Construction and Building Materials 34 (2012) 7076

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Bridge deck cracking: A eld study on concrete placement, curing, and performance
Steve W. Peyton a, Chris L. Sanders b, Emerson E. John c, W. Micah Hale c,
a

Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department, Little Rock, AR 72203, USA APAC-Central, Inc., Tulsa, OK 74146, USA c University of Arkansas, 4190 Bell Engineering Center, Fayetteville, AR 72703, USA
b

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
The concrete properties, curing regimens, and crack density of the ve bridge decks were measured. Concrete was sampled from two or three locations in the bridge decks, and the fresh and hardened concrete properties were measured. Curing regimens for the bridge decks were also documented. After construction, the research team returned to each bridge to investigate and measure the amount of cracking. Factors that led to cracking included low 1 day compressive strengths, delayed curing, and improper curing compound dosages. The research team also determined that the concrete properties, both fresh and hardened, varied signicantly within some bridge decks. 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Article history: Received 2 November 2011 Received in revised form 13 January 2012 Accepted 25 February 2012 Available online 29 March 2012 Keywords: Concrete curing Bridge deck cracking Compressive strength Permeability

1. Introduction Many factors contribute to cracking in concrete bridge decks. Some of these factors include structural design, material properties, mixture proportioning, and construction and curing practices. During the summer of 2005, ve bridge decks that were under construction were examined to determine which of these factors contributed to bridge deck cracking. The research focused on the construction practices, curing regimens, and concrete properties. 1.1. Background Permeability, durability, and compressive strength are three concrete properties that play a signicant role in the overall bridge deck performance. All three of these properties are affected by concrete mixture proportioning and construction practices. These concrete properties have been proven as good indicators of bridge deck concrete performance. Permeability is the ability of concrete to resist penetration by water or other substances. Inspection of concrete bridge decks over the years indicates that chloride penetration is a major concern [1]. In order to lower the permeability of concrete, the water to cementitious materials (w/cm) ratio is generally reduced. This approach has been veried by an a number of researchers who have found a direct correlation between w/cm and permeability. Low permeability concrete provides greater protection against reinforcement corrosion [2]. Decks that have high permeability tend to also
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: micah@uark.edu (W. Micah Hale). 0950-0618/$ - see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.02.065

experience severe cracking; therefore, permeability is an indicator for predicting the cracking potential of concrete bridge decks [3]. The National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Synthesis 333 recommends bridge deck concrete to have permeability, per American Association of State Highway Transportation Ofcials (AASHTO T 277), in the range of 1500 and 2500 C to enhance the performance of bridge deck concrete [1]. Concrete durability is the ability to resist weathering action, chemical attack, abrasion, and any other process of deterioration. ACI Committee 201 (Guide to Durable Concrete) recommends that bridge decks exposed to deicing salts have a maximum w/cm of 0.45 and an average air content of 6% for a nominal maximum size aggregate (NMSA) of 25.4 mm (1 in.) [2]. National Cooperative Highway Research Program Synthesis 333 recommends the use of concrete with w/cm between 0.40 and 0.45 to enhance the bridge deck performance [1]. As compressive strength increases, creep decreases at a higher rate than the rate of increase of tensile strength. This is one of the reasons why high strength concretes, which have higher tensile strengths than regular concrete, experience more cracking [3,4]. Cracking tends to increase with compressive strengths, which is a result of increased cementitious materials content and hence, an increase in paste volume. Schmitt and Darwin [5] show that there is a direct relationship between the amount of paste in a given concrete and the amount of cracks in bridge decks that are cast with the same material. Many agencies have suggested that the trend of increasing 28-day compressive strengths has led to increased cracking. Some specied mixtures can achieve 28-day strengths in three to 7 days. Compressive strengths for bridge decks should be based on later age compressive strengths, such

