QUANTIFYING SEGREGATION IN SELF …Self-consolidating concrete, also known as self-compacting concrete, must have three properties: filling ability, resistance to segregation, and

ii

QUANTIFYING SEGREGATION IN SELF-CONSOLIDATING CONCRETE THROUGH IMAGE ANALYSIS

Daniel Johnson

Gaur Johnson

and

Ian N. Robertson

Research Report UHM/CEE/10-04

May 2010

iii

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This report is based on a master’s thesis prepared by Daniel Johnson under the direction

of Drs. Gaur Johnson and Ian Robertson.

The authors would like to thank Nathan Powelson, Tevita ’Akau’ola, and Ethan Smith for

their assistance in preparing mixtures and conducting image analyses for this project. The

authors would also like to thank Drs. Riggs and Ma for reviewing this report and

providing valuable feedback.

Funding for the research reported herein was provided by the Research Branch of the

Hawai’i Department of Transportation. This funding is gratefully acknowledged. The

findings and opinions presented in this report are those of the authors and do not

necessarily reflect the opinions of the sponsor.

v

vi

ABSTRACT

Self-consolidating concrete is ideal for use in drilled shaft construction because it does

not require mechanical vibration. Performance of SCC must be closely monitored, so that

its ability to resist segregation is acceptable. Segregation is the separation and settling of

coarse aggregate in a sample of fresh SCC, which can lead to inconsistencies in concrete

performance.

A method was developed which attempted to identify segregation in a hardened concrete

sample by analyzing cross-section images at differing heights of standard-sized SCC

cylinders. This method determined measured gradations and concrete paste percentage of

cross-sections near the top and bottom of these samples, and identified segregation as

differences between these values over the height of a sample. This method correctly

identified aggregate particles and created comparable gradations. It was determined that,

when segregation exists, it primarily affects the top and bottom 1” of a sample, leaving

the rest of the sample decently distributed.

vii

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... iv

ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... vi

LIST OF TABLES ...............................................................................................................x

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... xi

(1) OBJECTIVE .............................................................................................................1

(2) LITERATURE REVIEW .........................................................................................3

(3) PROCEDURE AND IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................7

Concrete Samples ............................................................................................................ 8

Fresh Concrete Tests ....................................................................................................... 8

Segregation Resistance Test ............................................................................................ 9

Cylinder Preparation ..................................................................................................... 10

Optimal Image Resolution ............................................................................................ 11

Inherent Scanner Error .................................................................................................. 14

Particle Approximation Models .................................................................................... 16

Potential Segregation Indicators .................................................................................... 20

Polished vs. Unpolished Cross-Sections ....................................................................... 23

(4) RESULTS ...............................................................................................................27

Segregation Resistance Index ........................................................................................ 27

Paste-Area Ratio ............................................................................................................ 28

Gradation Curves ........................................................................................................... 29

ix

09/25/2009 Test Mix ..................................................................................................... 30

12/11/2009 Test Mix ..................................................................................................... 33

01/13/2010 Trial Pour ................................................................................................... 36

02/24/2010 Test Mix ..................................................................................................... 38

N. Kahana Stream Bridge Trial Shaft (TS) ................................................................... 42

N. Kahana Stream Bridge Load Test Shaft (LTS) ........................................................ 45

N. Kahana Stream Bridge Load Test Tremie (LTT) ..................................................... 50

(5) DISCUSSION .........................................................................................................54

09/25/2009 Test Mix ..................................................................................................... 54

12/11/2009 Test Mix ..................................................................................................... 55

01/13/2010 Trial Pour ................................................................................................... 57

02/24/2010 Test Mix ..................................................................................................... 59

N. Kahana Stream Bridge Trial Shaft (TS) ................................................................... 62

N. Kahana Stream Bridge Load Test Shaft (LTS) ........................................................ 64

N. Kahana Stream Bridge Load Test Tremie (LTT) ..................................................... 66

(6) CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................67

(7) APPENDIX A – IMAGE ANALYSIS PROCEDURE ..........................................69

(8) APPENDIX B – SCC CYLINDER AREA MODEL GRADATION DATA ........75

(9) REFERENCES .......................................................................................................91

x

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. VSI Classifications ............................................................................................... 4

Table 2. SCC Mix Design ................................................................................................... 8

Table 3. Sieve Size Bins used in Gradation Models ......................................................... 19

Table 4. Sum of Differences in Gradation Weights .......................................................... 22

Table 5. 09/25/2009 Test Mix SRI and PA Ratios ........................................................... 30


Table 7. 01/13/2010 Trial Pour SRI and PA Ratios.......................................................... 36


Table 9. TS Pour Results .................................................................................................. 43

Table 10. LTS Pour Results .............................................................................................. 46

Table 11. LTT Pour Results .............................................................................................. 50

Table 12. Section Scan PA Average and Standard Deviations, 01/13/10 ........................ 58

xi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Modified 8-22 Gradation Diagram ...................................................................... 5

Figure 2. Slump Flow and J-Ring Tests, 1/13/2010 Trial Pour .......................................... 9

Figure 3. Water Trough ..................................................................................................... 11

Figure 4. Gray Value Distribution, AMm3_092509_1_BWP (left-right, 0-255) ............. 12

Figure 5. Image Filtering Progression (32-bit, 8-bit) ........................................................ 13

Figure 6. Image Filtering Progression (binary, identified particles) ................................. 14

Figure 7. Percentage of Instances of Maximum Scanner Error per Sieve Size ................ 15

Figure 8. Area Gradation Model Example ........................................................................ 16

Figure 9. Feret’s Diameter Model Example ..................................................................... 17

Figure 10. Rectangular Prism Model Example ................................................................. 18

Figure 11. Elliptical Prism Model Example ..................................................................... 19

Figure 12. Gradation, AMm3_092509_3_BWUP ............................................................ 20

Figure 13. Percent Passing Differences per Sieve Size, Top to Bottom, AMm3_092509_1

................................................................................................................................... 22

Figure 14. AMm3_092509_1 Polished and Unpolished Threshold Images ..................... 23

Figure 15. Polished vs. Unpolished Gradations, AMm3_092509_1 ................................ 24

Figure 16. Polished vs. Unpolished Gradations, AMm3_092509_2 ................................ 25

Figure 17. Sum of Difference between Measured and Area-Based Gradations, Polished

and Unpolished .......................................................................................................... 26

Figure 18. Gradation, AMm3_092509_1 (SRI =0.12, PA =1.15) .................................... 30


Figure 20. Percent Difference per Sieve Size, Amm3_092509_1 .................................... 32

xii

Figure 21. Percent Difference per Sieve Size, Amm3_092509_2 .................................... 32



Figure 24. Gradation, AMm3_011310_13 (SRI =0.10, PA =0.96) .................................. 37






Figure 30. Gradation, TS_5 (SF =19.5, PA =0.93) ........................................................... 44

Figure 31. Gradation, TS_5* (SF =19.75, PA =1.02) ....................................................... 44

Figure 32. Gradation, LTS_4 (SF =27, PA =1.01) ........................................................... 47

Figure 33. Gradation, LTS_4* (SF =26, PA =0.94) ......................................................... 47

Figure 34. Gradation, LTS_5 (SF =27.5, PA =1.08) ........................................................ 48

Figure 35. Gradation, LTS_5** (SF =26.5, PA =0.91) .................................................... 48

Figure 36. Gradation, LTS_7 (SF =26.75, PA =1.08) ...................................................... 49

Figure 37. Gradation, LTS_7* (SF =25, PA =0.89) ......................................................... 49

Figure 38. Gradation, LTT_4 (SF =14.75, PA =0.98) ...................................................... 51

Figure 39. Gradation, LTT_14 (SF =17, PA =0.93) ......................................................... 52

Figure 40. Gradation, LTT_15 (SF =18.25, PA =1.02) .................................................... 52

Figure 41. SRI vs. PA Ratio, 09/25/2009 ......................................................................... 55


Figure 43. 09/25/09 Mix vs. 12/11/09 Mix ....................................................................... 57

xiii



Figure 46. SRI vs. Paste and Fines Ratio, 02/24/2010...................................................... 61

Figure 47. PA Ratios, Trial Shaft ...................................................................................... 62

Figure 48. Slump Flow vs. PA Ratio, Trial Shaft ............................................................. 63

Figure 49. PA Ratios, Load Test Shaft ............................................................................. 64

Figure 50. Slump Flow vs. PA Ratio, Load Test Shaft ..................................................... 65

Figure 51. PA Ratios, LTT Shaft Pour ............................................................................. 66

1

(1) OBJECTIVE

Design of self-consolidating concrete (SCC) is typically achieved by use of a cement and

fines content greater than regular concrete, and admixtures that increase flowability.

Some advantages of using SCC over regular concrete are higher passing ability, and the

ability to consolidate without the need for mechanical vibration. The higher cement

content results in a higher SCC unit cost than regular concrete. SCC remains a viable

option because of less required labor and an improved finish. Potential drawbacks to

using SCC include risk of segregation and batch variability. An increased risk of

segregation of the coarse aggregate from the mixture prior to setting can lead to

variability in concrete strength. A tighter control of the moisture content of aggregates

and admixtures is required to prevent batch variability. Conventionally, segregation is

measured using small samples of fresh, plastic concrete. There is a need to determine if

these measurements translate into segregation in full-scale, hardened concrete, structural

elements. Being able to quantify segregation in hardened concrete samples has legal

benefits, which would support or refute a current process which is based on speculation.

A sample of self-consolidating concrete which has segregated during placement should

be visibly different on the top and bottom upon hardening. The coarse aggregate

separates from the concrete paste in a segregating sample of SCC. Segregating concrete

will collect more coarse aggregate at the bottom of the sample due to gravitational force.

The amount of aggregate visible in sections at differing heights should determine whether

or not the sample was segregating at the time of casting.

2

The objective of this research is to quantify this difference of visible coarse aggregate in

sections at differing heights, in an SCC sample. This may be determined through image

analysis, and is refuted or validated by comparing with current fresh concrete segregation

test results. An attempt was made to develop an easily testable, single valued segregation

indicator that is obtained through image analysis. The scope of this report involves

application of the segregation image analysis procedure to multiple batches of an SCC

mix proposed for use in the drilled shafts of the North Kahana Stream Bridge

construction project. Drilled shaft construction often occurs at depths that are difficult to

manually consolidate. A self-consolidating concrete mix that is stable and able to flow

freely through the reinforcing cage is beneficial for application in this industry. The

performance of these test shafts and lab mix results are used to determine whether the

proposed SCC mix is viable for use in the drilled shafts for the replacement of the North

Kahana Stream Bridge.

3

(2) LITERATURE REVIEW

Self-consolidating concrete, also known as self-compacting concrete, must have three

properties: filling ability, resistance to segregation, and passing ability (McBride &

Mukai, 2006). Stability refers to the mix’s ability to resist segregation. Segregation is the

settlement of coarse aggregate particles in an undisturbed mass of fresh concrete (Mayer

et al, 2007). Conventional measurements of segregation involve field tests on fresh

concrete. The intent of this study is to develop a method for evaluating segregation in

hardened concrete samples, and validate the results with standard field tests of fresh

concrete.

Current segregation tests on fresh concrete include the sieve segregation test, segregation

column, and visual stability index tests. Standard tests performed on fresh SCC include

slump flow, J-ring, and L-box tests. The sieve segregation test is outlined in EPG 2005,

and in the procedures section of this report. The segregation column, slump flow, j-ring,

and VSI tests are described in the ASTM standards C 1610/C1610M – 06a. The

segregation column test was not used in this study because of difficulty in performing this

test in the field. The visual stability index is a simple visual inspection of a fresh SCC

sample after the slump flow test has been conducted. Table 1 shows the visual criteria

which are used to describe a fresh concrete sample after the slump flow test has been

administered, which is found in ASTM Standard C 1611.

4

Table 1. VSI Classifications VSI Value Criteria

0 = Highly Stable

No evidence of segregation or bleeding

1 = Stable No evidence of segregation and slight bleeding observed as a sheen on the concrete mass

2 = Unstable A slight mortar halo ≤ 0.5 in. (≤ 10 mm) and/or aggregate pile in the center of the concrete mass

3 = Highly Unstable

Clearly segregating by evidence of a large mortar halo > 0.5 in. (>10 mm) and/or a large aggregate pile in the center of the concrete mass

There is currently no standard technique to evaluate segregation in hardened concrete.

