Determining In-place Material Properties Of Concrete In Drilled Shafts
DETERMINING IN-PLACE MATERIAL PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE IN DRILLED SHAFTS Jennifer A. Abayon Gaur P. Johnson and Ian N. Robertson Research Report UHM/CEE/11-07 May 2011
ii
DETERMINING IN-PLACE MATERIAL PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE IN DRILLED SHAFTS Jennifer A. Abayon Gaur P. Johnson and Ian N. Robertson Research Report UHM/CEE/11-07 May 2011 iii
iv
Abstract Elastic modulus and compressive strength are the most valued material properties of concrete in structural engineering. These properties are commonly measured because of their significance in design, quality control and quality assurance. The purpose of this research is to evaluate the material properties of hardened concrete in drilled shaft foundation for the replacement of the North Kahana Stream Bridge. Generally, molded test specimens are indicative of the actual properties of concrete in structures. However, for the purpose of investigating the use of self-consolidating concrete with locally available aggregates in drilled shafts, correlations between molded specimens and cores from test drilled shafts were examined to determine the in-place material properties of concrete. The results of this research are intended to assist in the study of SCC use in Hawaii, in comparison with conventional concrete. A series of tests and analyses were performed to calculate the dynamic and static moduli of elasticity and compressive strength of concrete in one conventional concrete drilled shaft and two SCC drilled shafts. Based on the results, it was determined that the SCC drilled shafts have higher and more preferable material properties of hardened concrete than the drilled shaft constructed with conventional concrete. There was also less inconsistency observed in the SCC data to which less irregularity in concrete performance could be attributed. It was concluded that the SCC and conventional concrete mixture designs were both recommendable for use in the North Kahana Stream Bridge drilled shaft construction. v
Acknowledgements This report is based on a Masters Plan B research project by Jennifer Abayon under the direction of Drs. Ian Robertson and Gaur Johnson at the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. The authors would like to acknowledge Dr. David Ma for reviewing this report and serving on the presentation committee. Appreciation is also extended to Mitchell Pinkerton and Miles Wagner for their assistance in the laboratory. Funding for this research was provided by the State of Hawaii Department of Transportation. This funding is gratefully acknowledged. vi
Table of Contents Abstract .v Acknowledgements . vi List of Tables . ix List of Tables in Appendix A. ix List of Figures . xi 1 Introduction .1 1.1 Objective . 1 1.2 Literature Review. 1 1.2.1 Concrete Material Properties . 1 1.2.2 Self-Consolidating Concrete in Drilled Shaft Construction . 4 1.3 North Kahana Stream Bridge Replacement . 5 2 Test Methods .7 2.1 Test Specimens . 7 2.1.1 Test Cylinders . 7 2.1.2 Test Shaft Cores . 8 2.2 Fundamental Longitudinal Frequency Test . 9 2.3 Static Modulus of Elasticity Test . 11 2.4 Compressive Strength Test . 13 vii
3 Test Results .15 3.1 Dynamic Modulus of Elasticity . 15 3.2 Static Modulus of Elasticity . 16 3.3 Compressive Strength . 16 4 Data Analysis and Discussion.17 4.1 Dynamic Modulus of Elasticity . 17 4.2 Static Modulus of Elasticity . 19 4.3 Compressive Strength . 20 4.4 In-Place Material Properties . 23 5 Error Analysis .43 6 Conclusions and Recommendations .44 7 References .47 APPENDIX A .49 APPENDIX B .69 APPENDIX C .73 viii
List of Tables Table 1 – Concrete mix designs . 6 Table 2 – Average dynamic modulus of elasticity of test cylinders . 15 Table 3 – Average dynamic modulus of elasticity of test shaft cores . 15 Table 4 – Average raw static modulus of elasticity of test cylinders . 16 Table 5 – Average raw compressive strength of test cylinders . 17 Table 6 – Average raw compressive strength of test shaft cores . 17 Table 7 – Dynamic modulus comparison between test cylinders and cores. 19 Table 8 – Estimation of in-place static modulus of elasticity . 20 Table 9 – Compressive strength ratios and computed correction factors, F. 21 Table 10 – Estimated in-place compressive strengths and theoretical static moduli . 22 Table 11 – Summary of in-place material properties. 24 Table 12 – Compressive strength equations as a function of depth, z (ft) . 33 Table 13 – Static modulus of elasticity equations as a function of depth, z (ft) . 40 List of Tables in Appendix A Table A 1 – TSS: Dynamic modulus of elasticity calculation from test cylinders . 50 Table A 2 – LTS: Dynamic modulus of elasticity calculation from test cylinders. 50 Table A 3 – LTC: Dynamic modulus of elasticity calculation for test cylinders . 51 Table A 4 – All: Dynamic modulus of elasticity calculation for test cylinder cores . 51 Table A 5 – All: Dynamic modulus calculation from test shaft cores of various lengths 52 Table A 6 – TSS: Dynamic modulus calculation from 5-inch test shaft cores . 53 ix