S.W. Peyton et al. / Construction and Building Materials 34 (2012) 7076

71

as 56- or 90-day compressive strength in order to permit the use of low heat of hydration cement and supplementary cementing materials (SCMs) in bridge deck concretes without violating strength requirements [6]. In order to avoid early bridge deck cracking, early age strengths of concrete should be controlled [7]. Finer modern cements typically have 1-day compressive strengths near 45% of the 28-day strengths. Cement manufactured in the mid-1940s had 1-day compressive strengths of only 11% of the 28-day strength [6]. The American Association of State Highway Transportation Ofcials and Arkansas Highway Transportation Department (AHTD) require a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 28 MPa (4 ksi) for bridge deck concrete [8,9].
2. Testing program The research team sampled concrete from ve bridge decks in the state of Arkansas from June 2005 to September 2005. The quantity of concrete placed at the bridge decks ranged from approximately 92306 m3 (120400 yd3). The fresh concrete tests performed were slump (AASHTO T 119), unit weight (AASHTO T 121), air content (AASHTO T 152), and concrete temperature (AASHTO T 309). For the rst three decks, the research team performed all the fresh concrete tests at three different locations (beginning, middle, and end regions) on the bridge deck and cast 100 200 mm (4 8 in.) cylinders for compressive strength tests at those same locations. At the middle sampling location, eight 100 200 mm (4 8) cylinders (for rapid chloride ion penetrability (RCIP) tests), four freezethaw specimens 76 76 406 mm (3 3 16 in.), and four unrestrained shrinkage specimens 100 100 286 mm (4 4 11-1/4 in.) were cast in addition to the compressive strength cylinders. The last two decks were much smaller, and therefore the research team performed the fresh concrete tests at only two locations on the bridge decks. Compressive strength cylinders were also cast at two locations on the smaller decks. The compressive strength cylinders (AASHTO T 22), freeze/thaw specimens (AASHTO T 161A), and unrestrained specimens (AASHTO T 160) cast at the rst bridge deck were transported the morning after the deck placement, therefore complying with AASHTO T 23. However, for the four other bridge decks, the majority of the samples were transported before the 8 h minimum time limit. These samples were transported in the back of a full-size truck in containers that were placed on approximately three inches of soft foam to reduce vibration. After the initial 24 h, the molds were removed and all specimens were air cured in an environmental chamber at 23 C (73 F) and approximately 50% relative humidity. The research team measured compressive strength at 1, 7, 28, and 56 days of age. Three cylinders were tested on each of these days. Length changes of shrinkage specimens were measured at 1, 4, 7, 28, 56, and 112 days of age, Rapid Chloride Iron penetration (RCIP) tests at 28 and 90 days of age, and freezing and thawing testing began at 14 days of age. 2.1. Manual crack mapping The process used to assess bridge deck cracking was similar to that used by AHTD Research Section personnel in a previous bridge deck study. The rst step in the mapping process is typically an initial examination of the entire bridge deck to locate the areas most affected by cracking. This is then the survey area. It is generally limited to 30.5 m (100 ft.) in length unless the additional length would better represent the distress level of the deck as a whole. Trafc control was provided by two AHTD personnel using a simple agged lane closure with trafc cones along the centerline to keep motorists out of the survey area. The actual mapping of distress in the survey section began with team members laying out a 30.5 m (100 ft.) tape measure along the lane edge. This provided longitudinal stationing for the map. A 7.6 m (25 ft.) tape measure was used to measure Table 1 Concrete mixture proportions. Materials Bridge decks 1 Cement (kg/m ) Fly ash (kg/m3) Fly ash (%) Coarse agg. (kg/m3) Coarse aggregate type Fine aggregate (kg/m3) Water (kg/m3) w/cm AEA dosage (L/m3)
a 3

