STRUBLE ON PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF HYDRAULIC CEMENTS 443

Fig. 4—Autoclave expansion apparatus and specimens (reprinted with permission from Ref 7).
444 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
deleterious expansion in concrete, a mortar expansion test for
pozzolan used in blended cement is included as part of C 595
and C 1157. This method tests combinations of pozzolan and
cement or clinker using the ASTM Test Method for Potential
Alkali Reactivity of Cement-Aggregate Combinations (Mortar-
Bar Method) (C 227). This test is usually used to detect the
alkali-silica reaction between cement and aggregate, but in this
case it is used with a nonreactive aggregate to measure expan-
sive reactions between pozzolan and cement. For C 595, the
test is run with various proportions of pozzolan between 2.5 %
and 15 % in order to detect excessive expansion due to an
adverse proportion of pozzolan in combination with portland
cement, and the maximum expansion for all mixtures is 0.05 %
at 91 days. For C 1157, the test is run with the proportion of
pozzolan used in the cement and 5 % more and less than that
proportion; and, although the specification describes the test,
it does not list a maximum expansion level.
Recommendations
Several of the standards relating to volume change need im-
provement. Drying shrinkage is an important issue in concrete;
it initiates in the hydrated cement and is affected by properties
of the hydraulic cement, so it seems important to have a shrink-
age requirement for hydraulic cements. The current restriction
of the autoclave expansion test, C 151, to portland cement is a
major problem, and the subcommittee responsible for this test
is currently exploring tests for cements containing pozzolan to
measure expansion due to CaO and MgO hydration associated
with unsoundness in concrete. There should be a limit on ex-
pansion due to ettringite in C 595. The test for cement-pozzolan
expansion would be easier to utilize if it were described more
fully in a separate method, rather than included as part of the
blended cement specification. Finally, although there is a limit
on cement-pozzolan expansion in C 595, there is no similar
limit for fly ash used as a mineral component in concrete (C
618) nor for hydraulic cements that contain fly ash, a puzzling
inconsistency.
Strength
Strength is the property that is probably most important to
engineers, both as a general indicator of concrete quality and
to assure that the concrete will perform as intended during
design of the structure. Although concrete strength may be
measured in tension, shear, or compression, compressive
strength is generally most important and most often specified.
Significance
It is widely recognized that concrete strength depends on the
strength of cement paste, on the paste-aggregate bond, and on
the aggregate strength. For ordinary concrete, the strengths of
paste and the paste-aggregate bond control concrete strength.
It is only for high-strength concrete or unusually low-strength
aggregate that aggregate characteristics become important.
The strengths of both paste and the paste-aggregate bond de-
pend largely on paste porosity. Porosity is reduced (and
strength is increased) by initially packing particles very densely
and by filling remaining voids with hydration products. So
7
Other mortar strength tests include ASTM Test Method for Compressive Strength of Hydraulic Cement Mortars (Using Portions of Prisms Broken in Flexure) (C 349);
ASTM Test Method for Tensile Strength of Hydraulic Cement Mortars (C 190), now discontinued; and ASTM Test Method for Flexural Strength of Hydraulic Cement
Mortars (C 348).
8
A natural silica sand from Ottawa, IL, that conforms to the ASTM Specification for Standard Sand (C 778).
strength is increased by reducing the water-to-cement ratio and
by increasing the degree of hydration. The latter parameter is
influenced considerably by the composition and microstruc-
ture of the cement, and both parameters are influenced by
fineness of the cement.
Based on these considerations, one would expect a good
correlation between concrete strength and strength of mortar
at the same water-to-cement ratio and degree of hydration.
Weaver et al. [22] showed no such correlation. However,
Neville [23] reported a reasonably good linear correlation.
Gaynor [24] similarly showed a good correlation between mor-
tar and concrete strength, concluding that concrete strength
may be predicted from mortar strength, water-to-cement ratio,
and air content of the concrete. The lack of correlation in some
studies may reflect variability in parameters such as air con-
tent, aggregate moisture, and curing conditions.
The nature of the fracture process has important implica-
tions to mortar and concrete strength. When concrete is
loaded, small cracks develop at the interface between cement
paste and aggregate. The cracks may develop because this in-
terface is weaker than the bulk paste or the aggregate, or they
may exist in concrete before it is loaded due to drying shrink-
age or thermal stresses. The development and growth of these
cracks reduce concrete strength. Therefore, it is expected that
fracture mechanics, the area of research concerned with
development and growth of cracks, will provide a fuller un-
derstanding of strength and fracture.
The significance of mortar strength is broader, however,
than its relationship to concrete strength. Many of the potential
problems in cement hydration affect its strength. Furthermore,
permeability of hydrated cement is a function of water-to-
cement ratio and degree of hydration just as is strength, so per-
meability decreases as strength increases, and many aspects of
durability are improved by increasing strength. Thus, strength
provides an indication of the overall quality of hydrated cement,
mortar, or concrete.
Standards
There are several tests for mortar strength (compressive, ten-
sile, and flexural strength), though the specifications utilize
only C 109 (compressive strength).7 This laboratory test allows
measurement of compressive strength of mortar prepared
using a graded standard sand8 and water adjusted to provide
either a specified water-to-cement ratio or a specified flow.
Specimens are shown in Fig. 5. A specified water-to-cement
ratio is used for portland cement, either 0.485 for portland
cement or 0.460 for air-entraining portland cement. A specified
flow of 105 to 115 is used for all other cements. Cubes are
moist-cured 20–72 h in their molds, then stripped and
immersed in lime-saturated water until they are tested.
Minimal compressive strength requirements are specified
for all hydraulic cements. These strength levels are easily met
by cements with a wide variety of chemical composition and
fineness levels.
In C 150 and C 595, minimum average compressive
strength levels measured using C 109 are specified. Most types
of portland cement (C 150) have compressive strength
requirements at three and seven days, though some cement
 STRUBLE ON PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF HYDRAULIC CEMENTS
Fig. 5—Casting and crushing mortar cubes for strength (reprinted with permission from Ref 7).
types have 1- and 28-day requirements (some 28-day require-
ments are optional). For Type I, the 7-day specified strength is
19.0 MPa. The values are slightly lower for Type II cement,
even lower for Type V cement, much lower for Type IV cement,
and higher for Type III cement. Values are lower for each cor-
responding air-entraining cement. Likewise, strengths are
specified at 3, 7, and 28 days for most blended cements (C 595),
though some types do not have three-day specifications. For
Types IS and IP blended cement, the 7-day strength level is 20.0
MPa, similar to the level specified for Type I portland cement,
while specified levels are slightly lower for Type MS cement,
and much lower for Types P and S cement.
In C 1157, the performance specification for hydraulic ce-
ment, compressive strength may be specified as a range (both
a minimum and a maximum strength value). Most types of hy-
draulic cement have compressive strength requirements at
three and seven days, though some have 1- and 28-day require-
ments. For Type GU hydraulic cement, the 7-day specified
strength range is 17–30 MPa, somewhat lower than the mini-
mum for Type I portland cement and Types IS and IP blended
cement. The specified range is the same for Type MS cement,
lower for Type MH cement, much lower for Type LH cement,
and higher for Type HE cement.
Recommendations
As noted previously, the existing strength specifications are
well below strength levels obtained in current practice. In fact,
these strength specifications do not represent acceptable min-
imum strength levels, and they are so low as to be of limited
use. It would be an improvement if the strength specifications
were raised. By raising the specifications to levels more con-
sistent with standard practice, cement users would get a prod-
uct that provides acceptable minimum strength levels.
Even more important is the issue of strength uniformity.
Strength specifications for all hydraulic cements would be en-
hanced if they were modified to include some restriction on
445
variability. In this way, the cement user would be guaranteed a
uniform performance as well as a specified minimum strength
level. There is a method for uniformity, ASTM Test Method for
Evaluation of Cement Strength Uniformity from a Single
Source (C 917), but no specification.
Although we use strength in compression to describe the
performance of cement and concrete, failure (that is, develop-
ment and growth of cracks) typically occurs in tension. Con-
crete is a brittle material, with a tensile strength only about one
tenth of its compressive strength. Other types of strength, ten-
sile and shear, are generally influenced by the same parameters
that control compressive strength—in particular, the water-to-
cement ratio and the degree of cement hydration. Therefore it
is assumed that specifications and tests for compressive
strength are applicable to other types of strength. This is a sim-
plifying assumption, in that compressive strength is much eas-
ier to measure. However, this assumption is not without risk. It
is known that the ratio of tensile strength to compressive
strength is not constant, but rather is affected by a number of
parameters, from air drying during aging (which reduces ten-
sile strength more than it does compressive strength) to air en-
trainment (which reduces compressive strength more than it
does tensile strength). While it is probably not necessary to have
additional test methods and specifications for tensile strength
of cement, it is certainly important to appreciate the differences
between tensile and compressive strength.
As discussed earlier, fracture mechanics is concerned with
failure due to cracking. This is an active area of research and
should provide a better understanding of the processes of crack-
ing in concrete, mortar, and paste. Although there is currently
no ASTM test for fracture mechanics parameters of concrete,
fracture mechanics tests have been developed that are suitable
for use as standard test methods for these materials [25]. The
ACI Committee on Fracture Mechanics of Concrete has
concluded that fracture mechanics now (after intense research
during the last decade) appears ripe for applications in design
446 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
practice [26]. However, considerable work remains to be done
before concrete strength (or strength-related performance of
concrete structures) can be predicted from measurements of
fracture mechanics parameters, and it is not yet clear whether
fracture mechanics parameters of concrete may be estimated
from parameters measured on its constituents.
Optimum Sulfate Content
The amount of calcium sulfate in cement is not a physical prop-
erty (and therefore not included in Table 2). However, it is dis-
cussed in this chapter because it is generally determined using
physical tests.
Significance
Calcium sulfate is added to cement to control hydration of C3A.
Without sufficient sulfate available in solution, rapid C3A
hydration producing C2AH8 and C4AH13 (so-called hexagonal
hydrates) causes premature stiffening known as flash set, as dis-
cussed previously. With sufficient sulfate, calcium sulfate reacts
with C3A and water to produce ettringite, and the initial ettrin-
gite slows down subsequent C3A reaction and prevents false set.
If too much calcium sulfate is used, on the other hand, the ce-
ment may produce excessive expansion at later ages due to for-
mation of ettringite after set, also discussed previously. Thus
one would expect to select the amount of calcium sulfate that
produces normal setting without excessive expansion.
Interestingly, the amount of calcium sulfate in hydraulic
cement is instead determined based on early strength. The ef-
fect of sulfate content of cement on both strength and drying
shrinkage was established as early as 1946 [27], when Lerch
showed that strength is maximized and shrinkage is minimized
as a function of sulfate content. The mechanism of this phe-
nomenon is not well understood, but it seems likely that the
proportion of sulfate affects the degree of porosity during
early aluminate hydration reactions, though porosity is modi-
fied by subsequent silicate hydration. Optimum strength pre-
sumably corresponds to minimum porosity at any age. Some
cements, however, show a change in their sulfate requirements
at later ages, an observation that is difficult to explain.
Standards
The standard test for this determination is the ASTM Test
Method for Optimum SO3 in Portland Cement (C 563). This
method only evaluates optimum sulfate for one-day strength
and does not address drying shrinkage.
If the amount of sulfate shown to be optimum by this test
exceeds the amount allowed for the particular cement, use of
the higher amount must be shown to cause no harm. Details
vary according to the specification. In C 150, the maximum
sulfate allowed is 2.3 % to 4.5 %, depending on type and on
the level of C3A; and if the amount determined according to
C 563 exceeds this maximum, the higher amount may be used
only if it is shown that the cement does not produce expan-
sion exceeding 0.020 % at 14 days according to C 1038. In C
595, the maximum sulfate allowed is 3.0 % or 4.0 %, depend-
ing on type; and if the amount determined according to C 563
exceeds 0.5 % less than this maximum, the higher amount
may be used only if it is shown that the soluble sulfate in mor-
tar does not exceed 0.50 g/L when tested according to ASTM
Standard Test Method for Water-Extractable Sulfate in Hy-
drated Hydraulic Cement Mortar (C 265). No additional re-
quirement is needed in C 1157 because that specification
does not have a prescriptive sulfate level and already has a
limit on expansion using C 1038.
Recommendations
There is a caution in C 563 that the sulfate content shown to
produce optimum one-day strength may not provide maxi-
mum strength at later ages or at other temperatures and may
not provide minimum drying shrinkage. Flow behavior with
water-reducing admixtures is sometimes affected by the sulfate
level [28], yet flow is not even measured when setting the sul-
fate level in cement. Further research is needed to understand
how sulfate affects flow and set in complex mixtures of ce-
ments and admixtures, so that tests and specifications can
more clearly be tied to the critical concrete properties
(strength, shrinkage, flow, and set).
It would be more rational if C 150 and C 595 had the same
additional requirements when using excessive sulfate.
Durability
There are several concrete deterioration processes that relate
in part to properties of the cement—freeze-thaw deterioration,
alkali-silica expansion, and sulfate reaction. These deteriora-
tion processes are discussed in greater detail in other chapters
of this book. Because they relate in part to cement properties,
tests to predict the influence of the cement on each deteriora-
tion process are discussed here.
Significance
Air Content
The air content of concrete controls its ability to withstand cy-
cles of freezing and thawing. Without entrained air, most con-
crete will deteriorate after only a few freeze-thaw cycles. Air is
obtained in concrete using an air-entraining admixture, a sur-
factant that lowers the surface tension of water and thereby sta-
bilizes air bubbles. Whether the added air is sufficient to pro-
tect against freeze-thaw damage depends not only on the
volume of air, but also on the size and distribution of the bub-
bles throughout the paste portion of the concrete.
An air-entraining admixture may be added to the concrete
or as part of the cement (called an air-entraining cement). As
noted in Table 1, ASTM recognizes several air-entraining ce-
ments (designated A) in both portland and blended cements.
The volume of entrained air in concrete depends not only
on the dosage of air-entraining agent (whether added directly to
the concrete or as part of an air-entraining cement), but also on
various other parameters of the concrete and how it is mixed.
It should be noted that even a non-air-entraining cement may in-
fluence the air content in concrete. Finely ground cements en-
train less air than do coarsely ground cements. Use of finely
ground slag or pozzolan in blended cements also reduces the
air content and necessitates a larger dosage of air-entraining ad-
mixture. Most importantly, fly ash in a blended cement may re-
duce the air content due to adsorption of air-entraining agent,
in particular by carbon impurities in fly ash.
Gaynor [24] addressed the correlation of air content in
mortar and concrete. Correlations were good (standard errors
of estimated air content in concrete were 0.3 % to 0.8 %), es-
pecially considering the inherent variability of air content tests.
But he noted that air contents in mortar are higher than air
contents in concrete and that many non-air-entraining cements
produce mortar air contents greater than 10 %.
 STRUBLE ON PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF HYDRAULIC CEMENTS
Concrete air content is also important because air
(whether entrained or entrapped) reduces strength. The rule of
thumb is that every 1 % increase in air content reduces
strength of concrete by about 5 % [3]. Thus, it is important that
no more air than necessary be entrained.
Alkali-Silica Reaction
Another common cause of concrete deterioration is the alkali-
silica reaction, in which certain forms of silica (amorphous or
reactive crystalline forms), generally part of the aggregate, re-
act with the highly alkaline pore fluid in concrete to produce
an alkali-silica gel. This gel may sorb water and swell, causing
expansion or cracking of the concrete.
The alkalies (sodium and potassium)9 in concrete are typ-
ically derived from the cement. Deleterious expansion is usu-
ally prevented through use of a low-alkali cement, an optional
specification for portland cement. Hydraulic cement is tested
for its expansion when combined with a reactive aggregate. Ex-
pansion is generally reduced by using a blended cement (poz-
zolan and slag reduce the alkalinity of the pore fluid), but not
every blended cement is effective in reducing expansion, so
specific pozzolans and slags must be tested.
Sulfate Reaction
Attack of concrete by sulfate ions is a particular problem where
the sulfate concentration surrounding the concrete is high,
such as in soils in the western part of the United States. The at-
tack involves reactions between cement hydration products and
sulfate ions, reactions that are expansive and cause cracking
and deterioration. The primary reaction is between C3AC
SH12
and calcium sulfate to produce C3A3C
SH32. To prevent this de-
terioration, it is necessary to limit the amount of C3AC
SH12 in
the hydrated cement, usually by reducing the amount of C3A in
the cement, as in a Type II or V portland cement or a blended
cement. If the environmental sulfate salt contains a cation other
than calcium, then further reaction may occur in which calcium
hydroxide reacts to form gypsum (CS