Table A 7 – LTS: Dynamic modulus calculation from 5-inch test shaft cores. 54 Table A 8 – LTC: Dynamic modulus calculation from 5-inch test shaft cores . 55 Table A 9 – TSS: Static modulus calculation from test cylinders . 56 Table A 10 – LTS: Static modulus calculation from test cylinders . 56 Table A 11 – LTC: Static modulus calculation from test cylinders . 57 Table A 12 – TSS: Raw compressive strength calculation from test cylinders . 57 Table A 13 – LTS: Raw compressive strength calculation from test cylinders. 58 Table A 14 – LTC: Raw compressive strength calculation from test cylinders . 58 Table A 15 – TSS: Raw compressive strength calculation from test shaft cores . 59 Table A 16 – LTS: Raw compressive strength calculation from test shaft cores . 60 Table A 17 – LTC: Raw compressive strength calculation from test shaft cores. 61 Table A 18 – Compressive strength adjustment for test cylinders . 62 Table A 19 – TSS: Estimation of in-place static modulus of elasticity . 63 Table A 20 – LTS: Estimation of in-place static modulus of elasticity . 64 Table A 21 – LTC: Estimation of in-place static modulus of elasticity . 65 Table A 22 – TSS: Estimation of in-place compressive strength . 66 Table A 23 – LTS: Estimation of in-place compressive strength . 67 Table A 24 – LTC: Estimation of in-place compressive strength . 68 x
List of Figures Figure 1 – Relationship between compressive strength and l/d ratio (Price, 1951) . 2 Figure 2 – Typical concrete stress-strain curve . 4 Figure 3 – Test cylinder specimen size reduction . 7 Figure 4 – Labeled core samples; core with observed defects. 8 Figure 5 – Signal analyzer (black box) and amplifier (blue box) . 9 Figure 6 – Specimen test setup . 10 Figure 7 – Compression test machine; compressometer. 12 Figure 8 – Specimen sizes and properties determined . 14 Figure 9 – Typical strength-gain curve (University of Memphis, 2010) . 22 Figure 10 – TSS: Predicted vs. measured Ec according to ACI 363 . 25 Figure 11 – TSS: Predicted vs. measured Ec according to Newtson & Pham . 25 Figure 12 – LTS: Predicted vs. measured Ec according to ACI 363 . 26 Figure 13 – LTS: Predicted vs. measured Ec according to Newtson & Pham . 26 Figure 14 – LTC: Predicted vs. measured Ec according to ACI 363 . 27 Figure 15 – LTC: Predicted vs. measured Ec according to Newtson & Pham . 27 Figure 16 – SCC: Predicted vs. measured Ec according to ACI 363 . 28 Figure 17 – SCC: Predicted vs. measured Ec according to Newtson & Pham . 28 Figure 18 – All: Predicted vs. measured Ec according to ACI 363 . 29 Figure 19 – All: Predicted vs. measured Ec according to Newtson & Pham . 29 Figure 20 – TSS: Compressive strength vs. static modulus of elasticity . 30 Figure 21 – LTS: Compressive strength vs. static modulus of elasticity. 31 Figure 22 – LTC: Compressive strength vs. static modulus of elasticity . 31 xi
Figure 23 – SCC: Compressive strength vs. static modulus of elasticity . 32 Figure 24 - All: Compressive strength vs. static modulus of elasticity . 32 Figure 25 – TSS: Compressive strength vs. depth . 35 Figure 26 – LTS: Compressive strength vs. depth. 35 Figure 27 – LTC: Compressive strength vs. depth . 36 Figure 28 – SCC: Compressive strength vs. depth . 36 Figure 29 – All: Compressive strength vs. depth . 37 Figure 30 – TSS: Unit weight vs. depth . 37 Figure 31 – LTS: Unit weight vs. depth . 38 Figure 32 – LTC: Unit weight vs. depth . 38 Figure 33 – SCC: Unit weight vs. depth . 39 Figure 34 – All: Unit weight vs. depth . 39 Figure 35 – TSS: Static modulus of elasticity vs. depth . 40 Figure 36 – LTS: Static modulus of elasticity vs. depth . 41 Figure 37 – LTC: Static modulus of elasticity vs. depth . 41 Figure 38 – SCC: Static modulus of elasticity vs. depth . 42 Figure 39 – All: Static modulus of elasticity vs. depth . 42 xii