transversely from the lane edges. Cracks were then visually located and documented. The length and location of the cracks were measured and recorded, along with their orientation and approximate widths, on a prepared form with a grid representing the survey section. The widths of the cracks were measured with a crack comparator card. 2.2. AHTD specications for Class S(AE) concrete Concrete used in bridge decks in Arkansas are classied as Class S(AE) concrete (AE for air entrained). For Class S(AE) concrete, AHTD requires a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 28 MPa (4 ksi), a slump of 25100 mm (14 in.), and an air content of 6 (2%. The Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department also requires Class S(AE) concrete mixtures to have a maximum w/cm of 0.44, a minimum total cementitious material content of 362 kg/m3 (611 lbs/yd3), and a coarse aggregate meeting either the AHTD Standard Gradation or the AASHTO M43 #57 Gradation. The Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department allows the use of y ash and slag cement in bridge decks. Fly ash can either be Class C or F, with no mixing of the two. The maximum y ash replacement rate is 20% by weight, and the maximum slag replacement rate is 25% by weight. If both materials are used, the maximum replacement rate is 20%, by weight, for both materials. The limits on total cementitious materials content and the use of supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs), such as y ash, are employed to guarantee achieving the 28-day compressive strength outlined in the specications and to ensure that the amount of SCM used in the concrete mixture does not signicantly retard strength gain. The Arkansas Highway and Transportation Departments specications allow the use of several different materials for concrete curing. Burlappolyethylene sheeting, polyethylene sheeting, copolymer/synthetic blanket, membrane curing compounds, and other materials that meet AASHTO M 171 are allowed. The Arkansas Highway and Transportation Departments specications require that the bridge deck be covered immediately after nishing and that it remains covered for at least 7 days. During these 7 days, the curing materials must be kept wet (except for membrane curing). Contractors are permitted by AHTD to place concrete bridge decks with continuous pours. If the contractors choose this option, the concrete must remain plastic during the entire length of the pour. Rather than casting the negative moment regions of the bridge deck rst then followed by the positive moment regions, most contractors are choosing continuous casting or pours to speed up the construction process. In this research program, all ve bridge decks were continuously poured. 2.3. Concrete mixture proportions The concrete mixture proportions for the ve bridge decks are shown below in Table 1. As previously stated, AHTD requires a maximum w/cm of 0.44, a total cementitious material content of 362 kg/m3 (611 lbs/yd3), and an air content of 6 2% for bridge deck concrete. All contractors chose to use the least amount of cementitious material required (362 kg/m3) and three contractors chose to use y ash, the only SCM, at replacement rates ranging from 9% to 12% by weight. Four of the ve concrete mixtures had the maximum w/cm of 0.44, and the lowest w/ cm used was 0.41. A high range water reducer (HRWR) was used in the third bridge deck, which had the lowest w/cm. The coarse aggregate content was different for all but two of the decks primarily because AHTD does not specify a coarse aggregate content.

3. Bridge specics As previously stated the research team sampled concrete from ve bridge decks from June 2005 to September 2005. In addition to concrete properties, the researchers also documented the curing procedures and measured the cracking in each bridge deck. Each

2 308 55 9 990 Limestone 767 160 0.44 0.17

3a 290 72 12 1150 River Gr. 580 149 0.41 0.24

4 362 0 0 1021 Limestone 755 160 0.44 0.12

5 362 0 0 1037 River Gr. 659 160 0.44 0.15

308 55 9 990 Limestone 767 160 0.44 0.18

High range water reducer (HRWR) was used to improve workability.

72

S.W. Peyton et al. / Construction and Building Materials 34 (2012) 7076

bridge deck is discussed in more detail in the following paragraphs. The air temperature, relative humidity, and curing procedures are summarized for all decks and shown in Table 2. Typically, concrete placement is scheduled for the late evening or early mornings. Ideally, the placement should commence in the evening and extend into the night when the temperature has dropped and the relative humidity is high. The time duration for the placement of each deck is summarized in Table 2. 3.1. Bridge deck 1 The rst bridge deck visited is an interstate overpass. The bridge deck was cast in the middle of June, and concrete placement began at 5:45 AM. The bridge is a two-span plate girder bridge with spans of 45.4 and 37.5 m (149 and 123 ft.) and 13 m (43 ft.) wide. The total quantity of concrete used was 253 m3 (331 yd3), poured continuously. Like most bridge decks visited, the concrete was pumped up to the deck. One construction worker with a commercial pressure washer fogged the concrete in the area of placement. The concrete was then screeded, oated with a pan attached to the nishing machine, and then manually tined with a rake. Finally, a curing compound was applied and then covered with a plastic/cotton mat. 3.2. Bridge deck 2 The second bridge deck visited was also an interstate bridge overpass. The deck was cast in the middle of July and concrete placement began at 9:00 PM. The overpass is 100 m (330 ft.) long, comprising of four spans of curved plate girder units, and 10 m (32 ft. 6 in.) wide. The total quantity of concrete used was 252 m3 (330 yd3), continuously poured. The concrete was pumped up to the deck. One construction worker fogged the concrete at the surface near the nishing machine (prior to oating). The concrete was screeded and pan oated by a device which was attached to the nishing machine. The concrete was then bull oated with a 3.05 m (10 ft.) rounded oat, and then manually tined with a rake. The concrete was then sprayed with a curing compound and later covered with burlappolyethylene sheeting for nal cure. 3.3. Bridge deck 3 The third deck was a large city bridge that spanned a river. The placement consisted of 305 m3 (400 yd3) of concrete and was a continuous pour. The deck was cast in late August at 3:15 AM. The plate girder bridge spans 112 m (367 ft.) with spans of 34.5, 43, and 34.5 m (113, 141 and 113 ft.). The bridge deck is 13 m (42.6 ft.) wide.

