Name Affiliation Email Address
Abadie, Chris Louisiana Department of Transportation [email protected]
Ahlstrom, Gina FHWA [email protected]
Andrus, Scott Utah Department of Transportation [email protected]
Bailey, Bill Virginia Department of Transportation [email protected]
Belcher, John Michigan Department of Transportation [email protected]
Bergin, Michael Florida Department of Transportation [email protected]
Blackburn, Lyndi Alabama Department of Transportation [email protected]
Cowsert, Jack North Carolina Department of Transportation [email protected]
Felag, Mark Rhode Island Department of Transportation [email protected]
Geary, Georgene Georgia Department of Transportation [email protected]
Glass, Wesley Kentucky Transportation Cabinet [email protected]
Golden, Shannon Alabaman Department of Transportation [email protected]
Hainsworth, Greg Delaware Department of Transportation [email protected]
Harrigan, Ed NCHRP/HMCRP [email protected]
Horwhat, Robert Pennsylvania Department of Transportation [email protected]
Krstulovich, James Illinois Department of Transportation
Lee, Bryan Utah Department of Transportation
Lenker, Steve AMRL / CCRL [email protected]
Ley, Tyler Oklahoma State University [email protected]
Lundy, Larry Virginia Department of Transportation [email protected]
Maher, Michele Nevada Department of Transportation [email protected]
Malusky, Katheryn AASHTO [email protected]
Masten, Maria Minnesota Department of Transportation [email protected]
Meininger, Richard FHWA [email protected]
Prowell, Jan CCRL [email protected]
Santi, Mike Idaho Transportation Department [email protected]
Sheehy, Eileen New Jersey Department of Transportation [email protected]
Streeter, Don New York Department of Transportation [email protected]
Sutter, Larry Michigan Technological University [email protected]
Tobias, Daniel Illinois Department of Transportation Daniel.Tobias@illinois@gov
Waldorp, Drew Alabama Department of Transportation [email protected]
Wu, Peter Georgia Department of Transportation [email protected]
Yokotake, Kelly Nevada Department of Transportation
Syslo, Mick Nebraska Department of Roads [email protected]
Heyen, Wally Nebraska Department of Roads [email protected]
Halsey, Lieska Nebraska Department of Roads [email protected]
Knake, Maria AMRL [email protected]
2. Approve Fall 2013 Minutes (attached)
3. Guest: Pooled Fund and AASTHO Standards - Discussion by Dr. Tyler Ley
Tim Stallard from Michigan was present at the Fall committee meeting. His name was not in the meeting minutes for attendance.
The chair reviewed the minutes from the Fall 2013 meeting. Alabama commented in the fall minutes that Victoria Woods was not representing
Missouri at that time. Duly noted. A motion was made and seconded for the approval of the Fall 2013 Meeting minutes with the change of
Victoria Woods.
Dr. Tyler Ley, Professor at the University of Oklahoma, gave a presentation Title: Freeze and Thaw durability. Dr. Ley would like to have a
provisional for AASTHO. The chair of the committee would like to promote this provisional standard, Nebraska is very interested in this
provisional. Dr. ley asked for guidelines to get the provisional to AASTHO. Amir from NCHRP asked detailed information on this study. Amir's
concern was about needing more data for the correlation between the ASTM C 66 Vs. SAM. Mick mentioned the pooled fund and the moving
forward with writing of the provisional can be done along side of the research. Florida asked about temperature measured with the plastic
concrete cold vs hot. Tyler has that data but did not present it. Kentucky asked about how many states are participating in Dr. Ley's pooled
fund. Name the states are Kansas, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin Nebraska,etc.. Rhode Island agreed with
working concurrently. He suggested working on a draft provisional standard for the fall meeting, he also suggested introducing the draft in the
fall. Dr. Tyler Ley presentation has been added to the minutes.
1. Attendees
Teleconference Meeting Minutes
Spring 2014 AASHTO Subcommittee on Materials Teleconference Meeting Technical Section 3b
February 25, 2014; 1:30-3:30 pm EST Chair: Mick Syslo
Vice Chair: Wally Heyen
Dr. Ley presentation has been added to the minutes see below.
For more information on the Pooled Fund refer to the following link: http://www.pooledfund.org/Details/Solicitation/1338
Meeting Minutes by Wally Heyen 1/5
Item Number: Description:
Affirmative: 43 of 53
Negative: 2 of 53
No Vote: 8 of 53
Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (Allen
H Myers) ([email protected])
If no interest exists in maintaining this method and the decision is to delete it,
please remember that AASHTO T 26 is referenced in at least one other standard,
AASHTO M 157.