SH2); and when calcium
hydroxide is depleted the calcium silicate hydrate is progres-
sively decalcified to produce additional gypsum. Because the
calcium silicate hydrate is the principal strength-producing
phase in hydrated cement, this reaction leads to major loss of
strength as well as expansion. To prevent this deterioration it is
also important to reduce the diffusivity of the cement paste,
generally by reducing its water-to-cement ratio.
The resistance of a particular cement to sulfate attack
is important because it relates directly to the performance of
concrete when exposed to sulfate ions.
Standards
Air Content
The potential of cement to entrain air is determined using the
ASTM Test Method for Air Content of Hydraulic Cement Mor-
tar (C 185). In this test, the air content of mortar is measured
by the difference between measured and calculated volume,
the calculated volume depending on the proportion and
density of each mortar constituent.
Both minimum and maximum air contents are specified
for each air-entraining hydraulic cement. For non air-entraining
9
These chemical constituents and their determination are discussed in a separate chapter of this book, Hydraulic Cements—Chemical Properties.
10
Pyrex Glass No. 7740 from Corning Glass Works, Corning, NY.
447
cements (portland and blended), only a maximum air content
is specified. The minimum air content assures that the air-en-
training cement provides entrained air in concrete for resist-
ance to freeze-thaw deterioration. The maximum air content as-
sures that no unacceptable loss of strength will occur due to
entrained air.
The specified air content is the same for portland cement
(C 150) and blended cement (C 595). The maximum air content
for non-air-entraining cement is 12 %. For air-entraining ce-
ments, the minimum air content is 16 % and the maximum air
content is 22 %. For hydraulic cements (C 1157), there is no air-
entrained option, so there is no specified air content, though
there is a requirement that it be measured and reported.
Alkali-Silica Reaction
The tests to determine whether a specific pozzolan or ground
slag used in a blended cement or a specific hydraulic cement
is reactive when combined with reactive aggregate are based
on one of the mortar tests used to determine whether a specific
aggregate is reactive, C 227. Two tests are used, C 227 with
crushed Pyrex10 glass as the reactive aggregate, and C 441,
there being no substantive difference between the two proce-
dures. These tests are only reliable, however, insofar as the al-
kali-silica expansion of mortar bars corresponds to the occur-
rence of deterioration in concrete, and there is concern within
ASTM Committee C09 about the validity of mortar-bar tests.
Portland cement (C 150) relies on the optional prescriptive
low-alkali requirement to prevent alkali-silica reaction. The
other specifications rely on performance limits. Both the speci-
fication for blended cement (C 595) and the specification for
hydraulic cement (C 1157) include optional maximum limits
for mortar expansion due to alkali-silica reaction: 0.020 %
expansion at 14 days and 0.060 % expansion at eight weeks.
These expansion levels are different than those in the ASTM
Specification for Concrete Aggregates (C 33), which are 0.05 %
at three months and 0.10 % at six months. They are also dif-
ferent from the levels specified in related standards for min-
eral components in concrete, which are 100 % of the value us-
ing a low alkali cement control for fly ash and natural
pozzolans in C 618, and an expansion of 0.020 % at 14 days for
slag in C 989.
Sulfate Reaction
The resistance of portland cement to external sulfate attack is
measured using the ASTM Test Method for Potential Expan-
sion of Portland Cement Mortars Exposed to Sulfate (C 452).
Excess sulfate is added to the portland cement in the form of
gypsum, and length changes of mortar bars prepared from this
cement-gypsum mixture are measured. This was found to be a
satisfactory test for predicting the performance of portland
cement in concrete exposed to sulfate ions, but not for blended
cement [31]. Therefore an alternative test was developed for
blended cements, the ASTM Test Method for Length Change of
Hydraulic-Cement Mortars Exposed to a Sulfate Solution (C
1012). In this test, bars are immersed in a sodium sulfate solu-
tion and their length changes measured. Because the sulfate
salt is sodium, not calcium, the test method produces deterio-
ration due to precipitation of gypsum as well as precipitation
of ettringite, making C 1012 appear more aggressive than
448 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
C 452, although the expansion level is higher and produced
more rapidly in C 452, perhaps because the excess sulfate is
part of the cement.
Sulfate expansion as an alternative to the prescriptive limit
on C3A is an optional requirement for Type V portland cement;
the maximum expansion at 14 days using C 452 is 0.040 %. The
limit of sulfate expansion for moderate sulfate-resisting
blended cement (Type MS) using C 1012 is 0.10 % at 180 days.
Similarly, the limit on sulfate expansion for moderate sulfate-
resisting hydraulic cement using C 1012 is 0.10 % at six months
and for highly sulfate-resisting hydraulic cement using the
same test it is 0.05 % at six months and 0.10 % at 12 months.
Recommendations
Alkali-Silica Reaction
The level of expansion specified for blended cement and for
hydraulic cement is more stringent than the level specified
for aggregate (C 33) and for pozzolan in concrete. It seems
reasonable that these levels should be the same, in that they
apply the same test method to the same deterioration
process, and it has been recommended that the cement lim-
its be relaxed [29].
A more basic concern regarding these tests is their use of
Pyrex glass as a standard reactive aggregate. Studies have
shown that Pyrex is not suitable as a standard aggregate [30].
For many years now, the subcommittee responsible for the
alkali-silica tests in concrete has been exploring alternatives for
the standard reactive aggregate.
Sulfate Reaction
The specifications for moderate sulfate-resisting cements
should be brought into conformance; C 595 limits expansion at
three months and C 1157 limits expansion at six months.
Discussion
More knowledge is needed about the fundamental mecha-
nisms responsible for the various properties of cement paste,
mortar, and concrete. Many of the tests described here are
empirical and need a better fundamental basis. In some cases,
the fundamental knowledge is available but just needs to be
applied in standards (as in the case of consistency); but, in most
cases, additional research is needed.
There are many benefits of testing paste or mortar rather
than concrete. Tests using paste or mortar are generally pre-
ferred because they are simpler than tests using concrete.
There is no need to develop a standard coarse aggregate. The
effects of mineral and chemical admixtures on concrete per-
formance may be studied using paste or mortar. But the results
from paste or mortar do not necessarily correlate with con-
crete, and further research is needed to make such correla-
tions. Furthermore, it is important that tests of paste or mortar
are able to evaluate the mixtures and proportions of materials
used in concrete (typical water-to-cement levels, chemical
admixtures, and mineral admixtures). Finally, it is important to
be testing the paste system, not just combinations of cement
and water.
Many tests developed for portland cement have been
applied to blended cement and expansive cement without
modification. Some tests are satisfactory for all hydraulic
cements, but many tests (for example, fineness and sulfate
deterioration) are not. Efforts are generally underway to
modify existing tests or develop new tests for blended cement
and expansive cements.
One aspect of concrete performance that we do not cur-
rently measure, and which depends largely on properties of the
cement, is permeability. Permeability, or the related parameter
of diffusivity, refers to the rate at which fluid, or ionic species,
moves through the material. In hardened paste, mortar, or
concrete, such movement takes place through the small pores,
either capillary pores or the much smaller gel pores. Thus,
permeability is in many respects the inverse of strength, in that
it is reduced either by lowering the water-to-cement ratio or by
increasing the degree of hydration. As with strength, the per-
meability of concrete depends, at least broadly, on the perme-
ability of the paste portion of the concrete. Permeability of
paste depends on the volume and interconnectedness of pores.
Concrete permeability depends also on permeability of the
aggregate and of the paste-aggregate interface, and may be
increased by microcracking in the paste or at the interface.
Despite its importance, there is currently no standard test
method by which to measure paste or concrete permeability.
Several laboratories are carrying out concrete permeability
measurements, so perhaps a standard test method will be de-
veloped in the near future. Because permeability is so impor-
tant to concrete durability, it is an important area for further
research and for the development of new standard test meth-
ods for both cement paste and concrete.
Creep is another important property of hydrated cement
that is not currently measured. Concrete deforms under load,
and these creep deformations must be measured or predicted
and incorporated into design of concrete structures. Creep,
like drying shrinkage, occurs in the hydrated paste and is
restrained by aggregate. Creep depends on the level and dura-
tion of load. Like shrinkage, permeability, and strength, creep
also depends on the pore structure of the hydrated paste, the
water-to-cement ratio, the degree of hydration, and the mois-
ture content. Much recent research is concerned with early-age
creep, which was the topic of a recent RILEM report [32]. It
would seem useful to measure creep of cement paste or mor-
tar in order to determine the influence of the specific cement
on creep in concrete.
Finally, there is as yet no standard or specification con-
cerning deterioration in concrete due to excessive formation of
ettringite after set, so-called delayed ettringite formation
(DEF). As discussed in the section on Optimum Sulfate, C 1038
and C 265 are used in C 150, C 1157, and C 595 to prevent the
use of excess sulfate, which may be one cause of DEF. How-
ever, these limits are only invoked in C 150 and C 595 in the
event that the optimum sulfate exceeds a prescriptive level.
Furthermore, C 1038 appears to not be a suitable performance
test for DEF [33]. Clearly, a better strategy is needed to protect
against this deterioration process.
Acknowledgments
I gratefully acknowledge the many contributions of P. Hawkins
to this chapter, both as co-author of the chapter in the previous
edition and in subsequent discussions. I also thank certain C01
and C09 subcommittee chairmen who discussed issues in this
chapter: S. Schlorholtz and P. Tennis on activity, D. Norris on
set, P. Hawkins on sulfate optimization, F. Kinney on sulfate,
and S. Lane on alkali expansion. Finally, I thank two graduate
students at UIUC, C. Chung and I. Park, for their critical
comments on sulfate optimization.
 STRUBLE ON PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF HYDRAULIC CEMENTS
References
[1] Tennis, P. D. and Melander, J. M., “User and Producer Perspec-
tives on ASTM C 1157,” Cement, Concrete, and Aggregates,
Vol. 23, 2001, pp. 50–57.
[2] Mindess, S., Young, J. F., and Darwin, D., Concrete, Prentice-
Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 2003.
[3] Mehta, P. K. and Monteiro, P. J. M., Concrete Structure, Proper-
ties, and Materials, 2nd ed., Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs,
NJ, 1993.
[4] Taylor, H. F. W., Cement Chemistry, 2nd ed., Thomas Telford,
London, 1997.
[5] Lea’s Chemistry of Cement and Concrete, 4th ed., P. C. Hewlett,
Ed., Arnold, London, 1998.
[6] ACI Committee 225, “Guide to the Selection and Use of
Hydraulic Cements,” Manual of Concrete Practice, American
Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI, 2004.
[7] Kosmatka, S. H., Kerkhoff, B., and Panarese, W. C., Design and
Control of Concrete Mixtures, 14th ed., Portland Cement
Association, Skokie, IL, 2003, 358 pp.
[8] “Standard Practice for Selecting Proportions for Normal, Heavy-
weight, and Mass Concrete,” Manual of Concrete Practice,
Committee 211, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI, 1991.
[9] Bentz, D. P., Garboczi, E. J., Haecker, C. J., and Jensen, O. M.,
“Effects of Cement Particle Size Distribution on Performance
Properties of Portland Cement-Based Materials,” Cement and
Concrete Research, Vol. 29, 1999, pp. 1663–1671.
[10] Johansen, V., “Cement Production and Cement Quality,”
Materials Science of Concrete I, J. Skalny, Ed., American Ceramic
Society, Westerville, OH, 1989, pp. 27–72.
[11] Helmuth, R. A., “Energy Conservation Potential of Portland
Cement Particle Size Distribution Control,” Phase I, NTIS No.
C00-4269-1, 1978.
[12] Helmuth, R. A., Whiting, D. A., and Gartner, E. M., “Energy
Conservation Potential of Portland Cement Particle Size
Distribution Control,” Phase II, NTIS No. DE 86-001926, 1984.
[13] Tresouthick, S. W., “Energy Conservation Potential of Portland
Cement Particle Size Distribution Control,” Phase III, NTIS No.
DE 91-007537-38, 1985–1986, pp. 42–44.
[14] Malghan, S. G. and Lum, L.-S. H., “An Analysis of Factors
Affecting Particle-Size Distribution of Hydraulic Cements,”
Cement, Concrete, and Aggregates, Vol. 13, 1991, pp.
115–120.
[15] Tattersall, G. H. and Banfill, P. F. G., The Rheology of Fresh Con-
crete, Pitman Advanced Publishing Program, Boston, MA, 1983.
[16] de Larrard, F. and Ferraris, C., “Modified Slump test to Measure
Rheological Parameters of Fresh Concrete,” Cement, Concrete,
and Aggregates, Vol. 20, 1998, pp. 241–247.
[17] Ferraris, C., de Larrard, F., and Martys, N., “Fresh Concrete
Rheology: Recent Developments,” in Materials Science of
Concrete VI, S. Mindess and J. Skalny, Eds., ACerS, Westerville,
OH, 2001, pp. 215–241.
449
[18] Wang, H., Dunstan, E., and Chen, H., “False Set and Flash Set—
Can ASTM C 359 Be Used to Diagnose the Causes?,” Cement,
Concrete, and Aggregates, Vol. 24, 2002, pp. 95–98.
[19] Struble, L. J., Kim, T. Y., and Zhang, H., “Setting of Cement and
Concrete,” Cement, Concrete, and Aggregates, Vol. 23, 2001,
pp. 88–93.
[20] Wang, H., “The Autoclave Soundness Test Mischaracterizes
Cement-Fly Ash Blends by Introducing Alkali-Quartz Reaction,”
Cement, Concrete, and Aggregates, Vol. 24, 2002, pp. 68–72.
[21] Helmuth, R. and West, P. B., “Reappraisal of the Autoclave
Expansion Test,” Cement, Concrete, and Aggregates, Vol. 20,
1998, pp. 194–219.
[22] Weaver, W. S., Isabelle, H. L., and Williamson, F., “A Study of
Cement and Concrete Correlation,” Journal of Testing and
Evaluation, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, Vol.
2, 1974, pp. 260–303.
[23] Neville, A. M., Properties of Concrete, Pitman Publishing,
London, 1973.
[24] Gaynor, R. D., “Cement Strength and Concrete Strength—An
Apparition or a Dichotomy?” Cement, Concrete and Aggre-
gates, Vol. 15, 1993, pp. 135–144.
[25] “Determination of Fracture Parameters (KSlc and CTODc) of Plain
Concrete Using Three-Point Bend Tests,” Materials and Struc-
tures, Vol. 23, 1990, pp. 457–460.
[26] ACI 446, “Fracture Mechanics of Concrete: Concepts, Models
and Determination of Material Properties, 1R-XX,” Concrete
International, Vol. 12, 1990, pp. 67–70.
[27] Lerch, W., “The Influence of Gypsum on the Hydration and
Properties of Portland Cement Pastes,” Proceedings, ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA, Vol. 46, 1946,
pp. 1252–1292.
[28] Sandberg, P. J. and Roberts, L. R., “Cement-Admixture Interac-
tions Related to Aluminate Control,” submitted to Journal of
ASTM International (2005).
[29] Lane, D. S. and Ozyildirim, H. C., “Evaluation of the Effect of
Portland Cement Alkali Content, Fly Ash, Ground Slag, and
Silica Fume on Alkali-Silica Reactivity,” Cement, Concrete, and
Aggregates, Vol. 21, 1999, pp. 126–141.
[30] Struble, L. and Brockman, M., “Standard Aggregate Materials
for Alkali-Silica Reaction Studies,” Proceedings, 8th Interna-
tional Conference on Alkali-Aggregate Reaction, K. Okada,
S. Nishibayashi, and M. Kawamura, Eds., 8th ICAAR Local
Organizing Committee, Kyoto, Japan, 1989, pp. 433–437.
[31] Mather, K., “Tests and Evaluation of Portland and Blended
Cements for Resistance to Sulfate Attack,” Cement Standards—
Evolution and Trends, P. K. Mehta, Ed., ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA, 1978.
[32] RILEM 181-EAS, Early Age Cracking in Cementitious Systems, A.
Bentur, Ed., RILEM, Bagneux, France, 2003.
[33] Day, R. L., “Development of Performance Tests for Sulfate
Attack on Cementitious Systems,” Cement, Concrete, and
Aggregates, Vol. 22, 2000, pp. 169–175.
38
Hydraulic Cement-Chemical Properties
Sharon M. DeHayes1 and Paul D. Tennis 2
Preface
A CHAPTER ON THE CHEMICAL PROPERTIES OF
hydraulic cements was included in ASTM STP 169C and this
chapter is largely similar to that in the previous edition. It pro-
vides an overview and introduction to the chemistry of hy-
draulic cements, which has been, and remains, a fascinating
and challenging topic for researchers, engineers and specifiers.
Many aspects of hydraulic cement chemistry directly influence
cement properties and performance in concrete, and an un-
derstanding of the chemistry can provide insight into specifi-
cation provisions and test methods.
Introduction
This chapter describes the ASTM specifications and test meth-
ods covering the composition and analysis of hydraulic ce-
ments. More importantly, the effects of chemical properties on
concrete performance are described because this area is of
more concern to the user than a detailed discussion of testing
procedures.
The audience is assumed to be those who use or specify
cement to make ready-mixed concrete and other types of con-
crete products. The information may also be of interest to lab-
oratory personnel, students, and researchers new to the field of
cement chemistry and concrete technology. The objective of
this chapter is to provide sufficient information about the
chemical properties of hydraulic cements to enable the user to
interpret ASTM specifications and understand the technical
documentation provided by cement manufacturers. An under-
standing of the chemical properties of cement will also aid in
evaluating and predicting the performance of cement in con-
crete. For the reader desiring more detailed information on
cement chemistry, there are a number of textbooks and articles
that provide more complete coverage of the subject [1–3].
Hydraulic cement is defined in ASTM Terminology Relat-
ing to Hydraulic Cement (C 219) as “a cement that sets and
hardens by chemical interaction with water and that is capable
of doing so under water.” This chapter will cover two classes of
hydraulic cements—portland cements and blended hydraulic
cements—although emphasis will be given to portland cement
because there are more constraints on chemical composition
in ASTM specifications for these cements. Masonry, expansive,
1
President, Florida Materials Division, Rinker Materials Corporation, West Palm Beach, FL 33406-1501.
2
Consultant, Fort Mill, SC 29708-9355.
450
and other portland-cement-based materials will not be dis-
cussed, although many of the principles related to chemical
composition also apply to special cements.
Portland Cement
According to the definition in ASTM C 219, portland cement is
“a hydraulic cement produced by pulverizing portland-cement
clinker, and usually containing calcium sulfate.” Portland-
cement clinker is made by heating a finely-ground raw mix in a
large kiln, to temperatures of about 1500°C. A raw mix is made
by blending a carefully-proportioned mixture of calcium, silica,
alumina, and iron-bearing materials to achieve the correct
chemical composition for the kiln product—nodules of portland-
cement clinker. As the raw mix is heated, moisture and carbon
dioxide are driven off, and compounds of silicates, aluminates,
and ferrites are formed during the clinkering reactions. These
chemical compounds, referred to as phases, are responsible for
the setting and strength development characteristics of portland
cement. The final step in the manufacturing process requires
crushing and grinding the clinker nodules to make the powder
that is sold commercially as portland cement. Gypsum, or an-
other form of calcium sulfate, is added during this final grind-
ing step to reduce the rate of the aluminate reactions, which
would otherwise make the cement difficult to use.
The properties of portland cement can be varied to some
extent by using raw materials of different proportions or
chemical composition and thereby changing the composition
of the resulting clinker. The performance of portland cement
will also be influenced by the manufacturing process; the heat-
ing and cooling conditions can affect clinker reactivity, and fin-
ish grinding determines the particle size distribution (effects of
which are discussed in Chapter 39). This discussion will focus
on the chemical composition, with attention to the require-
ments in the ASTM Specification for Portland Cement (C 150).
Chemical Composition of Portland Cement
The chemical elements found in portland cement are generally
expressed as oxides; SiO2, Al2O3, Fe2O3, and CaO are the four
main oxides found in clinker and cement. The compounds
(or phases) responsible for hydraulic activity are expressed
as combinations of oxides. One of the major components in
cement is tricalcium silicate, a phase consisting of a combina-
 DEHAYES AND TENNIS ON HYDRAULIC CEMENT-CHEMICAL PROPERTIES 451

TABLE 1—Cement Chemist’s Shorthand for TABLE 2b—An Example of a Typical Portland-
Oxides Cement Composition, Expressed as Potential
Phases
Oxides Abbreviations
Phase Percentage
SiO2 S
Al2O3 A C3S 54
Fe2O3 F C2S 22
CaO C C3A 6
MgO M C4AF 9
SO3 S̄¯
Na2O N
K2O K
CO2 C̄¯
H2O H paper, the phrase “chemical composition” refers to the oxide
analysis, and the phrase “phase composition” will be used
when discussing the compounds (phases) found in clinker and
cement. The single-letter abbreviations will only be used in the
name of the phases. The oxides are listed in reports in the ap-
tion of calcium oxide (CaO), and silicon dioxide (SiO2). Using
proximate order in which they are determined by classical
standard chemical nomenclature, the formula for tricalcium
methods of chemical analysis, as recommended in ASTM C
silicate is written Ca3SiO5, but a cement chemist often expresses
114, Standard Test Methods for Chemical Analysis of Hy-
it as 3CaO
SiO2, indicating that the compound is composed of
draulic Cement.
three units calcium oxide and one unit silicon dioxide. To fur-
The oxide analysis in Table 2 shows 22.0 % total SiO2, but
ther simplify the notation, individual oxides are abbreviated as
the SiO2 is distributed between the two major calcium silicate
a single letter. The abbreviations used to describe the major and
phases, C3S and C2S. Similarly, the cement contains 64.5 %
minor oxides in portland-cement clinker are listed Table 1.
CaO, but it is distributed among each of the major phases;
Using these abbreviations, 3CaO
SiO2 becomes C3S. The
C3S, C2S, C3A, and C4AF. There may also be about 1.0 % free
other primary phases are C2S (2CaO
SiO2), C3A (3CaO
Al2O3),
lime (f-CaO), that is CaO that was not combined during the
and C4AF (4CaO
Al2O3
Fe2O3). These chemical formulas can
clinkering process. In addition, about 2 % of the CaO in the
be threatening to the nonchemist, but it is quite possible to
cement will be from calcium sulfate added during the grind-
comprehend and discuss the chemical properties of cement
ing process.
referenced in ASTM standards using only the abbreviations.
Note the use of the term phase is used instead of com-
Bogue Calculations
pound; a phase is a chemically impure compound, and cement
Determination of the oxide composition of a cement is fairly
phases like C3S contain several percent by mass of other ele-
straightforward, but the determination of the actual phase
ments. These “impurities” are part of the materials that make up
composition is more difficult. In order to correlate chemical
the raw feed and actually help make the cement more reactive.
composition and cement performance, it is necessary to know
how much of each phase is present. Historically, the Bogue cal-
Phase Composition
culation has been used to calculate the “potential” phase com-
Although the chemical composition of a cement is expressed in
position. Developed by Bogue in 1929, this procedure is based
terms of its oxides, it is important to note that the phase com-
on a number of assumptions [4]. There are many variations of
position of a cement is not adequately described by a list of ox-
the Bogue calculations [for example 1,5], but the following
ide weight percentages. Table 2 shows the chemical analysis
equations are used in ASTM C 150:
results for an ASTM Type I/II cement. In addition to the oxide
results (Table 2a), the phase composition is given (Table 2b). In
C3S  4.071CaO  7.600SiO2  6.718Al2O3
cement chemistry, the term “phase composition” is often used (1)
to indicate the composition of clinker and cement. In this  1.430Fe2O3  2.852SO3  5.188CO2
C2S  2.867SiO2  0.7544C3S (2)
C3A  2.650Al2O3  1.692Fe2O3 (3)
TABLE 2a—An Example of a Typical Portland-
C4AF = 3.043Fe2O3 (4)
Cement Composition, Expressed as Oxides
Oxide Percentage The use of these equations assumes that the clinker reactions
go essentially to completion, and also that the four major
SiO2 22.0 phases are pure C3S, C2S, C3A, and C4AF. Equations 3 and 4 are
Al2O3 4.3 modified if the ratio of Al2O3 to Fe2O3 is more than 0.64, be-
Fe2O3 3.1 cause a solid solution—expressed as ss(C4AF  C2F)—will be
CaO 64.5 formed instead of C3A and C4AF.
MgO 2.2
SO3 2.6 ss (C4AF  C2F)  2.100Al2O3  1.702Fe2O3 (5)
Na2O equivalent 0.65
C3S4.071CaO7.600SiO24.479Al2O3 (6)
2.859Fe2O32.852SO35.181CO2
452 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
The sum of the four major compounds will be less than
100 %, because the Bogue calculation does not account for mi-
nor phases and the incorporation of impurities into the major
phases. The version of the Bogue calculations used in ASTM C
150 also does not correct for the amount of f-CaO present in
the cement and so may overestimate the value for C3S. Histori-
cally, another source of error arose in the past because ASTM
C 150 included TiO2 and P2O5 in the weight percentage of
Al2O3. The value used for Al2O3 now does not include these
trace elements; however differences could arise due to these
elements when comparing past data.
Although based on many assumptions, the Bogue calcula-
tions have the advantage of being easy to calculate. When used
appropriately, the results can be effectively used to compare
cement properties. This is especially true when evaluating ce-
ment produced at a single plant where the raw materials and
kiln conditions do not change radically over time. However, it
should be borne in mind that the Bogue calculations give only
the potential phase composition, and that the results are not
always close to the true phase composition.
Incorporation of Substituent Elements in
Clinker Phases
As has been shown, there are a number of ways of expressing
the composition of a cement, and that it is necessary to differ-
entiate between oxide and phase compositions. As mentioned
previously, the Bogue equations do not take into account the
incorporation small quantities of other elements in the major
phases. In commercial clinker, the phases contain these impu-
rities, and they will have some affect on cement performance.
In general, impure phases are more reactive than the pure
compounds. C3S may contain up to 2 % of MgO, and will also
incorporate Al2O3 and Fe2O3. Sulfur, sodium, and potassium,
and many other elements have been identified within the C3S
phase in portland cement [6]. Alite is the mineral name given
to impure C3S, which includes C3S in all commercial clinker.
Impurities in the C3S crystals, as well as the heating and cool-
ing conditions in the kiln, lead to a variety of polymorphic
forms of C3S (polymorphs have essentially the same chemical
composition, but a different crystal structure). Monoclinic and
triclinic are two of the polymorphs of C3S discussed in the lit-
erature. The mineral names of the clinker phases are shown in
Table 3.
Belite, the mineral form of C2S found in clinker, can in-
corporate aluminum, iron, and other elements. Like alite, be-
lite exists in a number of polymorphic forms, and the -poly-
morph of belite is the predominant form in commercial
clinker. C3A in clinker can contain iron and silicon. The
alkalies, sodium and potassium, also influence the aluminate
TABLE 3—Nomenclature for Major Clinker
Phases
Name of Pure Compound Mineral Name Shorthand
Tricalcium silicate alite C3S
Dicalcium silicate belite C2S
Tricalcium aluminate aluminate C3A
Tetracalcium aluminoferrite ferrite C4AF
crystal structure, stabilizing the orthorhombic form (also
called alkali-aluminate). The principal type of aluminate in
clinker is referred to as cubic. Ferrite contains significant
amounts of silicon and magnesium.
Clinker contains other impurities that originate from the
raw materials or from the kiln fuel—TiO2, P2O5, SrO, Mn2O3,
and various sulfur compounds are examples. These do not usu-
ally have a significant impact on performance, but Jeknavorian
and Hayden [7] have reported one example where excessive
amounts of zinc caused severe retardation of setting and hard-
ening. Chlorine, fluorine, and trace metals can also affect
cement performance. Studies on impurities in clinker phases
are numerous, and their effects on cement performance are
generally secondary and too complex to be covered in this
introduction.
Hydration Reactions
Hydration refers to the chemical reactions that take place
when cement is mixed with water. Mathematical modeling of
hydration and characterization of hydration products are
active fields of research, and the reader is referred to a num-
ber of references for more detailed information [1,8–10].
There are a few reactions that should be reviewed in order
to better understand the effects of composition on cement
performance.
The calcium silicates react with water to form C-S-H, an
amorphous calcium silicate hydrate gel that is primarily re-
sponsible for the strength development of hydraulic cement
paste. For example, C3S undergoes the following reaction
C3S  (y  z ) H2O → Cx SHy  z CH (7)
(alite  water → C-S-H  calcium hydroxide)
where the composition of C-S-H is expressed as Cx SHy and x 
z  3, but x, y, and z are not necessarily integers [3]. The actual
composition of C-S-H may vary, and hyphens are used between
the oxide abbreviations to show that the composition is indefi-
nite. A byproduct of the hydration reaction is CH, calcium hy-
droxide. The C2S also hydrates to form C-S-H and CH. The
quantity of CH produced by C2S hydration is about one third
of the quantity from C3S hydration.
The C3A participates in the reactions affecting setting
(early stiffening with no substantial development of compres-
sive strength) and early strength gains. In the presence of gyp-
sum, the following reaction occurs:
C3S  3CS