The concrete was pumped, screeded with the nishing machine, oated with a pan attached to the nishing machine, bull oated, and then tined with a nned oat. Like the previous decks, one construction worker fogged the concrete near the nishing machine using a pressure washer. The concrete was then sprayed with curing compound and later covered with burlappolyethylene sheeting. 3.4. Bridge deck 4 The fourth bridge deck was a state highway bridge that spanned a drainage ditch. The bridge was placed in early September. The three-span bridge was a steel girder (w-section) bridge with spans of 11.6, 14.6, and 11.6 m (38, 48 and 38 ft.). The bridge deck was 10 m (32.8 ft.) wide. The placement consisted of 89 m3 (117 yd3) of continuously poured concrete. The concrete was pumped, screeded with the nishing machine, oated with a pan and dragged with burlap that were both attached to the nishing machine. It was then tined with a rake, sprayed with curing compound, and later covered with burlap polyethylene sheeting. 3.5. Bridge deck 5 The nal bridge deck is a US highway spanning a small creek. The bridge deck was placed in late September. The deck was a 131 m3 (171 yd3) continuous pour placement. The concrete was pumped, screeded with the nishing machine and oated with a pan attached to the nishing machine. The deck was bull oated with a 3.05 m (10 ft.) rounded oat, and then manually dragged with burlap. It was then tined with a rake, sprayed with curing compound, and later covered with burlappolyethylene sheeting. 4. Results and discussion 4.1. Crack mapping After the bridge decks were sampled, each deck was revisited to assess cracking. For Bridge Deck 1, cracks were mapped on 04/05/ 06 (10 months after placement) after the bridge was open to trafc and after the contractor had sealed larger cracks at some time prior to opening. Crack density represents crack length per unit area. The researchers attempted to map all cracks in 3.7 30.5 m (12 by 100 ft.) section of south bound lane, but after measuring 12 m (40 ft.) of the 3.7 (12 ft.) wide section, cracking became too small and random to effectively map. A 3 3.7 m (10 by 12 ft.) sub-area was measured as a representative sample. From visual estimation, the density was approximately the same as the representative sample for the remainder of original 30.5 m (100 ft.) section,

Table 2 Summary of observations for all decks. Bridge deck 1 2 3 4 5

a

Time of placement 5:45 AM 12:20 PM 9:05 PM 3:05 AM 3:15 AM 12:20 PM 6:00 AM 10:15 AM 7:05 AM 10:40 AM

Size of placement (m3) 253 221 306 89 131

Air temp. range (C) 2035 3228 2435 1934 2236

Ave. R.H (%) 57 72 69 53 53

Time to curing compound application (h) 0.51 3 6 3 2.5

Time to nal curea (h) 15.5 7.00 3.50 5.75 5.00

Amount of cracking (m/m2) 1.03 0.04 0.37 0.02 0.17

Times are from the end of the placement.