1 Introduction 1.1 Objective The objective of this research was to determine the material properties of concrete in trial drilled shafts that were constructed to evaluate the proposed concrete mixture designs for the drilled shaft foundation of the new North Kahana Stream Bridge. The overall project intends to study and develop specifications and mix design guidelines for the use of self-consolidating concrete (SCC) in Hawaii. SCC and conventional concrete mix designs were compared by investigating placement and post-placement performance. This research focuses on analyzing the material properties of the hardened concrete, namely the dynamic modulus of elasticity, static modulus of elasticity and compressive strength. Field-cured test cylinders and test shaft cores were tested and correlated to indicate the in-place properties of concrete in the drilled shafts. 1.2 Literature Review 1.2.1 Concrete Material Properties Material properties are significant in evaluating the performance of concrete structures. The most common parameters used in describing concrete are compressive strength and elastic modulus. Compressive strength, fc’, is accepted as the general measure of overall concrete strength. Molded test cylinders that are cured similar to the structural element are typically used to estimate the in-place strength of concrete. However, because it is difficult to recreate the same curing conditions in the structure for the molded specimens, 1
samples may be obtained from the existing structure and tested for strength. The strength determined from structure cores are representative of the in-place strength, with some uncertainties. Compressive strength is not an absolute property, and test results are dependent on several factors such as size, shape, aspect ratio, moisture condition, age at testing, and others. ASTM C 39/C 39M provides the standard test method for compressive strength of cylindrical concrete specimens. The standard molded cylinder size is 6 inches in diameter by 12 inches long. The measured compressive strength is controlled by the weakest part of the specimen, and theoretically, smaller specimens are less probable to have large defects. Therefore, as specimen size decreases, the measured compressive strength is generally expected to increase. For higher strength concrete, size has a greater influence in the measured strength. Figure 1 – Relationship between compressive strength and l/d ratio (Price, 1951) 2
The standard length-diameter (l/d) ratio of test specimens is 2. As illustrated in Figure 1, compression tests yield higher strengths for smaller l/d ratio specimens with the same diameter. This is attributed to the restraint provided by friction between the load frame and the test specimen at the ends of the cylinder. This friction restricts diametric expansion at the specimen ends, and will have a greater influence on short specimens. The static modulus of elasticity, Ec, is approximately proportional to the square root of the compressive strength. For concrete with strength up to 6000 psi, Ec can be calculated in psi by the following equation (ACI 318, 2008). Ec 33w1.5 f c ' where w concrete unit weight, lb/ft3 fc’ compressive strength, psi (1) For high strength concrete with strengths between 6000 psi and 12000 psi, ACI Committee 363 recommends the following equation that is valid for strengths ranging from 3000 to 12000 psi (ACI 363, 1992). Ec 40,000 f c' 1.0 106 (2) The ACI equations typically overestimate the actual static modulus of elasticity of concrete made using Hawaiian aggregates. Newtson and Pham (2001) developed an equation that estimates Ec for concrete made with Hawaiian aggregates. Ec 26.73w1.71( fc )0.378 3 (3)
The static modulus of elasticity can also be measured by testing cylindrical specimens according to the standard compressive test method, ASTM C 469. This property is simply the stress to strain ratio of concrete, during the initial elastic response. Another elastic property of concrete that is not as commonly quantified is the dynamic modulus of elasticity. The dynamic modulus is an intrinsic property that is mainly used as a measure of deterioration in concrete specimens. ASTM C 215 is a nondestructive standard method for measuring the fundamental frequencies of concrete, which is used to calculate the dynamic modulus. This property is approximately equal to the initial tangent modulus in the stress-strain curve, shown in Figure 2, and is therefore greater than the static modulus of elasticity. Figure 2 – Typical concrete stress-strain curve 1.2.2 Self-Consolidating Concrete in Drilled Shaft Construction A drilled shaft is a reinforced concrete foundation constructed in a drilled hole. Drilled shafts are designed to resist vertical and lateral loads, and overturning moment. Because of dense reinforcing cages required by design, passing ability, flowability and 4