H2  26H → C6AS

H32
(8)
(aluminate  gypsum  water → ettringite)
The C3A can also participate in many other reactions, with
and without sulfate. All of the hydration reactions involving
the clinker phases are exothermic, and the amount of heat
generated is an important property of the cement. These hy-
dration reactions and compounds are not specifically part of
ASTM cement standards, but their chemistry underlies many
test methods designed to predict the performance of cement:
performance with respect to flow properties, strength, and
durability.
The pozzolanic reaction, that is, the reaction of siliceous
phases present in supplementary cementitious materials (such
as fly ash, ground granulated blast furnace slag, silica fume,
and calcined clays) with calcium hydroxide, is an approxima-
tion of the reactions of these materials in cementitious systems;
 DEHAYES AND TENNIS ON HYDRAULIC CEMENT-CHEMICAL PROPERTIES 453

other compounds are present in these materials. The idealized C3A

reaction is:
CH  S → C-S-H (9)
(calcium hydroxide  silica → calcium silicate hydrate)
A benefit of using supplementary cementitious materials is that
additional C-S-H is produced (if the hydration reactions con-
tinue), which can increase the strength and decrease the per-
meability of the mortar or concrete, both of which can improve
concrete durability.
Contributions of the Major Cement Phases to
Cement Performance
Because the properties of the major phases are generally simi-
lar in different portland cements, the approximate effect of
changing the cement composition can be predicted and can
provide a basis for control of performance of cement. Follow-
ing is a summary of the properties of the four major phases.
C3S
Alite hydrates rapidly and is responsible for early strength and
early setting characteristics. Taylor [1] reports that approxi-
mately 70 % of the C3S in portland cement will have reacted by
28 days, and virtually 100 % by one year. Portland cements
with higher C3S contents will generally show higher strengths
through about seven days. C3S hydration also generates more
heat than C2S hydration, and the heat of hydration of a cement
is related to its C3S content. ACI Committee Report 225 [11] in-
cludes a discussion on heat of hydration. In the USA, C3S con-
tents typically range from about 45 % to 65 %, by mass, with an
average of about 55 % [12].
C2S
Belite hydrates more slowly than alite, and contributes mostly to
later age strength. Taylor [1] reports 30 % complete hydration at
28 days for C2S, and 90 % completion at one year. C2S, hydration
generates less heat than C3S, and also produces less calcium hy-
droxide. C2S contents of U.S. portland cements range from about
8 to 28 %, by mass, with an average value of about 19 % [12].
The aluminate phase influences setting and early strength de-
velopment. Gypsum, or other forms of calcium sulfate, is
needed to control the otherwise very rapid hydration of C3A
and to avoid flash setting. The hydration reactions involving
aluminate contribute significantly to heat of hydration of a ce-
ment. C3A hydration products are the main participants in the
reactions leading to sulfate attack [11]. C3A contents of U.S.
portland cements are controlled by the cement type; for most
Type I cements they range between 5 % and 13 % and average
about 9 %. For Type II cements they range from about 4 % to
8 %, and average about 6 %. For Type V cements they range
from trace amounts of C3A to about 5 %, with an average of
about 4 % [12].
C 4 AF
The contributions of C4AF are not well-understood, but it may
function similarly to C3A. Cement color is influenced by the
composition and amount of the iron-containing phase. A re-
port by Chiesi, Myers, and Gartner suggests that the strength-
producing capabilities of C4AF can be enhanced with the use of
chemical additives [14]. C4AF contents tend to be higher when
C3A contents are lower because these phases are liquid at kiln
temperatures and control of the amount of liquid phase is im-
portant to clinker burning and kiln operation. Thus, C4AF con-
tents range from 3 % to 13 %, averaging about 8 % to 10 % [12].
Chemical Requirements IN ASTM C 150
The chemical requirements for portland cement are summa-
rized in Table 4. This table shows the compositional limits for
ASTM Types I, II, III, IV, and V. ASTM C 150 also includes
Types I-A, II-A, and III-A; the A indicates that an air-entraining
admixture has been interground during the manufacturing
process. The chemical requirements are the same for regular
and air-entrained cements. In addition to air-entraining addi-
tives, ASTM C 150 permits the addition of water, calcium sul-
fate, limestone, and processing additions (usually grinding
aids and pack-set inhibitors) conforming to ASTM Specifica-
tion for Processing Additions for Use in the Manufacture of

TABLE 4—Standard Chemical Requirements for Portland Cements

(From ASTM C 150, Table 1)
Cement Type

I II III IV V

Al2O3, max, % ... 6.0 ... ... ...

Fe2O3, max, % ... 6.0 ... 6.5 ...
MgO, max, % 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
SO3, max, %
when C3A  8 % 3.0 3.0 3.5 2.3 2.3
when C3A  8 % 3.5 ... 4.5 ... ...
LOI, max, % 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 3.0
Insol. Res., max, % 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
C3S, max, % ... ... ... 35 ...
C2S, min, % ... ... ... 40 ...
C3A, max, % ... 8 15 7 5
[C4AF  2(C3A)] or ... ... ... ... 25
(C4AF C2F), max, %
454 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
Hydraulic Cements (C 465). If requested, the manufacturer
must supply in writing all relevant information about the air-
entraining and processing additions used in processing.
The limitations in Table 4 are based on the oxides, as well
as the potential phase composition. The different types of ce-
ment have different oxide limitations because the composition
of the cement affects the resulting properties of concrete. Type
I, a general purpose cement, has the fewest restrictions,
whereas Types II, III, IV, and V have more limits. The chemical
properties limited for all types of cement will be discussed first.
Limitations Common to All ASTM Types of
Portland Cement
MgO
All ASTM types show a limit on MgO of 6 % by mass. The MgO
is limited because of concern about disruptive expansion of
concrete that may occur if free MgO hydrates. MgO content
was one of two chemical properties limited in the original
ASTM cement specification proposed in 1902. The maximum
percentage was first set at 4 %, but was raised to 5 % in 1926
and to 6 % in 1976 [15].
Insoluble Residue
All ASTM types of cement are subject to a maximum limit on in-
soluble residue, the portion of the cement that cannot be dis-
solved in strong acid or alkaline solutions. Insoluble residue was
first limited to 0.85 % in 1916 and was lowered to 0.75 % in 1941
[15]. The purpose of this limit is to preclude deleterious
amounts of siliceous and argillaceous components from being
present in portland cements. Insoluble residue may result from
raw materials that did not combine completely in the burning
process, or possibly from contamination during clinker re-
claiming. It is usually a silicate or alumino-silicate material. All
portland cements contain a small amount of insoluble residue,
and the most common source is silicate impurities in the cal-
cium sulfate and limestone added during the finish grinding.
The 0.75 % limit on insoluble residue must be considered when
determining the level of acceptable purity of calcium sulfate
and limestone sources for portland-cement manufacture.
Loss on Ignition
Commonly abbreviated LOI, loss on ignition is the weight per-
centage lost when portland cement is heated at 950°C. Set at a
maximum of 3.0% today (2. 5% for Type IV cement), LOI was
added to the specification in 1917 to preclude the presence in
the cement of deleterious amounts of carbonate minerals such
as limestone and dolomite [15]. Water and carbon dioxide are
the main contributors to LOI. The primary source of LOI in
modern cements is from water combined in calcium sulfate de-
hydrate or gypsum (CaSO4
2H2O) and carbon dioxide in lime-
stone (CaCO3). For example, a portland cement containing 5 %
of gypsum has a theoretical LOI of about 1.5%, if only the com-
bined water from gypsum is contributing to LOI. An additional
1.3 % LOI would result from 3 % addition of limestone
(CaCO3). In practice, some of the combined water from gyp-
sum is lost through dehydration during the mill-grinding step.
Additional moisture may be picked up from the atmosphere
and from water sprays used to cool grinding mills.
Another source of LOI is moisture picked up from the
clinker components during storage as well as during grinding.
For example, free lime (f-CaO) not combined during burning is
hygroscopic and readily absorbs water. During storage, partic-
TABLE 5—Relationship Between C3A and
SO3 (From ASTM C 150, Table 1)
Cement C3A, % SO3, %
Type III 8 4.5
Type I 8 3.5
Type II 8 3.0
Type IV 7 2.3
Type V 5 2.3
ularly if stored outside and exposed to rain, f-CaO hydrates to
form Ca(OH)2 and it may absorb CO2 from the atmosphere to
form CaCO3. These reactions contribute to a higher LOI. Other
clinker components, particularly C3A and C3S are subject to
prehydration during storage. These reactions can be quite com-
plex and may affect the cement performance [16].
SO 3
All types of portland cement have a limit on the percentage of
allowable SO3, although the limits differ for Types II, III, and
V. The SO3 limit, one of the original two chemical require-
ments, was fixed at 1.75 % in 1904 [15]. The SO3 content ex-
presses the amount of sulfate in the cement. The SO3 may be
present in the one of the forms of calcium sulfate (gypsum,
hemihydrate, anhydrite), but it may also be present in other
forms. SO3 may be present in clinker in the form of alkali sul-
fates will be included in the measured SO3 content; it will re-
duce the amount of SO3 that needs to be added. Sulfate is
added to regulate the initial setting and hardening reactions
that take place during hydration. The amount required is
related to the fineness and composition of the cement, partic-
ularly the C3A content as shown in Table 5. Type V portland ce-
ments have the lowest allowable SO3 content, because of the
low C3A level in Type V cements. This same rationale holds for
the SO3 limits on Types I, II, and III, with Type III having the
highest limit because it usually has a high C3A content and high
fineness. The SO3 limits are all maxima; there are no restric-
tions on the minimum SO3 contents. However, it will almost al-
ways be necessary to add some form of sulfate in order to meet
the physical requirements in ASTM C 150.
Optimum SO 3
Careful examination of Table 1 in ASTM C 150 shows a note
concerning the SO3 limits. Note D allows the SO3 content of
cement to exceed the maximum in the table if it can be shown
that the compressive strength will be improved at the higher
SO3 levels. The present method for determining optimum SO3
is ASTM Test Method for Optimum SO3 in Portland Cement (C
563), which defines the “optimum SO3” based on compressive
strength at 24-h. As a precaution against oversulfating, cements
that exceed ASTM C 150 Table 1 limits must also be tested to
show that the added SO3 does not cause expansion greater
than 0.020 % as demonstrated by ASTM Test Method for Ex-
pansion of Portland Cement Mortar Stored in Water (C 1038).
The phrase “optimum SO3” may be misleading, as different
SO3 contents may maximize early strength than maximize
strength at later ages. SO3 contents may also vary when opti-
mizing other properties such as setting time and shrinkage.
Furthermore, the optimum SO3 content of a cement may be
 DEHAYES AND TENNIS ON HYDRAULIC CEMENT-CHEMICAL PROPERTIES
influenced by the use in concrete of chemical admixtures, sup-
plementary cementitious materials, or heat treatment. Opti-
mum SO3 testing for a particular cement should be repeated if
there is a change in manufacturing conditions or chemical
composition of the clinker.
ASTM C 150 Chemical Requirements for
Different Types of Cements
Changing the chemical composition causes a change in the
properties of a cement. Examples of the phase composition,
calculated by the Bogue method, for Types I through V are
given in Table 6. Reference to Table 4 shows that there are
only a few limitations on phase content. Even though the
chemical requirements are not listed for each oxide, a manu-
facturer’s certification will normally show the complete
chemical analysis, along with the calculated phase composi-
tion. The results reported in the test certificate (also called
mill report or mill certificate) are a good starting point for
correlating cement properties with concrete performance
characteristics.
Type I Portland Cement
Type I portland cement is to be used when the special prop-
erties specified for any other type are not required. Accord-
ing to ASTM C 150, Type I has no restrictions on the major
oxides or the phase composition. A Type I cement could have
a C3S content of 20 or 70 %, but typically it will be 55 to 60
% C3S by mass. Even though ASTM C 150 does not limit C3S,
there are theoretical and practical limitations. In addition, the
chemical composition cannot be so extreme as to preclude
meeting physical requirements such as strength and setting
time, discussed in Chapter 39. Cement composition is influ-
enced by the composition of available raw materials. For ex-
ample, a plant with readily available high-purity limestone
and a very expensive silica source may find it more econom-
ical to make a high C3S cement (C3S uses more calcium ox-
ide, the major contribution of limestone to the clinker, than
does C2S). Economies of raw material sourcing must be bal-
anced with manufacturing costs—it takes more energy to pro-
duce C3S than C2S. Therefore, cement compositions tend to
be more alike throughout the country than might be ex-
pected. Chemical composition will also be affected by market
demands. As the construction industry strives for higher early
strengths, there may be greater demand for cements with
higher C3S and C3A contents. When composition is changed
to maximize one property, such as, for example, strength,
changes to other properties may also occur.
TABLE 6—Average Phase Composition for
ASTM C 150 Portland Cements [after 12]
Cement Type
I II III IV V
C3S, % 54 55 55 42 52
C2S, % 18 19 17 32 22
C3A, % 10 6 9 4 4
C4AF, % 8 11 8 15 13
455
Type II Portland Cement
Type II portland cement has several restrictions on composi-
tion. Contents of Al2O3, and Fe2O3 are limited, in addition to
limits on insoluble residue, LOI, and SO3. Type II cement is de-
signed for general use when moderate sulfate resistance or
moderate heat of hydration is desired. The upper limits on
Al2O3 and Fe2O3 restrict the amounts of C3A and C4AF that can
be made, leading to lower heat of hydration. The upper limit of
8% on C3A also has the purpose of reducing susceptibility to
sulfate attack. As long as the physical requirements are met,
Type II cements also meet the chemical requirements for Type
I. Many cements meet both Type I and Type II requirements
and are often referred to as Type I//II cements. In many areas
of the country, Type II cements have replaced Type I as the
most common cement.
Type III Portland Cement
Type III portland cement, for use when high early strength is
desired, has no additional restrictions other than a 15 % C3A
maximum. While some Type III cements may have a C3A con-
tent close to the maximum, it is also acceptable to have a very
low C3A content because there is no minimum specified in
ASTM C 150. Type III is allowed higher SO3 contents than
Types I and II, even if they have the same C3A level. This is be-
cause Type III cements generally have greater surface areas (to
meet the higher strength requirements), and more SO3 may be
required to control the C3A reactions in a finer-ground cement.
Also, as mentioned in the discussion of optimum SO3, the SO3
limits in ASTM C 150, Table 1, can be exceeded if certain other
conditions are met.
Type IV Portland Cement
The compositions of Type IV portland cements are restricted
to less than 35 % C3S, a minimum of 40 % C2S, and the C3A
content can be no more than 7 %. Designed for low heat of
hydration, Type IV is not readily available in the United
States. The use of pozzolans and granulated blast-furnace
slags, either as mineral admixtures or as components of
blended cements, has reduced the demand for Type IV ce-
ment. It is possible that, in the future, there may be renewed
interest in low-heat cements for applications such as roller-
compacted concrete.
Type V Portland Cement
Type V portland cement, for use when high sulfate resistance
is desired, has a maximum limit of 5 % C3A and 25 % for
the quantity [C4AF  2(C3A)]. The hydration products of C3A
can react with sulfate to lead to deleterious expansion, but
research has shown that limiting C3A may not always provide
sufficient protection against sulfate attack [17]. The C3A
limit for Type V in ASTM C 150 does not apply when the
sulfate expansion limit, an optional physical requirement, is
specified.
Optional Chemical Requirements
C 3 A and C 3 S
The optional chemical requirements in Table 2 of ASTM C 150
apply only when specifically requested. Optional limits on C3A
for Type III are 8 % for moderate sulfate resistance and 5 %
for high sulfate resistance. For Type II, the sum of C3S and
C3A may be limited to 58 % to help ensure moderate heat of
hydration.
456 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
Low Alkali Limit
The optional requirement for low-alkali cement limits the equiv-
alent alkali content, calculated as (Na2O  0.658K2O), to 0.60 %
maximum. A review of the history of the alkali limit is given by
Frohnsdorff et al. [18]. Briefly, the alkali limit is intended to
eliminate deleterious expansive action arising from alkali silica
reaction (ASR). Discussed in more detail in other chapters, dele-
terious ASR occurs when cement alkalies and reactive silica
components in aggregate form a gel that leads to concrete ex-
pansion and cracking. It should be noted that an alkali content
of below 0.60 % is not always sufficient to prevent deleterious
expansion of concrete containing reactive aggregates.
Blended Hydraulic Cements
Blended hydraulic cements consist of two or more inorganic
constituents (one of which is normally portland cement or
finely-ground portland-cement clinker) that, separately or in
combination, contribute to the strength-gaining properties of
the cement. The most common non-portland cement (or port-
land-cement clinker) materials used in blended cements are
the supplementary cementitious materials blast-furnace slag
and fly ash. Natural pozzolans and silica fume (also called mi-
crosilica) are examples of other materials that may be used in
blended cements. Blended cements may be made by inter-
grinding the constituents with portland cement clinker and
calcium sulfate, or by blending the constituents with portland
cement.
A pozzolan is a material that has little or no hydraulic ac-
tivity of its own, but it acts as a hydraulic cement when mixed
with water and a source of CaO or Ca(OH)2. In blended ce-
ments, portland cement is the source of CaO for the pozzolanic
reactions (Ca(OH)2 is produced when portland cement hy-
drates). Pozzolans are high in SiO2 and may also contain
significant amounts of Al2O3. Fly ash, microsilica, and natural
pozzolans are examples of pozzolanic materials. Blast-furnace
slag may have latent hydraulic activity as well as pozzolanic
properties.
ASTM C 595 Specification for Blended
Hydraulic Cements
There are five major classifications of blended cements, and
some of these classes are further subdivided, based on the per-
centage of portland cement in the mixture. The five main types
are:
• portland blast-furnace slag cement (Type IS),
• portland-pozzolan cement (Type IP and Type P),
• slag cement (Type S),
• pozzolan-modified portland cement [Type I (PM)], and
• slag-modified portland cement [Type I(SM)].
There are only a few chemical requirements for blended
cements, and the rationales for most of these requirements are
similar to those requirements for portland cements in ASTM C
150. Table 7 summarizes the chemical requirements. The MgO
content is limited to 5.0 % for all portland-pozzolan and poz-
zolan-modified portland cements, but there is no limit on MgO
content for slag cements. The SO3 limits for all types of
blended cements may be exceeded if it can be demonstrated
that the optimum SO3 content is higher than the limit. Insolu-
ble residue is limited to 1.0 % for slag cements, but there is no
limit for pozzolan-containing cements. Loss on ignition varies
from 3.0 to 5.0 %. The source of LOI for blended cements is the
TABLE 7—Chemical Requirements for Blended
Hydraulic Cements (From ASTM C 595, Table 1)
Cement Type
I(PM)
I(SM) I(PM)-A
I(SM)-A P, PA, IP,
IS, IS-A S, SA IP-A
MgO, max, % ... ... 5.0
SO3, max, % 3.0 4.0 4.0
Sulfide sulfur, max, % 2.0 2.0 ...
Insoluble residue, max, % 1.0 1.0 ...
Loss on ignition, max, % 3.0 4.0 5.0
same as for portland cements, although pozzolans such as fly
ash may contain unburned carbon that is measured in the LOI
determination (the carbon can affect the efficiency of air-
entraining admixtures). There is no total or equivalent alkali
limit for blended cements.
The chemical composition of a pozzolanic material cannot
always be directly related to the performance of concrete, but
examination and tracking of chemical properties can provide
a means to check product uniformity. In addition to the
chemical requirements in ASTM Specification for Blended Hy-
draulic Cements (C 595), the standards dealing with the indi-
vidual types of finely-divided mineral admixtures (C 618, C 989,
C 1240) provide useful guidelines about the composition of
these materials. These are summarized in a subsequent section,
“Chemical Composition of Pozzolanic Materials Used as Min-
eral Admixtures in Concrete.”
Performance-Based Specification for
Hydraulic Cements
ASTM C 1157, Standard Performance Specification for Hy-
draulic Cements, is a relatively new specification for cements
for general construction. It provides for portland or blended
cements that meet performance requirements, rather than pre-
scriptive (usually chemical) requirements. The first edition of
ASTM C 1157, approved in 1992, covered only blended ce-
ments. However, at the time, a parallel effort was underway in
ASTM Committee C01 to develop a performance specification
for portland cements with the requirements being similar to
those for blended cements in C 1157. It was generally agreed
that the redundancy in having two, almost identical perform-
ance specifications was unwarranted and, in 1998, C 1157 was
modified to include portland cements. The development of a
performance-based specification is a logical step in the evolu-
tion of specifications: why indirectly specify a property of a ma-
terial through prescriptive requirements when you can directly
specify the performance required? However, at present not all
performance requirements for cement can be easily measured
by a test, and performance testing is usually more time-con-
suming. For these reasons, and because of the relatively con-
servative nature of the construction industry, ASTM C 150 and
C 595 continue to be used much more extensively than C 1157.
Six basic cement types are considered in ASTM C 1157:
• general-purpose hydraulic cement (Type GU),
• high-early strength cement (Type HE),
 DEHAYES AND TENNIS ON HYDRAULIC CEMENT-CHEMICAL PROPERTIES 457