Affirmative
Chair Response:
Missouri Department of Transportation
(David D Ahlvers)
Recommend approve M-157 references T26 in section 4.1.4 and Table 2, these
references need to be updated to reflect the deletion, particularly as section 4.1.4
states "It (water) shall be tested in accordance with T26 . . "
Affirmative
Chair Response:
Illinois Department of Transportation
(David L. Lippert)
The T-26 test method is currently used to verify water compliance by Illinois. The
procedures found in T-26 are relevant and if removed would require a significant
revision to our current testing regimen and the IL DOT Standard Specifications.
Negative
Chair Response:
Arkansas State Highway and
Transportation Department (Michael
Benson)
m)
M157-13 still contains references to this standard. Removal needs to be
concurrent. Negative
Chair Response:
Iowa Department of Transportation
(Greg L Mulder)
Y, will this be added in fall? M157 still refers toT26 Affirmative
Chair Response:
Washington State Department of
Transportation (Kurt R Williams)
AASHTO M 157 Standard Specification for Ready-Mixed Concrete in Section 2.1
references AASHTO T 26. Recommend that AASHTO M 157 be updated to refer to
an ASTM standard.
Affirmative
Chair Response:
Pennsylvania Department of
Transportation (Robert D Horwhat)
Limits for water quality given in T 26 have been linked to published research
papers. If T 26 is removed, then links need to be established between the water
quality limits in M 157 and published research.
Affirmative
Chair Response:
Missouri Department of Transportation
(Brett Steven Trautman)
Recommend approve-M157 references T26 in section 4.1.4 and Table 2, these
references need to be updated to reflect the deletion, particularly as section 4.1.4
states " It [water] shall be tested in accordance with T26..."
Affirmative
Chair Response:
The chair gave a brief overview of the history of T 318 and asked Minnesota DOT represented by Maria
Masten to give a brief description of the changes to the Standard. Minnesota has used T 318, "Water
Content of Freshly Mixed Concrete Using Microwave Oven Drying", for the past 19 years. She explained the
specification of her own state and also discussed this specification has been implemented for about 15
years. Maria presented/explained her review of the AASTHO specification.
Concurrent ballot to remove T 26.
Agree and references will be updated in M 157.
Agree and references will be updated in M 157.
Agree and references will be updated in M 157.
Nonpersuasive. We have resolved the negative.
Agree and references will be updated in M 157.
Agree and references will be updated in M 157.
Agree and references will be updated in M 157.
Larry Sutter mentioned in 5.1 (Microwave Oven), what Maria had written does allow for a higher wattage
microwave if one so desires. He also spoke about the precision and bias. Currently, the standard is
written with a single operator standard deviation and he said the multilabatory standard deviation could be
calculated and included in the standard, but is okay without it.
Status after Semi-Annual Spring
Call Meeting:
The chair will have this standard put on the Spring Ballot.
Agree and references will be updated in M 157.
4. Review T 318 - Water Content of Freshly Mixed Concrete Using Microwave Oven Drying by
Maria Masten (MnDOT)
5. Review 2013 SOM Fall Ballot Items 55 through 59
(See the Attachment: Fall 2103 3b Detailed Report)
55
Meeting Minutes by Wally Heyen 2/5
Status after Semi-Annual Spring
Call Meeting:
Item Number: Description:
Affirmative: 44 of 53
Negative: 0 of 53
No Vote: 9 of 53
Missouri Department of Transportation
(Brett Steven Trautman)
Recommend approve-no comments
Brett, delete the following:
It requires that the cone be inverted, the ASTM gives the option of inverting, a
minor discrepancy
Affirmative
Chair Response:
Status after Semi-Annual Spring
Call Meeting:
Item Number: Description:
Affirmative: 44 of 53
Negative: 1 of 53
No Vote: 8 of 53
Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (Allen
H Myers) ([email protected])
AASHTO TP 90 is indicated as the ballot item, but the correct standard should be
AASHTO TP 93. Our affirmative vote is contingent upon the assumption that Ballot
Item 57 involves AASHTO TP 93.
Affirmative
Chair Response:
I am not able to find anything in the minutes or the appendixes regarding
discussions or recommended intentions for TP90. I was not aware of what that
test related to so I looked it up in our current Provisional Tests.