Such a method would be useful to confirm the fresh concrete tests, or to evaluate

segregation when fresh concrete tests were not performed. The main objective of this

study is to develop an image analysis technique for segregation analysis. A challenge in

identifying segregation in hardened concrete using image analysis is that data are only

available in two-dimensions. Concepts within the field of stereology relate two-

dimensional aggregate cross-section data to the volumetric and weight-based data of that

aggregate. Stereology is defined as the spatial interpretation of sections (Baddeley &

Vedel Jensen, 2005). At the beginning of this image analysis exercise, we assumed that

two principles within Stereology were valid for our goals: Delesse’s Principle and

Cavalieri’s Principle. Delesse’s Principle states that a mineral’s percentage of volume in

solid rock equals its percentage of area in plane sections (Baddeley & Vedel Jensen,

2005). We assume this also applies to aggregate in a concrete mixture, meaning the

percentage of aggregate area in a cross-section is equal to the percentage of aggregate

volume in the concrete sample. We assume that Cavalieri’s Principle is also useful in this

study, which indicates that the aggregate area distribution in a cross-section is equal to

5

the aggregate volume distribution in that volume of concrete (Baddeley & Vedel Jensen,

2005). The results of this study helped support whether or not these stereological

applications to concrete image analysis are valid, and recommendations for further study

using these and similar applications.

This report is part of an overall objective investigating the behavior of self-consolidating

concrete for drilled shaft construction in the N. Kahana Stream Bridge replacement

project. Other research topics have included investigating the effects of gradation on SCC

mix design (Aihara 2008), and developing SCC for implementation specifically for

drilled shaft construction (Ishisaka 2007). Figure 1 shows the 8-22 chart for concrete mix

gradation. A well graded mix is defined as having a percent retained between the lower

and upper bounds shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Modified 8-22 Gradation Diagram

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

200 100 50 30 16 8 4 3/8" 1/2" 3/4" 1" 1 1/2"

2"

% Retained

Sieve Size

Measured SCCWell Graded UpperWell Graded Lower

6

There is a larger amount of fine aggregate present in this SCC mix than is present in

standard concrete mixes. This increase in fines increases the stability of the mix (Aihara

2008). The Modified 8-22 chart is designed to show the range of well graded mixes with

a maximum aggregate size of 1” or ¾”. The measured SCC mix used in this report has a

maximum aggregate size of 3/8”, and is shown in Figure 1 against the 8-22 well graded

range. This SCC mix is out of the acceptable range for a well graded mix in the large

aggregate range, but is acceptable in the No. 50-4 sieve size range. The most notable

information in Figure 1 is that the percent retained for Nos. 50 – 4 sieves meets the

standard for a well-graded mix, which promotes a stable mix (Aihara 2008). While this

mix does not meet the criteria to be a well graded mix, the maximum aggregate size is

3/8” as opposed to ¾-1” as specified for the 8-22 chart. Stability is then more likely in

this case because the smaller coarse aggregate particles have smaller cross-sectional

areas, which inhibit flow of the mix paste less than if the aggregate were larger. In

addition, the smaller aggregate particles are less likely to settle under gravity than larger

particles.

7

(3) PROCEDURE AND IMPLEMENTATION

The SCC mixtures were analyzed, prior to placement in cylinders, for segregation using

standard fresh concrete test methods and a sieve segregation test variation. Standard

6”x12” or 4”x8” SCC cylinders were made using SCC mixed in the structures lab, taken

during a trial placement of Ameron SCC delivered by ready-mix truck at UH, and taken

on-site during pours of Ameron SCC in test-piles for the North Kahana Stream Bridge

construction project. Cylinders made in the lab were made from multiple batches of the

Ameron SCC mix design with the intent of obtaining various levels of segregation. This

was done by altering the amounts of water and admixtures. Primary data were found and

analyzed on these cylinders to determine a correlation between the proposed image

analysis procedure and identified mix segregation based on the modified sieve

segregation test.

The general sample preparation and image analysis procedure followed these steps: (1)

An SCC mix was prepared or obtained from a ready-mix truck, (2) fresh concrete

segregation tests were performed at the time of casting cylinders, (3) the concrete was

allowed to set and cure for at least 24 hours, (4) cylinders were cut 1” and 1/2” from both

ends, for 6” diameter and 4” diameter cylinders, respectively, (5) images were captured

by scanning these two sections of each concrete cylinder, (6) data from the images were

captured using ImageJ particle analysis software, (7) the ImageJ data was used as input

to calculate gradations using different particle models, (8) these calculated gradations

were compared with actual gradation curves based on previously acquired segregation

8

tests, (9) parameters which may indicate that segregation exists were developed. Based

on these analyses, a method was developed to indicate presence of segregation in fresh

concrete given a hardened sample.

Concrete Samples

The proposed mix design for use in the trial drilled shafts at the N. Kahana Stream Bridge

was created in the structures lab to produce cylinders for use in this segregation test

process. The mix design given in Table 2 was used in scaled down quantities when

making batches for analysis purposes. Fresh samples of concrete were cast at different

times after batching, at the same time that sieve segregation tests were performed.

Table 2. SCC Mix Design

Weight

(lbs) Cement I/II 799 Water 358 W/C Ratio 0.45 Kapaa Basalt Sand 1272 Maui Dune Sand 305 Kapaa Chips (3/8") 1200

Admixtures Vol (oz/cwt)

Pozzolith 220N 3 Pozzolith 100XR 1-3 Glenium NS 8-10 VMA 4

Fresh Concrete Tests

Standard fresh concrete segregation tests were implemented throughout the process as a

way to correlate current segregation tests with the proposed image analysis method.

9

These tests included slump flow, T-50, J-ring, and a modified sieve segregation test. The

slump flow, T-50, and J-ring tests are described in ASTM C 1610/C1610M – 06a. Figure

2 shows standard slump flow and J-ring tests performed during the 1/13/2010 trial pour.

Figure 2. Slump Flow and J-Ring Tests, 1/13/2010 Trial Pour

Segregation Resistance Test

A sieve segregation method was used, which was based on the European Sieve

Segregation test outlined in The european guidelines for self-compacting concrete (EPG

2005). Ten liters (2.6 gal.) of fresh concrete were placed into a bucket and allowed to

stand for 15 minutes. Five kg (11 lbs.) of the sample were then poured from a height of

500 mm (20 in.) onto a # 5 sieve, which is sitting on a scale. The sample was allowed to

sit for 2 minutes before weighing the amount of fresh concrete passing through the No. 5

10

sieve. A sieve segregation index (SSI) is specified as the weight of material retained on

the # 5 sieve divided by the total weight of the sample poured onto the sieve and captured

in the pan below the sieve. This test method is described in the European sieve

segregation resistance test specified in the European Guideline for SCC (EPG 2005).

According to this guideline, the SSI as calculated above would satisfy their least stringent

segregation resistance category SR1 if SSI > 0.80. A segregation resistance index (SRI)

was used to calibrate the image analysis segregation method. The SRI was defined as the

weight of concrete passing the No. 5 sieve over the total weight of concrete dropped onto

the sieve. An acceptable segregation resistance index value is below 0.2.

Cylinder Preparation

When significant segregation is present, a higher number of large aggregate should be

visible in a cross-section located near the bottom of a concrete cylinder than in the top.

The maximum aggregate size for the cylinders discussed here was 3/8” and 3/4” for 4”

and 6” diameter cylinders, respectively. Cross-sections of each cylinder were cut with a

wet saw at ½” from each end for 4” cylinders and 1” from each end for 6” cylinders, to

ensure that the largest aggregate could be present within the plane of the image captured.

The surfaces were placed on a scanner to capture images. Images were captured in this

manner and not by camera in an attempt to limit image distortion. Section images used in

the following analysis were scanned at 300 dpi. The cross-section surfaces were scanned

while wet. The aggregate identification process in ImageJ is based on color differences

between the aggregate and paste. This distribution of colors was augmented by scanning

11

the sections while wet. This was achieved by scanning the cylinder in a water trough

made with a transparency and lines of silicone, shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Water Trough

The sections were scanned both with the surface unpolished, and polished with a lapping

machine. Each image was cropped such that the image edges were tangent to the cylinder

edges, to decrease the file size. The image dimensions were then used as a scale

conversion from pixels to inches, based on the known cylinder diameter.

Optimal Image Resolution

Cross-sections were scanned at 1200, 600, 300, and 150 dpi to determine the optimal

resolution for this image analysis. Factors considered when determining optimal

resolution for this process were file size, analysis run time, and difference in results

between the highest resolution (1200 dpi) and lower resolutions. 300 dpi images were

used for the duration of this research project because they produced results within 4% of

the 1200 dpi images, with file size being smaller and analysis run time being faster.

12

ImageJ Image Analysis Program

The section images were filtered using the program ImageJ, a freeware image analysis

program that identifies aggregate particles in an image and outputs data based on those

particles. The initial 32-bit image was converted to an 8-bit grayscale image. This

assigned each pixel a single value between 0-255, indicating the grayscale color of that

pixel. A value of zero corresponds to black and a value of 255 corresponds to white on

the scale of gray values. The image was then converted to a binary image by setting a

grayscale threshold value, each pixel set to either 1 for identified aggregate particles or 0

for paste, unidentified aggregate, and image background. Figure 4 shows an example of a

typical distribution of gray values. The thresholding value can be adjusted to a convenient

value within the distribution of gray values during the process.

Figure 4. Gray Value Distribution, AMm3_092509_1_BWP (left-right, 0-255)

Notice in Figure 4 that there are three distinct peaks; the far left peak representing

identified aggregate particles, the middle peak being paste and the far right peak

representing the light background color in the corners of the image. Aggregate was

identified consistently with the grayscale filter accepting gray values between 0 and 70 ±

10.

Figures 5 and 6 show the progression of image filtering, from original 32-bit image to

identified aggregate particles. The binary image in Figure 6 was analyzed in the “Analyze

13

Particles” function in ImageJ, which identifies individual aggregate cross-sections and

outputs data relating to these aggregate particles. The output data included the following

information about each individual particle:

- Area - Maximum particle diameter and orientation (Feret’s diameter) - Bounding rectangle dimensions - Best-fit ellipse dimensions and orientations

These data fields were used to plot four aggregate gradation curves, which were then

compared to actual mix proportion data.

Figure 5. Image Filtering Progression (32-bit, 8-bit)

14

Figure 6. Image Filtering Progression (binary, identified particles)

Each identified particle is numbered, so that output data can be compared to the outlined

image to find data about each individual particle. Some aggregate particles were not

identified as such because of a lighter color than the paste, or incorrectly lumping two

adjacent particles as one. While not perfect, the particles identified produced a similar

gradation curve to the actual mix proportions. A detailed description of the image

analysis method is given in Appendix A, which goes through the steps needed to get the

results from the scanned image, using ImageJ and Microsoft Excel.

Inherent Scanner Error

The inherent error in the scanning process was investigated by scanning cylinder cross-

sections at four different locations on the scanner surface. The entire analysis process was

done on each of the four different scans. The resulting gradation curves of these four

different scans of the same cross-section were compared to determine the error present in

the scanning process. Values were compared for each passing sieve size of two cross-

sections each of three cylinders. The maximum error for each sieve size was found as the

15

difference between the largest and smallest passing percentage for each sieve size,

between the four scans for that given cross-section. Figure 7 shows the distribution of

percentage of error per sieve size of all six scanned surfaces.

Figure 7. Percentage of Instances of Maximum Scanner Error per Sieve Size

Every instance of error for sieve Nos. 200-50 was zero. When only including sieve sizes

between No. 30 – 3/4”, the average scanner error is 3%. When interpreting data from this

image analysis, it was assumed that the error due to the scanner for gradation curve data

points was ± 3% passing.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20%

Percentage of Instan

ces of Error (%

)

Maximum Percent Error

16

Particle Approximation Models

Four different particle approximation models were used to create gradation curves from

the ImageJ output data: (1) an area based model, (2) a Feret’s diameter based model, (3) a

bounding rectangle based model, and (4) an ellipse based model.

The area-based gradation compared individual aggregate cross-sectional areas to sieve

passing sizes. The area of each individual particle was compared to each sieve passing

area to place particles in appropriate passing size bins. The areas of particles in each sieve

passing bin were summed and divided by the total particle area to get the area gradation.

Figure 8 shows the area of a single particle compared to the equivalent or larger passing

sieve size.

Figure 8. Area Gradation Model Example

17

The Feret’s diameter model, or maximum diameter model, placed particles into

appropriate sieve passing bins by comparing the particle’s maximum diameter to each

linear passing sieve size, as shown in Figure 9. The areas of the particles were then

summed based on the Feret’s diameter bin placement, and divided by the total particle

area to obtain the Feret’s diameter gradation.