S.W. Peyton et al. / Construction and Building Materials 34 (2012) 7076

73

although it lessened some in the last 4.6 m (15 ft.). The cracks ranged from 100 mm (4 in.) to 14.6 m (48 ft.) in length and from less than 0.127 mm to 0.61 mm (0.0050.024 in.) in width. The cracks were a network of transverse and longitudinal cracks with diagonal cracks connecting them. Long lines of cracking in the wheel path of the lanes were observed. Also, cracks were concentrated over the center support (near the middle sampling location) of the deck. This could possibly be due to a combination of vibrations from trafc passing under the bridge (which were noticeable) and low compressive strengths (at least up to 7 days) at this section. Bridge Deck 2 was revisited on 08/01/05, 1 year after placement. The visible cracks were measured for the entire length and width of the bridge. The cracks ranged from 76 mm to 5 m (3 in. 16.4 ft.) in length and 0.05 mm to 0.40 mm (0.0020.016 in.) in width. The cracks were mostly transverse and heavily concentrated in the positive moment section. The exural cracks were located mainly near the piers and the plastic shrinkage cracks were located near the low gutter (the downhill side of the deck). Large amounts of paste were brought down to this side during construction using a highway screed. This increase in the amount of paste could have contributed to increased shrinkage in that area. Bridge Deck 3 was revisited on 01/27/06, 5 months after placement. The research team measured the cracking in a 3.7 by 30.5 m (12 by 100 ft.) section of the west bound lane. The cracks ranged from 0.9 to 3.7 m (312 ft.) in length and were less than 0.18 mm (0.007 in.) wide. The cracks were almost exclusively transverse cracks that started and stopped at similar points in the cross section (near beam lines). Bridge Deck 4 was revisited on 02/09/06, 6 months after placement. The research team measured cracking in a 3.7 by 30.5 m (12 by 100 ft.) section of the deck. There was very little cracking in the deck. The cracks ranged from 152 mm to 1.2 m (3.2 in. to 4 ft.) in length and 0.05 to 0.25 mm (0.0020.01 in.) in width. Bridge Deck 5 was mapped on 02/10/06, 5 months after placement. The cracks were measured over a 3.7 by 20 m (12 by 66 ft.) section. The cracks were 0.601.50 m (25 ft.) in length and were 0.050.18 mm (0.0020.007 in.) wide. There were some cracks that were 0.601.50 m (25 ft.) long and were at 45 angles to the intermediate bents. 4.2. Fresh concrete data As stated in the Testing Program, the fresh concrete properties were measured in two or three random locations (determined by AHTD) for each bridge deck. If the bridge deck was large enough, the sampling locations were typically at the beginning, middle,

Slump

Air Content

Unit Wt. Diff.

Concrete Temp.

Ranking (5 = Greatest & 1 = Least)

0 0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

Crack Density (m/m2)

Fig. 1. Fresh concrete properties and crack density.

and ends of the bridge deck. The results of all the fresh concrete tests, the amount of cracking and the AHTD specications for each property are shown in Table 3. From Table 3, one can see that four of the ve bridge decks had slumps that exceeded AHTD specications in at least one location. Bridge Deck 1 was the only deck where all slumps fell within the 25100 mm (14 in.) specication. For the air content, three of the ve bridge decks had measured air contents that did not meet AHTD specications. Only two bridge decks had fresh concrete temperatures that were greater than that allowed by AHTD. The nal fresh concrete properties shown in Table 3 are the calculated and measured unit weights. The calculated unit weights are based on the concrete mixture proportion used by the concrete supplier and assuming a fresh concrete air content of 6%. The differences between calculated and measured unit weights ranged from a low of 16.02 kg/m3 (1 lb/ft3) to a high of 144.2 kg/m3 (9 lb/ft3). These differences between calculated and measured unit weights could be attributed to the addition of extra mixing water and/or to higher or lower than expected air contents. In an attempt to determine if there were any relationships between the fresh concrete properties and crack density, the average slump, air content, differences between measured and calculated unit weights, and concrete temperature were plotted versus the crack density. Each bridge deck was ranked by each concrete property and assigned a ranking. For example, Bridge Deck 1 had an average slump of 80.5 mm (3.17 in.) which was the lowest average

Table 3 Fresh concrete properties. Bridge deck 1 Slump (mm) 89 83 70 114 184 64 159 89 127 210 152 152 89 25100 Air content (%) 5.8 6.3 4.9 3.8 3.5 2.2 3.2 4.6 5.0 9.2 8.7 5.7 4.8 48 Calculated unit wt. (kg/m3) 2244 Measured unit wt. (kg/m3) 2292 2260
a

Concrete temp. (C) 28 32 32 35 33 35 33 28 35 23 27 27 30 432

Amount of cracking (m/m2) 1.03

2244

2372 2340 2388 2308 1 2324 2180 2212 2260 2308 None

0.04

2244

0.37

4 5 AHTD Specications
a

2260 2228 None

0.02 0.17

Unit weight samples were not taken.