• moderate- and high-sulfate resistance cements (Type MS cluded in some specifications. ASTM Specification for Ground
and Type HS), and Iron Blast-Furnace Slag for Use in Concrete and Mortars (C
• moderate- and low-heat of hydration cements (Type MH 989) uses the slag-activity index based on actual compressive
and Type LH). strength test results to characterize slags.
The physical requirements for these cements are largely
similar to their counterparts in C 150 and C 595. A few re- Silica Fume
quirements will be discussed here. Although requirements for Condensed silica fume, also called microsilica, is covered by
chemical composition, fineness and air content are not in- ASTM C 1240, Standard Specification for Use of Silica Fume
cluded, these characteristics are required to be determined and for Use as a Mineral Admixture in Hydraulic-Cement Concrete,
reported for informational purposes. Mortar, and Grout. Silica fume is a by-product from the reduc-
Default minimum compressive strength requirements are tion of quartz (or quartz and iron) with coal to produce silicon
listed in Table 1 of C 1157; however other options are available and ferro-silicon alloys. Silica fume condenses from the
for specifying a different (higher) minimum strength and for gaseous phase, and the particles are spherical, amorphous, and
specifying a strength range (that is, a maximum and a mini- have a very high specific surface area [21]. Silica fume from sil-
mum strength) at a particular age. C 109/C109M (Test Method icon alloy production usually contains more than 90 % SiO2,
for Compressive Strength of Hydraulic Cement Mortars) is and ferrosilicon alloy production produces silica fume with
used to measure the compressive strength. varying amounts of Fe2O3. Small amounts of other oxides may
For Types LH and MH, heat of hydration is measured by also be present. Silica fume is a very reactive pozzolan, because
C 186 (Test Method for Heat of Hydration of Hydraulic Ce- the very fine SiO2 particles quickly react with Ca(OH)2 and
ment) while, for Types MS and HS, sulfate resistance is deter- water to form C-S-H.
mined by C 1012 (Test Method for Length Change of Hydraulic
Cement Mortars Exposed to a Sulfate Solution).
An Option R, low reactivity with alkali-reactive aggregates,
Methods for the Chemical Analysis of
is also included, and determined by a modified version of C 227
Hydraulic Cements
[Test Method for Potential Alkali Reactivity of Cement-Aggregate
ASTM Test Methods for Chemical Analysis of Hydraulic Ce-
Combinations (Mortar Bar Method)]. The modification consists
ment (C 114) describes specific chemical analysis procedures
of using crushed borosilicate glass as a model aggregate.
for both portland cements and blended hydraulic cements.
The scope of ASTM C 114 states that any method may be
Chemical Composition of Pozzolanic Materials used for analysis of hydraulic cement, as long as it can be
Used as Mineral Admixtures in Concrete demonstrated that the method achieves the required levels of
precision and bias. ASTM C 114 procedures for analyzing
Fly Ash and Natural Pozzolans cement are separated into Reference Test Methods and Alter-
ASTM Specification for Fly Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural native Test Methods. Reference test methods are “long ac-
Pozzolan for Use as a Mineral Admixture in Portland Cement cepted chemical test methods which provide a reasonably
Concrete (C 618) gives the requirements for fly ash and natu- well-integrated basic scheme of analysis for hydraulic ce-
ral pozzolans for use in concrete. Class N, raw or calcined nat- ments.” Reference test methods can be performed in any rea-
ural pozzolans, include siliceous, or siliceous and aluminous, sonably-equipped chemical laboratory and do not require
materials such as diatomaceous earths, opaline cherts and expensive analytical instrumentation. Generally, satisfactory
shales, tuffs and volcanic ashes or pumicites, and some cal- results can only be obtained by experienced analysts, and
cined shales and clays. The sum of SiO2 and Al2O3 must equal ASTM C 114 requires that individual analysts demonstrate
at least 70 %, and there are also limits on SO3, moisture, and their ability to achieve acceptable precision and bias when us-
LOI. Class F fly ash, typically produced from the burning of an- ing the reference test methods.
thracite or bituminous coal, must also meet a 70 % minimum
sum of SiO2, Al2O3, and Fe2O3. For Class C fly ash, typically
produced from burning lignite or sub-bituminous coals, the
sum of these same three oxides must equal 50 % or more. Class TABLE 8—Maximum Permissible Variations
C fly ashes normally contain CaO and have some cementitious in Results (From ASTM C 114, Table 1)
properties in addition to being pozzolanic. Helmuth has sum-
marized the chemical composition and properties of a variety Max Difference of the
of fly ashes [19]. Average of
Maximum Difference Duplicates from SRM
Ground Granulated Blast-Furnace Slag Component Between Duplicates Values (/)
Blast-furnace slag is the nonmetallic product formed during
SiO2 0.16 0.2
iron production, consisting mostly of silicates and aluminosili-
Al2O3 0.20 0.2
cates of calcium. The major oxides, SiO2, Al2O3, CaO, and MgO,
Fe2O3 0.10 0.10
constitute 95 % or more of the total oxides [20]. If water- CaO 0.20 0.3
quenched, blast-furnace slag can have a glass content of MgO 0.16 0.2
greater than 95 %; pelletized blast-furnace slag, which is cooled SO3 0.10 0.1
more slowly, has a lower glass content. Air-cooled slag has lit- LOI 0.10 0.10
tle hydraulic activity, but may be used as aggregate. Attempts Na2O 0.03 0.05
to relate the reactivity of granulated blast-furnace slag to chem- K2O 0.03 0.05
ical composition, such as the ratio (CaO  MgO  Al2O3)/SiO2,
have not been fully successful, but these constraints are in-
458 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
Demonstration of Precision and Bias
The competency of an individual analyst is determined by com-
paring the analyst’s duplicate results for an SRM (Standard
Reference Material) cement to the maximum permissible vari-
ation in results shown in Table 8. Table 8 has been adapted
from Table 1 in ASTM C 114, which provides information on
oxides in addition to the ones included in Table 8 of this report.
An SRM cement is prepared and certified by the National In-
stitute of Standards Technology (NIST, formerly NBS) or other
acceptable reference material as defined in ASTM C 114. Ce-
ment SRMs cover a range of compositions, and certified values
are provided. In addition to being used to demonstrate com-
petency of analysts and test methods, SRMs are used as cali-
bration standards for instrumental methods.
Table 8 also provides a convenient means assessing the
acceptability of optional test methods (also called rapid
methods). A scheme for qualifying these test methods was de-
veloped and became part of ASTM C 114 in 1977. Briefly, the
qualification procedure involves analysis of at least seven
SRM samples; two rounds of tests on nonconsecutive days are
required. Six of the seven differences between duplicates ob-
tained for any single component shall not exceed the limits in
Column 2 of Table 8. Also, the average of the duplicates must
not exceed the limits in Column 3, again for six of the seven
SRMs. Test methods must be requalified at least every two
years, or when there is substantial evidence that the test
method is not performing in accordance with Table 1 in
ASTM C 114. Such evidence may come from a comparison of
results with the average in the Cement and Concrete Refer-
ence Laboratory (CCRL) Proficiency Sample program [22].
Many companies also conduct their own interlaboratory
sample exchange programs to monitor chemical analysis test
procedures. Additional details and restrictions on the qualifi-
cation procedure are given in ASTM C 114 in the section en-
titled Performance Requirements for Rapid Test Methods. A
recent analysis of CCRL data [23] may provide the basis for
updating the precision and bias statements in Table 1 of
ASTM C 114.
Instrumental Methods for Cement Analysis
Table 1 in ASTM C 114 has facilitated the application of mod-
ern instrumental methods to cement analysis, and a manufac-
turer can use any qualified method, as long as the procedure
used is noted on the manufacturer’s certification. Examples of
test methods used successfully to analyze hydraulic cements
are discussed in ASTM STP 985 [24]. Methods included are X-
ray fluorescence, atomic absorption spectrophotometry, and a
spectrophotometric scheme. The most common of these meth-
ods will be discussed further.
X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF)
Both wavelength and energy-dispersive X-ray methods have
been used successfully to analyze portland cements, but wave-
length is the more popular technique in cement plant quality
control laboratories. XRF is well-suited to analysis in a cement
plant because it can be used to obtain chemical analysis of
quarry and imported raw materials, clinker, and portland ce-
ment. Analysis time is greatly reduced compared to classical
“wet” methods, and varying degrees of automation are now in
use. Three methods are used for sample preparation: pressed
powder, fused pellets, and fusion followed by grinding. ASTM
C 114 allows the use of any method, as long as acceptable pre-
cision and bias can be demonstrated.
Other Rapid Methods
Atomic absorption involves dissolution of the cement prior to
elemental analysis. Used successfully in many laboratories, it is
subject to error for the major elements because of the number
of dilution steps that are required. Inductively-coupled plasma
(ICP) spectrometry can also be used for complete analysis. Spe-
cialized techniques, such as ion chromatography, can also be
used for selected elements. For more information on analysis
of anhydrous cement, refer to the American Ceramic Society’s
series, Cements Research Progress, most recently printed in
1997 [25].
Selective Dissolution
Selective dissolution covers a variety of procedures that at-
tempt to separate a component or phase from the composite.
Methods for free CaO fall into this classification, as do proce-
dures such as maleic acid/methanol (M/M) extraction. M/M
extraction, or a variation using salicylic acid, can be used to re-
move the calcium silicates [26–30]. This then concentrates the
aluminate, ferrite, periclase, and calcium sulfate phases. These
techniques are sometimes used as precursors to other methods
of analysis such as quantitative X-ray diffraction.
Significance of Test Results
Table 8 provides a means for the user to evaluate the signifi-
cance of test results. When comparing two cements, Table 8
can be used as a guideline. For example, if the SO3 content for
Cement A is 2.70 % and that for Cement B is 2.75 %, examina-
tion of Table 8 shows that a difference of 0.10 % is allowed for
duplicate analyses of the same sample. This provides a good in-
dication that the SO3 contents of Cements A and B are not sig-
nificantly different. This type of examination may be helpful
when determining if a cement that is close to a specification
limit should be rejected. The values in Table 8 apply only to
within-laboratory variation, but between-laboratory variation
can be inferred because all laboratories are comparing their
results to reference standards.
Looking at another example, it is possible to get an ap-
proximation of the variation that can occur between two
laboratories, both of which have demonstrated acceptable
analyses of SRM cements. If Laboratory A shows a consistent
bias of 0.05 % in the analysis of Na2O, and Laboratory B
shows a consistent bias of 0.05 %, they may differ by as
much as 0.10 %. Unlike the previous SO3 example, a differ-
ence of 0.10 % in Na2O content is not trivial, especially if the
cement is near the optional 0.60 % alkali limit. Fortunately, it
is unlikely that laboratories will show a consistent bias at the
maximum allowable range. However, even a bias of 0.02 or
0.03 % can be important for plants operating near the limit
for the minor oxides.
The preceding examples show that bias in test results can
have a significant impact on the minor oxides, but testing
variations for the major oxides can also influence the poten-
tial phase composition calculated by the Bogue equations.
For example, errors or bias of a few tenths of a percent in
measuring SiO2, Al2O3, and CaO can cause differences of
more than 5 % in the calculated C3S content. This example il-
lustrates the need for cement manufacturers, and others who
test cement, to establish a quality assurance program for
analytical procedures. One should use caution when compar-
ing the composition of two or more cements, especially
when the chemical analyses were not performed in the same
laboratory.
 DEHAYES AND TENNIS ON HYDRAULIC CEMENT-CHEMICAL PROPERTIES
Quantitative Phase Analysis
Currently, there are several task groups working within ASTM
Subcommittee C01.23 on Compositional Analysis of Hydraulic
Cements to develop standard test methods for measuring the
phase compositions of cements. The impetus for this effort
comes from the growing shift away from prescription to per-
formance-based specifications. In addition, there is a desire to
correlate cement properties with performance in concrete, re-
quiring a more definitive characterization of cement in terms
of the phases present and their distribution among the parti-
cles of different shapes and sizes.
Microscopical Techniques
Light microscopy has long been used to quantitatively deter-
mine the mineralogical composition of geological samples,
and the technique can be applied to the measurement of
clinker phase content. ASTM C 1356, Test Method for Quanti-
tative Determination of Phases in Portland Cement Clinker by
Microscopical Point Count Procedure, was approved in 1996.
Methods for quantitative clinker microscopy with the light mi-
croscope have been reviewed by Campbell and Galehouse [31].
Determination of phase content by light microscopy is consid-
ered a direct method since phases are identified and counted
to determine the volume percentage. The disadvantages of
light microscopy include (1) it is difficult to obtain a represen-
tative sample, (2) it is time-consuming to count at least 2000 to
3000 points to get a statistical sampling, (3) the method is sub-
ject to errors of misidentification of phases, (4) the precision of
the method can vary with the clinker microstructure (that is,
size of crystals), and (5) the method may not be easily applied
to ground cement.
The use of light microscopy to evaluate clinker reactivity
and predict strength performance of portland cement has been
the subject of numerous papers reported in the proceedings of
the International Cement Microscopy Association (ICMA). One
procedure is the Ono Method [32], named after Dr. Yoshio Ono
from Japan, where a small amount of ground clinker or ce-
ment powder is evaluated to determine kiln burning and cool-
ing conditions. The crystal observations can then be correlated
to potential strength gain. This type of compositional analysis
is not presently covered by ASTM standards, but it is an exam-
ple of a method that might be investigated in the future.
Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and other electronic
imaging techniques have been successfully applied to charac-
terizing portland-cement clinker, portland cements, and
blended cements [33]. The SEM, if equipped with an X-ray an-
alyzer, can be used to perform chemical analyses of individual
crystals. X-ray mapping produces an image of the elemental
composition, and also shows the distribution of the elements
throughout the crystal structure.
Quantitative X-Ray Diffraction (QXRD)
Analysis
X-ray diffraction has been used for many years to characterize
cements and is useful for identifying phases in cement. It can
also be used for quantitative phase analysis, but the difficulties
are numerous. The status of QXRD analysis applied to cement
and clinker is discussed by Struble [34] in a report prepared
for a 1991 ASTM symposium on the characterization of hy-
draulic cements. Struble describes the problems associated
with QXRD, in general, and the specific difficulties associated
459
with analysis of clinker and cement. ASTM C 1365, Determina-
tion of the Proportion of Phases in Portland Cement and Port-
land Cement Clinker Using X-ray Diffraction Analysis, was orig-
inally approved in 1998 and covers the determination of C3A,
C4AF, and MgO contents. Work on other phases is progressing.
Even though standard ASTM test methods for QXRD have
not yet been finalized for all cement and clinker phases, the fu-
ture is promising. Advances in X-ray diffraction automation
and computer software have made it possible to collect and an-
alyze large amounts of data, and these improvements will help
to overcome some of the challenges inherent in the technique.
Experienced diffractionists have successfully applied QXRD
analysis to cement and clinker, reporting accuracy levels of bet-
ter than 5 % for C3S and 2 % for C3A [1]. Some laboratories
may find that good results can be obtained by combining
microscopic and XRD techniques. It is very difficult to differ-
entiate aluminate from ferrite in some clinkers, and current
procedures for QXRD may already be capable of achieving
greater accuracy than light microscopy. Conversely, the cal-
cium silicates are usually easily identified by microscopy and
an experienced microscopist may be able to achieve improved
accuracy levels compared to present QXRD methods. Com-
bined techniques of XRD and microscopy have also been used
to successfully characterize periclase (free MgO).
Other Compositional Considerations
Carbonate (Limestone)
Limestone added to portland cements during finish grinding
has been a common practice in other countries for many years,
but it is relatively new in the United States. A recent PCA report
discusses the effects of limestone in small amounts, up to 5 %,
on the properties of cement and concrete [34]. An appendix to
ASTM C 114 lists six methods for determining carbonate con-
tent of hydraulic cements. Included are split loss on ignition,
thermogravimetric analysis (TGA), decomposition with HCl
(refers to ASTM C 25, Chemical Analysis of Limestone, Quick-
lime, and Hydrated Lime), X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy
(XRF), combustion by induction furnace, and combustion gravi-
metric method (refers to ASTM E 350, Chemical Analysis of Car-
bon Steel, Low-Alloy Steel, Silicon Electrical Steel, Ingot Iron,
and Wrought Iron). A brief synopsis of each method is given,
along with cautions and limitations for the methods. (The meth-
ods generally determine the CO2 content of cement, and back
calculate to determine the carbonate content of the cement.
Since the CO2 contents of different carbonate (limestone)
sources used in cements vary, when carbonate is used as a com-
ponent of portland cement, ASTM C 150 requires the CO2 con-
tent of the limestone to be reported on mill test reports.)
Calcium Sulfate
The SO3 content was discussed in the section on ASTM C 150,
but it is also important to determine the form of the sulfate. For
example, when natural gypsum is added to clinker and ground
in the finish mill, enough heat may be generated to dehydrate
the gypsum to some degree. Natural gypsum may also contain
some anhydrite, and there is an increasing use of calcium sul-
fate byproducts as sources of SO3 in cement manufacture. The
form and amount of the sulfate phases can affect the hydration
reactions. As previously mentioned, gypsum and other sulfates
can also react during storage, sometimes leading to cement
flowability problems. There is interest in sulfate form and
amount because reports during the last several years have
460 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
shown that these parameters can affect a cement’s interaction
with chemical admixtures, particularly water reducers [36].
Calcium sulfates can be identified by X-ray diffraction,
light and electron microscopy, and by differential thermal
analysis/thermogravimetric analysis (DTA/TGA) methods.
There is a need for reexamination of these techniques and the
development of more accurate procedures for the quantitative
measurement of the calcium sulfate phases.
Alkali Sulfates
In addition to forms of calcium sulfate, cements may contain
alkali sulfates. The most commonly occurring alkali sulfates
are arcanite, apthitalite, and calcium langbeinite. During the
course of normal cement hydration reactions with water, these
alkali sulfates can contribute to set control. However, hydra-
tion of alkali sulfates during cement storage can lead to lump-
ing and flowability problems. Alkali sulfates can affect the
strength characteristics of cement, reportedly improving early
strengths but giving lowered 28-day and later strengths.
Changes in cement alkali levels have also been reported to af-
fect the effectiveness of certain air-entraining admixtures [36].
Trace Elements
A review of the literature on cement composition shows hun-
dreds of references dealing with trace elements (primarily
trace metals, but chlorine, fluorine, and rare earth metals are
also included). Covered are effects on burnability of cement
raw materials, effects on kiln refractory materials, effects on
clinker reactivity and cement performance, and methods for
measuring trace elements. Interest in recent years has in-
creased because of the environmental concerns. A survey on ef-
fects of trace elements in portland cements and cement kiln
dust has been published by the Portland Cement Association
[37]. This reference also provides information about the
sources and effects of trace elements. Of particular interest is
the increased attention being given to trace elements as a re-
sult of the growing practice of using waste materials as both
raw materials and fuels in the clinker manufacturing process.
Barger [38] presented a thorough discussion on the utilization
of waste solvent fuels, including a description of trace metal,
hydrocarbon, and chloride balances. Analysis of cements pro-
duced with waste solvent fuels, using XRD and light mi-
croscopy techniques, showed no detrimental effects.
Testing for trace elements has brought a number of tech-
niques to the cement quality control laboratory. Discussion of
these methods is beyond the scope of this chapter, but they in-
clude atomic absorption (AA), inductively-coupled plasma
(ICP), gas chromatography (GC), mass spectroscopy, and many
other instrumental techniques for analysis of metals, halides,
hydrocarbons, and other organics. Improved procedures for
rapid determination of heating values for fuels are also being
developed.
Concerns of the User
Cement manufacturers may be interested in pursuing alterna-
tive raw materials and fuels for economic reasons, but main-
taining product uniformity and quality should be the prime
concern of the knowledgeable user. Significant changes in raw
materials or fuels may affect properties like alkali levels, sul-
fate form, and even reactivity of the major phases [39]. Also,
physical properties such as setting time, bleeding rate, strength
gain, and cement-admixture interactions may be affected. Data
is just now beginning to be published about the effects of
alternative materials on cement quality, so users should main-
tain close communication with their suppliers. Consideration
should also be given, when developing ASTM standards, to en-
sure that specifications address all relevant properties of ce-
ment, both chemical and physical.
Performance Standards Versus
Prescriptive Standards
Improved methods are needed to predict the performance of
hydraulic cement in concrete, and many subcommittee and task
group activities in ASTM are working on this issue. Ideally, there
would be no need to specify limits on chemical composition be-
cause there would be rapid tests to correctly predict perform-
ance. However, all of the properties that contribute to the per-
formance of hydraulic cement have yet to be identified, and
adequate performance tests have not been developed for the
properties we know to be significant. Further, even accelerated
tests take up to two weeks or more to produce results, especially
with respect to durability. It is likely that the standards process
will continue to evolve, and prescriptive limits on chemical com-
position will be modified or eliminated as better performance
test methods are developed. Is it conceivable that the matter will
go full circle, and tomorrow’s performance tests will be re-
placed with better prescriptions? If a hydraulic cement could be
adequately characterized, chemically and physically, would it
be necessary to run compressive strength or setting time tests?
Or, as another example, if we fully understood the mechanisms
of sulfate attack, would it be necessary to subject mortar bars to
accelerated curing regimes? This is the approach being ex-
plored by a NIST-led research consortium, the Virtual Cement
and Concrete Technical Laboratory (VCCTL), which hopes to
use careful and complete characterization of cements to predict
performance of concretes using computer modeling [40].
The composition of hydraulic cements may become more
complex as environmental issues such as the concern for
global warming dictate increased use of materials other than
portland cement and the pozzolanic materials we are familiar
with today. A necessary part of the evolution toward improved
ASTM standards is the development of better methods to char-
acterize the properties of hydraulic cements, leading to more
useful predictive models.
References
[1] Taylor, H. F. W., Cement Chemistry, 2nd ed., Thomas Telford
Publishing, London, 1997.
[2] Hewlett, P. C., Ed., Lea’s Chemistry of Cement and Concrete, 4th
Edition, Arnold Publishers, London, 1998.
[3] Bye, G. C., Portland Cement. Composition, Production, and
Properties, Pergammon Press Inc., Elmsford, NY, 1983.
[4] Bogue, R. H., The Chemistry of Portland Cement, 2nd ed., Rein-
hold, New York, 1955.
[5] Saini, A. and Giuliani, N., “Crystal Size and Content of the Alu-
minate Phase in Portland Cement Clinker,” Proceedings of the
10th International Congress on the Chemistry of Cement,
Gothenburg, Sweden, June 2–6, 1997, Vol. 1, Paper li051 (8 p.).
[6] Hofmanner, F., Microstructure of Portland Cement Clinker,
Holderbank Management and Consulting, Ltd., Holderbank,
Switzerland, 1973.
[7] Jeknavorian, A. A. and Hayden, T. D., “Troubleshooting Retarded
Concrete: Understanding the Role of Cement and Admixtures
Through an Interdisciplinary Approach,” Cement, Concrete, and
Aggregates, Vol. 13, No. 2, Winter 1991, pp. 103–108.
 DEHAYES AND TENNIS ON HYDRAULIC CEMENT-CHEMICAL PROPERTIES
[8] Mindess, S., Young, J. F. and Darwin, D., Concrete, 2nd ed., Pren-
tice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2002, pp. 57–91.
[9] Gartner, E. F. and Gaidis, J. M., “Hydration Mechanisms, I,” Ma-
terials Science of Concrete I, J. Skalny, Ed., American Ceramic
Society, Inc., Westerville, OH, 1989, pp. 95–126.
[10] Jawed, I., Skalny, J., and Young, J. F., “Hydration of Portland
Cement,” Structure and Performance of Cements, P. Barnes,
Ed., Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc., New York, 1983, pp.
237–318.
[11] “Guide to the Selection and Use of Hydraulic Cements,” Man-
ual of Concrete Practice, ACI Committee 225, American Con-
crete Institute, Detroit, MI, 1999.
[12] Gebhardt, R. F., “Survey of North American Portland Cements:
1994,” Cement, Concrete, and Aggregates, Vol. 17, No. 2, 1995,
pp. 145–189.
[13] Mather, K., “Factors Affecting Sulfate Resistance of Mortars,”
Proceedings, 7th International Congress on the Chemistry of
Cement, V., Paris, 1980, pp. 580–585.
[14] Chiesi, C. W., Myers, D. F., and Gartner, E. M., “Relationship Be-
tween Clinker Properties and Strength Development in the
Presence of Additives,” Proceedings, Fourteenth International
Conference on Cement Microscopy, Costa Mesa, CA, Interna-
tional Cement Microscopy Association, Duncanville, TX, 1992,
pp. 388–401.
[15] Weaver, W. S., “Committee C-1 on Cement—Seventy-Five Years
of Achievement,” Cement Standards—Evolution and Trends,
ASTM STP 663, P. K. Mehta, Ed., ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 1978, pp. 3–15.
[16] Johansen, V., “Cement Production and Cement Quality,” Mate-
rials Science of Concrete I, J. Skalny, Ed., American Ceramic So-
ciety, Inc., Westerville, OH, 1989, pp. 32–34.
[17] Stark, D., Durability of Concrete in Sulfate-Rich Soils, Portland
Cement Association, Skokie, IL, 1989.
[18] Frohnsdorff, G., Clifton, J. R., and Brown, P. W., “History and
Status of Standards Relating to Alkalies in Hydraulic Cements,”
Cement Standards—Evolution and Trends, ASTM STP 663, P. K.
Mehta, Ed., ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 1978,
pp. 16–34.
[19] Helmuth, R. A., Fly Ash in Cement and Concrete, SP040T, Port-
land Cement Association, Skokie, IL, 1978.
[20] “Ground Granulated Blast-Furnace Slag as a Cementitious Con-
stituent in Concrete,” Manual of Concrete Practice, Committee
C226, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI, 1991.
[21] Roberts, L. R., “Microsilica in Concrete, I,” Materials Science of
Concrete I, J. Skalny, Ed., American Ceramic Society, Inc., West-
erville, OH, 1989, pp. 197–222.
[22] Cement and Concrete Reference Laboratory, http://www.
ccrl.us, June 6, 2005.
[23] Moore, D., Chemical Analysis of Hydraulic Cement to ASTM C
114: Precision, Bias, and Qualification Criteria, unpublished re-
port, April 2003, 54 pages.
[24] Rapid Methods for Chemical Analysis of Hydraulic Cement,
ASTM STP 985, R. F. Gebhardt, Ed., ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 1988.
[25] Struble, L. J., and Burlingame, E. C., Eds., Cements Research
Progress, 1997 : A Survey of the Literature on the Science of Ce-
461
ments Published During 1997, American Ceramic Society, Inc.
Westerville, OH, 1999.
[26] Javellana, M. P. and Jawed, I., “Extraction of Free Lime in Port-
land Cement and Clinker by Ethylene Glycol,” Cement and Con-
crete Research, Vol. 12, 1982, pp. 399–403.
[27] Tabikh, A. A. and Weht, R. J. “An X-ray Diffraction Analysis of
Portland Cement,” Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 1, 1971,
pp. 317–328.
[28] Gutteridge, W., “On the Dissolution of Interstitial Phases in
Portland Cement,” Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 9, No.
3, 1979, pp. 3 19–324.
[29] Takashima, S., “Systematic Dissolution of Calcium Silicate in
Commercial Portland Cement by Organic Acid Solution,” Re-
view of the Twelfth General Meeting, Cement Association of
Japan, Tokyo, 1958, pp. 12–13.
[30] Struble, L. J., “The Effect of Water on Maleic Acid and Salicylic
Acid Extraction,” Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 15, 1985,
pp. 631–636.
[31] Campbell, D. H. and Galehouse, J. S., “Quantitative Clinker Mi-
croscopy with the Light Microscope,” Cement, Concrete, and
Aggregates, Vol. 13, No. 2, Winter 1991, pp. 94–96.
[32] Ono, Y., “Microscopical Observation of Clinker for the Estima-
tion of Burning Condition, Grindability, and Hydraulic Activity,”
Proceedings, Third International Conference on Cement Mi-
croscopy, International Cement Microscopy Association, Hous-
ton, TX, 1981, pp. 198–210.
[33] Stutzman, P. E., “Cement Clinker Characterization by Scanning
Electron Microscopy,” Cement, Concrete, and Aggregates, Vol.
13, No. 2, Winter 1991, pp. 109–114.
[34] Struble, L. J., “Quantitative Phase Analysis of Clinker Using X-
Ray Diffraction,” Cement, Concrete, and Aggregates, Vol. 13,
No. 2, Winter 1991, pp. 97–102.
[35] Hawkins, P., Tennis, P. D., and Detwiler, R., The Use of Lime-
stone in Portland Cement: A State-of-the-Art Review, EB227,
Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IL, 2003, 44 pages.
[36] Dodson, V., Concrete Admixtures, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New
York, 1990.
[37] An Analysis of Selected Trace Metals in Cement and Kiln Dust,
SP109T, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IL, 1992.
[38] Barger, G. S., “Utilization of Waste Solvent Fuels in Cement
Manufacturing,” Cement Manufacturing and Use: Proceedings
of the 1991 Engineering Foundation Meeting, Potosi, Missouri,
July 28 to August 2, 1991, Paul Brown, Ed., American Society of
Civil Engineers, New York, 1994, pp 41–55.
[39] Hills, L. M. and Tang, F. J., “The Effect of Alternate Raw Materi-
als on Clinker Microstructure and Cement Performance: Two
Case Studies,” Proceedings, Fourteenth International Confer-
ence on Cement Microscopy, Costa Mesa, CA, International Ce-
ment Microscopy Association, Duncanville, TX, 1992, pp.
412–426.
[40] Bentz, D. P., Haecker, C. J., Feng, X. P. and Stutzman, P. E., “Pre-
diction of Cement Physical Properties by Virtual Testing,”
Process Technology of Cement Manufacturing, Proceedings of
the 5th International VDZ Congress, September 23–27, 2002,
Düsseldorf, Germany, pp. 53–63 (2003). See also: http://vcctl.
cbt.nist.gov.
39
Mixing and Curing Water for Concrete
James S. Pierce1
Preface
WALTER J. MCCOY, THEN DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH
for Lehigh Portland Cement Company, wrote the first version
of this chapter for ASTM STP 169. For ASTM STP 169A, Mr.
McCoy revised his chapter and added information on typical
municipal water analyses, tolerable concentrations of impu-
rities, the effects of sugar in mixing water, and the effects of
water hardness on concrete air content. He also added several
new references. For ASTM STP 169B, Mr. McCoy, then
Director of Cement Technology for Master Builders, made
only minor changes to the ASTM STP 169A version of the
chapter. This current version is essentially Mr. McCoy’s (now
deceased) chapter with limited updating. There has been very
little new technology published regarding mixing and curing
water for concrete. The ASTM STP 169D edition as prepared
does, however, reflect recent standards developments
promulgated by ASTM Subcommittee C09.40 and Committee
C09.
Introduction
This chapter is concerned primarily with the significance of
quality tests of various types of waters for mixing and curing
concrete and makes no attempt to include the effect of the
quantity of mixing water. The quality of water is important
because poor-quality water may adversely affect the time of
setting, the strength development, or cause staining. Almost
all natural waters, fresh waters, and waters treated for
municipal use are satisfactory as mixing water for concrete
if they have no pronounced odor or taste. Because of this,
very little attention is usually given to the water used in
concrete, a practice that is in contrast to the frequent check-
ing of the admixture, cement, and aggregate components of
the concrete mixture. In fact, most of the references appear
to be outdated, but they still represent the bases for modern
concrete technology with regard to water for mixing and
curing.
Recent environmental regulations place restrictions on
discharging wash water from mixer drums and provided the
impetus to develop ASTM C 1602/C 1602M, Specification for
Mixing Water Used in the Production of Hydraulic Cement
Concrete, and this standard is referenced in discussions on
mixing water.
1
Chief, Water Resources Services Division, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, CO 80225-0007.
462
Mixing Water
A popular criterion as to the suitability of water for mixing con-
crete is the classical expression, “If water is fit to drink it is all
right for making concrete.” This does not appear to be the best
basis for evaluation, since some waters containing small
amounts of sugars or citrate flavoring would be suitable for
drinking but not mixing concrete [1], and, conversely, water suit-
able for making concrete may not necessarily be fit for drinking
[2]. In an attempt to be more realistic, some concrete specifica-
tions writers attempt to ensure that water used in making con-
crete is suitable by requiring that it be clean and free from dele-
terious materials. Some specifications require that if the water
is not obtained from a source proven to be satisfactory, the
strength of concrete or mortar made with the questionable wa-
ter should be compared with similar concrete or mortar made
with water known to be suitable. The U.S. Army Corps of Engi-
neers, in addition to a general description of acceptable water re-
quirements [3], also states that if the pH of water is between 6.0
and 8.0 and the water is free from organic matter, it may be re-
garded as safe for use in mixing concrete. (An exception to this
is the case where potassium or sodium salts or other natural
salts are present in excessive amounts.) This standard also states
that if water is of questionable quality before the water is judged
to be acceptable, it should be tested in mortar cubes for which
the average 7- and 28-day compressive strengths must equal at
least 90 % of those of companion test specimens made with dis-
tilled water [4]. Other than comparative tests of this type, no spe-
cial test has been developed to determine the quality of mixing
water, and hence it is difficult to judge the fitness of water for
use in concrete. However, due to environmental concerns, Speci-
fication C 1602/C 1602M was developed and is available for mix-
ing water. This specification provides compositional and per-
formance requirements for mixing water and may be used for
nonpotable sources and for water from concrete production
operations.
Guidance on mixing water quality is available using
American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials Designation T26. In ASTM C 94, Specification C
1602/C 1602M is cited for water requirements. When water
quality is questionable, service records of concrete made with
the questionable water should be examined. If service records
are not available or not conclusive, then the water quality
should be clarified by comparing compressive strengths and