Figure 9. Feret’s Diameter Model Example

The bounding rectangle model approximated the particles cross-section with a rectangle,

and placed particles in appropriate sieve passing bins based on the Feret’s diameter. The

primary rectangle axes are aligned with the principal image axes for each aggregate, as

shown in Figure 10. The rectangular area was extruded linearly in the out-of-plane

direction an average of the two rectangle dimensions, to approximate particle volume as a

rectangular prism. It should be noted that the volume of the bounding rectangle particle

model is greater than what the aggregate volume appears to be due to the model being

18

based on maximum dimensions in the x and y directions. The aggregate specific gravity

was used to convert this to a weight-based gradation model.

Figure 10. Rectangular Prism Model Example

The ellipse particle model was created similar to the bounding rectangle, placed in

appropriate bins by the Feret’s diameter, with major and minor axis dimensions given as

output from ImageJ. The particle ellipse was then created with the major axis parallel to

the Feret’s diameter, with the ellipse equal in area to the observed particle, shown in

Figure 11. The planar ellipse area was extruded linearly out-of-plane an average of the

two major and minor axis lengths, to create an elliptical prism aggregate particle volume.

Aggregate specific gravity was also used to convert this to a weight-based model. The

elliptical prism model was based on an aggregate shape approximation method in the

article Hawai’i Superpave Demonstration Project (Brandes & Hirata, 2004). A particle

model was initially created which rotates the two-dimensional ellipse to create an

19

ellipsoid in addition to the elliptical prism model described. These two ellipse-based

models produced equal gradation curves, only differing by a constant factor. Only the

elliptical prism model was included throughout the rest of this project due to the identical

results of the two models.

Figure 11. Elliptical Prism Model Example

Sieve sizes that were used as bins for gradation curves are shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Sieve Size Bins used in Gradation Models

Sieve Number

Opening Size (mm)

Opening Size (in)

200 0.075 0.003 100 0.150 0.006 50 0.300 0.012 30 0.600 0.024 16 1.180 0.046 8 2.360 0.093 4 4.750 0.187

3/8" 9.525 0.375 1/2" 12.7 0.500 3/4" 19.05 0.750

20

Potential Segregation Indicators

A single index or value is desirable to determine if significant segregation has occurred.

Other data fields were collected in the analysis process in order to determine the best

correlation between the image analysis process and standard fresh concrete segregation

tests, including the coarse-fine ratio, and weighted summed percent differences per sieve

size gradations. Figure 12 shows the observed vs. measured gradations of one mixture,

including all particle approximation models.

Figure 12. Gradation, AMm3_092509_3_BWUP

The area-based particle approximation model proved to be the most accurate particle

model when compared to the measured gradation of this mix. The area based model, both

measured gradations, and the average observed gradation line are provided for all SCC

sections provided in the Results section. The total aggregate gradation was provided

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

200 100 50 30 16 8 4 3/8" 1/2" 3/4"

Passing %

Sieve Number

Area Based GradationF. Dia. Based GradationBounding Rectangle, Weight BasedEllipsoid2, Weight BasedMeasured AMm3 Coarse agg onlyMeasured AMm3 Total AggAverage Gradation

21

because some fines were observed in the particle approximation process. The average

gradation curve represents an average of every SCC concrete section analyzed for this

report, top and bottom scans. This was shown to be able to compare the observed

gradation model in question to the average observed gradation.

The remaining area of a cross-section not defined as aggregate was divided by the total

area of the cylinder cross-section, and was defined as the observed “paste” content.

Furthermore, a paste ratio segregation index was defined as the ratio of paste content

between the top and bottom sections of each cylinder. A paste-area ratio of greater than

one means more paste is observed in the top section of a cylinder, and therefore more

identified aggregate exists in the bottom cross-section of that cylinder. It should be noted

that while this index was called the observed “paste-area” ratio, the values of this index

should not be considered the actual paste percentage for that given cross-section. This

index counted area of a cross-section not defined as aggregate, which includes paste, air

voids, and unidentified aggregate.

The coarse-fine ratio of identified aggregates was also investigated to determine

correlation between the image analysis and fresh concrete segregation tests. Other data

fields considered include weighted and non-weighted summations of differences in

gradation between individual sieve passing sizes. The difference between each individual

sieve passing gradation of each cylinder, top to bottom, was summed. This was

investigated with different weights on sieve sizes. An example of differences in gradation

22

between the top and bottom of a cylinder which was observed to segregate is shown in

Figure 13.

Figure 13. Percent Passing Differences per Sieve Size, Top to Bottom, AMm3_092509_1

Three primary weighting systems were used, called the rectangle, triangle and wedge

weights. Weights are given to the No. 50 sieve, No. 4 sieve, and ¾” passing sizes, and are

given in Table 4. Weighting factors for sieve sizes between the given sizes were linearly

interpolated. These weights were given to different size aggregate particles to see if any

adjustment to the particle percent differences produced a relationship between this data

field and slump flow or sieve segregation tests.

Table 4. Sum of Differences in Gradation Weights (Rectangle) (Triangle) (Wedge)

α (3/4" passing)= 1.0 1.0 1.0 β (#4 sieve) = 1.0 0.6 1.0 γ (#50 sieve) = 1.0 0.0 0.0

‐10%

‐5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

200 100 50 30 16 8 4 3/8" 1/2" 3/4"

Unpolished

Segregation

Opposite of Segregation

23

These weighting factors yielded results that didn’t correlate with slump flow or sieve

segregation test results. The weighted percent difference of gradations, and observed

coarse-fine ratio were checked throughout the project, but were rejected due to the fact

that no relationships between these fields and fresh concrete tests were observed.

Polished vs. Unpolished Cross-Sections

Sections were scanned and analyzed unpolished and polished to determine the effect of

polishing on the outcome. Unpolished scans were cut with a wet saw, and then cleaned

with a plastic bristle brush and hose. Polished scans were cut with a wet saw, polished

with a cylinder lapping machine for 30 min. per side, and cleaned with a plastic bristle

brush and hose. Figure 14 shows the cross-section AMm3_092509_1_B polished and

unpolished threshold images.

Figure 14. AMm3_092509_1 Polished and Unpolished Threshold Images

24

While polished cross-sections correctly identified more aggregate than unpolished cross-

sections, they also produced less accurate gradation curves. Figures 15 and 16 show the

polished and unpolished gradation curves for AMm3_092509_1 and AMm3_092509_2.

Figure 15. Polished vs. Unpolished Gradations, AMm3_092509_1

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

200 100 50 30 16 8 4 3/8" 1/2" 3/4"

Passing %

Sieve Number

Polished Area, TopPolished Area, BottomUnpolished Area, TopUnpolished Area, BottomMeasured AMm3 Coarse Agg onlyMeasured AMm3 Total Agg

25

Figure 16. Polished vs. Unpolished Gradations, AMm3_092509_2

Neither model correctly identified all aggregate in the cross-sections tested, and

unpolished sections produced more accurate gradation curves than the polished sections,

when compared to the total aggregate measured gradation curve from mix proportions.

This was determined by finding the area between the measured gradation curve for all

aggregate and the area-based gradation model. Figure 17 shows the difference in area

between the measured and area-based gradation curves for 10 polished and unpolished

sections.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

200 100 50 30 16 8 4 3/8" 1/2" 3/4"

Passing %

Sieve Number

Polished Area, TopPolished Area, BottomUnpolished Area, TopUnpolished Area, BottomMeasured AMm3 Coarse Agg onlyMeasured AMm3 Total Agg

26

Figure 17. Sum of Difference between Measured and Area-Based Gradations, Polished

and Unpolished

Unpolished cross-sections consistently produced smaller differences between the

gradation curves, indicating a more accurate representation of the measured gradation.

Using only unpolished sections also eliminated the time-intensive polishing process from

the cross-section preparation procedure. Only unpolished cross-sections were used for the

duration of this research project to increase the accuracy of the resulting gradation

models, and to save time by not polishing every cross-section.

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

Sum of Differences Betw

een M

easured and

Area Gradation

Polished

Unpolished

27

(4) RESULTS

Cylinders used in this analysis had multiple sources, including three test mixes conducted

in the structures lab, one trial pour at UH provided by Ameron, and samples from three

drilled shaft pours at the N. Kahana Stream Bridge construction site. APPENDIX B lists

the cross-sections used in this analysis along with their respective gradation values. The

cross-section naming scheme is meant to describe the source of the cross-section and

method of cross-section preparation. The first field in the cross-section name represents

the mix. The standard mix used in this analysis was named AMm3, followed by the date

the cylinder was cast. The cylinders were numbered as they were cast, which is the third

item in the file name. The final field in the name says whether the scan was at the top or

bottom of the cylinder (T/B), whether the cross-section was scanned wet (W), and

whether the cross-section was scanned polished or unpolished (P/UP). An example cross-

section name is AMm3_092509_1_BWUP, which corresponds to an AMm3 mix cast on

09/25/2009. This particular scan was of the bottom section, scanned wet and unpolished.

Segregation Resistance Index

A data field called the segregation resistance index was calculated given the results of the

sieve segregation test. This index is a measure of segregation by standard fresh concrete

testing, and was used to compare to the results of the image analysis procedure to

determine accuracy of the image analysis. The segregation resistance index is a measure

of the amount of paste passing a No. 5 sieve, effectively separating from the mix

aggregate.

28

Wps = weight of the pan and concrete passing through No. 5 sieve Wpan = weight of pan Wpss = weight of pan, sieve, and total concrete sample Wpan+sieve = weight of pan and No. 5 sieve

An acceptable level for the sieve segregation index detailed in EPG 2005 is

greater than or equal to 0.8, meaning that the mix is acceptable assuming that 80% of the

total weight of concrete does not pass through the No. 5 sieve. Using this same standard

and applying it to the sieve resistance index, an acceptable sieve resistance index would

be less than or equal to 0.2. This means that a fresh concrete mix is acceptable assuming

that less than 20% of the concrete sample by weight passes a No. 5 sieve during the sieve

segregation test. The sieve resistance index (SRI) was the primary data field compared to

the image analysis results to determine accuracy, and to calibrate the image analysis.

Paste-Area Ratio

Various data fields were investigated to find a relation between the SRI results and image

analysis results. The paste-area ratio (PA Ratio) was found by calculating the observed

paste percentage of each cross-section. This was found by summing the area of all

observed aggregate and subtracting that value from the total area of the cross-section. The

paste-area ratio was the ratio, from top to bottom, of these paste percentages in a given

cylinder.

%

%

29

A PA ratio greater than one means the paste percentage is higher in the top cross-section,

meaning that less aggregate is observed in the top cross-section and potential segregation

exists. A PA ratio less than one means that less paste is observed in the top section,

meaning more aggregate is present in the top cross-section and the opposite of

segregation is present.

Gradation Curves

The gradations calculated from models, created from observed ImageJ data, were

compared with the actual weight-based gradation determined from the mix proportions.

Two actual gradation curves are shown on each plot, one showing the gradation of only

coarse aggregate, and the other showing the gradation of all present aggregate, coarse and

fine. Since the image analysis process observes aggregate on the entire spectrum of

passing sizes, some fine aggregate are included in the model gradations. Observed

gradations from the top and bottom of each cylinder are provided on a single figure, and

small differences between the two indicate a non-segregating sample.

30

09/25/2009 Test Mix

Table 5 shows the recorded segregation resistance index values for all cylinders made

during the 09/25/2009 test mix.

Table 5. 09/25/2009 Test Mix SRI and PA Ratios

Cylinder Segregation

Resistance Index (SRI)

Paste-Area Ratio (PA)

AMm3_092509_1 0.119 1.15 AMm3_092509_2 0.034 0.95 AMm3_092509_3 0.019 0.89 AMm3_092509_4 0.034 0.97 AMm3_092509_5 0.045 1.02

All SRI values were within the acceptable range, with only cylinder 1 being close to the

threshold. Figures 18-19 show the gradation curves for the measured mix and area based

gradation models for cylinders one and two cast during this test mix.