According to my set of AASHTO Provisional Tests, TP90-10 (2013) is "Measuring
Interfacial Fracture Energy of Hot-Poured Crack Sealant Using a Blister Test".
Unless I've mis-read my standards, this does not seem related to this committee.
Chair Response:
Missouri Department of Transportation
(David D Ahlvers)
Should be TP93. Affirmative
Chair Response:
Arkansas State Highway and
Transportation Department (Michael
Benson)
Is this TP93? Affirmative
Chair Response:
Nebraska Department of Roads (Mick
Syslo) ([email protected]) should be TP 93 Affirmative
Chair Response:
Florida Department of Transportation
(Timothy J. Ruelke)
Assumes this was ment to be TP 93 Affirmative
Chair Response:
Washington State Department of
Transportation (Kurt R Williams)
Comment: Can't find TP 90 discussed in this ballot? Should be some explanation
on why this is being done. Not apposed to moving forward if standard is being
used, just I couldn't find any discussion/justification in the ballot.
Affirmative
Chair Response:
Missouri Department of Transportation
(Brett Steven Trautman)
Recommend approve- If is referencing TP 93: Determining formwork pressure of
fresh self-consolidating concrete using pressure tranducers rather than TP: 90:
Measuring interfacial fracture energy of hot-poured crack sealant using a blister
test.
Affirmative
Chair Response:
Status after Semi-Annual Spring
Call Meeting:
New Mexico Department of
Transportation (Bryce Simons)
Negative
TP 93 is the correct specification.
TP 93 is the correct specification.
TP 93 will move forward to a full standard.
Concurrent ballot to adopt TP 80 as a full standard.
Will accept specification as written. Will discuss at the spring and fall meeting to potentially be a
concurrent ballot.
TP 93 is the correct specification.
TP 93 is the correct specification.
TP 93 is the correct specification.
TP 93 is the correct specification.
Negative has been resolved.
57Concurrent ballot to adopt TP 90 as a full standard.
TP 93 is the correct specification.
The Chair provided an overview of the status of this standard. New Jersey made a motion to find the
negatives nonpersuasive and seconded by Louisiana. The negatives where found to be nonpersuasive.
This standard T-26 will be removed as a standard.
56
TP 80 will become a full standard. The comments from Missouri will be added to the new standard and
will be put on the Fall Ballot.
Meeting Minutes by Wally Heyen 3/5
Item Number: Description:
Affirmative: 44 of 53
Negative: 1 of 53
No Vote: 8 of 53 Georgia Department of Transportation
(Georgene M Geary)
Typo in item description. Should be TP 93 as per minutes. Affirmative
Chair Response:
TP 93 was included in the minutes as being balloted to a full standard. Should this
ballot item be for TP 93???
For TP 83 - Affirmative
For TP 93 - Affirmative - There is no reference in the standard for most of the Notes.
Chair Response:
Arkansas State Highway and
Transportation Department (Michael
Benson)
m
While this practice appears to be a well-developed method for the fabrication of 50-
mm (2-in.) cube specimens of grout (non-shrink) or mortar, the reason for the
method is unclear. The information does provide further instruction for
development of cubes for evaluation (possibly of compressive strength per
C1107); however, it would appear that the purpose for the cube specimens would
need to be included in the document
Negative
Chair Response:
Missouri Department of Transportation
(Brett Steven Trautman)
Recommend approve-If references changing TP 83 from a provisional standard to
a recommended practice Affirmative
Chair Response:
Status after Semi-Annual Spring
Call Meeting:
Agree.
The Chair explained his reasoning on the negative to be nonpersuasive. Iowa made a motion to find the
negative nonpersuasive and seconded by New Jersey. The motion passed finding the negative
nonpersuasive. Kentucky mentioned TP 83 was balloted as a Standard Recommended Practice "R"
designation. The Chair will work with Maria Knake (AMRL) to see how TP 83 was balloted. If balloted as
Recommended Practice TP 83 will become a full standard. If balloted otherwise, TP 83 will be changed to
Recommended Practice as an editorial change an become a full standard.
59Concurrent ballot item to adopt the revised TP 83 as a full standard.
This ballot was for TP 83 and TP 93 was ballot item 57.
Rhode Island Department of
Transportation (Mark E. Felag)
Affirmative
This ballot was for TP 83 and TP 93 was ballot item 57.
