.43 A Major
H23/28/2 540458.94 8110.30636 66.64 63.80 A Major
H23/28/3 513769.61 8110.30636 63.35 A Major
H23/56/1 551579.49 8110.30636 68.01 B Major
H23/56/2 524890.16 8110.30636 64.72 66.36 B Major
H23/56/3 531562.49 8110.30636 65.54 B Major
80


| Test Data management I
Uoidto Warm
0.28
Set 4
Samples were moved to warm tank at 7 days
ICyc!e7
|W/iJ
Mix Begin
12/14/2001 11:50
Forming begin
12/14/2001 1235
Forming finish
12/14/2001 12:52
Skxnp (rch)
________NA
sample ID Data/Trne sample made Date Removed from system sample weight Kg Date Test (mo-day>year) Age Elapsed time Avg. Age Att). Age
hours Days
H24/14/1 12/14/2001 12:43 12/28/2001 15:30 3905 12/282001 16:48 340:04:30 340:06:50 14.171
H24/14/2 12/14/2001 12:43 12/2&2001 15:30 3.875 12/28/2001 16:50 340:06:30
H24/14/3 12/14/2001 12:43 12/28/2001 15:30 3.868 12/28/2001 16:53 340:09.30
H24/14/4 12/14/2001 12:43 12/26/2001 15:30 3877
H24/28/1 12/14/2001 12:43 1/11/200214:30 3.875 1/11/2002 16:28 675:44:30 675:46:30 28.157
H24/28/2 12/14/2001 12:43 1/11/200214:30 3880 1/11/2002 16:30 675:46:30
H24/28/3 12/14/2001 12:43 1/11/2002 14:30 3890 1/11/2002 16:32 675:48:30
H24/28/4 12/14/2001 12:43 1/11/2002 14:30
H24/56/1 12/14/2001 12:43 2/8/2002 14:20 3.890 2/8/2002 15:32 1346:48:30 1346:51:30 56.119
H24/56/2 12/14/2001 12:43 2/8/2002 14:20 3.900 2/8/200215:35 1346:51:30
H24/56/3 12/14/2001 12:43 2/8/2002 14:20 3.897 2/8/2002 15:38 1346:54:30
H24/56/4 12/14/2001 12:43 2/8/2002 14:20
US Units
Sample Load (lbs) sample area In2 Compressive strength Psi Avg. Compressive strength Psi Type of failure Amount of aggregate shear
H24/14/1 95000 12.571 7557 C Major
H24/14/2 91500 12.571 7279 7431 D Major
H24/14/3 93750 12.571 7458 D Major
H24/28/1 114000 12.571 9068 C Major
H24/28/2 116000 12.571 9228 9228 D Major
H24/28/3 118000 12.571 9387 A Major
H24/56/1 114500 12.571 9108 B Major
H24/56/2 128250 12.571 10202 9605 A Major
H24/56/3 119500 12.571 950$ A Major
SI units
Sample Load N sample area mm2 Compressive strength MPa (N/mm2) Avg. Compressive strength MPa Type of failure Amount of aggregate shear
H24/14/1 422581.06 8110.30636 52.10 C Major
H24/14/2 407012.29 8110.30636 50.18 51.24 D Major
H24/14/3 417020.78 8110.30636 51.42 D Major
H24/28/1 507097.27 8110.30636 62.53 C Major
H24/28/2 515993.72 8110.30636 63.62 63.62 0 Major
H24/28/3 524890.16 8110.30636 64.72 A Major
H24/56/1 509321.38 8110.30636 62.80 B Major
H24/56/2 570484.43 8110.30636 70.34 66.23 A Major
H24/56/3 531562.49 8110.30636 65.54 A Major
81


I Teat Data management
yJamn^oH Set 5
W IL~ __________________0.28 Samples were moved to warm tank all 4 days
Mix Begin
12/14/2001 11:50
Forming begin______
12/14/2001 1252
Forming linish_____
12/14/2001 1310
Slurp (inch)
Â¥
sample ID Dale/Time sample made Date Removed from system sample weight Kg Dale Test (mo-day-year) Age Elapsed time Avg Age Avg Age
hours Days