Figure 18. Gradation, AMm3_092509_1 (SRI =0.12, PA =1.15)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

200 100 50 30 16 8 4 3/8" 1/2" 3/4"

Passing %

Sieve Number

Avg. Area Based Gradation, TopAvg. Area Based Gradation, BottomMeasured AMm3 Coarse Agg onlyMeasured AMm3 Total AggAverage Gradation

31


Cylinder AMm3_092509_2 in this test mix represented an average stability, shown in

Figure 19. Small differences between the top and bottom cross-sections exist, but are

within the margin of error. Figure 18 shows significant differences between top and

bottom observed gradations of AMm3_092509_1. As seen in Figures 18-19, sometimes

the area particle model produced gradation values larger than the measured total

aggregate gradation. This was due to slight edge imperfections in the aggregate

identification process. The difference between each sieve passing size, from top to

bottom of the cylinder, is called the percent difference per sieve size. Figures 20-21 show

the percent differences per sieve size of cylinders 1 and 2.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

200 100 50 30 16 8 4 3/8" 1/2" 3/4"

Passing %

Sieve Number


32

Figure 20. Percent Difference per Sieve Size, Amm3_092509_1

Figure 21. Percent Difference per Sieve Size, Amm3_092509_2

‐10%

‐5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

200 100 50 30 16 8 4 3/8" 1/2" 3/4"

Unpolished

Segregation


‐10%

‐5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

200 100 50 30 16 8 4 3/8" 1/2" 3/4"

Unpolished

Segregation


33

Differences between top and bottom gradation curve models should be interpreted

knowing that an amount of error exists in the image analysis process. Using a 300 dpi

image, and including scanner error, a margin of error of 7%, or ± 3.5%, is within the

acceptable range. Figure 20 shows significant differences between the top and bottom

passing percentages in the range of No. 16 – No. 4 sieve sizes. The differences in Figure

21 were much lower, with a maximum difference of about 5% at the No. 4 sieve size.

Gradation data for the remaining cylinder cross-sections is provided in APPENDIX B.

12/11/2009 Test Mix

Table 6 shows the recorded segregation resistance index values for cylinders made during

the 12/11/2009 test mix.





AMm3_121109_1 0.021 0.98 AMm3_121109_2 0.841 1.27 AMm3_121109_3 0.099 0.94 AMm3_121109_4 0.117 0.96 AMm3_121109_5 0.028 0.97 AMm3_121109_6 0.012 1.01 AMm3_121109_7 0.003 1.11 AMm3_121109_8 0.001 0.89 AMm3_121109_9 0.186 0.94 AMm3_121109_10 0.077 0.94 AMm3_121109_11 0.056 0.95 AMm3_121109_12 0.002 1.03

It was attempted during this mix to get a variety of different levels of segregation. This

was attempted by adding twice the level of Glenium admixture proposed in the mix

34

proportions before casting the second cylinder. A large variety of SRI levels is shown in

Table 6, which was expected based on the admixture dosage. Only cylinder 2 in this

batch exceeded the 0.2 standard for segregation resistance. Figures 22-23 show the

gradation curves for the top and bottom sections of cylinder 1 and 2 from batch

12/11/2009.


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

200 100 50 30 16 8 4 3/8" 1/2" 3/4"

Passing %

Sieve Number


35


Figure 22 describes the expected behavior of a stable mix, with only slight differences

between top and bottom cross-sections. Figure 23 shows a large difference in observed

gradation between top and bottom of cylinder 2, especially in the No.16 – No. 4 sieve

range. This corresponds with the very high SRI value in Table 6. The remaining

gradation results from the 12/11/2009 trial mix are provided in APPENDIX B.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

200 100 50 30 16 8 4 3/8" 1/2" 3/4"

Passing %

Sieve Number


36

01/13/2010 Trial Pour

Table 7 shows the SRI values for cylinders cast during the 01/13/2010 trial pour.

Table 7. 01/13/2010 Trial Pour SRI and PA Ratios




20100113_1 0.13 0.92 20100113_3 0.12 0.81 20100113_5 0.13 1.07 20100113_7 0.09 0.98 20100113_9 0.07 0.87 20100113_13 0.10 0.96 20100113_15 0.11 1.00

SRI values in Table 7 show a higher average than those of previous test mixes, while

remaining within the acceptable range. Figures 24-25 show the gradation curves for

cylinders AMm3_011310_13 and 15 from the trial pour on 01/13/2010. For each cut

beginning with this batch, both sections resulting from each cut were scanned and

averaged to get the top and bottom gradation curves. The spacing of these cross-sections

is the thickness of the saw blade, 1/8”.

37



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

200 100 50 30 16 8 4 3/8" 1/2" 3/4"

Passing %

Sieve Number


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

200 100 50 30 16 8 4 3/8" 1/2" 3/4"

Passing %

Sieve Number


38

Extra water was added to the mix before cylinder 13 was cast because it did not meet the

slump flow spread specification. Both cylinders showed similar gradations at the top and

bottom of the cylinder, indicating no segregation was observed by the gradation curves.

The remaining gradation values from the 01/13/2010 trial pour are provided in

APPENDIX B.

02/24/2010 Test Mix

Since the 12/11/2009 and 1/13/2010 test mixes yielded a different relationship than the

09/25/2009 mix between the segregation resistance index and the paste-area ratio, it was

attempted to create another test mix that showed a repeated similar relationship to one of

the previous mixes. This was done by attempting to get a good variation of segregation

samples by only changing the water amount, and by leaving the superplasticizer dosage

as described in the mix specifications. The water amount added to this mix was adjusted

by taking into account the actual surface moisture on the coarse and fine aggregates. This

measured surface moisture was subtracted from the water added to the mix to better

control the amount of moisture in the mix. Segregation resistance index values for

samples taken during the 2/24 test mix are provided in Table 8.

39


Cylinder Segregation Resistance Index (SRI)


20100224_1 0.106 0.97

20100224_2 0.032 1.03

20100224_3 0.030 0.98

20100224_4 0.061 1.07

20100224_5 0.227 0.98

20100224_6 0.002 0.97

20100224_7 0.028 0.97

20100224_8 0.033 1.02

20100224_9 0.087 0.92

20100224_10 0.113 1.05

20100224_11 0.181 0.98

20100224_12 0.321 0.94

20100224_13 0.219 0.98

This test mix was conducted over two days with two identical mixes, on 2/24 and 2/25.

Cylinders 1-5 were made during the 2/24 pour, and cylinders 6-13 were made during the

2/25 pour, with cylinder 6 being made from the butter batch of the second pour. Observed

area-based gradations are given in APPENDIX B, and all closely resembled previous

gradation models. Notably segregating samples from this mix based in SRI included

cylinders 5, 12, and 13. Each of these samples passed more than 20% of the sample

weight through a sieve during the sieve segregation test. The gradation of cylinder 2 is

also provided, which showed no segregation. Figures 26-29 show the observed gradations

of cylinders 2, 5, 12, and 13.

40



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

200 100 50 30 16 8 4 3/8" 1/2" 3/4"

Passing %

Sieve Number


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

200 100 50 30 16 8 4 3/8" 1/2" 3/4"

Passing %

Sieve Number


41



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

200 100 50 30 16 8 4 3/8" 1/2" 3/4"

Passing %

Sieve Number


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

200 100 50 30 16 8 4 3/8" 1/2" 3/4"

Passing %

Sieve Number


42

These four samples showed only small changes in gradation between the top and bottom

of their respective cylinders. Each cylinder also showed similar behavior to the average

observed gradations of this SCC mix. Cylinder 2 resisted segregation based on the SRI

test, while cylinders 5, 12, and 13 segregated beyond the allowable limit based on SRI.

N. Kahana Stream Bridge Trial Shaft (TS)

Data was collected during three test shaft pours on the N. Kahana Stream Bridge

replacement project. The trial shaft (TS) and load test shaft (LTS) were both cast using

the proposed SCC mixture. The performance of these shafts was compared to the third

shaft, which was cast using a standard concrete tremie mix. The concrete slump flow was

tested from each truck before being pumped into the shaft. If the slump flow of the mix

was not high enough to meet specification, water was added to the truck and the mix was

retested. Conversely, if the mix was beyond the maximum allowable spread for slump

flow, the trucks were allowed to sit for an amount of time until the mix was within the

allowable slump flow spreads. Allowable slump flow spreads for this SCC mix were 23”

± 3”.

43

Table 9 shows the slump flow values recorded during the TS pour.

Table 9. TS Pour Results

Cylinder Avg PA

Ratio Slump Flow

TS_1 0.97 21.5 TS_4 1.02 19.5 TS_5 0.93 19.5 TS_5* 1.02 19.75 TS_7 0.99 20 TS_8 1.07 19.5 TS_10 0.99 19 TS_10* 1.01 20 TS_11* 1.05 22 TS_13 1.13 20.25

TS_13+ 0.99 20.25

Samples marked with an asterisk for this concrete pour were taken from delivery trucks

that had water added on site to satisfy the acceptable slump flow range. Sieve segregation

tests were not done due to time constraints during the shaft pour. TS_5 was below the

allowable slump flow for this mix, so water was added on-site to increase the ability to

flow. Figures 30-31 show the gradation results of TS_5 and TS_5*, concrete from the

same truck before and after water was added.

44

Figure 30. Gradation, TS_5 (SF =19.5, PA =0.93)

Figure 31. Gradation, TS_5* (SF =19.75, PA =1.02)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

200 100 50 30 16 8 4 3/8" 1/2" 3/4"

Passing %

Sieve Number


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

200 100 50 30 16 8 4 3/8" 1/2" 3/4"

Passing %

Sieve Number


45

TS_5 and TS_5* both showed only slight differences between top and bottom sections.

This indicated that water added to increase the slump flow spread did not significantly

change the observed stability of the mix based on observed gradation results.

N. Kahana Stream Bridge Load Test Shaft (LTS)

The truck mixes for the Load Test Shaft (LTS) consistently came in close to the

maximum allowable slump flow for this mix. This was partially due to large amount of

rain that occurred during the pour. This mix was also more closely tested at the batch

plant, to ensure the mix would meet specifications. Some trucks arrived with mixes that

exceeded the maximum allowable slump flow. In this case, the truck was allowed to sit

until the slump flow was within the acceptable range. Table 10 shows the results of the

LTS mix tests.

46

Table 10. LTS Pour Results

Cylinder PA Ratio Slump Flow

SRI

LTS_1 0.95 24.25 - LTS_2 1.02 24 - LTS_3 0.96 26.5 - LTS_4 1.01 27 - LTS_4* 0.94 26 - LTS_5 1.08 27.5 - LTS_5* 0.95 28 - LTS_5** 0.91 26.5 - LTS_6 0.96 26.5 - LTS_7 1.08 26.75 - LTS_7* 0.89 25 0.162 LTS_8 0.97 24.25 0.079 LTS_9 0.89 23.25 - LTS_10 0.98 22.75 - LTS_11 0.91 25.25 - LTS_12 1.06 27.75 0.162 LTS_13 0.97 24.5 - LTS_14 0.89 21.5 - LTS_15 0.96 22.5 -

Samples marked with an asterisk were from trucks that were allowed to sit until their

concrete batch was within the acceptable slump flow range. Notable gradations are

shown in Figures 32-37, which represent cylinders 4, 4*, 5, 5**, 7, and 7*. Samples

marked with an asterisk are representative of the same concrete truck, except having been

allowed to sit for a certain amount of time for the concrete to thicken to within slump

flow specifications. For example, cylinder LTS_4* was taken from same the truck as

LTS_4, with the only difference being LTS_4* was taken after the mix was allowed to

thicken.

47

Figure 32. Gradation, LTS_4 (SF =27, PA =1.01)

Figure 33. Gradation, LTS_4* (SF =26, PA =0.94)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

200 100 50 30 16 8 4 3/8" 1/2" 3/4"

Passing %

Sieve Number


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

200 100 50 30 16 8 4 3/8" 1/2" 3/4"

Passing %

Sieve Number


48

Figure 34. Gradation, LTS_5 (SF =27.5, PA =1.08)

Figure 35. Gradation, LTS_5** (SF =26.5, PA =0.91)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

200 100 50 30 16 8 4 3/8" 1/2" 3/4"

Passing %

Sieve Number


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

200 100 50 30 16 8 4 3/8" 1/2" 3/4"

Passing %

Sieve Number


49

Figure 36. Gradation, LTS_7 (SF =26.75, PA =1.08)

Figure 37. Gradation, LTS_7* (SF =25, PA =0.89)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

200 100 50 30 16 8 4 3/8" 1/2" 3/4"

Passing %

Sieve Number


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

200 100 50 30 16 8 4 3/8" 1/2" 3/4"

Passing %

Sieve Number


50

Each of the three before and after samples showed smaller differences between top and

bottom cross-section gradations after the standing time. This indicated that the SCC mix

gradations were more uniformly distributed along the height of the sample when within

the slump flow specifications.

N. Kahana Stream Bridge Load Test Tremie (LTT)

Standard slump tests were taken along with slump flow tests from each truck for the

tremie mix used in the Load Test Tremie (LTT) shaft. This mix was a regular concrete

mix, which was poured with the intention of comparing performance with the SCC

shafts. Table 11 shows the results from the LTT mix tests.