Nonpersuasive. Will move forward with adopting as a standard. Will address comments in the spring/fall
meeting.
Meeting Minutes by Wally Heyen 4/5
Item Number: Description:
Affirmative: 44 of 53
Negative: 1 of 53
No Vote: 8 of 53
Missouri Department of Transportation
(David D Ahlvers)
Temperature curing requirements in T23 should be incorporated into section 7.6. Affirmative
Chair Response:
Section 7.6 - Should there be a field curing option as in T23?
Section 7.7.1 / 7.7.2 - Recommend specifying a maximum time for transporting
cubes to the final curing location. "Immediately" is not specific and may vary
when specimens are fabricated in the field.
Chair Response:
Arkansas State Highway and
Transportation Department (Michael
Benson)
m)
While this practice appears to be a well-developed method for the fabrication of 50-
mm (2-in.) cube specimens of grout (non-shrink) or mortar, the reason for the
method is unclear. The information does provide further instruction for
development of cubes for evaluation (possibly of compressive strength per
C1107); however, it would appear that the purpose for the cube specimens would
need to be included in the document
Negative
Chair Response:
Recommend approve-no comments
Brett, delete the following:
section 7.6 is revised to "provide the same temperature protection as provided for
the structure." This is vague, particularly compared to the curing section in T23:
Making and curing concrete test specimens in the field that gives a specific
temperature range to be met.
Chair Response:
6. New Business
7. Adjourn
ACTION ITEMS
3. TP 80 will become a full Standard.
5. TP 93 will become a full Standard.
6. TP 83 will become a full Standard Recommended Practice. Mick Syslo and Maria Knake will check into the "R" designation prior to becoming
a Standard.
7. TP 83 will become a full Standard.
8. TP 83 editorial changes (Item #58-Curing options) will be placed on Spring Ballot.
4. TP 80 - Allow the option of inverting the cone (Missouri Comments) and place on the Fall Ballot.
1. T 318 will be added to the Spring Ballot.
2. T-26 will be removed as a Standard.
58Concurrent ballot to revise TP 83. See pages 24 - 29.
Will move forward with adopting as a standard. Will address comments in the spring/fall meeting.
The Chair talked about Missouri's and Rhode Island's comments on curing. Nebraska has reviewed and
agreed with their comments and included verbage about curing in TP 83. TP 83 will move forward as a full
standard and the additional comments will be balloted during the Spring Ballot.
Status after Semi-Annual Spring
Call Meeting:
WASHTO Conference in Omaha, Nebraska March 31 through April 3th. Mick welcomed anybody to wish to attend.
Follow Link: http://www.transportation.nebraska.gov/mat-n-tests/WASHTO/washto2014.html
Will move forward with adopting as a standard. Will address comments in the spring/fall meeting.
The Chair explained his reasoning on the negative to be nonpersuasive. Iowa made a motion to find the
negative nonpersuasive and seconded by New Jersey. The motion passed finding the negative
nonpersuasive. Move forward to move to put it in the spring ballot for voting.
Rhode Island Department of
Transportation (Mark E. Felag)
Affirmative
Will move forward with adopting as a standard. Will address comments in the spring/fall meeting.
No persuasive. Will move forward with adopting as a standard. Will address comments in the spring/fall
meeting.
Missouri Department of Transportation
(Brett Steven Trautman)
Affirmative
Meeting Minutes by Wally Heyen 5/5
A New Test Method to Measure the Freeze Thaw Durability of
Fresh Concrete
Braden Tabb, Robert Felice, John Michael Freeman, Robert Frazier, David Welchel
Tyler Ley, P.E., Ph. D
Why Do We Add Air to Concrete?
• Air-entrained bubbles are the key to the freeze-thaw resistance of concrete Air volume = Freeze Thaw Performance
• Smaller bubbles are more effective in providing freeze-thaw resistance than larger bubbles
• Volume of air provided is the same for both circumstances.
• Case B has a lower spacing factor and a higher specific surface.
A B
What Do You Want in an Air-Void System?
A B
• Volume of air provided is the same for both circumstances.
• Case B has a lower spacing factor and a higher specific surface.
What Do You Want in an Air-Void System?
Current Measuring Techniques
PCA photo
ASTM C 231 PCA photo
ASTM C 173 ASTM C 138
These only measure volume!!!