times of setting of specimens made with the water in ques-
tion and with distilled or 100 % potable water. ASTM C
1602/C 1602M requires compressive strengths to be a mini-
mum of 90 % of the strength of specimens made with dis-
tilled or 100 % potable water, and the time of setting in the
test mortar should not be more than 1 h quicker nor more
than 1 1/2 h slower than the time of setting when distilled or
100 % potable water is used.
This specification also permits the use of wash water from
mixer washout operations for mixing water, as long as it meets
the compressive strength and time of setting requirements.
Specification C 1602/C 1602M also cites optional chemical lim-
its that may be used when appropriate for the construction.
These limits are being re-evaluated in light of the need to use
more wash water.
Caution must be exercised when groundwater supplies are
tapped for mixing water supplies. The rule of thumb about be-
ing potable is still only a guide, and before critical concrete op-
erations are undertaken, comparative tests for strength and
time of setting should be completed to ensure specification
compliance. Specification C 1602/C 1602M prescribes testing
frequency. The density of the water is used as an indicator and
is determined using C 1603, Test Method for Measurement of
Solids in Water.
The two principal questions regarding mixing water qual-
ity appear to be: “How do impurities in the water affect the con-
crete?” and “What degree of impurity is permissible?” The fol-
lowing discussion is a summary of available information on
these two items.
Effects of Impurities in Mixing Water
The most extensive series of tests on this subject was conducted
by Abrams [5]. Approximately 6000 mortar and concrete speci-
mens representing 68 different water samples were tested in
this investigation. Among the waters tested were sea and alkali
waters, bog waters, mine and mineral waters, and waters con-
taining sewage and solutions of salt. Tests with fresh waters
and distilled water were included for comparative purposes.
Time of setting tests and cement and concrete strength tests
from 3 days to 2.33 years were conducted for each of the vari-
ous water samples. Some of the more significant conclusions
based on these data are as follows:
1. The times of setting of portland cement mixtures contain-
ing impure mixing waters were about the same as those
observed with the use of clean fresh waters with only a few
exceptions. In most instances, the waters giving low rela-
tive compressive strength of concrete caused slow setting,
but, generally speaking, the tests showed that time of set-
ting is not a satisfactory test for suitability of a water for
mixing concrete.
2. None of the waters caused unsoundness of the neat port-
land cement pat when tested over boiling water.
3. In spite of the wide variation in the origin and type of wa-
ters used, most of the samples gave good results in con-
crete due to the fact that the quantities of injurious impu-
rities present were quite small.
4. The quality of mixing water is best measured by the ratio
of the 28-day concrete or mortar strength to that of simi-
lar mixtures made with pure water. Waters giving strength
ratios that are below 85 %, in general, should be consid-
ered unsatisfactory.
5. Neither odor nor color is an indication of quality of water
for mixing concrete. Waters that were most unpromising
PIERCE ON MIXING AND CURING WATER 463
in appearance gave good results. Distilled waters gave con-
crete strengths essentially the same as other fresh waters.
6. Based on a minimum strength-ratio of 85 % as compared
to that observed with pure water, the following samples
were found to be unsuitable for mixing concrete: acid wa-
ter, lime soak water from tannery waste, carbonated min-
eral water discharged from galvanizing plants, water con-
taining over 3 % of sodium chloride or 3.5 % of sulfates,
and water containing sugar or similar compounds. The
concentration of total dissolved solids in these waters was
over 6000 ppm except for the highly carbonated water,
which contained 2140 ppm total solids. These data
support one of the principal reasons for the general
suitability of drinking water, for few municipal waters
contain as much as 2000 ppm of dissolved solids and most
contain far less than 1000 ppm. Very few natural waters
other than seawater contain more than 5000 ppm of dis-
solved solids [6].
7. Based on the minimum strength-ratio of 85 %, the follow-
ing waters were found to be suitable for mixing concrete:
bog and marsh water, waters with a maximum concentra-
tion of 1 % SO4, seawater (but not for reinforced concrete),
alkali water with a maximum of 0.15 % Na2SO4 or NaCl,
water from coal and gypsum mines, and wastewater from
slaughterhouses, breweries, gas plants, and paint and soap
factories.
Many of the specifications for water for mixing concrete,
especially those requiring that it be potable, would have ex-
cluded nearly all of the aforementioned waters, but contrary to
this rather general opinion, the test data show that the use of
many of the polluted types of water did not result in any ap-
preciable detrimental effect to the concrete. The important
question is not whether impurities are present, but do impuri-
ties occur in injurious quantities? It should be noted that the
conclusions on suitable waters cited earlier were based entirely
on tests of specific samples from the indicated sources, and it
should not be assumed that all waters of the type described
would be innocuous when used as mixing water.
Typical analyses of municipal water supplies as reported
by the U.S. Geological Survey are given in Table 1. Although
dated, there is no reason to believe that typical analyses have
changed much from those in Table 1. Collins [7] reported that
these analyses represent public water supplies used by about
45 % of the cities of the United States that have a population of
more than 20 000. These analyses indicate they would be ac-
ceptable sources for mixing water. However, when investigat-
ing a municipal source, analyses for several periodic tests
should be examined to determine if comparisons with distilled
water are needed. Such an examination will also provide a per-
spective on the variability of inorganic and organic compounds
present. The presence of certain compounds may not create a
serious deleterious effect, but the variability may cause varying
effects on the efficiency of air-entraining admixtures, the time
of setting, and the strength development.
A concrete manual [8] published in Denmark in 1944
points out that humic acid and other organic acids should be
avoided because their presence means a danger to the stability
of concrete. Most organic compounds will have an effect on
time of setting and comparative tests should be conducted to
evaluate the effect.
An article appearing in a 1947 British publication [9] dis-
cusses the harmful effects of using acid waters in concrete and
claims that the harmful effects of organic acid are not evident
464 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE

TABLE 1—Typical Analyses of City Water Supplies (PPM)a

Analysis Number 1 3 5 6 7

Silica (SiO2) 2.4 12.0 10.0 9.4 22.0

Iron (Fe) 0.14 0.02 0.09 0.2 0.08
Calcium (Ca) 5.8 36.0 92.0 96.0 3.0
Magnesium (Mg) 1.4 8.1 34.0 27.0 2.4
Sodium (Na) 1.7 6.5 8.2 183.0 215.0
Potassium (K) 0.7 1.2 1.4 18.0 9.8
Bicarbonate (HCO3) 14.0 119.0 339.0 334.0 549.0
Sulfate (SO4) 9.7 22.0 84.0 121.0 11.0
Chloride (Cl) 2.0 13.0 9.6 280.0 22.0
Nitrate (NO3) 0.54 0.1 13.0 0.2 0.52
Total dissolved solids 31.0 165.0 434.0 983.0 564.0

a
Taken from Collins [7].

as soon as those of mineral acids, while deleterious salts have
a greater effect on early-age strengths than at later ages.
Kleinlogel [10] stated that mixing water should not con-
tain humus, peat fiber, coal particles, sulfur, or industrial
wastes containing fat or acid.
An article in Ref 11 contains a tabulation of maximum
limits for impurities in mixing water that is summarized in
Table 2.
The limit for suspended particles in Table 2 agrees with
the requirements of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation [12],
which has a turbidity limit of 2000 ppm for mixing water.
Sugar is probably the organic contaminant that causes
the most concern. Steinour [13] explained that, although
sugar as a contaminant in the field has gained a bad reputa-
tion as a retarder and strength reducer, these judgments need
qualification. Laboratory tests have shown that, although
smaller amounts retard the setting, they increase the strength
development. With larger amounts, the setting is further re-
tarded and early strengths such as those for two and three
days (or even seven days) are severely reduced. The later
strengths, however, are increased or at least not affected ad-
versely, provided proper curing is maintained as required.
With still larger amounts, the cement becomes quick-setting
and strengths are reduced markedly for 28 days and proba-
bly permanently. The amount of sugar that can cause these
different effects varies with the other factors involved, such
as the composition of the cement, cement content, and am-
bient conditions.
Use of Seawater in Mixing Concrete
In addition to the supporting reference previously mentioned
in Abrams’s paper [5], the English article [9] also states that
seawater with a maximum concentration of salts on the order
of 3.5 % does not appreciably reduce the strength of concrete,
although it may lead to corrosion of reinforcement.
A paper by Liebs [14] contains the results of comparative
7-, 28-, and 90-day compressive strength tests of concrete mixed
with fresh water and with seawater. The data show that the sea-
water concrete had about 6 to 8 % lower strengths than the
fresh water concrete. No efflorescence was observed. The arti-
cle in Ref 11 pointed out that concrete made with seawater
may have higher early strength than normal concrete, but
strengths at later ages (after 28 days) may be lower. Steinour
[13] stated that the use of seawater may cause a moderate re-
duction in ultimate strength, an effect that can be avoided by
the use of a higher cement content. He also noted that concrete
in which seawater is used as mixing water is sound but its use
may cause efflorescence or dampness, and in reinforced con-
crete the risk of corrosion of the steel is increased. Seawater
definitely should not be used for making prestressed concrete.

