Wally Heyen

2. OUTLINE
• NEBRASKA TESTING FROM 2008 - 2016
• CORRELATING ASTM C1293 WITH FHWA TP-65 (AASHTO R 80)
• NEBRASKA TESTING FROM 2016 TO PRESENT
• CORRELATING AASHTO T 380 (MINI PRISM TESTING - TP 110) TO ASTM C 1293
• CHANGE IN BLENDED/INTERGROUND CEMENT SPECIFICATION

3. NEBRASKA
STARTED TO LOOK TOWARDS
MINIMIZING THE RISK OF ASR

4. Thomas, Fournier & Folliard, 2008
Determining The Reactivity Of Concrete
Aggregates And Selecting Appropriate
Measures For Preventing Deleterious
Expansion In New Concrete
Construction
Federal Highways Administration,
FHWA-HIF-09-001
National Strategy for Preventing ASR....
First Step – FHWA Protocol – AASHTO R 80

5. POSTER TEMPLATE BY:
www.PosterPresentations.com
Nebraska Department of Transportation Evaluation of Statewide Aggregate Reactivity -Phase I
LIESKA HALSEY & WALLY HEYEN
2009-2010
NEBRASKA
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this investigation is to study the nature of
Nebraska‘s aggregates’ reactivity from various locations
across the state. The evaluation is based on the standard test
methods for Potential Alkali Reactivity of Aggregates-ASTM
C 1260 and ASTM C 1567. The ASTM C 1260 determines
and characterizes the reactivity of the aggregates within 28
days according to NDOR specifications and ASTM C 1567
determines the mitigation of ASR with the use of
supplemental cementitious materials (SCM).
Phase I - Materials and Experimental Laboratory Testing:
The materials used in this investigation was from 9 different
aggregates sources, see Figure 1 below.
All testing followed the ASTM C 1260 and ASTM C 1293.
The results of length change are shown in Table 1.
ANALYSIS OF AGGREGATE REACTIVY ACCORDING TO AASTHO
The analyses of the results were based on AASHTO PP
65-10 2010’s special provision guide titled “Determining
the Reactivity of Concrete Aggregate and Selecting
Appropriate Measures for Preventing Deleterious
Expansion in New Construction”. The aggregate degree of
aggregate reactivity evaluation was guided as shown in
Table 2 with the identification of the reactivity classification
according to AASTHO Protocol; followed by determining
the level of ASR risk as shown in Figure 2 under all
concrete exposed to humid air, buried or immersed due to
Nebraska’s winter condition; as well as the classification of
the type of the structure shown on Figure 3, which follows
Class S3; followed Figure 4 and Figure 5, which covers the
minimum replacement level of SCM for various levels of
prevention by reactivity classification.
Table 2 - Degree of Aggregate Reactivity According to Protocol AASTHO PP-65
The analysis through Phase I evaluation shows that Nebraska’s
aggregate, resulted in Moderate to Very Highly Reactive
aggregates, as described in Table 3.
Comparing the results with NDOR’s current specifications for
minimum replacement levels when using SCM, the study
found the Elkhorn River and Republican River are Very Highly
Reactive aggregates, which required up to 35 percent SCM
replacement. The NDOR’s Specification requires up to 25
percent SCM replacement. The continuation of this
evaluation will be covered in Phase II using the same
aggregates tested in Phase I according to ASTM C 1293
testing (Figure 6) method using Supplemental Cementitious
Materials SCM’s percentage currently used in Nebraska.
Aggregate-
Reactivity
Class
Description
of Agg.
Reactivity
1 Year
Expansion in
CPT (%)
14-Day
Expansion in
AMPT (%)
R0 Non-reactive <0.04 <0.10
R1
Moderate
Reactive
0.040 - 0.120 >0.10 , <0.30
R2
Highly
reactive
0.120 - 0.240 >0.30 -<0.45
R3
Very highly
Reactive
> 0.240 > 0.45
Figure 2 - *Determining the Level of ASR Risk
Figure 3 - * StructureClassification
Figure 4 - * Determining the level of Prevention
Table 3 represents the classification according to the
AASTHO PP-65 specification, the color code representation
follows Table 2 according to the level of reactivity:
Table 3.- Summary of Results and Evaluation According to Aggregate Reactivity
Figure 5 - *Level of Prevention
Figure 1 - Nebraska’s Regions
Source of
Aggregate
Aggregate
Location
Cementitious
Material
ASTM C 1260
Results
28 days Duration
(%)
ASTM C
1293
Results
1 Year
Duration
(%)
Platte River
Grand
Island
Type I/II 0.39 0.09
Dry Pit Kimball Type I/II 0.32 0.21
Republican
River
Indianola Type I/II 0.48 0.45
North Platte
River
Scottsbluff Type I/II 0.46 0.15
South Platte
River
Ogallala Type I/II 0.25 0.06
MiddleLoup
River
Thedford Type I/II 0.39 0.19
Little Blue River Fairbury Type I/II 0.48 0.10
Elkhorn River Norfolk Type I/II 0.57 0.30
Platte River
Linoma-
Omaha
Type I/II 0.46 0.15
Table 1 - Phase I Evaluation according by ASTM C 1260 and ASTM C 1293
Figure 6 - ASTM C 1293
Specimens Preparation
* All Figures are referenced from AASTHO PP 65-10