Table 11. LTT Pour Results

CylinderAvg PA

Ratio Slump Flow

Slump

LTT_1 1.03 14.75 8.5 LTT_2 0.98 12.5 7.75 LTT_3 1.03 12.5 6 LTT_4 0.98 14.75 8 LTT_5 0.97 13.75 8 LTT_6 0.90 - 8 LTT_7 0.95 16 9.75 LTT_8 1.03 13 7 LTT_9 0.97 16.75 9 LTT_10 0.93 13.5 7.5 LTT_11 0.94 14 8 LTT_12 1.02 16.25 9 LTT_13 0.93 14.75 9 LTT_14 0.93 17 9.5 LTT_15 1.02 18.25 9.5

Since this was a regular mix that the concrete provider was more familiar with than the

SCC mix, and since small variations in water dosage don’t affect the performance of

51

regular concrete as severely as an SCC mix, the batches arrived at the pour site having

much more consistent performance than the previous TS and LTS pours. The average

slump flow was 14.8”, with a standard deviation of 1.8”. The average standard slump was

8.3” with a standard deviation of 1.0”. Cylinders LTT_14 and LTT_15 were more than a

single standard deviation above the average for both slump and slump flow tests.

Gradation charts are available in Figures 38-40 for these two cylinders, along with

cylinder LTT_4, which performed regularly based on slump and slump flow tests.

Figure 38. Gradation, LTT_4 (SF =14.75, PA =0.98)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

200 100 50 30 16 8 4 3/8" 1/2" 3/4"

Passing %

Sieve Number

Avg. Area Based Gradation, TopAvg. Area Based Gradation, BottomMeasured Tremie Coarse Agg onlyMeasured Tremie Total AggAverage Tremie

52

Figure 39. Gradation, LTT_14 (SF =17, PA =0.93)

Figure 40. Gradation, LTT_15 (SF =18.25, PA =1.02)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

200 100 50 30 16 8 4 3/8" 1/2" 3/4"

Passing %

Sieve Number


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

200 100 50 30 16 8 4 3/8" 1/2" 3/4"

Passing %

Sieve Number


53

LTT_4 showed very small differences between top and bottom cross-sections, while

LTT_14 and LTT_15 showed slightly larger differences, especially in the No. 16-8 sieve

size passing range.

54

(5) DISCUSSION

09/25/2009 Test Mix

By observation of the SRI values alone, it was shown that all five cylinders in this group

passed the standard for acceptable self-consolidating concrete. Of the five,

AMm3_092509_1 showed the most segregation, which agrees with the image analysis

results shown in Figures 18-19, and APPENDIX B. Figure 41 shows a comparison

between the segregation resistance index (SRI) and paste-area ratio (PA Ratio) for this

mix. A paste-area index value above 1 showed that AMm3_092509_1 appeared to

segregate, which agrees with the segregation resistance index results.

Figure 20 shows that there were significant differences in passing percentages between

the top and bottom of cylinder AMm3_092509_1. This indicated that a significant

amount of segregation was present in cylinder 1. Figure 21 shows that the passing

percentages per sieve size were all less than 5% in AMm3_092509_2. This indicated that

there was little change in gradation throughout the depth of AMm3_092509_2, and that

the mix was stable at that point. The results of cylinders 1 and 2 in Figures 18-19 agreed

with the PA Ratios of these two cylinders, which were 1.15 and 0.95, respectively. A

1.15 PA Ratio for AMm3_092509_1 indicated that 15% more paste was present in the

top section than the bottom, indicating a significant amount of segregation.

55

Figure 41. SRI vs. PA Ratio, 09/25/2009

These two segregation indicators showed a high level of correlation, with a linear R2

value of 0.92. The sieve segregation test and image analysis segregation test showed a

similar trend based on the results from the 09/25/2009 SCC test mix. More testing and

trial mixes were done in an attempt to reinforce this relationship.

12/11/2009 Test Mix

Cylinder AMm3_121109_2 was cast immediately after doubling the Glenium admixture

amount, resulting in 84% of the concrete sample segregation through the No. 5 sieve in

the sieve segregation test, as shown by the SRI level in Table 6. Figure 42 shows the

segregation resistance index vs. paste-area ratio of the cylinders tested from the

12/11/2009 test mix.

y = 0.3963x ‐ 0.3445R² = 0.9257

0.000

0.020

0.040

0.060

0.080

0.100

0.120

0.140

0.160

0.180

0.200

0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10 1.15 1.20

Segregation Resistan

ce In

dex (SR

I)

Paste‐Area Ratio (PA)

9/25/2009

56


By adding twice the amount of Glenium before casting the second cylinder, the intent

was to get a very segregated sample, followed by lesser segregated samples as the mix

hardened over time. The SRI vs. PA Ratio relationship varied greatly from the

09/25/2009 trial mix, shown in Figure 41. The SRI values were distributed, which was

the desired outcome, while the PA Ratios remained constant for many of the trials. This

could have potentially been caused by the additional admixture that was introduced into

the mix. It was observed that more air was entrapped in the mix after doubling the

Glenium. This altered the perceived paste content of the cross-sections.

0.000

0.020

0.040

0.060

0.080

0.100

0.120

0.140

0.160

0.180

0.200

0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10 1.15 1.20


ce In

dex (SR

I)


12/11/2009

57

Figure 43. 09/25/09 Mix vs. 12/11/09 Mix

Figure 43 shows standard cross-sections of the two trial mixes on 09/25/2009 and

12/11/2009. These two mixes were based on the same manufacturer’s mix, with the only

difference being more admixtures in the 12/11 mix. There was an observable difference

in the amount of voids in these cross-sections. It is proposed that the double dose of

admixtures altered the 12/11/09 mix in such a fashion that the SRI vs. PA Ratio

relationship is incomparable to that of the original mix.

01/13/2010 Trial Pour

The trial pour on 01/13/2010 was performed with 4 CY of fresh concrete delivered to UH

by Ameron. The sieve segregation test was done along with standard fresh concrete tests

during a test of the ability of this mix to pass through a rebar cage. Beginning with this

trial pour, the scans of both cut surfaces on the top and bottom of the cylinder were

averaged to get the top and bottom gradation curves. Table 12 shows the standard

deviations of the gradation averages of the outer and interior scans of each cut.

58

Table 12. Section Scan PA Average and Standard Deviations, 01/13/10

Cylinder Outer

Scan PA Ratio

Interior Scan PA

Ratio

Avg. PA Ratio

St. Dev. PA

Ratio

Seg. Resist. Index (SRI)

20100113_1 0.92 1.01 0.96 0.04 0.13 20100113_3 0.81 1.00 0.90 0.10 0.12 20100113_5 1.07 0.92 0.99 0.07 0.13 20100113_7 0.98 0.90 0.94 0.04 0.09 20100113_9 0.87 0.94 0.90 0.04 0.07 20100113_13 0.96 0.94 0.95 0.01 0.10 20100113_15 1.00 1.02 1.01 0.01 0.11

Standard deviations of the PA ratios of outer and middle scans varied from 0.01 to 0.10,

and did not correlate with changes in the SRI. This was possibly due to large particle

bias, where large particles have more cross-sections and are more likely to show up in a

random cross-section than smaller particles. Average gradation and PA ratios between the

two sections top and bottom were taken for data in these and following samples. Figure

44 shows the segregation resistance index vs. paste-area ratio of the cylinders tested from

the 01/13/2010 trial pour, using average PA ratio values.

59


This showed a roughly linear relationship which is similar in slope to the relationship

shown in Figure 41. The standard deviations of the PA ratios of top and bottom scans

varied greatly, meaning that some of the interior and outer scans agreed with each other

while others varied greatly.

02/24/2010 Test Mix

The 2/24 test mix produced a good distribution of segregation resistance index values

during the sieve segregation test. Although segregation was observed in some fresh

samples, this failed to correlate with paste-area ratios gathered from image analysis, as

seen in Figure 45.

y = 0.2897x ‐ 0.1693R² = 0.3412

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.20

0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10 1.15 1.20


ce In

dex (SR

I)


1/13/10 Avg

60


It was attempted to gain a better relationship between the two indices shown in Figure 45

by observing “paste and fines” ratios of this mix against the same SRI index. This paste

and fines ratio was determined similarly to the PA Ratio, using different minimum size

cutoffs for identifying aggregate. Five different size cutoffs were observed between the

No. 30 sieve and 3/8” passing sizes. These relationships are shown in Figure 46.

0.000

0.050

0.100

0.150

0.200

0.250

0.300

0.350

0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10


ce In

dex (SR

I)


2/24/20102/25/2010

61

Figure 46. SRI vs. Paste and Fines Ratio, 02/24/2010

Using the No. 4 sieve minimum cutoff for aggregate size produces the model with the

highest R2 value for a linear trendline, yet all relationships were similar in that a high SRI

value did not correspond to a high paste and fines index value, and a low SRI value did

not correspond to a low paste and fines index value. Of the three test mixes and one trial

pour conducted to this point, only the initial 9/25/09 test mix produced a clean, linear

relationship correlating PA Ratios with SRI results from the sieve segregation test.

R² = 0.1072

R² = 0.1142

R² = 0.1782

R² = 0.2589R² = 0.1188

0.92

0.94

0.96

0.98

1.00

1.02

1.04

1.06

1.08

1.10

0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.300 0.350

P+F Ratio

Seg. Resistance Index

No. 30No. 16No. 8No. 43/8"Linear (No. 30)Linear (No. 16)Linear (No. 8)Linear (No. 4)Linear (3/8")

62

N. Kahana Stream Bridge Trial Shaft (TS)

Figure 47 shows the progression of PA ratios over the course of the trial shaft pour.

Figure 47. PA Ratios, Trial Shaft

Two instances were observed during the TS pour where samples were taken before and

after water was added to the mix, TS_5 to TS_5* and TS_10 to TS_10*. Both instances

showed an increase in PA ratio from below 1 to above 1, meaning the PA ratio observed

segregation after water was added and not before. Sieve segregation tests were not done

during trial shaft bridge pours due to time constraints. Figure 48 shows the observed TS

slump flow values versus observed PA ratios.

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00

1.05

1.10

1.15

1.20

TS_1

TS_4

TS_5

TS_5*

TS_7

TS_8

TS_10

TS_10*

TS_11*

TS_13

TS_13+

Paste Area Ratio

TS Cylinder

Avg PA Ratio

63

Figure 48. Slump Flow vs. PA Ratio, Trial Shaft

Slump flow spread and PA Ratio both increased with the addition of water, though at

different rates when comparing both instances TS_5-5* and TS_10-10*. This indicated

that the PA ratio successfully detected an increase in segregation with an addition of

water to the mix, but did not successfully detect a consistent rate of increase in PA ratio

vs. slump flow.

18.5

19

19.5

20

20.5

21

21.5

22

22.5

0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10 1.15

Slump Flow (in)

PA Ratio

Test Shaft (TS)

5

10

64

N. Kahana Stream Bridge Load Test Shaft (LTS)

Figure 49 shows the progression of observed PA ratios over the course of the load test

shaft pour.

Figure 49. PA Ratios, Load Test Shaft

Asterisks indicate samples that were from trucks allowed to sit, decreasing the slump

flow to within the acceptable range of 20-26”. For each of the three instances where

trucks arrived above the maximum slump flow spread, PA ratios decreased with a

decrease in slump flow spread. Figure 50 shows slump flow versus PA ratio results for

the load test shaft.

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00

1.05

1.10

1.15

1.20

LTS_1

LTS_2

LTS_3

LTS_4

LTS_4*

LTS_5

LTS_5*

LTS_5**

LTS_6

LTS_7

LTS_7*

LTS_8

LTS_9

LTS_10

LTS_11

LTS_12

LTS_13

LTS_14

LTS_15

Paste Area Ratio

LTS Cylinder

LTS

65

Figure 50. Slump Flow vs. PA Ratio, Load Test Shaft

Three samples which were taken before and after sitting time are shown in Figure 50.

Each showed a decrease of PA ratio as the slump flow decreased, at a roughly similar

rate. This indicates that the SCC mix improved its stability as slump flow spread

decreased.

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

29

0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10

Slump Flow (in)

PA Ratio

Load Test Shaft (LTS)

45

7

66

N. Kahana Stream Bridge Load Test Tremie (LTT)

Figure 51 shows the progression of PA ratio values over the course of the load test tremie

pour.