TABLE 2—Tolerable Concentrations of Impurities in Concrete Mixing Water

Impurity Maximum Tolerable Concentration

1. Sodium and potassium carbonates and bicarbonates 1000 ppm

2. Sodium chloride 20 000 ppm
3. Sodium sulfate 10 000 ppm
4. Calcium and magnesium bicarbonates 400 ppm of bicarbonate ion
5. Calcium chloride 2 % by mass, of cement in plain concrete
6. Iron salts 40 000 ppm
7. Sodium iodate, phosphate, arsenate, and borate 500 ppm
8. Sodium sulfide 100 ppm warrants testing
9. Hydrochloric and sulfuric acids 10 000 ppm
10. Sodium hydroxide 0.5 %, by mass, of cement if set not affected
11. Salt and suspended particles 2000 ppm

Hadley [15] points out that seawater was used in the con-
crete for the foundation of the lighthouse at the extremity of
the Los Angeles breakwater, which was built by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers in 1910, and that 25 years later it was ex-
amined and found to be in good condition with sharp-edged
corners and no disintegration. There are several references in
the literature that indicate that salt water has been used in mix-
ing plain concrete without incurring trouble at later periods.
Much of the concrete for the Florida East Coast Railway was
mixed with seawater with no detrimental effect due to its use
[16]. Most engineers are of the opinion that seawater should
not be used for mixing reinforced concrete; however, Dempsey
[17] describes construction of military bases in Bermuda using
coral aggregate and concludes that seawater seems to be satis-
factory for making reinforced concrete and causes no problem
beyond an acceleration in stiffening of the mixture. No harm-
ful effect on the durability of reinforced concrete had occurred
at the end of four years. Nonetheless, extreme caution is urged
when mixing water for reinforced concrete is selected. If the
water contains salts, the residual salts in the concrete when
combined with air and moisture will result in some corrosion.
Effects of Algae in Mixing Water on Air Content
and Strength of Concrete
A rather extensive series of laboratory tests reported by Doell
[18] showed that the use of water containing algae had the un-
usual effect of entraining considerable quantities of air in con-
crete mixtures with an accompanying decrease in strength. The
data in Table 3 were extracted from Doell’s paper and are
based on tests with 19.0-mm (3/4-in.) maximum-size aggregate
concrete having a water/cement ratio of 0.5 and a slump of 40
to 75 mm (1.5 to 3 in.), with a constant ratio of coarse to fine
aggregate.
In addition to the detrimental effect on strength, one of
the important aspects of these data is that considerable quan-
tities of air can be entrained in concrete by the use of mixing
water containing algae.
Effect of Hardness of Mixing Water on
Air Content of Concrete
Wuerpel [19] reported a series of air determination tests with
waters of various degrees of hardness that shows that the air
content was not affected by the hardness of the water.
Curing Water
There are two primary considerations with regard to the suita-
bility of water for curing concrete. One is the possibility that it
might contain impurities that would cause staining, and the
TABLE 3—Effect of Algae in Mixing Water on Air Content and Strength of Concrete
Mixture
Number Algae in Mixing Water, %
10 none control
8 0.03
7 0.09
5 0.15
9 0.23
PIERCE ON MIXING AND CURING WATER 465
other is that it might contain aggressive impurities that would
be capable of attacking or causing deterioration of the con-
crete. The latter possibility is unlikely, especially if water satis-
factory for use in mixing concrete is employed. In some in-
stances the staining or discoloration of the surface of concrete
from curing water would not be objectionable. The most com-
mon cause of staining is usually a relatively high concentration
of iron or organic matter in the water; however, relatively low
concentrations of these impurities may cause staining, espe-
cially if the concrete is subjected to prolonged wetting by
runoff of curing water from other portions of the structure [3].
Test data from the Corps of Engineers [20] show that there
is not a consistent relationship between dissolved iron content
and degree of staining. In some cases, 0.08 ppm of iron re-
sulted in only a slight discoloration, and, in other cases, waters
with 0.06 ppm of iron gave a moderate rust-colored stain, while
0.04 ppm produced considerable brownish-black stain. Gener-
ally speaking, the conditions of these tests were such as to
accentuate the staining properties of the water, since consider-
ably more water was evaporated over a unit area than would
be the case in most instances in the field.
With respect to organic impurities in water, it is virtually
impossible to determine from a chemical analysis if the wa-
ter would cause objectionable staining when used for curing
concrete. It is advisable to use a performance-type test proce-
dure, such as Designation CRD-C 401 of the Corps of Engi-
neers [21]. This method outlines three procedures for evalu-
ating the staining properties of water proposed for use in
curing concrete. The Preliminary Method is intended for use
in selecting sources that are worthy of more complete inves-
tigation and consists of evaporating 3000 mL of the test wa-
ter in the concave area formed by the impression of a 100-
mm (4-in.) watch glass in the surface of a neat white cement
or plaster of Paris specimen. The Complete Method can be
used to evaluate those sources that the Preliminary Method
indicate to be promising. In the Complete Method, 11 dm3 (3
gal) of test water drips on a mortar specimen exposed to heat
lamps and forced air circulation. The Field Method is in-
tended as a means of evaluating the water finally selected for
use and involves the curing of a 1.9-m2 (20-ft2) slab of con-
crete with the test water for at least 28 days with maximum
exposure to the sun with the test slab placed at a slight angle
sufficient to keep it in a wet condition with minimum runoff.
The test results by each of these three methods are evaluated
by visual observation.
The Corps of Engineers’ Standard Practice for Concrete
[22] clearly states that there must be no permanent staining of
surfaces where appearance is important. For these surfaces,
the contractor has the option of using nonstaining water or of
Compressive Strength,
Air in Concrete, % 28 days, MPa (psi)
2.2 33.3 (4830)
2.6 33.4 (4840)
6.0 27.9 (4040)
7.9 22.8 (3320)
10.6 17.8 (2470)
466 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
cleaning the surface after completion of moist curing. No
cleaning is required for surfaces that will subsequently be
stained when the structure is in service.
Summary
Mixing Water
The significance of the foregoing information presented is that
any naturally occurring or municipal water supply suitable for
drinking purposes can be used as mixing water for concrete
and that most naturally occurring waters ordinarily used for in-
dustrial purposes are satisfactory. Many waters that upon ca-
sual examination would be judged to be unsuitable because of
color, odor, or contamination with impurities, as in the case of
marsh water, alkaline sulfate waters, and water containing in-
dustrial wastes, could be found to be satisfactory when tested
in mortar or concrete since, in many instances, the strength
would be greater than 90 % of the strength of comparative
specimens made with pure waters. In the case of seawater, a
strength reduction ranging from 8 to 15 % can be expected de-
pending on job conditions; however, seawater ordinarily is not
recommended for use as mixing water in reinforced concrete.
The hardness of water usually does not affect air content of
concrete; however, with certain anionic and nonionic admix-
tures, additional dosage may be required to obtain the desired
air content. Algae in mixing water, however, can entrain air
and significantly reduce strength.
Curing Water
It is improbable that a water used for curing would attack con-
crete if it were of the type suitable for use as mixing water. Or-
ganic matter or iron in the curing water can cause staining or
discoloration of concrete, but this is rather uncommon espe-
cially where a relatively small volume of water is used; how-
ever, the suggested performance tests [21] will determine if a
water possesses any potential staining qualities.
References
[1] Clair, M. N., “Effect of Sugar on Concrete in Large Scale Trial,”
Engineering News-Record, March 1929, p. 473.
[2] Neville, A. M. and Brooks, J. J., Concrete Technology, Longman
Group UK Limited, Essex, UK, 1987, pp. 74–75.
[3] “Requirements for Water for Use in Mixing or Curing Con-
crete,” CRD-C 400, Handbook for Concrete and Cement, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, MS, 1963.
[4] “Test Method for Compressive Strength of Mortar for Use in
Evaluating Water for Mixing Concrete,” CRD-C 406, Handbook
for Concrete and Cement, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicks-
burg, MS, 1979.
[5] Abrams, D. A., “Tests of Impure Waters for Mixing Concrete,”
Proceedings, American Concrete Institute, Vol. 20, 1924, pp.
442–486.
[6] Proudley, C. E., “Effect of Alkalies on Strength of Mortar,” Pub-
lic Roads, Vol. 5, 1924, pp. 25–27.
[7] Collins, W. D., “Typical Water Analyses for Classification with
Reference to Industrial Use,” Proceedings, ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA, Vol. 44, 1944, pp. 1057–1061.
[8] Plum, N. H., Christiani, and Nielsen, “Concrete Manual,” Bul-
letin No. 39, Copenhagen, Denmark, 1944.
[9] “Water for Making Concrete,” Title No. 44–197, “Job Problems
and Practice,” Proceedings, American Concrete Institute, Vol.
44, 1948, pp. 414–416; reprinted from “Water for Making Con-
crete,” Concrete and Constructional Engineering, London, Vol.
42, No. 10, 1947, p. 295.
[10] Kleinlogel, A., Influences on Concrete, Frederick Ungar Publish-
ing Co., New York, 1950, p. 158.
[11] “Requirements of Mixing Water for Concrete,” Indian Concrete
Journal, March 1963, pp. 95, 98, and 113.
[12] Concrete Manual, 8th ed., U.S. Department of the Interior, Bu-
reau of Reclamation, Washington, DC, 1981, p. 70.
[13] Steinour, H. H., “Concrete Mix Water—How Impure Can It Be?”
Journal, Portland Cement Association, Research and Develop-
ment Laboratories, Skokie, IL, Vol. 2, No. 3, 1960, pp. 32–50.
[14] Liebs, W., “The Change of Strength of Concrete by Using Sea
Water for Mixing and Making Additions to Concrete,” Bautech-
nik, 1949, pp. 315–316.
[15] Hadley, H., “Letter to Editor,” Engineering News-Record, May
1935, pp. 716–717.
[16] “Job Problems and Practice,” Proceedings, American Concrete
Institute, Vol. 36, 1940, pp. 313–314.
[17] Dempsey, J. G., “Coral and Salt Water as Concrete Materials,”
Proceedings, American Concrete Institute, Vol. 48, 1951, p. 165.
[18] Doell, B. C., “The Effect of Algae Infested Water on the
Strength of Concrete,” Proceedings, American Concrete Insti-
tute, Vol. 51, 1954, pp. 333–342.
[19] Wuerpel, C. E., “Influence of Mixing Water Hardness on Air En-
trainment,” Proceedings, American Concrete Institute, Vol. 42,
1946, p. 401.
[20] Mather, B. and Tye, R. V., “Requirements for Water for Use in
Mixing or Curing Concrete,” Waterways Experiment Station
Technical Report No. 6-440, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Vicksburg, MS, Nov. 1956, p. 36.
[21] “Method of Test for the Staining Properties of Water,” CRD-C
401, Handbook for Concrete and Cement, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Vicksburg, MS, 1975.
[22] Engineer Manual, Standard Practice for Concrete, EM 1110-2-
2000, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC, 1985.
40
Curing and Materials Applied to
New Concrete Surfaces
Ben E. Edwards1
Preface
TO PREPARE THIS CHAPTER, THE CONTENTS OF ALL
of the previous editions were drawn on. The author acknowl-
edges the previous authors, Ephraim Senbetta [1], Rodger Car-
rier [2], C. E. Proudley [3], and John Swanberg [4]. The title of the
chapter was changed from “Curing and Curing Materials” to re-
flect the change in scope of ASTM Subcommittee C09.22, which
has initiated efforts to provide standards for materials that do not
fulfill the curing function but are not addressed elsewhere, such
as evaporation reducers, silicate treatments, bond breakers, and
dry shake hardeners. The current edition will review and update
the topics addressed by the previous authors, introduce new
technology and perspectives, and include up-to-date references.
Introduction
Understanding of the processes that lead to the hardening of
concrete continues to expand as more sophisticated tech-
niques are used to observe and characterize the chemistry in-
volved. However, the conversion of fresh concrete to a solid
mass when cementitious materials hydrate is still the central
fact, and the dependence of the ultimate properties of the
material on the degree of hydration of the cement motivates
interest in curing. ASTM Standard Terminology Relating to
Concrete and Concrete Aggregates (C 125) and ACI Cement
and Concrete Terminology (116R) [5], define curing as “action
taken to maintain moisture and temperature conditions in a
freshly placed cementitious mixture to allow hydraulic cement
hydration and (if applicable) pozzolanic reactions to occur so
that the potential properties of the mixture may develop.” In
addition, other properties, particularly of the surface region of
a concrete mass, may be affected by materials applied and/or
actions taken soon after placement.
No effort will be made in this chapter to review the history
of the understanding of curing and related tests and specifica-
tions. The reader is referred to previous editions of this chap-
ter, and to other documents referenced below.
A Task Group of The American Concrete Institute (ACI)
Committee 308 on Curing, chaired by Ken Hover, has created
an excellent Guide to Curing (ACI 308R) [6], which provides a
1
Chief Chemist, BEE Laboratory, Blowing Rock, NC 28605.
467
thorough, up-to-date discussion of the current understanding of
cement hydration with extensive references, as well as extended
coverage of methods and materials, types of construction, and
techniques of monitoring curing. The document is revised on a
five-year cycle. Interest in high performance concrete has stimu-
lated much research and discussion, and “Curing of High Per-
formance Concrete: Report of State of the Art” published by the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) [7] also
contains a thorough discussion of the physical and chemical
changes involved in cement hydration and a historical review
of ACI curing requirements. It closes with suggestions on
research needs to improve the assessment of curing and an
extensive list of references to recent work. A more general
discussion of curing theory and practice, also including exten-
sive references, titled “Curing Portland-Cement Concrete
Pavements,” [8] has been prepared by Toy Poole of the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and is to be published by the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
Long established techniques and materials continue to be
used effectively, and some refinements based on better under-
standing of the process are being adopted. The concept of
initial curing is defined and discussed in ACI 308R as a means
to minimize occurrence of shrinkage cracking from very early
surface drying before traditional curing procedures may be
applied. Fogging and evaporation reducers are effective for
initial curing. Internal curing has been developed as a means
of providing additional water to very low water/cement ratio
(w/c) concretes where self-desiccation can create problems.
This chapter will attempt to touch on these and other develop-
ments not addressed in previous versions.
Test methods to assess the effectiveness of curing continue
to be a vexed issue. Whether it is preferable to measure some
property of the final product concrete rather than the behavior
of the materials or processes used in curing is still under debate.
Some researchers persist in measuring concrete strengths as a
function of curing procedures although curing procedures af-
fect only the outermost few millimetres of any concrete. ASTM
Test Method for Water Retention by Concrete Curing Materials
(C 156) has been used since 1940 to measure loss of water from
a “cured” specimen, despite widespread discontent with the re-
producibility of the test. Recent changes to the procedure seem
468 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
to have improved its precision. Attention has also turned to en-
vironmental measurements, which assay the worksite condi-
tions to determine whether the concrete has received adequate
curing action. The maturity method [9] of estimating concrete
strength development using the measured temperature his-
tory of the concrete during curing is proving useful to better
characterize overall results in testing programs. More exotic
nondestructive test methods using X-rays, microwaves electrical
resistance, and magnetic resonance are providing more
detailed information on the progress of hydration in new
concrete. Some of this technology will be addressed below.
In contrast to the situation reported by Senbetta [1] in
1994, the study and practice of curing concrete seems
currently to be an increasingly active field. Indicators include
the increasing number of presentations at the Transportation
Research Board Annual Meetings and ACI sessions devoted to
curing, as well as more publications in various journals.
Curing Methods and Materials for
Water Retention
The methods and materials employed in the curing of concrete
vary depending on the type of concrete, the type of structure
including the orientation of the structural members, and the
ambient conditions during the curing period. Control of loss of
mix water may be accomplished with a barrier material, either
a solid sheet, such as polyethylene film, or a liquid-applied film,
which dries to form a membrane, or by maintaining a wet en-
vironment with fog, by ponding or with water soaked blankets.
Flat work such as pavements and floors require much closer at-
tention to control of water loss than formed mass concrete. On
the other hand, care should be exercised to avoid large thermal
gradients in mass concrete where heat of hydration may be-
come a problem or in slabs exposed to direct sunlight.
Particularly for large flat surfaces (pavements or floors),
initial curing may be required as soon as concrete is placed
and consolidated and prior to the finishing operation. If, at
this stage, conditions are such that rapid evaporation of wa-
ter from the concrete is expected, and if the concrete is a
type that has minimal bleeding, such as silica fume concrete,
actions should be taken to either alter the ambient conditions
near the surface of the concrete by fogging, or evaporation of
water can be prevented or reduced by spraying an evapora-
tion reducer on the fresh concrete surface. Fogging literally
calls for the formation of a cloud of water droplets immedi-
ately above the concrete surface without appreciably adding
to the water on the surface. Specialized fogging nozzles are
commercially available for this purpose. Spray-applied evapo-
ration reducers do not interfere with finishing the concrete
nor do they have a lasting curing effect. They are different
from liquid membrane-forming curing compounds. Although
there are many evaporation reducers being marketed, the
user is dependent on the manufacturer for details on use and
performance expectations. No standardized performance
tests are available. Under windy conditions, some kind of
windscreen protection may be helpful or even required to
complement other measures taken. On the basis of experi-
ence with minimizing plastic shrinkage cracking of bridge
decks, the Kansas DOT has issued guidelines [10] providing
specific sequences of procedures to be applied as dictated by
weather conditions. Certain types of concrete, such as latex-
modified concrete, may not require any action to prevent dry-
ing beyond the first 24 h.
After concrete is placed and all other subsequent opera-
tions such as finishing and texturing are completed, curing
procedures may involve either keeping the concrete moist by
ponding or covering with wet material and/or sealing the sur-
face with sheet material or liquid membrane-forming curing
compound to prevent evaporation. For formed concrete place-
ments, forms will provide adequate protection against mois-
ture loss as long as they remain in place. After removal, other
curing procedures may be needed depending on the age of the
concrete at the time of form removal.
Standard Test Methods
Although a wide range of test procedures have been used to
evaluate whether a particular concrete specimen has been ade-
quately cured, ASTM publishes only one test method to evalu-
ate the water retaining properties of a curing material. Because
the method has exhibited poor interlaboratory reproducibility,
a multitude of variants have been developed by state agencies,
and internationally, with the hope of improving local repro-
ducibility, or better measuring particular characteristics of liq-
uid membrane-forming curing compounds.
ASTM Test Method for Water Retention by Concrete Curing
Materials (C 156) was first published in 1940. In a delayed re-
sponse to the report of Leitch and Laycraft [11] and comments
from many others, C 156 has been modified with a requirement
that the test cabinet environment be characterized by a meas-
ured evaporation rate in addition to controlled temperature and
relative humidity. Control of air velocity is necessary to achieve
the desired evaporation rate, but air velocity is more difficult to
control than evaporation rate over an extended time. A proce-
dure for measuring the evaporation rate is specified in an Annex
to the method. A further change to the method relaxes the spec-
ification for the mold used to cast mortar specimens for the test.
In recognition of a trend established many years ago by state De-
partment of Transportation (DOT) laboratories, and suggested
by the work of Leitch and Laycraft [11] and of the Corps of En-
gineers [12], the 150
300
50 mm (6 in.
12 in.
2 in.) mold
specification is replaced by a requirement of minimum surface
area of 12000 mm2 (18.6 in.2) and minimum depth of 19 mm
(3/4 in.). In the author’s experience, smaller molds can be used
by a single operator to run triplicate determinations with less
time and effort than required for handling a single 150
300
mm (6 in.
12 in.) mold, also consuming far less cement and
sand. A recently completed round robin involving six laborato-
ries and four different curing compounds, organized by the Cal-
ifornia DOT, is the basis of a new precision statement being bal-
loted for addition to the method. It shows the single operator
standard deviation among test results to be 0.038 kg/m2 and the
interlaboratory standard deviation among test results to be
0.070 kg/m2. There appears to be no loss of precision with
smaller molds used by some of the participants. Hopefully the
state DOTs that have developed variants of the ASTM method
will find the advantage of a uniform testing method across the
country to be good reason to adopt the ASTM procedure.
It has long been recognized that the results of the C 156 test
are sensitive to the timing of the application of curing com-
pound. The procedure specifies that the mortar surface shall be
free of surface water but not dry below the surface. Application
of curing compounds to surfaces that are still bleeding or have
standing water results in disruption of the film-forming char-
acteristics of the curing material. In the field, if careful attention
is not paid to time of application, a product that meets the lab-