resistance to segregation are desirable characteristics of fresh concrete for use in drilled shafts. Self-consolidating concrete (SCC) possesses these qualities—it flows freely without mechanical vibration and, ideally, remains homogeneous. Several research programs have been conducted to investigate the use of SCC in drilled shafts, and it has been concluded that SCC is a viable material in this application. In this research, the material properties of SCC drilled shafts are evaluated as well as a conventional concrete drilled shaft. 1.3 North Kahana Stream Bridge Replacement This research project encompasses the analysis of three test drilled shafts that were built to investigate the proposed SCC mixture design, compared to conventional concrete, for the North Kahana Bridge drilled shaft construction. The use of SCC in drilled shafts has been increasingly popular in many parts of the world, but because of the high angularity and high absorption of Hawaiian aggregates, further investigation is needed for local application. The test shafts are approximately 59 inches in diameter and 160 feet deep. Two test shafts were made of SCC and one was made using conventional concrete. The mixture designs and the properties of the design fresh concrete are given in Table 1. Adjustments to water content were made during field placement to meet the desired workability. 5
Table 1 – Concrete mix designs Mix Design Conventional SCC Concrete Material Hawaiian cement (Type I/II) Kapaa sand Maui dune sand Kapaa 3/8” chip Water * Absorption S.G. 3.15 2.65 2.65 2.70 1 4.5 2.0 3.5 Admixtures † SSD weight, lb/yd3 799 799 1272 1442 305 360 1200 927 358 358 Dosage, oz/sk 0-3 5-8 5-8 8 - 10 4 Pozzolith 220N Pozzolith 100XR Glenium NS VMA Properties 3 Unit weight, lb/ft w/c‡ ratio 145.7 0.45 143.9 0.45 * S.G. - Specific gravity SSD - Saturated surface dry ‡ w/c - water/cementitious material † The following nomenclature will be used in this paper to present the data for the different concrete mixes: TSS – Trial Shaft using SCC (cast on January 22, 2010) LTS – Load Test Shaft using SCC (cast on January 28, 2010) LTC – Load Test Shaft using conventional concrete (cast on February 3, 2010) SCC – TSS and LTS data combined All – TSS, LTS and LTC data combined 6
2 Test Methods 2.1 Test Specimens For each test shaft, the concrete was poured in multiple batches, and standard sized test cylinders were made from each batch. Cores were later obtained throughout the depth of the shafts for testing. 2.1.1 Test Cylinders Figure 3 illustrates the size reduction of the test cylinders as required by the test methods. The static modulus of elasticity and 28-day strength were determined by testing two or more standard sized test cylinders. Figure 3 – Test cylinder specimen size reduction The full size test cylinders were then trimmed by approximately 1” from the top and bottom for segregation analysis (D. Johnson, 2010), leaving 6”x10” test cylinders. The 6”x10” cylinders were tested to acquire the dynamic modulus of elasticity and static modulus of elasticity of the field-cured concrete. Some were then selected to be cored 7
into 2.22” diameter cores. The 2.22”x10” cores were again tested for dynamic modulus, then cut into approximately 5” lengths with a wet saw. The 2.22”x5” test cylinder cores and the remaining 6”x10” test cylinders were loaded to failure to determine the compressive strength. Every specimen tested was labeled with its trial shaft name and batch number. 2.1.2 Test Shaft Cores Two 2-3/8 inch diameter cores were obtained along the full depth of each test shaft. The core pieces were labeled according to the test shaft name and location depth and stored in boxes as shown in Figure 4. By means of visual inspection, core samples were selected to be tested due to observed defects, blemishes, cavities, poor recovery, segregation and other damages. Core samples were also collected for testing at 20-foot intervals throughout the depth of each shaft. The samples with varying lengths were cut at each end with a wet saw and tested for dynamic modulus. The samples were then cut into 5” lengths and crushed to determine strength. Each core sample was labeled with the mix group name and location depth. Comprehensive descriptions of the tests are given in the following sections. Figure 4 – Labeled core samples; core with observed defects 8
