The Use of Silica Fume Concrete for Full-Depth Bridge Deck Construction
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Final Report 2001-18 Using Silica Fume Concrete with Full-Depth Bridge Deck Construction in Minnesota Research Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. 3. Recipients Accession No. MN/RC – 2001-18 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date USING SILICA FUME CONCRETE WITH FULL-DEPTH June 2001 BRIDGE DECK CONSTRUCTION IN MINNESOTA 6. 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Eric Embacher 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Project/Task/Work Unit No. Minnesota Department of Transportation Office of Materials and Road Research 11. Contract (C) or Grant (G) No. 1400 Gervais Avenue Maplewood, Minnesota 55109 12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Minnesota Department of Transportation Final Report 1997-1999 395 John Ireland Boulevard Mail Stop 330 14. Sponsoring Agency Code St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 15. Supplementary Notes 16. Abstract (Limit: 200 words) This report presents the results of a research project to evaluate the performance of six full-depth silica fume bridge decks, constructed between 1997 and 1999. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) constructed these decks to compare their performance and constructability in Minnesota, which involves the use of a seven-inch structural slab followed by a two-inch low slump overlay. Researchers conducted air content and slump field testing, visual inspections, and laboratory testing on chloride permeability, compressive strength, and hardened air system properties. In addition, they compared initial costs between the current deck system and the full-depth silica fume decks. The overall performance of the silica fume bridge decks has been good; however, two of the bridge decks did have problems related to the development of silica fume balls. Laboratory testing has shown that silica fume concrete performs better in terms of chloride permeability and compressive strength. Field tests have shown that placement of the silica fume concrete is comparable to a conventional concrete mix. Finally, cost comparisons have shown the placement of a full-depth silica fume deck to be slightly lower than the current deck system. 17. Document Analysis/Descriptors 18. Availability Statement Silica fume Rapid chloride permeability No restrictions. Document available from: Microsilica National Technical Information Services, Full-depth bridge decks Springfield, Virginia 22161 19. Security Class (this report) 20. Security Class (this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price Unclassified Unclassified 68 USING SILICA FUME CONCRETE WITH FULL-DEPTH BRIDGE DECK CONSTRUCTION IN MINNESOTA Final Report Prepared by Eric Embacher Office of Materials and Road Research Minnesota Department of Transportation June 2001 Published by Minnesota Department of Transportation Office of Research Administration 200 Ford Building Mail Stop 330 117 University Avenue St Paul Minnesota 55155 The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Minnesota Department of Transportation at the time of publication. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. The authors and the Minnesota Department of Transportation do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to this report. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The author wishes to thank the Minnesota Department of Transportation’s Concrete Office and Office of Bridges and Structures for their guidance and assistance throughout this research project. TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................1 Background..................................................................................1 Scope............................................................................................3 Project Description.......................................................................3 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................5 New York State............................................................................5 Ohio..............................................................................................8 CHAPTER 3 REVIEW OF MINNESOTA’S SILICA FUME BRIDGE DECKS ........................................................................................11 Introduction..................................................................................11 1997..............................................................................................14 1998..............................................................................................16 1999..............................................................................................24 Field Summary.............................................................................37 CHAPTER 4 LABORATORY TESTING.........................................................39 Introduction..................................................................................39 Compressive Strength ..................................................................40 Rapid Chloride Permeability........................................................41 Air Void System ..........................................................................44 CHAPTER 5 INITIAL COST ANALYSIS.......................................................47 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................51 Conclusions..................................................................................51 Recommendations........................................................................53 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................55 APPENDIX A – RAW DATA LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1 Silica fume bridge decks constructed between 1997 and 1999 ...............11 Table 3.2 Concrete mix design for Bridge # 27075.................................................15 Table 3.3 Field test results for Bridge # 27075 (TH 55)..........................................15 Table 3.4 Concrete mix designs for Bridge # 70041 ...............................................17 Table 3.5 Field test results for Bridge # 70041 (stage 1).........................................18 Table 3.6 Field test results for Bridge # 70041 (approach panel)............................20 Table 3.7 Field test results for Bridge # 70041 (stage 2).........................................22 Table 3.8 Concrete mix design for Bridge # 27513.................................................24 Table 3.9 Field test results for Bridge # 27513........................................................25 Table 3.10 Concrete mix design for Bridge # 70042.................................................26 Table 3.11 Field test results for Bridge # 70042........................................................27 Table 3.12 Field test results for Bridge # 27255........................................................30 Table 3.13 Concrete mix design for Bridge # 27223.................................................31 Table 3.14 Field test results for Bridge # 27223........................................................33 Table 4.1 Compressive strength test results.............................................................41 Table 4.2 Chloride ion penetrability based on charge passed..................................42 Table 4.3 Linear traverse results..............................................................................45 Table 5.1 Silica fume bridge deck costs ..................................................................47 Table 5.2 Structural slab and low slump overlay deck costs ...................................48 Table A.1 Rapid chloride permeability test results...................................................A-1 Table A.2 Individual compressive strength test results ............................................A-2 Table A.3 Individual compressive strength test results continued ...........................A-3 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3.1 Concrete placement by pump...................................................................12 Figure 3.2 Concrete consolidation.............................................................................12 Figure 3.3 Double-roller screed and drag pan...........................................................13 Figure 3.4 Fogging over bridge deck ........................................................................13 Figure 3.5 Surface drying of bridge deck..................................................................21 Figure 3.6 Hairline crack in bridge deck...................................................................23 Figure 3.7 Spalling from silica fume ball..................................................................28 Figure 3.8 Median area used as walkway..................................................................32 Figure 3.9 Tearing of deck surface and lack of tining...............................................34 Figure 3.10 Spalling from silica fume ball..................................................................36 Figure 3.11 Transverse cracking in bridge deck .........................................................36 Figure 3.12 Multiple areas of deck spalling................................................................37 Figure 4.1 Chloride permeability test results after 56 days of moist curing