Jason Weiss, Oregon State University jason.weiss@oregonstate.

edu, 4/18/16
Our Current Materials Durability Specifications
• Based on empirical observation
• Based on concrete systems
(largely 4 component systems)
which are rapidly becoming out dated
• Concrete is not the dinosaur, our
specifications however …….

Are we ready for Performance Specifications that Provide

an Alternative to Prescriptive w/c and Air Content

Prescriptive Specifications
For Freeze-Thaw
• Transport occurs through
the capillary pores
• Capillary pores are large
and connected
• W/C• asfd
& Curing – Capillary Pores
Sorption Based Freeze-Thaw Model

𝑆 𝑡 = 𝑆1 𝑡 ≤ 𝑆𝐶𝑟𝑖𝑡
𝑆 𝑡 = 𝑆1 𝑡0 + ∅𝑆2 𝑡 − 𝑡0 ≤ 𝑆𝐶𝑟𝑖𝑡

Todak et al. 2015

 Current ACI Prescriptive Requirements Performance Specification
Maximum Min. Additional cementitious Performance Test
Category Class Condition f ′, psi
w/cm c requirements limits Parameters
Concrete not
exposed to
F0 None 2500 None None None
freezing-and-
thawing cycles
Concrete exposed 𝑆 𝑡 = 𝑆𝑁 + ∅ 𝑆2 𝑡
to freezing-and- Table
F1 thawing cycles 0.55 3500 None 𝑆 𝑡 ≤ 85%
with limited 19.3.3.1
exposure to water  = 0.2, t = 25 yr*, DCR
Freezing
and Concrete exposed 𝑆 𝑡 = 𝑆𝑁 + ∅ 𝑆2 𝑡
Thawing to freezing-and- Table
(F) F2 thawing cycles 0.55 3500 None 𝑆 𝑡 ≤ 85%
with frequent 19.3.3.1
exposure to water  = 1.0, t = 25 yr*, DCR
Concrete exposed 𝑆 𝑡 = 𝑆𝑁 + ∅ 𝑆2 𝑡
to freezing-and-
thawing cycles Table 𝑆 𝑡 ≤ 85%
Table
F3 with frequent 0.45 4500
26.4.2.2b
exposure to water 19.3.3.1  = 1.5, t = 25 yr*, DCR
and exposure to Scale Requirement
deicing chemicals Reactivity Requirement
Proposed by Weiss, 2014
 Current ACI Prescriptive Requirements Performance Specification
Maximum Min. Additional cementitious Performance Test
Category Class Condition f ′, psi
w/cm c requirements limits Parameters
Concrete not
exposed to
F0 None 2500 None None None
freezing-and-
• S can be based on Mixture Design
N thawing cycles
(We have exposed
Concrete developed a method to compute) 𝑆 𝑡 = 𝑆𝑁 + ∅ 𝑆2 𝑡
to freezing-and- Table
F1 thawing cycles 0.55 3500 None 𝑆 𝑡 ≤ 85%
• S can be measured however we are 19.3.3.1
2 with limited working on a
exposure to water
relation to the formation factor  = 0.2, t = 25 yr*, DCR
Freezing
and Concrete exposed 𝑆 𝑡 = 𝑆𝑁 + ∅ 𝑆2 𝑡
Thawing to freezing-and- Table
(F) •F2 S has been measured
0.55 with3500
CR thawing cycles OkState PFS None 𝑆 𝑡 ≤ 85%
with frequent 19.3.3.1
exposure to water  = 1.0, t = 25 yr*, DCR
•  needs to be developed for different exposure
Concrete exposed 𝑆 𝑡 = 𝑆𝑁 + ∅ 𝑆2 𝑡
conditions
to freezing-and-
thawing cycles Table 𝑆 𝑡 ≤ 85%
Table
F3 with frequent 0.45 4500
26.4.2.2b
exposure to water 19.3.3.1  = 1.5, t = 25 yr*, DCR
and exposure to Scale Requirement
deicing chemicals Reactivity Requirement
Proposed by Weiss, 2014
Freeze-Thaw
Performance
• A sorption based
service-life model
(After Fagerlund, Li et al.)

• It uses measured
properties and predicts
performance

• Working on a SAM number

version as part of the OKState
PFS as it’s a small extension
Adding In Construction Calculated from the ARA PRS Project
Variability (Lot variation)
• Design Mixture
• 0.42 w/c
• 6% Air
• 564 lb cement
• Fine Aggregate
• Lets Assume the Following
Variations in Mixture Design
• w/c 5% COV (2SD; 0.38 to 0.46)
• Air 15% COV (2SD; 4.2 to 7.8)
Formation Factor Instead of w/c

Q = 2182 F = 1200, ro = 0.079

Q = 727 F = 3600, ro = 0.079

1
F

Corrosion in Bridge Decks – Resistivity/F Factor
• 25 year – FSPEC = 1200
• 50 year – FSPEC = 2400
• 75 year – FSPEC = 3600
• Diffusion/Transport Solution
• Pore solution (ro) = 0.079 ohm m
• There fore for this project the target
resistivity with 10% confidence = 282 and
the lower bound is 236 ohm m
• Each project has a different target
resistivity based on the cement source but
under same loading (location) F is constant
Weiss et al. 2015
Performance Related Shrinkage
100

Probability of Cracking [%]

DOR=100%
90
Base
80 Fast
Grade 1
70 Slow
60
50%
50
40
Grade 2
30
20%
20
Grade 3
10 5%
Grade 4
0
200 400 600 800 1000
Shrinkage []
Radlinska et al. 2008
Dual Ring Test (Draft Submitted to AASHTO in 12)
 Main Thoughts – Are We Ready ?
• Water to cement ratio (w/c)
• Historically – w/c is specified for transport (pore volume and connectivity)
• Performance – The formation factor can measure this directly (formation
factor is inversely related to pore volume and connectivity)
• A w/c to F Factor
• Air content
• Historically – A table was created based on empirical field performance
• Performance – New tests exist, new predictive methods exist and we can
begin to link these together
• Shrinkage methods are ready based on models or tests
Its Time to Enable Discussions on Change
• Performance specifications can be used as an alternative