74

S.W. Peyton et al. / Construction and Building Materials 34 (2012) 7076

12

10

Air Content (%)

3. There is no trend between unit weight and crack density. 4. There is no signicant difference between the concrete temperatures of the ve decks and therefore, the level of cracking measured on either of the decks cannot be directly attributed to variations in concrete temperature. 4.3. Hardened concrete properties

Bridge Decks
Fig. 2. Statistical comparison of measured air content.

slump of the ve decks, and therefore it received a ranking of 1. Likewise, Bridge Deck 4 had the greatest average slump, 181 mm (just over 7 in.), and received a ranking of 5. Shown in Fig. 1 are the rankings for each fresh concrete property and crack density. The graph shows that Bridge Deck 1, which had the highest crack density of 1.03 m/m2 (0.315 ft./ft2), did not have the greatest value for any of the fresh concrete properties. Bridge Deck 1 had the second highest air content, third highest concrete temperature, fourth highest unit weight, and was ranked last in unit weight difference and slump. For the concrete properties measured and bridge decks samples, there was no correlation between fresh concrete properties and crack density. To further support this conclusion, a statistical comparison of the measured properties based on a 90% condence interval indicates the following: 1. There were no signicant difference between the measured slumps of the ve decks and the true mean slump values fall within the specied limits of 25100 mm (14 in.). However, a comparison of the crack density for the ve decks indicates a wide scatter, which conrms a lack of trend between slump and crack density. 2. The true mean values of air content for the ve decks meet the specied limits of 6 2% (Fig. 2). However, Bridge Decks 2 and 4 have the highest and lowest values of air content respectively, and similar values for crack density.

The results from the compressive strength tests are shown in Table 4. Three cylinders for compressive strength testing were cast from either two or three random locations (as determined by AHTD) in each bridge deck. The amount of cracking is also shown for each bridge deck in Table 4. For all decks, the contractors opted to pour each deck continuous, which by AHTD specications, requires that all the concrete remain in a plastic state until concrete placement is nished. For this reason, a set retarder was used in all decks. The rst bridge deck that was visited (Bridge Deck 1) had the lowest 1 day strengths. The rst and last sampling location had a 1 day compressive strength of approximately 2 MPa (300 psi) while the middle sampling location had a 1 day compressive strength of 0.42 MPa (60 psi). At 2 days of age, cylinders that were sampled from the rst and middle locations of the bridge deck were tested. These tests showed that the rst location had gained over 14 MPa (2 ksi) in 24 h, but the middle section was still much lower (a compressive strength of 0.90 MPa (130 psi)). By 28 days and 56 days of age, the middle section had reached similar strengths as the rst and last sections of the bridge. However, the research team did observe several transverse cracks in the center section of the Bridge Deck 1. These cracks could be the result of the low compressive strengths of the middle location and the corresponding higher compressive strengths of the surrounding regions, but one cannot be certain due to the limited number of sampling locations. Statistical comparison of the measured 7-day compressive strengths does indicate a signicant difference between Bridge Decks 2 and 3 (Fig. 3) and a corresponding difference between the crack densities. The 28-day compressive strengths result shows a signicant difference between Bridge Decks 1 and 3 (Fig. 4). Bridge Deck 1 has the highest value of compressive strength and the highest degree of cracking. The level of cracking on Bridge Deck 3 (compressive strengths more than 10 MPa (1.4 ksi) less than Deck 1) is three times that of Deck 1. Also, the 28-day compressive strength of Bridge Deck 1 exceeds the specied compressive strength by a minimum of 12 MPa (1.7 ksi), indicating that higher compressive strengths could contribute to higher levels of cracking.