H25/28/1 12/14/2001 13:01 1/11/2002 14:30 3.825 1/11/2002 16:33 675:3200 675 34 00 28.149
H25/28/2 12/14/2001 13:01 1/11/2002 14:30 3.655 1/11/2002 16:35 675:34:00
H25/28/3 12/14/2001 13:01 1/11/2002 14:30 3.860 1/11/200216:37 675:36.00
H25/28/4 12/14/2001 13:01 1/11/200214:30
H25/56/1 12/14/2001 13:01 2/8/2002 14:20 3620 2/8/2002 15:41 1346:40:00 1346:42:40 56.113
H25/56/2 12/14/2001 1301 2/8/2002 14:20 3.860 2/8/2002 15:44 1346:4300
H25/56/3 12/14/2001 13:01 2/8/200214:20 3872 2/8/2002 15:46 1346:45:00
H25/56/4 12/14/2001 13:01 2/8/2002 14:20
US Units
Sample Load (lbs) sample area In 8 Compressive strength Psi Avg. Compressive strength .. Psi Type of failure Amount of aggregate shear
H25/28/1 111500 12.571 8870 A Major
H25/28/2 110500 12.571 8790 8850 D Major
H25/28/3 111750 12.571 8890 A Major
H25/56/1 118750 12.571 9446 B Major
H25/56/2 117750 12.571 9367 9413 A Major
H25/56/3 118500 12.571 9426 A Major
SI units
Sample Load N sample area mm2 Compressive strength MPa (N/mm2) Avg. Compressive strength MPa Type of failure Amount oi aggregate shear
H25/28/1 495976.72 8110.30636 61.15 A Major
H25/28/2 491528.5 8110.30636 60.61 61.02 D Major
H25/28/3 497088.77 8110.30636 61.29 A Major
H25/56/1 528226.33 8110.30636 65.13 B Major
H25/56/2 523778.11 8110.30636 64.58 64.90 A Major
H25/56/3 527114.27 8110.30636 64.99 A Major
82


I Test Data management |
Uycie* | oou to warm
w/o 0.28
Set 6
Samples were moved to warm tank at 28 days
Mi Begin
12/14/2001 11:50
Forming begin_______
12/14/2001 13:10

12/14/2001 13:25
sample ID Dale/Time sample rrade Date Removed from system sample weight Kg Dale Test (mo-day-year) Age Elapsed time Avg. Age Avg. Age
hours Days
H2&56/1 12/14/2001 13:17 2/8/2002 14:20 3.681 2/S/2002 15:49 1346:31:30 1346:34:30 56.107
H26/56/2 12/14/2001 13:17 2/8/2002 14:20 3655 2/8/2002 15:52 1346:34:30
H26/56/3 12/14/2001 13:17 2/8/2002 14:20 3.884 2/8/2002 15:55 1346:37:30
H26/56/4 12/14/2001 13:17 2/8/2002 14:20
Slunp (inch)
NA
US Units
Sample Load (lbs) sample area In2 Compressive strength Psi Avg. Compressive strength Psi Type of failure Amount of aggregate shear
H26/56/1 117000 12.571 9307 C Major
H26/56/2 113250 12.571 9009 9261 D Major
H26/56/3 119000 12.571 9466 B Major
SI units
Sample Load N sample area mm2 Compressive strength MPalN/mm2) Avg. Compressive strength MPa Type of failure Amount of aggregate shear
H26/56/1 520441.94 8110.30636 64.17 C Major
H26/56/2 503761.11 8110.30636 62.11 63.85 D Major
H26/56/3 529336.38 8110.30636 65.27 B Major
83


I Test Data management |
T5B
028
Conlrel Set-For Mix on August 24.2001 (H2.1 -H2.2)
Samptos warn n cod tank
|Uyde2 |
Iw/'U *
sample ID Date/Time sample made Date Removed from system sample weight Kg DaleTesI (mo-day-year) Age Elapsed time Avg. Age Avg. Age
hours Days
HC824/28/1 8/24/2001 14:56 921/2001 16:35 3934 921/2001 19:05 676:09.00 676:11:00 28.174
HC824/28/2 8/24/2001 14:56 9/21/2001 16:35 3.694 921/2001 19.07 676:11:00