oratory test requirement may not provide the expected protec-
tion. Covarrubias [13] reported that three of eight compounds
tested according to C 156 (and passing) also performed satis-
factorily when applied 30 min after molding the specimens, i.e.,
while the mortar was bleeding. These products can presumably
be applied to pavements immediately after finishing. No infor-
mation is provided about the nature of these products.
ASTM Test Method for Evaluating the Effectiveness of
Materials for Curing Concrete (C 1151) was published as a
proposal in 1987 and as a standard in 1990 as a possible alter-
native to C 156, but withdrawn in 1998 due to lack of interest.
The method measures a property of the affected specimen
rather than the behavior of the applied material. By measuring
the absorptivity of a near surface layer and comparing it to that
of an internal layer, the relative degree of hydration, and
therefore the efficacy of the applied curing procedure, is
determined. The method has been applied to analyzing con-
crete of all ages in the field, but was not accepted as a routine
test for liquid membrane-forming curing compounds because
of the complexity of the procedure. The technique is still used
with many variations in research situations.
Other tests that have been used in studies involving curing,
but are not under the jurisdiction of ASTM C09 Concrete
Subcommittee C09.22, include measurements of absorptivity,
hardness, gas permeability, chloride intrusion, freeze-thaw
stability, and strength. Most properties of new concrete are
changing rapidly in the first few days of its life and the age and
temperature history of the specimens must be carefully
specified if results are to be compared.
Standard Specifications
ASTM C09 Concrete Subcommittee C09.22 has jurisdiction over
three material standards related to curing, one for sheet material
and two for liquid membrane-forming curing compounds. The
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Offi-
cials (AASHTO) publishes related specifications as do the USACE
and many state departments of transportation in the United
States. Worldwide, specifications are written in many countries
but most seem to resemble the ASTM requirements, so that prod-
ucts manufactured for the U.S. market are widely acceptable.
Sheet Materials
In addition to traditional burlap, polyethylene sheeting, poly-
bonded burlap, and various types of water-soaked fabric, a num-
ber of new products have appeared on the market providing
various reputed advantages. Several versions of polyethylene
bonded to woven or nonwoven synthetic fabrics are available
having superior strength, and are therefore more suitable for
multiple uses. Some of these also act as a water reservoir if the
sheet or the concrete is wetted before being covered, and pos-
sibly reduce or eliminate the blotchy surface marking often en-
countered with polyethylene alone. Another product employing
an aluminized film bonded to the top surface offers exceptional
protection from solar heating of flat surfaces by reflecting
almost all-incident radiation. “Bubble-wrap” type materials are
available to provide insulating properties in cold weather or to
shield against heat gain from the environment in hot weather.
None of these newer characteristics have been measured by
standardized tests for curing applications.
ASTM Specification for Sheet Materials for Curing Concrete
(C 171) covers burlap, polyethylene sheeting, and poly-bonded
burlap, and was revised in 2003 to simplify the required testing.
EDWARDS ON NEW CONCRETE SURFACES 469
ASTM Specification for Polyethylene Sheeting for Construction,
Industrial and Agricultural Applications (D 4397) covers all the
necessary properties of polyethylene sheeting used for concrete
curing and therefore no additional tests are required for material
meeting this specification. Other sheet material is to be tested by
ASTM Test Methods for Water Vapor Transmission of Materials
(E 96) rather than C 156. This change recognizes that while the
water loss from liquid membrane-forming curing compounds is
a combination of loss during film formation and loss through the
dried film, for sheet materials the loss rate should be constant. In
practice, test results using Method C 156 for sheet material are
more likely to depend on the quality of the seal of sheet to speci-
men than on the inherent water transmission rate of the product
under test. The new test limit of 10 g/m2 loss in 24 h is set in terms
of Method E 96, Procedure E (37.8°C, (100°F)), and represents a
more stringent loss rate requirement than previously required in
recognition of the known characteristics of polyethylene sheet (D
4397 lists 5.5g/m2 loss in 24 h as the requirement for 4 mL poly-
ethylene). The new test limit corresponds to 0.03 kg/m2 in 72 h,
which is below the level practically measurable by the C 156 pro-
cedure. The equivalent AASHTO specification for sheet material
is M 171, which does not yet reflect these changes.
Liquid Membrane-forming Curing Compounds
Liquid membrane-forming curing compounds are paint-like
products that can be applied to freshly placed concrete by
spray, brush, or roller, and dry to form a membrane or film
that retards the evaporation of water. They offer the advan-
tages of ease of application, low material and labor costs, and
ready availability. However, there are wide variations in the
quality of available products and they are sensitive to the time
of application and the thoroughness of the applicators. Despite
years of effort by many researchers, the performance of any
given batch of curing compound as measured by C 156 is still
not accurately predictable by any other measurable property.
ASTM Specification for Liquid Membrane-forming Curing
Compounds (C 309) covers the workhorses of curing technol-
ogy. They have evolved under pressures of environmental
concerns so that the products used in highest volumes are
water-borne emulsions with little or no VOC content, capable
of providing protection to large areas of concrete at low cost
in both labor and materials. AASHTO M 148 is a corresponding
specification, but revisions lag several years behind C 309.
The problems of assuring the quality of the products and the
workmanship of the applicators remain.
The specification includes requirements for water reten-
tion, reflectance of white-pigmented compounds, and drying
time. The water retention requirement calls for mass loss of no
more than 0.55 kg/m2 of surface in 72 h when applied at 5.0
m2/L (200 ft2/gal) when the testing is done according to ASTM
C156. This is, by far, the most important requirement, even
though measurement is difficult and the validity of the qualify-
ing value is still under debate. The requirement for a minimum
reflectance of 60 % is related to the prevention of heat buildup
in concrete exposed to solar radiation. The pigment also helps
to visually assess completeness of coverage. The maximum dry-
ing time requirement is to guard against the concrete having a
tacky or slippery surface and to make sure the curing com-
pound does not track off when walked on. The major classes of
film formers used for concrete paving are based on petroleum
waxes or hydrocarbon resins. For commercial floors styrene-
acrylic resins are widely used because they can also serve as
sealers for in place concrete. Chlorinated rubbers were once
470 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
widely used for their excellent water retention properties, but
have fallen from favor because of their low UV resistance (they
darken in sunlight) and more recently problems of resin sup-
ply related to environmental and economic issues. Styrene-
butadiene resins also have excellent water retention but low UV
stability. Acrylic resins as solutions or latexes show excellent UV
stability but inferior water retention properties.
Corps of Engineers Specification CRD-C300 is similar to
C309, but calls for water retention of 0.31 kg/m2 in seven days
when tested by CRD C 302 (which is similar to the ASTM
method). However, the spec is not being actively maintained by
the Corps and good quality cures manufactured to meet C 309
are generally acceptable for Corps applications.
Many state DOTs have generated variants or extensions of
these specifications in response to their perceived needs. Like-
wise most European countries and members of the British
Commonwealth have established specifications and test meth-
ods for curing compounds. A review of these is beyond the
scope of this chapter.
Liquid Membrane-Forming Compounds with Special
Properties for Curing and Sealing Concrete (C 1315), a new
specification, was adopted in 1995 in response to a perceived
need to replace General Services Administration Federal Spec-
ification Curing Compound, Concrete, For New and Existing
Surfaces, TT-C-800, which was withdrawn in 1978. Compared
to C 309, the new specification calls for more stringent water
retention performance (0.40 kg/m2 in 72 h when applied at 7.4
m2/L (300 ft2/gal)) and minimum solids content (25 %) and
includes requirements for resistance to UV degradation (non-
yellowing), chemical resistance, and compatibility with adhe-
sives used to bond tile or carpet to concrete. These properties
are important in a range of applications including commercial
floors, bridge decks, and high performance concrete (HPC) in
general. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
adopted a regulation [14] allowing products classified as cur-
ing and sealing agents and defined by compliance to C 1315 to
have a Volatile Organic Compound content of 700 g/L,
whereas curing compounds meeting C 309 are allowed only
350 g/L. Practically speaking, this regulation allows solution-
based products to be sold for curing and sealing whereas only
emulsion based products can realistically meet the VOC limit
set for curing compounds.
A few state DOTs have adopted material specifications
calling for the use of -methyl styrene polymer in liquid mem-
brane-forming curing compound formulations, especially for
bridge decks. The specifications call for lower water loss than
in C 309, typically around 0.3 kg/m2 in 72 h. There is little
evidence that the specified resin yields products that are really
superior to equivalent formulations with similar resins.
Effects of Curing on Concrete Properties
For any concrete mix, proper curing allows for maximum
hydration of cementitious materials resulting in the greatest
possible reduction in capillary porosity of the initial mixture by
the formation of products of hydration. This process, in turn,
results in minimum permeability and maximum strength and
durability. Consequential effects include reduced shrinkage
and maximum protection from rusting of reinforcing steel. For
detailed discussion of these factors see for instance ACI 308R
[6]. A recent article by Erlin, Nasvik, and Powers [15] summa-
rizes the current understanding of curing with particular
reference to low w/c mixes.
The initial w/c of the concrete sets a limit on the ultimate
results since at w/c  ~0.4 the excess water limits the initial
density on placement, and at w/c  ~0.4 incomplete hydration
resulting from internal desiccation may lead to high capillary
porosity. The necessity for special curing attention for high per-
formance concrete arises from this relationship. These effects
have been extensively discussed and analyzed elsewhere [6,7].
A frequently reported failure is plastic shrinkage cracking,
which results from rapid surface drying before the concrete
has hardened sufficiently to resist shrinkage stress. This crack-
ing radically reduces the durability and increases the perme-
ability of the surface. It is especially likely to occur in mixes
with low w/c, and low bleed rates, for instance those with silica
fume or other pozzolans. Wojakowsi of the Kansas DOT [10]
has demonstrated that careful attention to maintenance of
curing conditions by use of fogging, evaporation reducers, and
sheet products, each applied at the appropriate time, allows
production of crack-free bridge decks from high performance
concrete mixes. Failure to attend to any of the details results in
shrinkage cracking of the surface. Similar results have been
reported from the Virginia and Iowa DOTs.
A more subtle effect of poor curing has been proposed by
Shotwell [16] to explain scaling of driveways and sidewalks
during the first season of exposure to freezing and thawing.
Petrographic examination of poorly cured mortar with a
porous surface layer showed that a relatively dense band of
carbonated matrix is formed just beneath the surface and
inhibits penetration of water into the underlying concrete. The
result is concentration of water in the porous top layer leading
to freeze-thaw scaling. Typically, in otherwise good concrete,
the deterioration decreases after the initial scaling.
Studies of curing focus primarily on whether desired
properties such as low permeability or other measurable quali-
ties of concrete products are attained. An alternate approach is
to determine if the materials or processes used perform so as
to maintain the conditions required for optimum hydration.
This requires careful monitoring of temperature, ambient
and/or internal humidity, and air flow as well as evaluating the
ability of liquid membrane-forming curing compounds and
sheet material to impede or prevent the evaporation of water.
Effects of Ambient Conditions on Curing
The need to take deliberate steps to ensure proper curing of con-
crete is dependent on the ambient atmospheric conditions. In
certain environments where the relative humidity and tempera-
ture are favorable, no deliberate action may be needed to cure
the concrete. But, usually conditions require action for some por-
tion of the curing-sensitive period. Control of ambient conditions
may involve application of energy rather than materials, but nev-
ertheless it seems appropriate for discussion in this chapter.
Although there are no standard definitions, ambient condi-
tions may be put into three temperature categories; hot,  32°C
(90°F); cold,  10°C (50°F); and normal, (10–32°C) (50–90°F).
ACI Committee 306, Cold Weather Concreting, continues to
struggle with defining cold weather in a way that is useful to con-
struction professionals [17]. The severity of the environment as
it concerns curing is affected by relative humidity and wind
speed. Therefore, by determining the ambient temperature, rel-
ative humidity, wind speed, and concrete temperature, the rate
of evaporation of water from the exposed surface of fresh con-
crete can be estimated. A nomograph [18] has been commonly
used for this purpose. With the advent of readily accessible com-

puter power, the equations upon which the nomograph is based
have been reduced to programs that output the evaporation rate
given the ambient conditions, or allow calculations of the effects
of actions such as reducing the initial concrete temperature [19].
As has been pointed out in the ACI Guide to Curing Concrete [6],
at low ambient temperatures evaporation rates from fresh con-
crete surfaces may be even greater than at any other conditions
because the concrete is warmer than the air, providing an added
driving force for evaporation. Thus, early measures to protect
concrete surfaces may be even more important in cold than in
hot weather. Because the original nomograph was based on
models for evaporation from bodies of water and wind speeds
measured at a height of six feet above the surface, Jeong and
Zollinger [20] have taken the additional step of modifying the
evaporation model on which the nomograph is based to more
accurately reflect real-world values in concrete. Their model and
experimental data indicate high sensitivity of evaporation rates
to wind speed at the concrete surface and suggest that the ACI
nomograph overestimates evaporation from concrete surfaces
after bleeding has stopped.
High temperature curing, commonly referred to as accel-
erated curing, but better described as heat curing, has received
considerable attention in the wake of failures of cast products
attributed to excessive temperatures during the curing cycle. In
the precast industry, heating concrete forms, usually with
steam, increases the turn over rate for reuse of the forms by
rapidly producing sufficient strength to allow form removal.
Increased temperature generally increases the rate of all
chemical reactions, but a number of precautions apply. At high
temperatures some equilibrium reactions may actually be
reversed, and all of the complex hydration reactions involved
in hardening of concrete are not affected equally by tempera-
ture. Perhaps even more importantly, thermal expansion
stresses introduced in the plastic concrete must be relieved in
the hardened products to prevent cracking. The probable
cause of some failures is the formation of deleterious hydra-
tion products at higher temperatures. Agreement on maximum
allowable temperatures, and heating and cooling cycle rates is
being sought in ACI 308 T.G. on accelerated curing.
Heat curing of high-performance concrete has been stud-
ied by Freyne, Russell, and Bush [21]. Based on experiments
involving 31 different HPC mixtures and six different heating
schemes, and the measurement of 1 day and 28 and 56 day
strengths they concluded that heat curing was damaging to
ultimate strength potential and sometimes even failed to
accelerate early strength development. Intense heat (60–71°C
(140–160°F)) was found to be more damaging to ultimate
strength than moderate heat (30–42°C (86–108°F)). They
concluded that heat curing might be useful in a business model
emphasizing speed of construction, but not always pragmatic
in a model emphasizing life-cycle cost.
Other Materials Applied to New Concrete
Silicates
Application of alkali silicate solutions to new concrete has been
practiced for many years. In 1998 a note was added to C 309
specifically excluding silicates from the specification since they
are not membrane formers. No known silicate formula reduces
water loss in the C 156 test to the level specified by C 309. How-
ever, when properly applied, silicates do harden and/or densify
concrete surfaces. Under certain conditions, they are used to
produce highly polished, nearly impermeable floors. Subcom-
EDWARDS ON NEW CONCRETE SURFACES 471
mittee C09.22 is attempting to produce a specification covering
performance requirements for silicate products, but to date all
available information is manufacturer specific and formula-
tions are proprietary. Nasvik [22] has reported the use of sili-
cates prior to diamond polishing of floors to enhance surface
hardness, and various manufacturers recommend their use in
conjunction with less aggressive polishing techniques.
Bond Breakers
Bond breakers for tilt-up construction are another target for
specification writing. Some products are presented as acting
both as curing compounds and bond breakers, while others
perform only the bond breaking function. In this area too, no
test methods exist to characterize the performance of bond
breakers and therefore users must depend on manufacturers’
claims. A range of products are established in the market, but
formal comparisons are not possible without an agreed on test
method. A task group within C09.22 is drafting a specification
and exploring test procedures.
Dry Shake Hardeners
Granular materials, including natural silicate minerals,
ferrosilicates, and iron may be broadcast on freshly placed
concrete and trowelled into the surface to produce exception-
ally wear resistant surfaces. Here again a multitude of products
are available but no specification literature exists beyond
that supplied by the manufacturers. A draft specification is
currently being circulated in C09.22.
New Developments
Internal Curing
Increasing use of high performance concretes has brought
with it several new concerns and response to new problems.
Aside from the need for special attention to early curing
conditions [7] the possibility of internal desiccation leading to
autogenous shrinkage arises in low w/c mixes. Mather and
Hime [23] calculate that for concrete made with w/c below 0.4,
not all of the original mixing water-filled space can be filled
with hydration product. They observe that the critical feature
of the chemical reaction between the constituents of the ce-
ment and the mixing water is the ratio of their volumes, and
that for w/c of less than 0.4 some of the cement will remain un-
hydrated. In practice, externally supplied water is ineffective in
penetrating into mass concrete because of the rapid develop-
ment of low permeability of the mass. A process described as
internal curing has been developed to help reduce cracking in
HPC slabs, and provides a solution to the w/c dilemma.
Internal curing differs from traditional curing in that it
involves an addition to the concrete mix before it is placed
rather than action taken after placement. Internal reservoirs
of water are created by adding high moisture content struc-
tural lightweight aggregate (see chapter in this volume on
Lightweight Concrete and Aggregates) or water absorbing
polymers to the mix. This water is more strongly held than
the free mix water, but available to become water of hydra-
tion or gel water throughout the mass as needed. Strictly
speaking this is curing by means of an admixture rather than
action taken to retain water. Both AC I and RILEM (Interna-
tional Union of Laboratories and Experts in Construction
Materials, Systems and Structures) [24] are actively develop-
ing specifications around these products. Bentz and Snyder
[25] have developed equations for calculating the level of
472 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
saturated lightweight fine aggregate required for complete
curing of HPC.
Curing Meter
The Curing Meter devised by Hansen and Jensen [26] continu-
ously shows a readable value of the local integrated water loss in
kg/m2. The unit, composed of an evaporation cell and a capillary
tube mounted on a thin aluminum plate is shown to register the
total loss from a fresh concrete surface over a time period of in-
terest, avoiding separate measurements of temperature, relative
humidity and air velocity. The device is effective even with con-
tinually varying atmospheric conditions. Unfortunately, it does
not appear to be appropriate for measuring the effects of mate-
rials applied to the concrete surface since calibration of the de-
vice assumes evaporation from a free-water surface. It might be
useful for measuring the curing environment in test chambers.
Maturity Testing
Maturity testing methods as a means of predicting concrete
strength have been around for over 60 years. For a discussion
of these methods see the chapter in this volume titled Predic-
tion of Potential Concrete Strength at Later Ages. Maturity test-
ing methods are based on calculation of a maturity index
associated with the relationships between a concrete mixture’s
temperature changes, its curing (hydration) history, and its
rate of strength development [27]. ASTM Standard Practice for
Estimating Concrete Strength by the Maturity Method C 1074,
has been developed for regulating and ensuring the proper use
of the maturity testing method for determining in-place
concrete strength. The method generally assumes that best
practicable curing procedures have been applied. In practice
the index may be used to decide when curing procedures may
be terminated and/or when forms or bracing may be removed.
Commercial systems are available and a system is under
development by Tikalsky and Tepke [28] at Penn State.
Research on Hydration
Instrumental analytical methods for study of the early stages of
the hydration process include X-ray absorption, nuclear
magnetic resonance, microwave resonance and resistivity
measurements. All of these have been applied to give a more
detailed understanding of the early stages of hydration of
cementitious mixtures.
An X-ray environmental chamber at the Technical Univer-
sity of Denmark has been used to measure drying/hydration of
cement pastes at various depths within the specimens under
carefully controlled conditions. X-ray absorption is proportional
to the density of the material through which the X-rays are pass-
ing, so a high w/c ratio specimen will absorb less X-rays than a
lower w/c specimen, and a dried specimen will absorb less than
the same specimen in its initial saturated condition. These
experimental data have been used in combination with the NIST
CEMHYD3 computer model to verify that, unlike nonreactive
porous materials in which a drying-front can be observed to pro-
ceed from the surface inward, these specimens initially appear
to dry uniformly throughout as water is consumed in hydration
[29]. This work contributes to understanding of the mechanisms
of water movement in the drying/hydration of cement and may
be useful in designing curing systems for concrete.
Proton Magnetic Resonance would seem to offer a way to
follow the kinetics of transfer of water from the free to gel and
combined states since the chemical shift of the proton in each
state should be distinctive allowing continuous measurement
of the proportion of water in the sample of each type.
However, the only work found in this field is the use of nuclear
relaxation NMR experiments (T2 relaxometry) to follow the
hydration process in internally cured HPC as a change in the
average bulk property of cement paste or mortar [30].
Time-Domain-Reflectometry microwave spectrometry [31]
has been applied to cement samples to show signals assigned
to free and bound water allowing the monitoring of hydration
progress as the microstructure of the product develops.
Following changes in the resistivity of fresh concrete is
difficult because with direct current, polarization effects at the
electrodes introduce errors, and if high frequency alternating
current is used to avoid polarization, uniformity of contact and
evolution of gases are still issues. Li, Wei, and Li [35] have devised
a noncontacting method of measuring concrete resistivity, which
employs a transformer principal. Mortar or concrete is cast in a
ring shaped mold, which becomes the secondary of a trans-
former. Voltage is applied to the primary of the transformer, and
voltage and current in the toroidal mold are measured to provide
a plot of resistivity vs. time. Their data for mixtures ranging from
0.3–0.5 w/c allowed them to identify four periods in the early mat-
uration of cementitious mixtures: (I) dissolving period (initial hy-
dration) wherein resistivity falls as soluble components of the ce-
ment saturate the mix water; (II) competition period wherein
resistivity begins to rises as dissolution and precipitation com-
pete; (III) setting period wherein resistivity slowly increases as hy-
drates are formed; and (IV) hardening period wherein resistivity
increases as hydration continues to immobilize water in the mix.
All of these effects are seen in less than 24 h, providing a profile
of the cement hydration process. Although impractical for field-
work, the device should be useful for laboratory studies of vari-
ous cements and admixtures, as well as the effects of curing pro-
cedures on hydration.
Needs for Future Work
Some of the work called for in the previous version of this
chapter has been accomplished, and there has been an
increase in effort and attention to curing in general. Active
programs at NIST and within the USACE are aimed at better
understanding and better practical control of all the factors
involved in curing. The ACI Guide (308R) and Specification
(308S) offer extensive guidance. Since rapid construction
schedules are frequently important, efforts to find methods to
establish how long curing measures must be applied in specific
situations or to specific structures will undoubtedly continue.
Reliable curing monitoring methods that can be used by
inspectors at job sites, and new test procedures for evaluating
the properties of concrete at the end of the curing period to
determine the effectiveness of the curing are much desired.
An array of instrumental data on hydration is appearing.
There is an opportunity for someone to integrate all of this
information in a multidimensional understanding of the
complex chemistry of cement hydration.
Another essential component of future developments to
improve the curing of concrete is the developments of effective
educational programs to enable people to develop a real ap-
preciation for the value of curing. Unless one understands the
need for curing and its profound impact on the properties of
concrete, the steps prescribed to cure the concrete merely be-
come requirements that one must satisfy without concern for
the end result. With Senbetta [1], this author feels that, in the