Table 4 Compressive strength results (MPa).a Bridge deck 1 1 Day 2.3 0.4 2.2 10.2 14.7 13.4 16.2 19.7 32.6 20.4 25.0 2 Day 17.8 0.9 23.6 19.1 24.6 7 Day 39.6 35.1 31.2 39.8 25.3 24.7 26.4 26.0 30.5 27.6 30.4 28 Day 46.0 43.9 52.0 34.9 34.8 40.2 30.3 28.9 32.5 34.0 38.0 62.8 32.1 36.7 56 Day 47.2 48.2 54.8 40.2 36.2 47.7 32.0 31.2 34.1 34.3 38.3 30.1 39.3 Amount of cracking (m/m2) 1.03

0.04

0.37

0.02

5
a

0.17

For each deck, each row represents one sampling location.

S.W. Peyton et al. / Construction and Building Materials 34 (2012) 7076

75

45 40

Table 5 Hardened concrete properties.a Bridge deck RCIPb (C) Durability factor 90 Day 2551 2898 4072 3047 2429 99 101 86 105 47 NAc 451 447 467 339 1.03 0.04 0.37 0.02 0.17 Unrestrained shrinkage (microstrains) Amount of cracking (m/m2)

Compressive Strength (MPa)

35 30 25 20 15
a

28 Day 1 2 3 4 5
b c

2807 4019 5300 2552 2424

10 5 0 1 2 3 4 5

Permeabilities, durabilities, and shrinkage are averages of four specimens. Values are at 112 days. Length change difculties.

Bridge Decks
Fig. 3. Statistical comparison of measured 7-day compressive strengths.

80 70

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1 2 3 4 5

5 had a durability factor of only 47 which is indicative of poor freezing and thawing resistance. Most likely the aggregate source (river gravel) was the cause of the poor durability, since the air contents were near 5% and the specimens experienced cracking near and around the coarse aggregate. The nal hardened concrete property measured was drying shrinkage. Problems with the length change comparator were encountered for the specimens from Bridge Deck 1. The remaining shrinkage values ranged from 339 to 467 microstrains at 112 days of age for specimens casts from Bridge Decks 2 through 5. As with the fresh concrete properties, the hardened concrete properties were ranked and plotted versus the cracking density (Fig. 5) to determine if there were any relationships between the hardened properties and cracking for the decks in this study. Each hardened property was ranked from 1 to 5 and the rankings were plotted. Like the fresh concrete data, there were few if any correlations between the hardened properties and cracking. Bridge Deck 1 did have the greatest 7 and 28 day compressive strength and the most cracking, but Bridge Deck 3 which had the second highest level of crack density also had the lowest compressive strength at 7 and 28 days of age. 4.4. Curing As stated previously, AHTD specications allow the use of several different materials for concrete curing. All the materials used to cure the ve decks met the specications. AHTDs specications also require that the bridge deck be covered immediately after nishing and that it remains covered for at least 7 days. During these 7 days, the curing materials must be kept wet (except for membrane curing). All bridge decks were moist cured for the 7 days, but there were differences among the contractors as to when immediately after nishing curing began. The application of nal
7 day fc 28 day fc 28 day RCPT 90 RCPT DF 112 day Shrinkage

Compressive Strength (MPa)

Bridge Decks
Fig. 4. Statistical comparison of measured 28-day compressive strengths.

The only other bridge deck to have large variations in compressive strength was Bridge Deck 4. This deck was a smaller pour and due to time constraints only a limited number of cylinders were sampled from the last portion of the deck. As seen in Table 4, the compressive strengths at one and 28 days of age for the last section of the deck were much higher than the rst two sections (over 14 MPa (2 ksi) at 1 day and over 28 MPa (4 ksi) at 28 days). However, unlike the Bridge Deck 1, the large variation in compressive strength did not appear to contribute to bridge deck cracking. For this particular bridge deck, the concrete supplier was having problems with the air content. For the rst two sections the air contents were at or near 9%, and efforts were being made to lower the air contents. The researchers believe that the air content was indeed lower for the last section, which resulted in the higher compressive strengths. The remaining hardened concrete properties are shown in Table 5. These properties include permeability, durability factors, and 112 day drying shrinkage. The permeability (measured by the RCIP test) was measured at 28 and 90 days of age. ASTM and AASHTO classify bridge decks with passing between 2000 and 4000 C as having moderate permeability. By 90 days of age, four of the ve decks would be classied as having moderate permeability. The durability factor was determined by AASHTO T161A. Most researchers recommend a durability factor of at least 60 to provide adequate freezing and thawing resistance. Four of the ve bridge decks had durability factors that were greater than 60. Bridge Deck

Ranking (5 = Greatest & 1 = Least)

0 0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

Crack Density (m/m2)

Fig. 5. Hardened concrete properties and crack density.