Figure 51. PA Ratios, LTT Shaft Pour

As seen in Figure 51 and Table 11, the performance of the conventional concrete tremie

mix was consistent over time, which was consistent with slump flow and standard slump

test results. This image analysis did not reveal any obvious PA ratio outliers. Comparing

slump flow values of this tremie mix to the SCC mix used in shafts TS and LTS showed

the difference in ability to flow between regular concrete and the proposed SCC mix. The

tremie mix had consistently lower slump flow spreads than the SCC mix. The average

slump flow spreads of the TS, LTS, and LTT pours were 20.1”, 25.2”, and 14.8”,

respectively. No relationship between slump flow and standard slump tests versus PA

ratio was detected for the tremie mix used in the LTT shaft.

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00

1.05

1.10

1.15

1.20

LTT_1

LTT_2

LTT_3

LTT_4

LTT_5

LTT_6

LTT_7

LTT_8

LTT_9

LTT_10

LTT_11

LTT_12

LTT_13

LTT_14

LTT_15

Paste Area Ratio (PA

)

LTT Cylinder

Avg PA Ratio

67

(6) CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the test results outlined in this report, analytical and procedural conclusions

were made about identifying segregation in hardened samples of SCC using image

analysis. The process of scanning and analyzing cross-sections of hardened concrete

samples using ImageJ correctly identified aggregate particles. Results most closely

represented the observed mix with unpolished cross-sections.

An observed gradation was found and compared at different cross-section heights along a

sample of SCC using this image analysis method. The area-based aggregate particle

model consistently produced gradations closer to the measured gradation than other

attempted particle models. This gradation was between the measured mix gradation for

coarse aggregate only and a combination of coarse and fine aggregate. The observed

gradations of top and bottom cross-section scans were compared, where shifts in

gradation from top to bottom indicated segregation may have occurred.

Identified particle areas were summed in order to determine identified paste content for

each SCC cylinder cross-section. This paste area was compared, top to bottom, of each

cylinder, and was compared with results from the sieve segregation test. The differences

in paste percentage from a single cylinder produced mixed results identifying potential

segregation. The paste-area (PA) ratio strongly correlated with results from the sieve

segregation test for the 09/25/2009 test mix, where cross-sections were cut ½” from

either end of the smaller 4x8” cylinders. No trends were observed when attempting this

68

relation with 4x8” cylinders during the 12/11/2009 test mix, or cross-sections cut 1” from

either end of standard 6x12” cylinders used for all other samples.

Cross-sections 1” from either end on an SCC cylinder produced no identified trends in

determining whether segregation has occurred, where cross-sections ½” from either end

produced a trend that identified segregation in line with the sieve segregation test.

Vertical section scans of the remaining 10” of previously tested cylinders from the

02/24/2010 test mix showed evenly distributed aggregate particles and no identifiable

segregation. This was consistent over a sample of cylinders which were distributed across

the spectrum of segregation values from the sieve segregation test. This indicated that

when segregation occurred, it primarily affected the top and bottom 1” of the sample in a

regular SCC mix.

SCC must be closely monitored for segregation, as even slight changes in mix

proportions can strongly affect slump flow. Future testing of this image analysis method

is recommended, and could include attempting to capture SCC samples of differing

resistances to segregation using other methods than adjusting the water dosage. SCC

mixes with larger maximum aggregate sizes (3/4”) are more prone to segregation, and

might be better at getting a wide range of segregation values in an attempt to find a trend

with standard fresh concrete tests.

69

(7) APPENDIX A – IMAGE ANALYSIS PROCEDURE The following is a detailed description of the image analysis process using ImageJ and Microsoft Excel. ImageJ Analysis Procedure

1. Open ImageJ freeware program, download if it isn’t present on your computer at the following site: http://rsbweb.nih.gov/ij/download.html

2. File>Open Navigate to desired .tif concrete image and open, image should appear in a separate window, full size or scaled down depending on image size. If analyzing two sections of a cylinder, scan and analyze the bottom image first, and the top image second.

3. Image>Type>8-bit

Converts color image to 8-bit grayscale image

4. Image>Adjust>Threshold Image is converted to binary and threshold window opens.

5. Using arrows in the threshold window and watching the binary image, adjust grayscale cutoff values such that only observed aggregate is shown. Everything else in the image should be filtered out by being shown as white.

70

6. Analyze>Set Measurements Set Measurements window opens. Select desired data fields for the analysis output. Data fields used in this report were as shown as follows. Select “OK.”

71

7. Analyze>Set Scale Opens Set Scale window. Select the button “Click to Remove Scale,” which removes the default scale and outputs data in units of pixels. Select “OK.”

8. Analyze>Analyze Particles Analyze Particles window opens. Select desired output settings. Data in this report were collected with the following settings. Select “OK.”

9. Selected settings will open. In this report, outputs included Outlines of observed aggregate and data results based on specified measurements.

72

10. Observe outlines image for accuracy of aggregate identification. If major inaccuracies exist, repeat process beginning at step 4 with an adjusted threshold range. Inaccurate “lumping” of large aggregates means the threshold should be decreased to accept a lower grayscale value than was previously accepted. Too few aggregate means the grayscale cutoff should be increased. If aggregate outlines are acceptable, continue to step 11.

11. Save desired data and images for reference and analysis in spreadsheet. Gradation Spreadsheet Instructions using Microsoft Excel

1. Open “Sieve Passing” Spreadsheet

2. Select “Results” window of ImageJ.

Edit>Select All Edit>Copy

73

3. Select “Sieve Passing” spreadsheet, select upper left cell (A6) of data area. Paste data into area. (Ctrl+V).

4. Select cells V18 & W18. Double-click the bottom right corner of selected cells to extend formulas to all analysis data.

74

5. Select Cell S4 and input the image dimensions into the “average” formula. Click Enter.

6. In cells E2 & E3, adjust the ranges to record the settings used in ImageJ for this data set.

7. Repeat for top scan on TWUP tab.

8. Check charts for realistic values. If gradations are unreasonably high, check that Step 4 in the Excel directions and Step 7 in the ImageJ directions were done correctly.

9. Save spreadsheet after all data has been entered and numbers have been checked for validity.

75

(8) APPENDIX B – SCC CYLINDER AREA MODEL GRADATION DATA Test Mix Cylinder Gradations

Sieve Number

AM

m3 A

ctual -coarse only

AMm3 Actu

al ‐ all agg.

AM

m3_092509_1_B

WU

P

AM

m3_092509_1_T

WU

P

AM

m3_092509_2_B

WU

P

AM

m3_092509_2_T

WU

P

AM

m3_092509_3_B

WU

P

AM

m3_092509_3_T

WU

P

AM

m3_092509_4_B

WU

P

AM

m3_092509_4_T

WU

P

AM

m3_092509_5_B

WU

P

AM

m3_092509_5_T

WU

P

AM

m3_121109_1_B

WU

P

AM

m3_121109_1_T

WU

P

AM

m3_121109_2_B

WU

P

AM

m3_121109_2_T

WU

P

AM

m3_121109_3_B

WU

P

AM

m3_121109_3_T

WU

P

AM

m3_121109_4_B

WU

P

AM

m3_121109_4_T

WU

P

AM

m3_121109_5_B

WU

P

200 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50 0.02 0.11 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 30 0.02 0.23 0.09 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.12 0.12 0.10 0.17 0.20 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.27 0.11 0.10 0.11 0.10 0.07 16 0.03 0.37 0.17 0.32 0.28 0.28 0.26 0.22 0.25 0.22 0.31 0.36 0.17 0.19 0.20 0.54 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.22 0.17 8 0.04 0.51 0.26 0.48 0.38 0.40 0.37 0.31 0.36 0.33 0.44 0.47 0.28 0.30 0.31 0.70 0.35 0.39 0.35 0.36 0.26 4 0.20 0.63 0.56 0.73 0.66 0.71 0.65 0.56 0.55 0.53 0.70 0.80 0.43 0.48 0.58 0.81 0.54 0.58 0.57 0.57 0.39

3/8" 0.80 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.90 0.94 0.91 0.91 0.93 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.73 0.78 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.96 1.00 0.73 1/2" 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.93 0.88 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.78 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 1.00 1.00 0.84 3/4" 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PA

Ratio 0.66 0.75 0.81 0.76 0.81 0.72 0.63 0.61 0.78 0.80 0.60 0.59 0.68 0.86 0.67 0.63 0.67 0.65 0.59 PA

Ratio Index 1.14 0.94 0.88 0.97 1.02 0.98 1.27 0.94 0.96

76

Test Mix Cylinder Gradations

Sieve N

umber

AM

m3_121109_5_T

WU

P

AM

m3_121109_6_B

WU

P

AM

m3_121109_6_T

WU

P

AM

m3_121109_7_B

WU

P

AM

m3_121109_7_T

WU

P

AM

m3_121109_8_B

WU

P

AM

m3_121109_8_T

WU

P

AM

m3_121109_9_B

WU

P

AM

m3_121109_9_T

WU

P

AM

m3_121109_10_B

WU

P

AM

m3_121109_10_T

WU

P

AM

m3_121109_11_B

WU

P

AM

m3_121109_11_T

WU

P

AM

m3_121109_12_B

WU

P

AM

m3_121109_12_T

WU

P

20100113_1_BW

UP

20100113_1_BW

UPm

20100113_1_TW

UP

20100113_1_TW

UPm

200 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 30 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.10 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.09 16 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.16 0.21 0.18 0.17 0.16 0.19 0.21 0.20 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.21 0.24 0.24 0.22 0.22 8 0.26 0.27 0.28 0.25 0.37 0.30 0.28 0.26 0.30 0.34 0.32 0.28 0.29 0.30 0.36 0.33 0.36 0.32 0.34 4 0.40 0.43 0.43 0.40 0.56 0.52 0.46 0.46 0.51 0.58 0.51 0.43 0.48 0.48 0.57 0.59 0.59 0.50 0.53

3/8" 0.75 0.68 0.77 0.69 0.82 0.83 0.74 0.79 0.96 0.84 0.89 0.93 0.76 0.97 0.93 0.94 0.91 0.87 0.92 1/2" 0.89 0.80 0.88 0.76 0.94 1.00 0.83 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.84 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 3/4" 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PA

Ratio 0.58 0.56 0.57 0.57 0.63 0.63 0.56 0.69 0.65 0.64 0.61 0.60 0.57 0.64 0.67 0.60 0.60 0.55 0.60

PA Ratio Index

0.97 1.01 1.11 0.89 0.94 0.94 0.95 1.03 0.96

77


Sieve N

umber

20100113_3_BW

UP

20100113_3_BW

UPm

20100113_3_TW

UP

20100113_3_TW

UPm

20100113_5_BW

UP

20100113_5_BW

UPm

20100113_5_TW

UP

20100113_5_TW

UPm

20100113_7_BW

UP

20100113_7_BW

UPm

20100113_7_TW

UP

20100113_7_TW

UPm

20100113_9_BW

UP

20100113_9_BW

UPm

20100113_9_TW

UP

20100113_9_TW

UPm

20100113_13_BW

UP

20100113_13_BW

UPm

20100113_13_TW

UP

200 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 30 0.12 0.10 0.09 0.11 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.13 0.12 0.12 16 0.30 0.26 0.21 0.25 0.28 0.27 0.27 0.24 0.25 0.26 0.26 0.20 0.26 0.24 0.25 0.22 0.30 0.31 0.29 8 0.41 0.39 0.34 0.36 0.42 0.42 0.38 0.36 0.35 0.36 0.39 0.34 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.40 0.46 0.42 4 0.67 0.62 0.49 0.57 0.63 0.61 0.58 0.54 0.57 0.55 0.57 0.50 0.61 0.59 0.54 0.56 0.67 0.68 0.65

3/8" 0.95 0.94 0.90 0.96 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.94 0.95 0.91 0.93 0.82 0.97 0.98 0.89 0.85 0.96 0.93 0.93 1/2" 1.00 0.98 0.94 1.00 0.96 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.98 0.96 0.93 0.97 1.00 0.92 0.89 0.96 1.00 0.97 3/4" 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PA

Ratio 0.66 0.59 0.54 0.59 0.63 0.59 0.67 0.55 0.62 0.59 0.61 0.53 0.68 0.59 0.59 0.56 0.71 0.63 0.68