HC824/28/3 8/24/2001 14:56 9/21/2001 16:35 3 878 921/2001 19:09 676:13:00
HC824/28/4 8/24/2001 14:56 921/2001 16:35 3933
Formng Irtish
8/24/2001 15:17
Siunp (inch)
___________10
US Units
Sample Load (lbs) sample area lnz Compressive strength Psi Avg. Compressive strength Psi Type of failure Amount 0< aggregate shear
HC824/28/1 105750 12.571 8412 B Major
HC824/28/2 105000 12.571 B353 8439 B Major
HC824/28/3 107500 12.571 8551 C Major
SI units
Sample Load N sample area mm2 Compressive strength MPa (N/mm2) Avg. Compressive strength MPa Type of failure Amount ot aggregate shear
HC824/28/1 470399.44 8110.30636 58.00 B Major
HC824/28/2 467053.28 8110.30636 57.59 58.18 B Major
HC824/28/3 478183.83 8110.30636 58.96 C Major
84


I Tost Data management |
SeM
Samples were moved to warm tank at Z days
IJyeie 3 RSn^Wami
IWC --'_____028
Mot Begin
10262001 14:05
Forming begin___
10262001 14:15
Fotming lintsh
1CV26/2001 14:50
Sltsnp (inch)
NA
sample ID Dale/Trne sample mads Date Removed from system sample weight Kg DaleTest (mo-day-year) Age Elapsed time Avg Age Avg Age
hours Days
H31/2/1 1026/2001 14:32 10262001 11:55 3.940 10282001 13:48 47:15:30 47:17:30 1.970
H31/2/2 10/26/2001 14:32 10282001 11:55 3.684 10262001 13:50 47:17:30
H31/2/3 1026/2001 14:32 10262001 11:55 3.884 10282001 13:52 47:19:30
H31/2/4 1(V26/2001 14:32 10282001 11:55 3.893
H31/3/1 10262001 14:32 10202001 19:39 6911 10292001 21:21 78:48:30 78:51:50 3286
H31/3TC? 1CY262001 14.32 10292001 19:39 3.919 10292001 21:25 78:52:30
H31/3/3 10262001 14:32 10292001 19.39 3.911 10292001 21:27 78:54:30
H31/3/4 1026/2001 14:32 10292001 1939 3.855
H31/5/1 10/26/2001 14:32 10/312001 17:20 3.913 10/312001 18:51 124:1B:30 124:21:10 5.161
H31/5/2 10/26/2001 14:32 10/312001 17:20 3.920 10/312001 18:54 124:21:30
H31/5/3 10/26/2001 14:32 10/31/2001 17:20 3.910 10/312001 18:56 124:2330
H31/5/4 10/26/2001 14:32 10/312001 17:20 3.903
H31/7/1 10/26/2001 14:32 11/2/2001 14:45 9912 1122001 16:47 170:14:30 17016:30 7.095
H31/7/2 1026/2001 14:32 1122001 14:45 3.908 1122001 16:49 170:16:30
H31/7/3 1026/2001 14:32 1122001 14:45 3.915 1122001 16:51 170:18:30
H31/7/4 1026/2001 14:32 1122001 14:45 3.884
H31/14/1 1026/2001 14:32 11/92001 15:00 3.832 11/92001 17:20 338:47:30 338:49:30 14.118
H31/14/2 1026/2001 14:32 11/92001 15:00 3.888 11/92001 17:22 338:49:30
H31/14/3 1026/2001 14:32 11/92001 15:00 3.939 11/92001 17:24 338:51:30
H31/14/4 1026/2001 14:32 11/92001 1500 3877
H31/28/1 10/26/2001 14:32 1123200118:30 3.895 11232001 21:53 679.2030 679:23:10 28.308
H31/28/2 1026/2001 14:32 11232001 18:30 3.920 11232001 21:56 679.23:30
H31/28/3 1026/2001 14:32 11232001 18:30 3.680 11232001 21:S6 679:25:30
H31/28/4 1026/2001 14:32 11232001 18:30
H31/56/1 1026/2001 14:32 12212001 940 3.880 12212001 11:35 1341:02:30 1341:05:10 55.879
H31/56/2 1026/2001 14:32 12212001 940 3.890 12212001 11:38 1341:05:30