76

S.W. Peyton et al. / Construction and Building Materials 34 (2012) 7076

Curing Compound Application

Time to Final Cure

Ranking (5 = Greatest & 1 = Least)

The ndings for the 5 bridge decks included in this study are summarized below: 1. There was not a correlation between the amount of bridge deck cracking and the fresh concrete properties that were measured. 2. Bridge Deck 1, which had the highest 7 day and 28 day strength, also had the greatest amount of cracking. However, this trend does not hold true for the remaining bridge decks, nor does it hold true at other ages. 3. Bridge Deck 1, which had the greatest difference between 1 day and 7 day compressive strength, also had the largest amount of cracking. This large increase in compressive strength during the early ages of the bridge deck may increase the probability for cracking. 4. Bridge Decks 1 and 3, which had the greatest amount of cracking, had the longest time to nal cure and the longest time to the application of the curing compound, respectively. 5. Crack densities reported in this work compare well with values found in the literature [1012] for similar bridge types.

0 0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80
2

1.00

1.20

Crack Density (m/m )

Fig. 6. Curing regimens and cracking density.

cure ranged from 3.5 h to 15.5 h after nal placement of the deck. Also, there were signicant differences among the contractors regarding application of the curing compound. Curing compound application ranged from 30 min to 6 h after the deck was tined. As with the fresh and hardened properties, the curing times and crack density were plotted in Fig. 6. Similar to the fresh and hardened properties, there were no correlations or trends observed for all the decks. However, the two bridge decks with the greatest amount of cracking, Bridge Decks 1 and 3 had the longest time to nal cure and the longest time to the application of the curing compound, respectively. 5. Conclusions The research program examined the curing regimens and concrete properties of ve bridge decks. The researchers hoped to develop correlations between bridge deck cracking and the concrete properties and curing regimens. Due to the many variables involved, it was difcult to pin point one specic concrete property or curing procedure that increased the likelihood or caused bridge deck cracking. One early age concrete property that may have increased cracking is compressive strength. The variations in early age compressive strength for Bridge Deck 1 may have led to the cracking observed at midspan of the deck. However, in the eld, it is difcult to identify a specic cause of bridge deck cracking.

References
[1] Transportation Research Board. NCHRP synthesis 333: concrete bridge deck performance. Washington, DC: National Research Council; 2004. p. 101. [2] ACI Committee 201. Guide to durable concrete (ACI 201.2R-06). ACI manual of concrete practice. Detroit, Michigan: American Concrete Institute; 2006. p. 39. [3] Xi Y, Shing B, Abu-Hejleh N, Asiz A, Suwito A, Xie Z, et al. Assessment of the cracking problem in newly constructed bridge decks in Colorado. Rep. No. CDOT-DTD-R-2003-3, Final Report, Research Branch, Colorado Department of Transportation, Denver, CO; JanuaryFebruary 2000. [4] Wiegrenk K, Marikunte S, Shah SP. Shrinkage cracking of high-strength concrete. ACI Mater J 1996;93(5):40915. [5] Schmitt TR, Darwin D. Effect of material properties on cracking in bridge decks. J Bridge Eng 1999;4(1):813. [6] Krauss PD, Rogalla EA. NCHRP report 380: transverse cracking in newly constructed bridge decks. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board, National Research Council; 1996. p. 126. [7] Holland T. Using shrinkage reducing admixtures. Practice periodical on structural design and construction; August 1999. p. 8991. [8] AASHTO standard specications for highway bridges. 17th ed. Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Ofcials; 2002. [9] Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department (AHTD). Standard specications for highway, construction; 2003. [10] Darwin D, Browning J, Lindquist W. Control of cracking in bridge decks: observations from the eld. Cem Concr Aggr 2004;26(2):,148154. dec. [11] High Performance Concrete Bridge Reviews. HPC bridge decks revisited, no. 60; March/April 2010. [12] Owens F, Alampalli S. In-service performance of HP concrete bridge decks. Report FHWA/NY/SR-99/130.