Open symbols failed ASTM C666
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.010
0.012
0.014
0.016
0.018
0.020
0.022
0.024
2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 8.0% 9.0%
Sp
acin
g F
acto
r (i
n)
Air Content of Concrete (Pressure)
No Polycarboxylate
Open symbols failed ASTM C666
Freeman et al., 2012
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.010
0.012
0.014
0.016
0.018
0.020
0.022
0.024
2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 8.0% 9.0%
Sp
acin
g F
acto
r (i
n)
Air Content of Concrete (Pressure)
No Polycarboxylate
Polycarboxylate
Open symbols failed ASTM C666
Freeman et al., 2012
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
9%
10%0
- 10
10 -
2020
- 30
30 -
4040
- 50
50 -
6060
- 70
70 -
8080
- 90
90 -
100
100
- 110
110
- 120
120
- 130
130
- 140
140
- 150
150
- 160
160
- 170
170
- 180
180
- 190
190
- 200
200
- 210
210
- 220
220
- 230
230
- 240
240
- 250
250
- 260
260
- 270
270
- 280
280
- 290
290
- 300
300
- 310
310
- 320
320
- 330
330
- 340
340
- 350
350
- 360
360
- 370
370
- 380
380
- 390
390
- 400
400
- 410
410
- 420
420
- 430
430
- 440
440
- 450
450
- 460
460
- 470
470
- 480
480
- 490
490
- 500
500
- 550
550
- 600
600
- 650
650
- 700
700
- 750
750
- 800
800
- 850
850
- 900
900
- 950
950
- 100
010
00 -
1200
1200
- 14
0014
00 -
1600
1600
- 18
0018
00 -
2000
2000
+
norm
alize
d Ai
r Con
tent
Fra
ctio
n
Chord Size, microns
WROS OnlyPC1 + WROS
Freeman et al., 2012
small voids large voids
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
9%
10%0
- 10
10 -
2020
- 30
30 -
4040
- 50
50 -
6060
- 70
70 -
8080
- 90
90 -
100
100
- 110
110
- 120
120
- 130
130
- 140
140
- 150
150
- 160
160
- 170
170
- 180
180
- 190
190
- 200
200
- 210
210
- 220
220
- 230
230
- 240
240
- 250
250
- 260
260
- 270
270
- 280
280
- 290
290
- 300
300
- 310
310
- 320
320
- 330
330
- 340
340
- 350
350
- 360
360
- 370
370
- 380
380
- 390
390
- 400
400
- 410
410
- 420
420
- 430
430
- 440
440
- 450
450
- 460
460
- 470
470
- 480
480
- 490
490
- 500
500
- 550
550
- 600
600
- 650
650
- 700
700
- 750
750
- 800
800
- 850
850
- 900
900
- 950
950
- 100
010
00 -
1200
1200
- 14
0014
00 -
1600
1600
- 18
0018
00 -
2000
2000
+
norm
alize
d Ai
r Con
tent
Fra
ctio
n
Chord Size, microns
WROS OnlyPC1 + WROS
Look at the difference in the volume of the air voids!!!
Freeman et al., 2012
small voids large voids
Summary • It is common to require a certain
volume of air in concrete in order to obtain freeze thaw durability
• The volume of air does not equal air void system quality
• Although, a hardened air void analysis (ASTM C 457) can measure the air-void quality it is not practical to run regularly
What do we need? • We need a test that can quantify air-
void systems quickly in fresh concrete • Investigate a sample of significant size • Economical • Field ready
Super Air Meter (SAM) • We have modified a typical ASTM C
231 pressure meter so that it can hold larger pressures
• We have replaced the typical gage with a digital one
• The test takes 8 minutes
How does it work? • Use ASTM C 231 procedures to fill the
measurement bowl • Secure the lid • Add water through the petcocks
0
15
30
45
60
75
90
0
App
lied
Pres
sure
(psi
)
Time
Top Chamber, Pc1
Bottom Chamber, Pa1
Equilibrium Pressure, P2When both chambers are in contact with one another
Top Chamber
Bottom Chamber
0
15
30
45
60
75
90
0
App
lied
Pres
sure
(psi
)
Time
Top Chamber, Pc1
Bottom Chamber, Pa1
Equilibrium Pressure, P2When both chambers are in contact with one another
0
15
30
45
60
75
90
0
App
lied
Pres
sure
(psi
)
Time
Top Chamber, Pc1
Bottom Chamber, Pa1
Equilibrium Pressure, P2When both chambers are in contact with one another
0
15
30
45
60
75
90
0
App
lied
Pres
sure
(psi
)
Time
Top Chamber, Pc1
Bottom Chamber, Pa1
Equilibrium Pressure, P2When both chambers are in contact with one another
release pressure in both chambers
0
15
30
45
60
75
90
0
App
lied
Pres