PA Ratio Index

0.90 1.00 0.94 0.90

78


Sieve N

umber

20100113_13_TW

UPm

20100113_15_BW

UP

20100113_15_BW

UPm

20100113_15_TW

UP

20100113_15_TW

UPm

AM

m3_20100224_1_B

WU

P

AM

m3_20100224_1_B

WU

Pm

AM

m3_20100224_1_T

WU

P

AM

m3_20100224_1_T

WU

Pm

AM

m3_20100224_2_B

WU

P

AM

m3_20100224_2_B

WU

Pm

AM

m3_20100224_2_T

WU

P

AM

m3_20100224_2_T

WU

Pm

AM

m3_20100224_3_B

WU

P

AM

m3_20100224_3_B

WU

Pm

AM

m3_20100224_3_T

WU

P

AM

m3_20100224_3_T

WU

Pm

AM

m3_20100224_4_B

WU

P

AM

m3_20100224_4_B

WU

Pm

200 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 30 0.11 0.12 0.09 0.12 0.10 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.08 16 0.27 0.29 0.24 0.27 0.24 0.18 0.22 0.21 0.21 0.19 0.20 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.24 0.24 0.22 0.19 0.20 8 0.41 0.40 0.37 0.35 0.35 0.27 0.34 0.32 0.32 0.31 0.33 0.32 0.34 0.35 0.35 0.38 0.36 0.30 0.34 4 0.59 0.69 0.57 0.57 0.53 0.48 0.55 0.56 0.52 0.52 0.48 0.56 0.55 0.57 0.56 0.60 0.53 0.52 0.57

3/8" 0.94 0.98 0.93 0.90 0.95 0.91 0.98 0.93 0.94 0.92 0.81 0.97 0.91 0.88 0.92 0.92 0.96 0.88 0.96 1/2" 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.93 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.98 3/4" 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PA

Ratio 0.59 0.69 0.56 0.69 0.57 0.60 0.62 0.60 0.58 0.61 0.57 0.63 0.59 0.60 0.61 0.62 0.57 0.57 0.57

PA Ratio Index

0.95 1.01 0.97 1.03 0.98

79


Sieve N

umber

AM

m3_20100224_4_T

WU

P

AM

m3_20100224_4_T

WU

Pm

AM

m3_20100224_5_B

WU

P

AM

m3_20100224_5_B

WU

Pm

AM

m3_20100224_5_T

WU

P

AM

m3_20100224_5_T

WU

Pm

AM

m3_20100224_6_B

WU

P

AM

m3_20100224_6_B

WU

Pm

AM

m3_20100224_6_T

WU

P

AM

m3_20100224_6_T

WU

Pm

AM

m3_20100224_7_B

WU

P

AM

m3_20100224_7_B

WU

Pm

AM

m3_20100224_7_T

WU

P

AM

m3_20100224_7_T

WU

Pm

AM

m3_20100224_8_B

WU

P

AM

m3_20100224_8_B

WU

Pm

AM

m3_20100224_8_T

WU

P

AM

m3_20100224_8_T

WU

Pm

AM

m3_20100224_9_B

WU

P

200 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 30 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.11 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.08 0.10 0.08 0.11 0.09 16 0.24 0.23 0.24 0.24 0.22 0.23 0.22 0.22 0.20 0.22 0.24 0.18 0.20 0.24 0.19 0.23 0.20 0.24 0.20 8 0.37 0.35 0.36 0.38 0.36 0.34 0.34 0.36 0.34 0.36 0.36 0.29 0.31 0.37 0.30 0.35 0.30 0.37 0.32 4 0.62 0.58 0.65 0.64 0.60 0.62 0.62 0.63 0.56 0.58 0.62 0.44 0.52 0.61 0.47 0.59 0.50 0.60 0.53

3/8" 0.96 0.96 0.98 0.97 0.89 0.98 0.95 0.97 0.95 0.99 0.98 0.81 0.87 0.95 0.81 0.96 0.81 0.97 0.86 1/2" 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.95 1.00 0.93 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 3/4" 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PA

Ratio 0.62 0.61 0.64 0.60 0.60 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.60 0.61 0.68 0.55 0.58 0.62 0.55 0.65 0.55 0.67 0.57

PA Ratio Index

1.07 0.98 0.97 0.97 1.02

80


Sieve N

umber

AM

m3_20100224_9_B

WU

Pm

AM

m3_20100224_9_T

WU

P

AM

m3_20100224_9_T

WU

Pm

AM

m3_20100224_10_B

WU

P

AM

m3_20100224_10_B

WU

Pm

AM

m3_20100224_10_T

WU

P

AM

m3_20100224_10_T

WU

Pm

AM

m3_20100224_11_B

WU

P

AM

m3_20100224_11_B

WU

Pm

AM

m3_20100224_11_T

WU

P

AM

m3_20100224_11_T

WU

Pm

AM

m3_20100224_12_B

WU

P

AM

m3_20100224_12_B

WU

Pm

AM

m3_20100224_12_T

WU

P

AM

m3_20100224_12_T

WU

Pm

AM

m3_20100224_13_B

WU

P

AM

m3_20100224_13_B

WU

Pm

AM

m3_20100224_13_T

WU

P

AM

m3_20100224_13_T

WU

Pm

200 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 30 0.10 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.11 0.11 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.10 16 0.23 0.20 0.22 0.21 0.20 0.24 0.24 0.22 0.22 0.23 0.20 0.25 0.25 0.24 0.21 0.24 0.24 0.20 0.25 8 0.35 0.31 0.34 0.34 0.31 0.37 0.36 0.36 0.35 0.37 0.28 0.40 0.39 0.39 0.34 0.40 0.39 0.35 0.38 4 0.62 0.50 0.52 0.53 0.53 0.60 0.56 0.57 0.56 0.59 0.52 0.63 0.62 0.62 0.58 0.63 0.61 0.57 0.61

3/8" 0.96 0.83 0.87 0.93 0.94 0.96 0.96 0.90 0.94 0.96 0.93 0.95 0.97 0.92 0.89 0.91 0.94 0.89 0.89 1/2" 1.00 0.96 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.97 0.98 0.94 3/4" 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PA

Ratio 0.65 0.54 0.58 0.56 0.59 0.60 0.61 0.58 0.59 0.56 0.58 0.59 0.66 0.60 0.58 0.58 0.60 0.56 0.60

PA Ratio Index

0.92 1.05 0.98 0.94 0.98

81

Bridge Cylinder Gradations

Sieve N

umber

AM

m3 A

ctual -coarse only

AM

m3 A

ctual - all agg.

TS

_1_BW

UP

TS

_1_BW

UPm

TS

_1_TW

UP

TS

_1_TW

UPm

TS

_4_BW

UP

TS

_4_BW

UPm

TS

_4_TW

UP

TS

_4_TW

UPm

TS

_5_BW

UP

TS

_5_BW

UPm

TS

_5_TW

UP

TS

_5_TW

UPm

TS

_5*_BW

UP

TS

_5*_BW

UPm

TS

_5*_TW

UP

TS

_5*_TW

UPm

TS

_7_BW

UP

TS

_7_BW

UPm

TS

_7_TW

UP

200 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50 0.02 0.11 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 30 0.02 0.23 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.10 16 0.03 0.37 0.26 0.25 0.22 0.26 0.20 0.24 0.22 0.21 0.20 0.21 0.18 0.19 0.21 0.25 0.24 0.23 0.23 0.22 0.26 8 0.04 0.51 0.37 0.36 0.32 0.38 0.31 0.35 0.31 0.28 0.30 0.30 0.27 0.26 0.31 0.36 0.34 0.32 0.33 0.34 0.37 4 0.20 0.63 0.66 0.65 0.54 0.63 0.52 0.55 0.54 0.52 0.50 0.57 0.45 0.49 0.48 0.59 0.55 0.54 0.55 0.57 0.55

3/8" 0.80 1.00 0.96 0.93 0.84 0.98 0.84 0.95 0.92 0.97 0.93 0.98 0.94 1.00 0.90 0.95 0.91 0.97 0.95 0.99 0.96 1/2" 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.93 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.96 3/4" 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PA

Ratio 0.73 0.64 0.69 0.64 0.62 0.58 0.67 0.56 0.64 0.64 0.57 0.61 0.57 0.65 0.61 0.63 0.60 0.59 0.60

PA Ratio Index

0.97 1.02 0.93 1.02

82


Sieve N

umber

TS

_7_TW

UPm

TS

_8_BW

UP

TS

_8_BW

UPm

TS

_8_TW

UP

TS

_8_TW

UPm

TS

_10_BW

UP

TS

_10_BW

UPm

TS

_10_TW

UP

TS

_10_TW

UPm

TS

_10*_BW

UP

TS_10*_B

WU

Pm

TS_10*_T

WU

P

TS_10*_T

WU

Pm

TS

_11*_BW

UP

TS_11*_B

WU

Pm

TS_11*_T

WU

P

TS_11*_T

WU

Pm

TS

_13_BW

UP

TS

_13_BW

UPm

200 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 30 0.10 0.11 0.08 0.11 0.10 0.08 0.13 0.11 0.11 0.08 0.10 0.09 0.11 0.09 0.09 0.12 0.12 0.10 0.11 16 0.25 0.24 0.20 0.26 0.24 0.20 0.27 0.25 0.25 0.19 0.24 0.22 0.25 0.21 0.23 0.28 0.29 0.24 0.25 8 0.35 0.35 0.32 0.36 0.34 0.32 0.38 0.37 0.34 0.31 0.35 0.34 0.37 0.30 0.32 0.39 0.41 0.37 0.36 4 0.55 0.53 0.50 0.56 0.53 0.52 0.65 0.56 0.60 0.52 0.65 0.54 0.62 0.52 0.56 0.65 0.67 0.56 0.64

3/8" 0.97 0.92 0.84 0.94 0.97 0.86 0.98 0.94 1.00 0.87 1.00 0.95 0.98 0.92 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.97 1/2" 1.00 0.95 0.93 0.94 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.97 3/4" 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PA

Ratio 0.58 0.63 0.53 0.64 0.61 0.57 0.74 0.62 0.69 0.55 0.68 0.60 0.65 0.62 0.59 0.64 0.63 0.60 0.67

PA Ratio Index

0.99 1.07 0.99 1.01 1.05

83


Sieve N

umber

TS

_13_TW

UP

TS

_13_TW

UPm

TS

_13+_B

WU

P

TS

_13+_B

WU

Pm

TS

_13+_T

WU

P

TS_13+

_TW

UPm

LT

S_1_B

WU

P

LT

S_1_B

WU

Pm

LT

S_1_T

WU

P

LT

S_1_T

WU

Pm

LT

S_2_B

WU

P

LT

S_2_B

WU

Pm

LT

S_2_T

WU

P

LT

S_2_T

WU

Pm

LT

S_3_B

WU

P

LT

S_3_B

WU

Pm

LT

S_3_T

WU

P

LT

S_3_T

WU

Pm

LT

S_4_B

WU

P

200 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 30 0.11 0.11 0.09 0.08 0.10 0.09 0.10 0.09 0.11 0.12 0.09 0.11 0.10 0.11 0.13 0.11 0.10 0.12 0.08 16 0.23 0.25 0.23 0.21 0.21 0.22 0.23 0.23 0.27 0.29 0.22 0.28 0.22 0.27 0.29 0.29 0.24 0.28 0.19 8 0.33 0.35 0.32 0.33 0.29 0.33 0.33 0.36 0.38 0.43 0.31 0.41 0.32 0.38 0.42 0.41 0.34 0.40 0.28 4 0.57 0.63 0.57 0.60 0.54 0.59 0.58 0.64 0.59 0.70 0.64 0.62 0.56 0.60 0.66 0.64 0.67 0.70 0.51

3/8" 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.93 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.90 0.93 0.98 0.96 0.96 1/2" 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.93 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.96 3/4" 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PA

Ratio 0.76 0.68 0.72 0.68 0.72 0.67 0.73 0.58 0.61 0.63 0.71 0.63 0.72 0.64 0.77 0.62 0.69 0.65 0.62

PA Ratio Index

1.13 0.99 0.95 1.02 0.96

84


Sieve N

umber

LT

S_4_B

WU

Pm

LT

S_4_T

WU

P

LT

S_4_T

WU

Pm

LT

S_4*_B

WU

P

LT

S_4*_B

WU

Pm

LT

S_4*_T

WU

P

LT

S_4*_T

WU

Pm

LT

S_5_B

WU

P

LT

S_5_B

WU

Pm

LT

S_5_T

WU

P

LT

S_5_T

WU

Pm

LT

S_5*_B

WU

P

LT

S_5*_B

WU

Pm

LT

S_5*_T

WU

P

LT

S_5*_T

WU

Pm

LT

S_5**_B

WU

P

LT

S_5**_B

WU

Pm

LT

S_5**_T

WU

P

LT

S_5**_TW

UP

m

200 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 30 0.09 0.08 0.10 0.08 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.09 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.09 16 0.21 0.20 0.25 0.19 0.24 0.21 0.22 0.23 0.24 0.32 0.28 0.26 0.29 0.26 0.31 0.23 0.27 0.22 0.22 8 0.30 0.30 0.36 0.28 0.36 0.32 0.32 0.36 0.40 0.44 0.39 0.37 0.40 0.38 0.45 0.32 0.38 0.33 0.33 4 0.59 0.54 0.64 0.60 0.59 0.61 0.56 0.54 0.55 0.70 0.60 0.58 0.61 0.62 0.67 0.59 0.59 0.58 0.53