H31/56/3 10262001 14:32 12212001 940 3.890 12212001 11:40 1341:07:30
H31/56/4 10262001 14:32 12212001 940 3.900
85


US Units
2 days
3 days
5 days
7 days
14 days
28 days
56 days
2 days
3 days
5 days
7 days
14 days
28 days
56 days
Sample Load (ba> sample area lna Compressive strength Psi Avg. Compressive strength Psi Type of failure Amount of aggregate shear
H31/2/1 83250 12.571 6622 D Moderate
H31/2/2 78000 12.571 6205 6437 B Moderate
H31/2/3 81500 12.571 6483 B Moderate
H31/3/1 87000 12.571 6921 D Moderate
H31/3/2 88000 12.571 7000 6974 F Moderate
H31/3/3 88000 12.571 7000 C Moderate
H31/5/1 88000 12.571 7000 C Moderate
H31/5/2 91250 12.571 7259 7130 D Moderate
H31/5/3 83000 12.571 6602 B Moderate
H31/7/1 94000 12.571 7478 B Major
H31/7/2 97750 12.571 7776 7550 C Major
H31/7/3 93000 12.571 7398 A Major
H31/14/1 95000 12.571 7557 D Major
H31/14/2 96000 12.571 7637 7875 D Major
H31/14/3 103000 12.571 8193 D Major
H31/28/1 106500 12.571 8472 A Major
H31/28/2 102000 12.571 8114 6333 A Major
H31/28/3 107500 12.571 8551 B Major
H31/56/1 112500 12.571 8949 A Major
H31/56/2 116000 12.571 9226 9108 A Major
H31/56/3 115000 12.571 9148 C Major
Si unit3
Sample Load N sample area mm? Compressive strength MPa (N/mm2) Avg. Compressive strength MPa Type of failure Amount ot aggregate shear
H31/2H 370314.46 8110.30636 45.66 D Moderate
H31/2/2 346961.29 8110.30636 42.78 44.38 B Moderate
H31/2/3 362530.07 8110.30636 44.70 B Moderate
H31/3/1 366995.29 6110.30636 47.72 D Moderate
H31/3/2 391443.51 8110.30636 48.26 48.08 F Moderate
H31/3/3 391443.51 6110.30636 48.26 C Moderate
H31/5/1 391443.51 8110.30636 4826 C Moderate
H31/5/2 405900.23 8110.30636 50.05 49.16 D Moderate
H31/5/3 369202.4 8110.30636 45.52 B Moderate
H31/7/1 418132.84 8110.30636 51.56 B Major
H31/7/2 434813.67 8110.30636 53.61 52.06 C Major
H31/7/3 413684.62 8110.30636 51.01 A Major
H31/14/1 422581.06 8110.30636 52.10 D Major
H31/14/2 42702928 8110.30636 52.65 53.75 D Major
H31/14/3 458166.84 8110.30636 56.49 D Major
H31/28/1 473735.61 8110.30636 58.41 A Major
H31/28/2 453718.61 8110.30636 55.94 57.77 A Major
H31/28/3 478183.83 8110.30636 58.96 B Major
H31/56/1 500424.94 8110.30636 61.70 A Major
H31/56/2 515993.72 8110.30636 63.62 62.80 A Major
H31/56/3 511545.5 8110.30636 63.07 C Major
86


I Test Data management |
l^yctej | HolloYYarm| Set 2
______________________028 Samplas were moved to warm tank at 3 days
Mix Begin
10/26/2001 14:40
Forming begin
1026/2001 14:50
Forming linish
10/26/2001 15:25
SI imp (inch)
NA
sample ID DatoTime sample made Date Rerrwod from system sanpfe weight Kg Dale Test (mo-day-year) Age Elapsed trne Avg. Age Avg Age
hours Days
H32/5/1 10/26/2001 15:07 10/31/2001 17:20 3.915 10/31/2001 18:59 123:51:30 123:54:10 5.163
H32/5/2 10/26/2001 15:07 10/31/2001 1720 3.897 1021/2001 19:02 123:54:30
H32/5/3 10/26/2001 15:07 10/31/2001 17:20 3.917 10/31/2001 19:04 123:56:30
