560 likes | 814 Views
The P2P Initiative – Focus on Innovation and Quality. © National Ready Mixed Concrete Association All rights reserved. Announcement.
E N D
The P2P Initiative – Focus on Innovationand Quality © National Ready Mixed Concrete Association All rights reserved
Announcement • This program is registered with the AIA/CES for continuing professional education. As such, it does not include content that may be deemed or construed to be an approval or endorsement by the AIA of any material of construction or any method or manner of handling, using, distributing, or dealing in any material or product.
Introduction • Continuing education for engineers and architects • Length of Presentation: 1 Hours • Architects Earn 1 LUs • Engineers Earn 1 PDHs • NRMCA is an AIA/CES Registered Provider • Records kept on file with NRMCA and AIA/CES Records
What is the P2P Initiative? • Prescription-to-Performance • An alternative to current prescriptive specifications • An initiative of the concrete industry • Spearheaded by the NRMCA
P2P GOALS • Allow performance specifications as an alternative to current prescriptive specifications • Leverage expertise of all parties to improve quality and reliability of concrete construction • Assist architects/engineers to address concrete specifications in terms of functional requirements • Allow flexibility on the details of concrete mixtures and construction means and methods • Better establish roles and responsibilities based on expertise • Elevate the performance level and quality of ready mixed concrete • Foster innovation and advance new technology at a faster pace
What is a prescriptive Specification? • Do not always cover intended performance • May conflict with intended performance • Limits competitive bidding • No incentive for quality control • Not in the owner’s best interest
Prescriptive Specification Intended Performance • Placing/Finishing • Strength • Max Shrinkage • Resistance To: • Freeze-Thaw • Deicer scaling • Corrosion • Sulfate attack • ASR • Cracking • Abrasion Typical Criteria • Slump • Max w/cm ratio • Min cement content • Min/max air • Min/Max pozzolans/slag • Blended cements • Aggregate grading • Source Limitations • Chloride Limits
Water-cement Ratio Air Air Water Water Paste Cement Cement
What is a Performance Specification? • Focus on performance and function • Flexibility to adjust mixture ingredients and proportions to achieve consistent performance • Measurable and enforceable
Benefits to the Owner • Improved quality • Improved performance • Reduced construction time • Reduced cost • Higher confidence in concrete construction
Benefits to the Engineer/Architect • Focus on function rather than composition • Strength, Durability, Shrinkage, etc. • Simplified submittal review • Improved product consistency • Reduced conflict with contractor/producer • Reduced risk – contractor and producer are responsible for performance
Benefits to the Contractor • Improved communication/coordination • Constructability requirements addressed • Predictable performance • Innovate on construction means and methods
Benefits to the Producer • Eliminates conflicts and improves clarity in specifications • Encourages innovation and rewards investment in quality control • Allows optimization of mixtures for performance • Allows adjustment of materials/proportions to compensate for material or ambient conditions variations
What are the Challenges? • Acceptance of Change • Trust / Credibility • Knowledge Level (training) • Reference Codes and Specifications • Prescriptive limitations • Measurement and Testing • Reliability of existing tests • Reliability of jobsite tests
What Activities are Underway? • Communication • Engineers, Architects, Contractors, and Producers • Articles and presentations • Developing Producer Quality System / Qualifications • Developing Model Spec / Code Revisions • Look at model codes from other countries (Canada, Europe, Australia) • Look at similar initiatives in the US (FHWA and DOTs) • Documenting Case Studies • Conducting Research • Test Methods for Performance • Quantifying differences between prescriptive and performance mixes • Delivering Training Programs
Lab Study Demonstrating Advantages of Performance Specification • Case 1: Real Floor Specification from a Major Owner • Case 2: Typical HPC Bridge Deck Specification • Case 3: ACI 318 Chapter 4 Code – prescriptive durability provisions