sure
(psi
)
Time
Top Chamber, Pc1
Bottom Chamber, Pa1
Equilibrium Pressure, P2When both chambers are in contact with one another
0
15
30
45
60
75
90
0
App
lied
Pres
sure
(psi
)
Time
Top Chamber, Pc1
Bottom Chamber, Pa1
Equilibrium Pressure, P2
How does it work? • We use an algorithm to find a SAM
number. • The SAM number correlates to air
void distribution • The meter also measures air volume
How can we prove it? • We made 95 concrete mixtures • Different AEAs • Combinations of AEAs and PCs • Different w/cm (0.39 - 0.53) • Slumps from 0.25” to 10” • Air contents from 1.25% to 10% • Hardened air void analysis (ASTM C
457) was completed on each mixture • Values were compared to the SAM
number
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.012
0.014
0.016
0.018
0.02
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Spac
ing
Fact
or (i
n)
SAM Number
WROS .45
SYNTH .45
WROS .53
WROS .41
WROS .39
WROS .45 + 575
SYNTH .45 + 575
WROS .45 + 20% Fly Ash
ACI 201
PASS
FAIL
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Mod
ulus
(%)
SAM NumberSAM Number
PASS
FAIL
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Chor
ds/i
n <
200
mic
rons
SAM Number
WROS .45SYNTH .45WROS .53WROS .41WROS .39WROS .45 + 575SYNTH .45 + 575WROS .45 + 20% Fly Ash
Observations • When the SAM number is below 0.2
then the spacing factor is below 0.008” for 90% of the samples and 98% of the samples had a spacing factor below 0.010”
• The SAM number seems to correlate with the amount of small bubbles in the sample
How Consistent Is It? • We ran the following on each of the 95
mixtures with two separate SAMs: – Air contents – SAM numbers – ASTM C 457 hardened air void analysis – Unit Weight
y = 1.015x - 0.0227R² = 0.9932
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
SAM
2 A
ir Co
nten
t (%
)
SAM 1 Air Content (%)
Mean Difference -0.005% Standard dev. 0.064%
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
SAM
Num
ber (
met
er 2
)
SAM Number (meter 1)
WROS .45SYNTH .45WROS .53WROS .41WROS .39WROS .45 + 575SYNTH .45 + 575WROS .45 + 20% Fly Ash
Mean Difference 0.006 Standard dev. 0.049
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
ASTM
C 4
57 H
arde
ned
Air (
%)
SAM Air (%)
WROS .45SYNTH .45WROS .53WROS .41WROS .39WROS .45 + 575SYNTH .45 + 575WROS .45 + 20% Fly Ash
y = 0.9982x + 0.2504
R² = 0.9668y = 0.9965x + 0.3611
R² = 0.9651
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Supe
r Air
(%)
Gravimetric Calculated Air (%)
What is happening? • As you increase the pressure you are
driving small bubbles into solution • When you pressure the bubbles the
second time there are less small bubbles and so the concrete responds differently to the same pressures
The Future! • While this is a great achievement
more work is needed • A pooled fund research project is
starting March 1st • The project is lead by OSU with
collaborations from: – Jason Weiss - Purdue, – Larry Sutter - Michigan Tech, – Peter Taylor – Iowa State
Future SAM work • Field validation • Validation by other labs • Inter lab precision and bias • Finish freeze thaw testing • Impact of aggregate correction factor
and lightweight aggregates • Creation of AASHTO test method
Other Pooled Fund Work • Improved specifications for frost
durability of concrete with deicing solutions
• A new freeze thaw test that takes only a week!
How can this group help? • Tell someone else about the SAM! • I want to develop a new AASHTO test
method • I need field data • I need other labs to help validate the
meter and develop a precision and bias statement
w/c ratio Cement
lb/yd ³ Paste
Content (%) Coarse lb/yd³ Fine lb/yd³ Water lb/yd³
0.41 611 29 1900 1217 250
0.45 611 30 1850 1203 275
0.53 611 33 1775 1150 324
Observations • Recall that the spacing factor
calculation is dependent on the specific surface calculation which is dependent on the voids per inch.
number of chords
traverse length