6. POSTER TEMPLATE BY:
www.PosterPresentations.com
Nebraska Department of Transportation Evaluation of Statewide Aggregate Reactivity -Phase II
LIESKA HALSEY & WALLY HEYEN
2010-2013
NEBRASKA
INTRODUCTION
Phase II of the laboratory investigation is currently underway
and serves as a continuation of Phase I. Which, analysis of
the test results were based on the AASHTO PP 65-10 (2010)
special provision guide, “Determining the Reactivity of
Concrete Aggregate and Selecting Appropriate Measures for
Preventing Deleterious Expansion in New Construction” and
ultimately determine the overall level of risk due to ASR.
Through Phase I evaluation, it was found that all aggregate
pit locations tested resulted in Moderate to Very Highly
Reactive aggregates, as described in Table 2.
The same aggregate sources analyzed in the initial phase,
will be tested according to ASTM C 1293 (Standard Test
Method for Determining the Potential Alkali-Silica Reaction)
of Combinations of Cementitious Materials using SCM
percentage currently specified by NDOR as a IP cement
using 25% Class F fly ash replacement (Figure 1).
ANALYSIS OF AGGREGATE REACTIVY ACCORDING TO AASTHO PP 65-10
The current evaluation has proven NDOR’s Standard Specification mitigates all currently used aggregate across the state, as
summarized in Table 2. In addition, a database will be created that fully categorizes the reactivity of Nebraska’s principal aggregate
sources. Also, this study will review past performance of NDOR projects built with SCM’s.
This investigation took a look at NDOR project field performance with reactive aggregates from the category of moderate reactive to
very highly reactive aggregate, as summarized in Table 3. Field performance analysis were based on the AASHTO PP 65-10 (2010)
special provision guide.
Comparing the results with NDOR’s current specifications for
minimum replacement levels when using SCM, it was found
the Elkhorn River a Very Highly Reactive aggregate, which
required up to 35 percent SCM replacement, could perform
well with replacement up to 25 percent SCM as per AASTHO
PP 65-10 states when using a low alkali cement. Figure 4
shows Norfolk East project built with 22 percent interground
IP with Class F fly ash field performance.
Table 2. Nebraska’s Aggregate Testing with SCM Percentage currently Specified by NDOR
Table 2 - Nebraska’s Aggregate Reactivity Classification
Aggregate
Location
ASTM C 1293
Results 1 Year
(%)
Description of
Agg. Reactivity
Aggregate
Reactivity Class
Table 1-Protocol A
Grand Island 0.09
Moderate
Reactive
R1
Kimball 0.21 Highly Reactive R2
Republican
River
0.45
Very Highly
Reactive
R3
Scottsbluff 0.15
Moderate
Reactive
R2
Ogallala 0.06
Moderate
Reactive
R1
Thedford 0.19 Highly Reactive R2
Fairbury 0.10
Moderate
Reactive
R1
Norfolk 0.30
Very Highly
Reactive
R3
Linoma 0.15
Moderate
Reactive
R2
Figure 1.
Aggregate
Location
SCM Material
ASTM C 1293 Results
2 Years (%)
Grand Island
IPF(25%ClassFFlyAsh)
0.02
Kimball 0.01
Republican River 0.01
0.02Scottsbluff
Ogallala 0.01
Thedford 0.01
Fairbury 0.01
Norfolk 0.01
Linoma 0.03
Route
Built
Project
Number
Cement Type
Used
Source of
Aggregate
ASTM C
1293
Results
1 Years (%)
Min.
Replacement
Level of SCM to
Provide Levels
of Prevention
Reduce the min.
amount of SCM
one prevention
Level due to low
alkali Cement-
Table 8 - Protocol
A
Performance
2011
Chester
Hebron
1994
F-81-
1(1017)
Type I
Added 17% Class
F
Grand
Island
0.10
Moderate
Reactive
20% 15%
Ansley
2001
S-2-3
(1019)
Type I
Added
17 % Class F
Thedford
0.19
Highly
Reactive
25% 20%
Norfolk
East
1995
275-5-
(1013)
IPF
Interground
22% Class F
Norfolk
0.30
Very Highly
Reactive
35% 25%
Norfolk
East
2005
F-275-6
(1020)
Led with 98 Spec
Type 17% IPN+9%
C
Norfolk
0.30
Very Highly
Reactive
35% 25%
Table 3 - Summary of NDOR Projects Field Performance with Reactive Aggregates
Performance review provided a good correlation with the special provision guidance of AASHTO PP65-10 (2010). In fact, the
protocol correlates well when reviewing the field performance (Figure 2 and 3) of Ansley built in 2001 using highly reactive
aggregate with not enough SCM to mitigate the reaction.
Figure 3 - Field Performance
(Highly Reactive Aggregate)
Ansley built 2001
Figure 2 - Field Performance
(Highly Reactive Aggregate)
Ansley built 2001
Figure 4 - Field Performance (Very Highly Reactive Aggregate)
Norfolk East built 1995
The same correlation was found when evaluating the field
performance (Figure 5) of Norfolk East built in 2004 using
very highly reactive aggregate with not enough prevention
measure to mitigate the reaction.
Figure 5 - Field Performance (Very Highly Reactive Aggregate)
Norfolk East built 2004
The analysis of Phase II is guided by the composition of the
ashes being used in the evaluation and the classification of
aggregate reactivity as per Protocol A. Phase II is in
progress.