2.2 Fundamental Longitudinal Frequency Test Fundamental frequency tests were performed as described in ASTM C 215 for the purpose of determining the dynamic modulus of elasticity of the concrete specimens. In this research, the impact resonance method was used to measure the longitudinal frequencies of the samples. The apparatus for this test method consists of the following components: Impact hammer Accelerometer Signal Analyzer – dsp Technology SigLab Model 20-22A Amplifier – PCB Piezotronics Model 482A16 Computer with SigLab with Matlab software (using vna application) Specimen Support Frame Figure 5 – Signal analyzer (black box) and amplifier (blue box) 9
Figure 6 – Specimen test setup For every specimen, the mass in kilograms was measured as well as the average length and diameter in inches, converted to meters. The specimen was marked at midlength to serve as a guide for mounting. The specimen was mounted in the support frame, as illustrated in Figure 6, where free vibration in the longitudinal direction was allowed. The accelerometer was then attached at the approximate center of the bottom end of the specimen. Detailed instructions for starting up and operating the analyzer are provided in Appendix B. Using the impact hammer, the specimen was tapped at the center of its top end, and the response was analyzed by the computer setup. This process was repeated 10
three times and the average longitudinal frequency detected by the analyzer was recorded as well as the quality, Q, of the test. The dynamic modulus of elasticity, Ed, was calculated in Pascals according to the equation below and was converted to kilo pounds per square inch. Ed DM (n' ) 2 where D 5.093 (L/d2), N·s2(kg·m2) L length of specimen, m d diameter of specimen, m M mass of specimen, kg n’ fundamental longitudinal frequency, Hz 2.3 Static Modulus of Elasticity Test The 6”x10” test cylinders were tested for static modulus of elasticity in compression, with ASTM C 469 as a standard guide. The test was performed on a RIEHLE Universal Test Frame using a Humboldt compressometer with a dial gauge, shown in Figure 7. The compressometer is designed for testing full size, 6”x12” cylinders, but due to the shorter length of the specimen, the specimen was not capped before testing. Capping the specimen typically is desired when applying axial load for perpendicularity and planeness, but because the ends of the cylinders were saw-cut, uncapped testing was acceptable. The diameter of the specimen was verified by averaging two diameters measured perpendicular to each other, with the use of a tape measure. 11
Figure 7 – Compression test machine; compressometer Prior compressive strength testing of full size cylinders from each mix group determined the average ultimate load, Pult. The compressometer was attached to the specimen and was approximately centered on the testing machine. The specimen was loaded to 10% and 40% of Pult, and the measured displacement at each loading point was recorded. This process was performed three times, and the first data set was discarded. The displacement is recorded in ten thousandths of an inch (0.0001”). The compressive stresses, σ1 and σ2, were calculated by dividing 0.10Pult and 0.40Pult by the cross-sectional area of the specimen. The longitudinal strain was determined by the formula: εn 0.0001xn / 2Lg, where xn was the measured displacement of the gauge (n 1, 2), and Lg 8” was the original length of the gauge. The measured xn 12
was twice the actual specimen displacement. The static modulus of elasticity was calculated using the following formula: Ec 2 1 2 1 where Ec static modulus of elasticity, psi σ2 stress corresponding to 40% of ultimate load, psi σ1 stress corresponding to 10% of ultimate load, psi ε2 longitudinal strain produced by σ2 ε1 longitudinal strain produced by σ1 2.4 Compressive Strength Test The compressive strength was determined by testing the 6”x10” test cylinders, 2.22”x5” test cylinder cores and 2.38”x5” trial shaft cores. Prior to testing, the diameter, length and mass of each specimen were remeasured, and the cross-sectional area and unit weight were calculated. The specimens were then capped in compliance with ASTM C 617. Each specimen was placed and centered on the compression machine and loaded at a rate of 0.40 revolutions per minute until failure. The maximum load carried by the specimen was recorded, and the compressive strength, fc, was calculated by dividing the failure load by the specimen cross-sectional area. 13