H32/5/4 10/26/2001 15:07 10/31/2001 17:20 2.925
H32/7/1 10/26/2001 15:07 11/2/2001 14:45 3910 11/2/2001 16:54 169.46:30 16948:30 7.075
H32/7/2 1CV26/2001 15:07 11/2/2001 14:45 3.886 11/2/2001 16:56 169.48:30
H32/7/3 1CV26/2001 15:07 11/2/2001 14:45 3.897 11/2/2001 16:58 16950:30
H32/7/4 1Q/26/2001 15:07 11/2/2001 14:45 3.900
H32/14/1 10/26/2001 15:07 11/9/2001 15:00 3,927 11/9/2001 17:26 338:18:30 338:20:30 14.096
H32/14/2 10/26/2001 15:07 11/9/2001 15:00 3.918 11/9/2001 1728 338:20:30
H32/14/3 10/26/2001 15:07 11/9/2001 15:00 3.902 11/92001 17:30 338:2230
H32/14/4 1Q/26/2001 15:07 11/9/2001 15:00 3.895
H32/2B/1 10/26/2001 1S07 11/23/200116:30 3.685 11/23/2001 22:00 678:5230 678:55:10 28.288
H32/28/2 10/26/2001 15:07 11/232001 18:30 3.910 11/23/2001 22.03 678:55:30
H32/28/3 10/26/2001 15:07 11/23/2001 18:30 3.905 11/23/2001 22:05 678:57:30
H32/28/4 10/26/2001 15:07 11/232001 18:30
H32/56/1 10/26/2001 15:07 12/21/2001 9:40 3.905 12/21/2001 11:44 1340:36:30 1340:39:30 55.861
H32/56/2 10/26/2001 15:07 12/21/2001 9:40 3.925 12/21/2001 11:47 1340:3930
H32/56/3 10/26/2001 15:07 12/21/2001 9:40 3.915 12/21/2001 11:50 1340:4230
H32/56/4 1926/2001 15:07 12/21/2001 9:40 3.917
87


US Units
5 days
7 days
14 days
28 days
56 days
5 days
7 days
14 days
28 days
56 days
Sample Load (lbs) sample area In2 Compressive strength Psi Avg. Compressive strength Psi Type of failure Amount oi aggregate shear
H32/5/1 103000 12.571 8193 C Major
H 32/5/2 101000 12.571 8034 8193 B Major
H32/5/3 105000 12.571 8353 A Major
H32/7/1 106000 12.571 8432 A Major
H32/7/2 104250 12.571 8293 8280 D Major
H32/7/3 102000 12.571 8114 A Major
H32/14/1 113500 12.571 9029 A Major
H32/14/2 113000 12.571 8989 8989 A Major
H32/14/3 112500 12.571 8949 A Major
H32/2B/1 114250 12.571 9088 C Major
H32/28/2 110000 12.571 8750 8896 D Major
H32/28/3 111250 12.571 8850 B Major
H32/56/1 126000 12.571 10023 A Major
H32/56/2 120000 12.571 9546 9944 A Major
H32/56/3 129000 12.571 10262 A Major
SI units
Sample Load N sample area mm2 Compressive strength MPa (N/mm2) Avg. Compressive strength MPa Type of failure Amount o> aggregate shear
H32/5/1 458166.64 8110.30636 56.49 C Major
H32/5/2 449270.39 8110.30636 55.39 56.49 B Major
H32/5/3 467063.28 8110.30636 57.59 A Major
H32/7/1 471511.5 8110.30636 58.14 A Major
H32/7/2 463727.11 8110.30636 57.18 57.09 D Major
H32/7/3 453718.61 8110.30636 55.94 A Major
H32/14/1 504873.16 8110.30636 62.25 . A Major
H32/14/2 502649.05 8110.30636 61.98 61.98 A Major
H32/14/3 500424.94 8110.30636 61.70 A Major
H32/28/1 508209.33 8110.30636 62.66 C Major
H32/28/2 489304.39 8110.30636 60.33 61.34 D Major
H32/28/3 494864.66 8110.30636 61.02 B M$or
H32/56/1 560475.93 8110.30636 69.11 A Major
H32/56/2 533786.6 8110.30636 65.82 68.56 A Major
H32/56/3 573820.6 8110.30636 70.75 A Major
88


I Teat Data management I
TBn5T7ami|
0 2S|
Set 3
Sa/np/as were moved to warm lank at 5 days
(Cycle?