3/8" 1.00 0.86 0.98 0.96 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.97 0.95 0.94 0.86 0.96 0.98 0.91 1.00 0.92 0.97 0.98 0.92 1/2" 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 0.96 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.88 1.00 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 3/4" 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PA

Ratio 0.65 0.64 0.65 0.70 0.61 0.70 0.54 0.66 0.58 0.69 0.65 0.75 0.72 0.69 0.71 0.78 0.63 0.72 0.57

PA Ratio Index

1.01 0.94 1.08 0.95 0.91

85


Sieve N

umber

LT

S_6_B

WU

P

LT

S_6_B

WU

Pm

LT

S_6_T

WU

P

LT

S_6_T

WU

Pm

LT

S_7_B

WU

P

LT

S_7_B

WU

Pm

LT

S_7_T

WU

P

LT

S_7_T

WU

Pm

LT

S_7*_B

WU

P

LT

S_7*_B

WU

Pm

LT

S_7*_T

WU

P

LT

S_7*_T

WU

Pm

LT

S_8_B

WU

P

LT

S_8_B

WU

Pm

LT

S_8_T

WU

P

LT

S_8_T

WU

Pm

LT

S_9_B

WU

P

LT

S_9_B

WU

Pm

LT

S_9_T

WU

P

200 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 30 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.07 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.10 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.10 16 0.20 0.24 0.24 0.27 0.18 0.23 0.23 0.24 0.22 0.24 0.22 0.26 0.21 0.20 0.23 0.26 0.23 0.24 0.24 8 0.30 0.34 0.33 0.37 0.26 0.34 0.32 0.33 0.31 0.36 0.32 0.38 0.29 0.30 0.34 0.39 0.33 0.34 0.34 4 0.48 0.54 0.55 0.62 0.50 0.56 0.63 0.57 0.61 0.56 0.58 0.60 0.53 0.48 0.57 0.69 0.59 0.56 0.59

3/8" 0.94 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.94 0.96 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.98 0.92 0.97 0.98 0.98 1.00 0.96 1/2" 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3/4" 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PA

Ratio 0.71 0.63 0.66 0.62 0.71 0.59 0.74 0.66 0.80 0.59 0.68 0.56 0.64 0.58 0.57 0.61 0.75 0.64 0.62

PA Ratio Index

0.96 1.08 0.89 0.97

86


Sieve N

umber

LT

S_9_T

WU

Pm

LT

S_10_B

WU

P

LT

S_10_B

WU

Pm

LT

S_10_T

WU

P

LT

S_10_T

WU

Pm

LT

S_11_B

WU

P

LT

S_11_B

WU

Pm

LT

S_11_T

WU

P

LT

S_11_T

WU

Pm

LT

S_12_B

WU

P

LT

S_12_B

WU

Pm

LT

S_12_T

WU

P

LT

S_12_T

WU

Pm

LT

S_13_B

WU

P

LT

S_13_B

WU

Pm

LT

S_13_T

WU

P

LT

S_13_T

WU

Pm

LT

S_14_B

WU

P

LT

S_14_B

WU

Pm

200 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 30 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.06 0.09 0.10 0.08 0.07 0.09 0.10 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.10 0.07 16 0.23 0.24 0.25 0.27 0.26 0.21 0.18 0.21 0.23 0.21 0.20 0.22 0.22 0.19 0.23 0.21 0.20 0.23 0.20 8 0.34 0.34 0.38 0.39 0.38 0.29 0.29 0.30 0.34 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.33 0.28 0.35 0.31 0.31 0.34 0.33 4 0.55 0.63 0.58 0.69 0.62 0.55 0.54 0.56 0.57 0.56 0.49 0.54 0.61 0.54 0.65 0.57 0.65 0.58 0.68

3/8" 0.98 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.98 1.00 0.99 0.94 1.00 0.93 1.00 1/2" 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 3/4" 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PA

Ratio 0.61 0.73 0.61 0.68 0.63 0.78 0.64 0.66 0.62 0.63 0.54 0.60 0.65 0.69 0.62 0.61 0.67 0.76 0.70

PA Ratio Index

0.89 0.98 0.91 1.06 0.97

87


Sieve N

umber

LT

S_14_T

WU

P

LT

S_14_T

WU

Pm

LT

S_15_B

WU

P

LT

S_15_B

WU

Pm

LT

S_15_T

WU

P

LT

S_15_T

WU

Pm

Trem

ie Actual -coarse only

Trem

ie Actual - all agg.

LT

T_1_B

WU

P

LT

T_1_B

WU

Pm

LT

T_1_T

WU

P

LT

T_1_T

WU

Pm

LT

T_2_B

WU

P

LT

T_2_B

WU

Pm

LT

T_2_T

WU

P

LT

T_2_T

WU

Pm

LT

T_3_B

WU

P

LT

T_3_B

WU

Pm

LT

T_3_T

WU

P

200 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.16 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.02 30 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.09 0.02 0.29 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.13 0.10 0.13 0.10 0.13 16 0.24 0.24 0.20 0.21 0.24 0.22 0.03 0.42 0.24 0.25 0.25 0.28 0.25 0.27 0.28 0.24 0.29 0.23 0.29 8 0.36 0.36 0.31 0.33 0.37 0.35 0.04 0.55 0.37 0.38 0.39 0.40 0.40 0.39 0.42 0.37 0.44 0.38 0.43 4 0.63 0.62 0.58 0.62 0.66 0.64 0.20 0.67 0.59 0.58 0.59 0.69 0.62 0.58 0.62 0.55 0.63 0.54 0.61

3/8" 0.93 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.95 0.80 1.00 0.99 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.98 0.93 0.96 0.89 0.96 1/2" 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.92 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.94 0.96 3/4" 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PA

Ratio 0.67 0.63 0.63 0.60 0.57 0.61 0.62 0.66 0.61 0.70 0.65 0.65 0.68 0.58 0.66 0.59 0.64

PA Ratio Index

0.89 0.96 1.03 0.98

88


Sieve N

umber

LT

T_3_T

WU

Pm

LT

T_4_B

WU

P

LT

T_4_B

WU

Pm

LT

T_4_T

WU

P

LT

T_4_T

WU

Pm

LT

T_5_B

WU

P

LT

T_5_B

WU

Pm

LT

T_5_T

WU

P

LT

T_5_T

WU

Pm

LT

T_6_B

WU

P

LT

T_6_B

WU

Pm

LT

T_6_T

WU

P

LT

T_6_T

WU

Pm

LT

T_7_B

WU

P

LT

T_7_B

WU

Pm

LT

T_7_T

WU

P

LT

T_7_T

WU

Pm

LT

T_8_B

WU

P

LT

T_8_B

WU

Pm

200 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 30 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.11 0.13 0.10 0.14 0.13 0.11 0.14 0.11 0.12 0.09 0.12 0.10 0.13 0.13 0.11 16 0.28 0.26 0.29 0.30 0.26 0.28 0.23 0.31 0.30 0.25 0.30 0.26 0.28 0.21 0.24 0.25 0.28 0.30 0.25 8 0.42 0.39 0.41 0.44 0.41 0.43 0.36 0.45 0.46 0.39 0.44 0.42 0.43 0.34 0.36 0.39 0.41 0.46 0.39 4 0.62 0.56 0.68 0.67 0.63 0.64 0.59 0.70 0.69 0.58 0.68 0.67 0.69 0.51 0.66 0.58 0.63 0.67 0.63

3/8" 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.95 0.94 0.98 1.00 0.92 0.98 0.97 0.93 0.89 0.98 0.88 0.97 0.94 0.97 1/2" 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97 0.98 0.98 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 3/4" 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00

PA Ratio 0.65 0.62 0.65 0.63 0.61 0.72 0.60 0.67 0.61 0.61 0.71 0.60 0.59 0.58 0.72 0.58 0.66 0.68 0.61

PA Ratio Index

1.03 0.98 0.97 0.9 0.95

89


Sieve N

umber

LT

T_8_T

WU

P

LT

T_8_T

WU

Pm

LT

T_9_B

WU

P

LT

T_9_B

WU

Pm

LT

T_9_T

WU

P

LT

T_9_T

WU

Pm

LT

T_10_B

WU

P

LT

T_10_B

WU

Pm

LT

T_10_T

WU

P

LT

T_10_T

WU

Pm

LT

T_11_B

WU

P

LT

T_11_B

WU

Pm

LT

T_11_T

WU

P

LT

T_11_T

WU

Pm

LT

T_12_B

WU

P

LT

T_12_B

WU

Pm

LT

T_12_T

WU

P

LT

T_12_T

WU

Pm

LT

T_13_B

WU

P

200 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 30 0.12 0.13 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.11 0.14 0.11 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.14 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.13 0.12 0.11 16 0.27 0.29 0.25 0.27 0.28 0.30 0.25 0.29 0.26 0.30 0.27 0.26 0.31 0.25 0.23 0.22 0.27 0.27 0.26 8 0.40 0.44 0.39 0.38 0.44 0.46 0.39 0.44 0.41 0.44 0.42 0.40 0.46 0.39 0.34 0.33 0.38 0.38 0.41 4 0.63 0.66 0.68 0.64 0.70 0.74 0.58 0.69 0.66 0.70 0.68 0.61 0.69 0.58 0.58 0.53 0.61 0.64 0.62

3/8" 0.96 0.98 1.00 0.98 0.98 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.96 0.98 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.89 0.88 0.94 0.95 0.98 0.97 1/2" 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.92 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 3/4" 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

PA Ratio 0.65 0.67 0.67 0.71 0.63 0.70 0.62 0.75 0.61 0.66 0.65 0.67 0.66 0.58 0.64 0.65 0.65 0.66 0.63

PA Ratio Index

1.026 0.967 0.926 0.945 1.023

90


Sieve N

umber

LT

T_13_B

WU

Pm

LT

T_13_T

WU

P

LT

T_13_T

WU

Pm

LT

T_14_B

WU

P

LT

T_14_B

WU

Pm

LT

T_14_T

WU

P

LT

T_14_T

WU

Pm

LT

T_15_B

WU

P

LT

T_15_B

WU

Pm

LT

T_15_T

WU

P

LT

T_15_T

WU

Pm

200 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 30 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.14 16 0.30 0.29 0.27 0.25 0.26 0.29 0.28 0.26 0.26 0.29 0.32 8 0.44 0.43 0.41 0.38 0.38 0.45 0.42 0.39 0.40 0.43 0.45 4 0.66 0.68 0.68 0.64 0.70 0.69 0.70 0.70 0.69 0.66 0.77

3/8" 1.00 0.95 0.96 0.93 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.94 0.98 1/2" 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 3/4" 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

PA Ratio 0.72 0.64 0.61 0.63 0.69 0.62 0.61 0.67 0.65 0.66 0.69

PA Ratio Index

0.93 0.93 1.02

91

(9) REFERENCES Aihara, C. et al. (2008). The effects of gradation on self-consolidating concrete. Masters

Thesis Report, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Hawai’i, Honolulu, HI. 102 p.

Baddeley, A., & Vedel Jensen, E.B. (2005). Stereology for statisticians. Boca Raton, FL:

Chapman & Hall/CRC. Brandes, H.G., & Hirata, J.G. (2004). Hawai’i superpave demonstration project:

measurement of asphalt mix design parameters using image analysis. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Hawai’i, Manoa, HI.

European Project Group (2005). The european guidelines for self-compacting concrete.

Retrieved from <http://efca.info/downloads/SCC%20Guidelines%20May%202005.pdf>

Ishisaka, R. (2007). Development of self-consolidating concrete for drilled shaft

applications in hawai’i. Masters Thesis Report, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Hawai’i, Honolulu, HI. 71 p.

Mayer, V. et al. (2007). Annual book of astm standards. Baltimore, MD: ASTM

International. Vol. 04.02, C 1610/C1610M – 06a McBride, J., & Mukai, D.J. (2006). Coarse aggregate and self-consolidating concrete

passing ability. Special Publication, Retrieved from <http://www.concrete.org/PUBS/JOURNALS/ABSTRACTSEARCH.ASP>

Zaniewski, J.P. (2006). Materials for civil and construction engineers. Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Documents

QUANTIFYING SEGREGATION IN SELF …Self-consolidating concrete, also known as self-compacting concrete, must have three properties: filling ability, resistance to segregation, and