7. Aggregate
Type
Location
Platte River
Grand Island
Dry Pit
Kimball
Republican
River
Indianola
North Platte
River
Scottsbluff
South Platte
River
Ogallala
Middle Loup
River
Thedford
Little Blue
River
Fairbury
Elkhorn River
Norfolk
Platte River
Linoma
Descripti
on of
Agg.
Reactivity
Moderat
e
Reactive
Highly
Reactive
Very
Highly
Reactive
Highly
Reactive
Moderat
e
Reactive
Highly
Reactive
Moderat
e
Reactive
Very
Highly
(Table 6-
AASHTO
PP 65-10)
Type I/II Cement
Low Alkalinity
Min.
Replacem
ent Level
of SCM
Min.
Replacem
ent
Level of
SCM
Mitigate
ASR
20 15
25 20
35 25
25 20
20 15
25 20
20 15
35 25
Nebraska's
Spec
Since Late
2004
IP with 25%
Class F
Republican River
Indianola’s Aggregate
Non- Approved Aggregate

9.  Part I - Consisted of using the Mini
Concrete Prism Test (AASHTO T 380).
 Baseline established by the data
from the 2008 study, which
utilized the C1293 test method
and compare it to the AASHTO T
380.
 The goal was to ensure that the
same results would be obtained
from both tests before the final
implementation of AASHTO T 380.

10. Phase I (ASTM C 1260) Type I/II cement – 28 days testing (Completed)
 ASTM C 1260 to find out the aggregates reactivity
Phase II Mini Prism Testing (84 days Testing with Type I/II cement)
• A- Coarse side of the Linoma aggregate
• B- Fine side of the Linoma aggregate
• C- 100% Sand and gravel from Linoma
• D- 47B (70%-30%)
Phase IIIMini Prism Testing (84 days Testing with IP)
 A- Coarse side of the Linoma aggregate (S&G)
 B- Fine side of the Linoma aggregate
 C- 100% Sand and gravel aggregate from Linoma
 D- 47B (70%-30%)
Phase IV Mini Prism Testing (84 days Testing with Slag)
 38% Slag Mini-Prism testing
1. Fine aggregate (Linoma)
2. Fine aggregate (Norfolk)
2016 to Present

11. Noncompliant material shall be tested in accordance with ASTM C 1567
Alkali Silica Reaction Requirements and Testing:
a. Interground/Blended cement shall be tested according to the provisions of ASTM C
1567.
(1) The mortar bars shall be composed of Type IP, IS or IT Interground/blended
cement and sand and gravel from an approved Platte River Valley-Saunders
County source. the highest reactive aggregate incorporated in the project.
i. When Elkhorn River-Madison County source or an out of state aggregate
source is being used on a project, the Elkhorn River or an out of state
aggregate source shall be used in lieu of the Platte River Valley-
Saunders County source.
ii. When Contractor proposes a change of aggregate source, then the new
aggregate source shall be tested by ASTM C 1567.
(2) The mortar bars for the ASTM C 1567 shall not exceed 0.10% expansion at 28
days.
i. If the expansion is greater than 0.10% at 28 days, then the
Interground/Blended cement shall be tested in accordance with
AASTHO T 380 using the aggregate from the project with an
expansion not greater than 0.02% at 56 days.

12. • 11.5 days, 10 states & 5100 miles
Questions?