Figure 8 – Specimen sizes and properties determined 14
3 Test Results 3.1 Dynamic Modulus of Elasticity The calculated dynamic modulus of elasticity from each specimen is shown in Tables A 1-8 in Appendix A. Table 2 summarizes the average dynamic modulus for the 6”x10” test cylinders and 2.22”x10” test cylinder cores for each mix group. Table 3 shows the averages for the test shaft cores of various lengths. Also shown in the tables are the average ages of the specimens, in days, at the time of testing. Table 2 – Average dynamic modulus of elasticity of test cylinders 6”x10” Mix 2.22”x10” Ed Age Ed Age (ksi) (days) (ksi) (days) TSS 4153 170 4315 260 LTS 3965 164 4185 254 LTC 3501 158 3748 248 SCC 4030 166 4239 256 All 3850 163 4043 253 Table 3 – Average dynamic modulus of elasticity of test shaft cores Mix Ed (ksi) Age (days) TSS 4498 205 LTS 4411 209 LTC 4094 194 SCC 4464 207 All 4325 202 15
3.2 Static Modulus of Elasticity Table 4 presents the average static modulus of elasticity for each mix group for the test cylinders. The data for the full size, 6”x12” cylinders were provided by Dr. Robertson. The complete table of data showing the raw static modulus of each specimen can be found in Tables A 9-11 in Appendix A. Table 4 – Average raw static modulus of elasticity of test cylinders 6”x12” Mix 6”x10” Ec Age Ec Age (ksi) (days) (ksi) (days) TSS 3525 28 3575 200 LTS
in trial drilled shafts that were constructed to evaluate the proposed concrete mixture designs for the drilled shaft foundation of the new North Kahana Stream Bridge. The overall project intends to study and develop specifications and mix design guidelines for the use of self-consolidating concrete (SCC) in Hawaii. SCC and conventional concrete
01 The right place for the right housing 18 02 A place to start and a place to stay 20 03 A place which fosters a sense of belonging 22 04 A place to live in nature 24 05 A place to enjoy and be proud of 26 06 A place with a choice of homes 28 07 A place with unique and lasting appeal 30 08 A place where people feel at home 32
Mechanical Properties Tensile and Shear properties Bending properties Time dependent properties . Tensile and Shear properties Types of forces that can be applied to material: a) Tensile b) Compressive c) Shear d) Torsion . Tensile
Chapter 3 Material Properties 43 Chapter 3 Material Properties Scope A principal objective of the following brief review of the nature of polyethylene (PE) piping materials, of their physical and chemical properties, and of their mechanical and engineering behavior, is to impart a basic understanding of the factors that lie
Gorbach Properties Inc. 407 Clinton Avenue Bridgeport 06605 Miguel & Alicia Marrero 15 Cottage Place Marilyn Jones 16 Cottage Place William & Doris Gathers 27 Cottage Place Lester & Mattie McPhail 28 Cottage Place Helenc!Worden 33 Cottage Place Lucille & Earl Noble 34 Cottage Place Jesse & Agnes Askew 39 Cottage Place Carlos & Gloria Ortiz 40 .
Matter—Properties and ChangesMatter—Properties and Changes Section 3.1 Properties of Matter In your textbook, read about physical properties and chemical properties of matter. Use each of the terms below just once to complete the passage. Matter is anything with (1) and volume. A (2) is a form
Physical Properties of Minerals Physical properties of minerals are controlled by chemical composition and structure So, samples of same minerals exhibit the same properties Thus physical properties can be used to identify minerals Physical properties can be grouped into four categories Introduction to Mineralogy, Second edition
animal. Say the good qualities of the 2nd place animal over the 1st place animal. List why the 2nd place animal does not win the class. (bad qualities) Say why 2nd place animal beats 3rd place animal by stating only the good qualities of the 2nd place animal. Say the good qualities of the 3rd place animal over the 2nd place animal.
12th Annual Midwest Z Heritagefest trophy winners 1st Generation Daily Driver 1st Place - Ken Jammin 2nd Place - James Roark 3rd Place - Rick Todd 1st Generation Modified 1st Place - Ray Haren 2nd Place - Andrew Doll 3rd Place - Dave Johnson 1st Generation Stock 1st Place - Bill Opperman 2nd Place - Pat Sy