Fresh Concrete Tests • Fresh Concrete Properties • Slump: ASTM 143 • Air Content: ASTM C 231 • Density: ASTM C 138 • Temperature: ASTM C 1064 • Initial Setting Time (Case 1): ASTM C 403 • Finishability (Case 1): Subjective rating (5=Excellent to 1=Poor) • Segregation (Case 1): Cylinders vibrated, density of top and bottom half compared
Hardened Concrete Tests • Compressive Strength, ASTM C 39 • Length Change, ASTM C 157
Durability Tests • Rapid Chloride Permeability Test (RCPT), ASTM C 1202 • Rapid Migration Test (RMT), AASHTO TP 64 • Sorptivity, ASTM C 1585 • Bulk Diffusion, ASTM C 1556
Case 1 - Concrete Floor Specification Specified by Contractor
Experimental Program (5 concrete mixtures) • One control (prescriptive) and 4 performance mixtures FS-1: CM = 611, w/cm = 0.49, 8-18% aggregate FS-2: CM = 517, w/cm = 0.57, 8-18% aggregate FS-3: CM = 530, 20% FA, w/cm = 0.57, 8-18% aggregate FS-4: CM = 530, 20% FA with binary aggregates, w/cm = 0.53, #467 stone aggregate FS-5: CM = 530, 20% SL, 15% FA with binary aggregates, w/cm = 0.54, #467 stone aggregate
Segregation & Shrinkage • Segregation Index: Difference in the coarse aggregate content was consistently about 20% except for Mixture FS-5 which was about 15% • Shrinkage: All mixtures except FS-5 had 28 day shrinkage < 0.020%
All 5 concrete mixtures had a rating above 4.5 indicating excellent finishability Slab Finishability Test
Summary – Floor Slab Mixtures • All performance mixtures met performance requirements except Mixture FS-5 • Strength over-design factor, limiting w/cm increased cement contents • Use of SCMs was beneficial • Continuous aggregate grading mixtures did not impact performance • Performance mixtures had substantial material costs savings
Case 2 - HPC Bridge Deck Specification Specified by Contractor
Experimental Program (4 mixtures) • One control (prescriptive) and 3 performance mixtures BR-1: C = 550, Class F FA = 105, SF = 50; Total = 705 BR-2: C = 426, Class F FA = 150, SF = 24; Total = 600 BR-3: C = 300, SL = 300; Total = 600 BR-4: C = 426, Class F FA = 150, UFFA = 34; Total = 612 • w/cm=0.39 for all mixtures except 0.36 for Mix 4
Strength • Compressive Strength: 28 day strengths were much higher than specified (6800 to 8970 psi)
Rapid Migration Test • FHWA Performance Grade (AASHTO TP 64) • Grade 1: RCPT = 2000 to 3000; RMT = 0.024 to 0.034 • Grade 2: RCPT = 800 to 2000; RMT = 0.012 to 0.024 • Grade 3: RCPT < 800; RMT < 0.012
Summary – HPC Bridge Deck Mixtures • All performance mixtures met performance requirements • Performance mixtures had similar or better performance than Prescriptive mixtures • Drying shrinkage, workability (stickiness), HRWR dosage, strength, RCPT, RMT • Performance mixtures had substantial material cost savings
Case 3 - ACI 318 Chapter 4 Prescriptive durability provisions • Objective: Determine if w/cm is the best measure for durability (permeability).
Experimental Program (4 mixtures) • One control (prescriptive) and 3 performance mixtures 318-1: 750 lbs Portland cement mixture 318-2: CM = 700; 25% FA (1.16% less paste) 318-3: CM = 564; 25% FA (7.24% less paste) 318-4: Same as #3 but yield adjusted largely by coarse aggregate • w/cm = 0.42 • Slump = 3.75” – 6.5”; Air = 4.1% to 7.4%
At same w/cm=0.42 Results
Summary – ACI 318 Mixtures • Code limitations on w/cm are no guarantee for high durability concrete • Considerable advances in the use of SCMs and chemical admixtures • Code durability provisions should be performance based
Conclusions • Prescriptive specs do not assure performance • Performance mixtures achieved equal or better performance • Great opportunity for mixture optimization • Producers compete on their knowledge, resources • ACI 318 durability provisions needs to change
ACI 318 Chapter 4 Restructuring • Exposure Category F – Exposure to freezing and thawing cycles • Exposure Category S – Exposure to water-soluble sulfates • Exposure Category P – Conditions that require low permeability concrete • Exposure Category C – Conditions that require additional corrosion protection of reinforcement
Conditions that require additional corrosion protection of reinforcement
Table 4.4.1—Total Air Content for Concrete Exposed to Cycles of Freezing and Thawing
Table 4.4.2—Requirements for Concrete Subject to Deicing Exposure Class F3