W7C~
Mix Begin
11/2/2001 13:05
Forming begin
11/2/2001 13:15
Forming finish
11/2/2001 13:40
Shmp (inch)
__________NA
sample ID DaleTime sample made Dale Removed from system sample weight Kg Dale Test (moday-year) Age Elapsed time Avg. Age Avg. Age
hours Days
H33/7/1 11/2/2001 13:27 11/3/2001 15:00 3.912 11/9/2001 16:33 171:05:30 171:07:50 7.130
H33/7/2 11/2/2001 13:27 11/9/2001 15:00 3.888 11/9/2001 16:35 171:07:30
H33/7/3 11/2/2001 13:27 11/3/2001 15:00 3.892 11/92001 16:38 171:10:30
H33/7/4 11/2/2001 13:27 11/9/2001 15:00 3862
H33/14/1 . 11/2/2001 13:27 11/16/2001 14:50 3895 11/16/2001 1620 338:52.30 338.55:10 14.122
H33H4/2 11/2/2001 13:27 11/16/2001 14:50 3870 11/16/2001 16:23 338:55:30
H33/14/3 11/2/2001 13:27 11/16/2001 14:50 3.892 11/16/2001 16:25 338:57:30
H33/14/4 11/2/2001 13:27 11/16/2001 14:50 3.890
H33/28/1 11/2/2001 13:27 11/30/2001 14:15 3856 11/30/2001 15:56 674:28:30 674:30:30 28.105
H33/28/2 11/2/2001 13:27 11/30/2001 14:15 3 850 11/302001 15:58 674:30:30
H33/28/3 11/2/2001 13:27 11/30/2001 14:15 3855 11/302001 16:00 674:32:30
H33/28/4 11/2/2001 13:27 11/30/2001 14:15
H33/56/1 11/2/2001 13:27 12/26/2001 15:30 3.866 12/28/2001 16:55 1347:27:30 1347:31:30 56.147
H33/56/2 11/2/2001 13:27 12/28/2001 15:30 3.874 12/28/2001 16:58 1347:30:30
H33/56/3 11/2/2001 13:27 12/28/2001 15:30 3642 12/28/2001 17:04 1347:36:30
H33/56/4 11/2/2001 13:27 12/28/2001 15:30 3.865
US Units
Sample Load (lbs) sample area In2 Compressive strength Psi Avg. Compressive strength Psi Tvpe of failure Amount of aggregate shear
H33/7/1 107000 12.571 8512 A Major
H33/7/2 108000 12.571 8591 8618 A Major
H33/7/3 110000 12.571 8750 A Major
H33/14/1 111500 12.571 8870 A Major
H33/14/2 106000 12.571 8432 8591 C Major
H33/14/3 106500 12.571 8472 A Major
H33/28/1 115250 12.571 9168 D Major
H33/28/2 117500 12.571 9347 6943 A Major
H33/28/3 104500 12.571 8313 C Major
H33/56/1 105000 12.571 8353 B Major
H33/56/2 102500 12.571 8154 8220 B Major
H33/56/3 102500 12.571 8154 A Major
SI units
Sample Load N sample area mm2 Compressive strength MPa (N/mm2) Avg. Compressive strength MPa Type of failure Amount of aggregate shear
H33/7/1 475959.72 8110.30636 58.69 A Major
H33/7/2 480407.94 8110.30636 59.23 59.42 A Major
H33/7/3 489304.39 8110.30636 60.33 A Major
H33/14/1 495976.72 8110.30636 51.15 A Major
H33/14/2 471511.5 8110.30635 58.14 59.23 C Major
H33/14/3 473735.61 8110.30636 58.41 A Major
H33/28/1 512657.55 8110.30636 63.21 D Major
H33/28/2 522666.05 8110.30636 64.44 61.66 A Major
H33/28/3 464839.17 8110.30636 57.31 C Major
H33/56/1 - 467063.28 8110.30636 57.59 B Major
H33/56/2 455942.72 8110.30636 56.22 56.67 B Major
H33/56/3 455942.72 8110.30636 56.22 A Major
89