construction of concrete structures, curing of the concrete con-
tinues to be an under appreciated step. For a great deal of con-
crete, durability problems arise as a result of poor concrete sur-
face properties because of the lack of adequate curing.
From the curing materials point of view, the primary means
of curing, as stated earlier, is preventing the drying of concrete
by covering the surface of the concrete with cloth, paper, plas-
tic, or a membrane-forming curing compound. The effectiveness
of these materials depends on the quality of the materials; the
time of application of the materials, that is how soon after the
concrete is placed; and how well they are applied and kept intact
and in place for the specified length of time. The special prop-
erties of sheet materials for insulation, water absorption, and re-
flectivity need to be characterized and their contribution to cur-
ing evaluated. Finally, because liquid membrane-forming curing
compounds used in volume are low-cost, low-margin items, the
technology of their formulation and manufacture remains rudi-
mentary. If available technologies for studies at near molecular
scale are applied to study manufacturing techniques and the
film formation process, it may be possible to understand the
origins of batch-to-batch variability and develop products with
predictable reliability and special properties.
References
[1] Senbetta, E., “Curing and Curing Materials,” Significance of
Tests and Properties of Concrete and Concrete-Making
Materials, P. Klieger and J. F. Lamond, Eds., ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA, 1994, pp. 478–483.
[2] Carrier, R. E., “Curing Materials,” Significance of Tests and
Properties of Concrete and Concrete-Making Materials, ASTM
STP 169B, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 1978,
pp. 774–786.
[3] Proudley, C. E., “Curing Materials,” Significance of Tests and
Properties of Concrete and Concrete-Making Materials, ASTM
STP 169A, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 1966,
pp. 522–529.
[4] Swanberg, J. H., “Curing Materials,” Significance of Tests and
Properties of Concrete and Concrete Aggregates, ASTM STP
169, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 1955, pp.
361–365.
[5] ACI 116R-00 Cement and Concrete Terminology, American
Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI, 2000
[6] ACI 308R-01, “Guide to Curing Concrete,” American Concrete
Institute, Detroit, MI, 2001.
[7] Meeks, K. W. and Carino, N. J, “Curing of High Performance
Concrete: Report of State of the Art,” NISTIR 6295, National
Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, 1999.
[8] Poole, T. 2003 “Curing Portland-Cement Concrete Pavements,”
draft document to be published by FHWA.
[9] Carino, N. J., “The Maturity Method,” Handbook of Non-
Destructive Testing, Chapt. 5, V. M. Malhotra and N. J. Carino,
Eds., CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 1991, pp. 101–146.
[10] Distlehorst, J. A., Hobson, C., Meggers, D. and Wojakowski, J.,
Kansas DOT, “Concrete Curing: Plastic Shrinkage Cracking,
Bleeding, Evaporation, and Temperature,” Proceedings of the
41st Annual Paving and Transportation Conference of New
Mexico, 6 Jan., 2004. University of New Mexico (in press).
[11] Leitch, H. C. and Laycraft, N. E., “Water Retention Efficiency of
Membrane Curing Compounds,” Journal of Materials, Vol. 6,
No. 3, Sept. 1971, pp. 606–616.
EDWARDS ON NEW CONCRETE SURFACES 473
[12] “Tests of Membrane-forming Compounds for Curing Concrete,”
Technical Memorandum No. 6-385 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Waterways Experiment Station, June, 1954.
[13] Covarrubias, J-P, “Use of Curing Membrane in Concrete Pave-
ments,” 76th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research
Board, Jan. 1997, Paper No. 970882.
[14] National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for
Architectural Coatings, Environmental Protection Agency, Final
Rule, 40 CFR Part 59, Federal Register: September 11, 1998, Vol.
63, No. 176, pp. 48848–48887.
[15] Erlin, B., Nasvik, J., and Powers, L., “How Much Curing is
Enough?” Concrete Construction, Dec. 2003, pp. 45–47.
[16] Shotwell B., 2003 “How Poor Curing Leads to Scaling,” Con-
crete Construction, January, 2003, pp. 88–90.
[17] Basham, K., “What Is Cold Weather?” Concrete International,
Vol. 25, No. 11, November 2003, pp. 58–59.
[18] ACI 308.1–98 “Standard Specification for Curing Concrete,”
American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI, 1998.
[19] Wojakowski, J. and Anderson, E., “Evaporation Rate Program,”
Kansas Department of Transportation, Bureau of Materials and
Research, Topeka, KS, Dec. 2003.
[20] Jeong, J.-H., and Zollinger, D., “Development of Test Methodo-
logy and Model for Evaluation of Curing Effectiveness in
Concrete Pavement Construction,” (03-2183) Transportation
Research Board, Session 709, January 2003.
[21] Freyne, S. F., Russell, B. W., and Bush, T. D., Jr., “Heat Curing of
High-Performance Concrete Containing Type III Cement” ACI
Materials Journal, Vol. 100, No. 6, November/December, 2004,
pp. 449–454.
[22] Nasvik, J. “Polishing Concrete with Diamonds,” Concrete Con-
struction, August 2002, pp. 40–49.
[23] Mather, B. and Hime, W. G., “Amount of Water Required for
Complete Hydration of Portland Cement,” Concrete Interna-
tional, Vol. 24, No. 6, June 2002, pp. 56–58.
[24] RILEM TC 196-ICC: Internal curing of concretes, created Sept.13,
2002, URL: http://www.rilem.org/tc_icc.php Nov. 2003.
[25] Bentz, D. and Snyder, K., “Protected Paste Volume in Concrete,
Extension to Internal Curing Using Saturated Lightweight Fine
Aggregate” Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 29, 1999, pp.
1863–1867.
[26] Hansen, P. F. and Jensen, O. M., Curing Meter, Report, Depart-
ment of Building Technology and Structural Engineering,
Aalborg University, October 2001.
[27] Arneson, T., “Maturity Testing Is the Future,” Concrete Interna-
tional, Vol. 25, No. 9, Sept. 2003, pp. 58–59.
[28] Tikalsky, P. and Tepke, D., “Curing Concrete,” Engineering
Penn State. URL: www.engr.psu.edu/News/Eps/2001_summer/
html/ curing.htm, Dec. 2003.
[29] Bentz, D., Hansen, K., Madsen, H., Vallee, F., and Griesel, E.
“Drying/Hydration in Cement Pastes During Curing,” Materials
and Structures, Vol. 34, pp. 557–565, 2001, URL: http//ciks.
cbt.nist. gov/bentz/drying/ Oct. 2003
[30] Nestle, N., Dakkouri, M., Zimmermann, C., Geier, O., Friedemann,
K., Dehn, F., Krumbach, R., Freude, D., Kärger, J., and König, G.,
“NMR Studies on Hardening Kinetics, Water Balance and Water
Transport in Cement Matrices for High-Performance Concrete,”
Proceedings of the 15th European Experimental NMR Confer-
ence, 12–17 June 2000, University of Leipzig, Germany.
[31] Material Sensing and Instrumentation, Inc., URL: http://
www.msi-sensing.com/tdr_concrete.htm, Nov. 2003
[32] Li, Z., Wei, X., and Li, W., “Preliminary Interpretation of Portland
Cement Hydration Process Using Resistivity Measurements,” ACI
Materials Journal, Vol. 100, No. 3, May/June, 2003, pp. 253–257.
41
Air-Entraining Admixtures
Ara A. Jeknavorian1
Preface
TO PREPARE THIS CHAPTER, THE CONTENTS OF THE
4th edition were drawn on. The author acknowledges the
authors of the prior three editions: ASTM STP 169 (1956) by
Carl E. Wuerpel, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and ASTM STP
169A (1966), B (1978), and C (1983) by Paul Klieger, Consul-
tant—Concrete and Concrete Materials. The current edition will
review and update the topics addressed by the previous
authors, and introduce new relevant technology with corre-
sponding up-to-date references.
Introduction
Air-entrainment in concrete has been universally accepted and
is a well-established means for greatly enhancing the ability of
concrete to resist the potentially destructive effect of repeated
cycles of freezing and thawing, as well as alter the workability
and yield of cementitious mixtures. Air-entrainment should be
mandatory when concrete is to be exposed to such harsh envi-
ronments, particularly when chemical deicers are being used,
as on pavements and bridge decks.
A thorough survey of the early development of air-entrain-
ment is presented by Gonnerman [1]. The following paragraph
from Gonnerman’s report is of particular significance:
These projects (test roads constructed in 1935–1937)
showed no relationship between surface scaling and composi-
tion of the cement, but they did show clearly that portland ce-
ment that inadvertently contained “crusher oil” reduced surface
scaling as did many of the blends of portland and natural ce-
ment that contained tallow added during grinding of the natural
cement. Laboratory tests disclosed that the beneficial effect of
the crusher oil and tallow was due entirely to the additional air
entrapped in the concrete by these air-entraining agents.
Other investigators [2,3] came to similar conclusions. In
these early instances, the air-entrainment was not intentional
but resulted from the presence of the crusher oil or the use
of the tallow as a grinding aid during the production of the
cement. These were the forerunners of materials called air-
entraining additions, now used to produce air-entraining ce-
ments. Materials similar to presently used additions are called
air-entraining admixtures when added with the other concrete
ingredients at the time of mixing, the more widely used
method for obtaining intentionally entrained air. This chapter
is concerned with this class of materials.
1
Research Fellow, W. R. Grace & Co.—Conn., Cambridge, MA 21240.
474
What are these materials; how do they function, both as to
the process of entraining air, enhancing durability, and effect-
ing workability; how can they be specified and tested to ensure
adequate performance; what are the effects of concrete mate-
rial properties including other chemical admixtures, produc-
tion procedures, field conditions, and construction parameters
on air content and hardened air-void parameters? These are
some of the topics that will be addressed in this chapter.
Definitions
The following definitions can be useful in discussing air-
entrainment in mortars and concretes:
1. Air-entrainment—The introduction of air in the form of
discrete air-voids or bubbles dispersed throughout the
mixture as a result of the use of air-entraining materials.
2. Entrained Air—The air, made up of discrete air-voids,
that becomes part of a mixture during the process of air-
entrainment.
3. Entrapped Air-voids—Air-voids not resulting from inten-
tional air-entrainment. Such voids are larger than those
resulting from intentional air-entrainment and are at
times referred to as natural air-voids.
4. Entrained Air-voids—Air-voids resulting from the use of in-
tentional air-entrainment. Such voids are generally spherical
in shape and considerably smaller than the natural air-voids.
5. Air-Entraining Admixture—A material added to cementi-
tious mixtures at the time materials are batched for mix-
ing, the use of which results in intentional air-entrainment.
(See ASTM Terminology Relating to Concrete and Con-
crete Aggregates (C 125) for the definition of an admix-
ture.) A material conforming to the requirements in ASTM
C 260 can be regarded as an air-entraining admixture.
6. Air-Entraining Addition—Air-entraining material inter-
ground with hydraulic cement. (See ASTM Terminology
Relating to Hydraulic Cement (C 219) for the definition of
an addition.)
Materials Used as Air-Entraining Admixtures
There are many materials capable of functioning as air-
entraining admixtures. In an extensive evaluation program, the
Bureau of Public Roads [4] separated 27 commercial air-
entraining admixtures submitted for test into the following
classifications: (1) salts of wood resins (pine wood stumps); (2)
synthetic detergents (petroleum fractions); (3) salts of

sulfonated lignin (paper pulp industry); (4) salts of petroleum
acids (petroleum refining); (5) salts of proteinaceous materials
(processing of animal hides); (6) fatty and resinous acids and
their salts (paper pulp and animal hide processing); and (7) or-
ganic salts of sulfonated hydrocarbons (petroleum refining).
Several reports (Rixom [5], Dodson [6], Ramachandran
[7], Paillere [8], Kodama [9], and Bauverlag GmbH [10]) pro-
vide an excellent description of the chemistry of air-entraining
admixtures and discuss their function in freshly mixed and
hardened concretes. Whiting and Nagi [11] classify current
air-entraining agents into five broad categories and provide
general performance characteristics for each group, and
includes gum and wood rosins, which are reported to provide
similar performance to neutralized Vinsol Resin®. A study
[12] on the various fractions for one class of materials, alkyl-
sulfonates, indicates optimal air-void and freeze-thaw perform-
ance are obtained from the C8 to C10 fraction. As Dodson [6]
has previously noted, modern air-entraining agents continue
to consist of anionic materials based on their track record of
providing cost-effective and predictable air-entrainment.
Function of Entrained Air in Freshly Mixed and
Hardened Concrete
The major reason for the use of intentionally entrained air is
to provide concrete with a high degree of resistance to freezing
and thawing, particularly when chemical deicers are used. (The
discussion to follow will also be applicable to the use of air-
entraining cements, in which the air-entraining agent is used as
an addition during the grinding of the cement clinker.) There
are numerous other advantages, also, to the use of intention-
ally entrained air. For example, plasticity and workability are
increased, enabling a reduction in water content. Uniformity of
placement and consolidation can be achieved more readily,
thus reducing segregation, and bleeding is reduced. Another
study [13] found that the internal surface area of air-entrained
concrete plays a significant role on sound absorption. Wang
and Gillot [14] report that alkali-silica reaction can be partially
mitigated with air-entrainment. These and other advantages
are discussed in detail by Lerch [15] and Bruere [16].
To achieve the improvement in frost resistance, the inten-
tionally entrained air must have the proper total volume of air,
spacing factor, and size and distribution of the air-voids to pro-
vide efficient protection to the cement paste. Powers’ [17–19]
contributions to the understanding of how entrained air func-
TABLE 1—Air-Void Parameters at Optimum Air Contents of Concretes (Adapted From Tables 17
and 18 of Ref 14)
Maximum Size Cement Content,
of Aggregate 51⁄2 bags/yd3
Optimum Air Mortar Air
in. (mm) Content, %a Content, %
21⁄2 (63) 4.5 9.1
11⁄2 (37.5) 4.5 8.5
3
⁄4 (19) 5.0 8.3
3
⁄8 (9.5) 6.5 8.7
No. 4 (4.75) 9.0 9.0
a
Optimum air contents determined from the relationship between expansion during 300 cycles of freezing and thawing and air contents of concretes.
JEKNAVORIAN ON AIR-ENTRAINING ADMIXTURES 475
tions in providing increased frost resistance have been out-
standing.
Powers developed the concept that internal hydraulic pres-
sure created by the resistance to flow or movement of excess
water volume produced during the freezing process is respon-
sible for distress to cementitious mixtures. To keep this internal
pressure below the tensile or rupture strength of the paste, Pow-
ers showed that the air-voids must be well-distributed through-
out the cement paste and sufficient in number so that each void
provides protection to the adjacent cement paste, and the pro-
tected volumes overlap to leave no unprotected paste.
Later work by Powers and Helmuth [20] indicated that, in
addition to the generation of hydraulic pressure during freezing,
another important factor may be the diffusion of gel water to
capillary cavities contributing to the growth of ice bodies in
these cavities resulting in the development of additional expan-
sive forces. A modified and expanded version of Helmuth’s
model of ice penetration in concrete has been proposed by Chat-
terji [21], who attributes the specific efficiency of air-entraining
agents by the different degree of hydrophobicity they impart to
the surface of the entrained air-void. The hydrophobic surface is
reported to minimize the ice-paste bond, which promotes ice
growth within the void causing water to be withdrawn from the
surrounding paste by suction. Water movement under suction is
therefore unable to produce expansive pressure.
Powers [18] developed the concept of air-void spacing factor
to characterize an air-void system and laboratory freezing and
thawing data available at the time to show that the void spacing
factor for frost resistance should be about 0.01 in. (0.25 mm) or
less. The void spacing factor is defined by Powers as the average
maximum distance from any point in the cement paste to the
nearest air-void, and is the most important air-void parameter for
frost resistance. This is an indication of the distance water would
have to travel, during the freezing process, to reach a protective
air-void. Work by Mielenz et al. [22] indicates that an upper limit
of about 0.006–0.008 in. (0.152–0.203 mm) is required for ex-
treme exposures. Extensive freezing and thawing tests by Klieger
[23,24] provided further substantiation of the void spacing factor
concept. These tests called attention to the need for different vol-
umetric air-content requirements for concretes made with dif-
ferent maximum sizes of coarse aggregate. Table 1, adapted from
Ref 22, shows this effect of maximum size of aggregate on the op-
timum air content along with void spacing factors. Although the
total air contents of the mixtures shown in Table 1 vary through
a wide range, the air content of the mortar fraction is essentially
_ Cement Content, _
L 7 bags/yd.3 L
Optimum Air Mortar Air
in. (mm) Content, % Content, % in. (mm)
0.007 (0.18) 4.5 9.2 0.007 (0.18)
0.008 (0.20) 4.5 8.4 0.008 (0.20)
0.009 (0.23) 5.5 9.2 0.007 (0.18)
0.011 (0.28) 7.0 9.6 0.008 (0.20)
0.012 (0.30) 10.0 10.0 0.008 (0.20)
476 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE

constant at about 9 %. As the maximum size of coarse aggregate
increases and workability and cement content held constant, less
mortar is required in the mixture; therefore, a reduction in total
concrete air content with an increase in maximum size of coarse
aggregate is to be expected.
Most of the early field and laboratory work on air-entrained
concretes dealt with paving-type concrete in which the coarse
aggregate was generally about 11/2 in. (38 mm) maximum size.
In concretes without intentional air-entrainment, the air con-
tent may range up to as high as 1 or 2 % by volume. However,
this air is composed of entrapped air-voids that are too large to
be effective with respect to improving frost resistance or work-
ability. The provision of an additional 3 % of intentionally en-
trained air by the use of an air-entraining admixture will pro-
vide an air-void system well-distributed throughout the matrix
and containing a sufficient number of air-voids to meet the void
spacing factor requirements for adequate resistance to freezing
and thawing, even in the presence of deicing chemicals.
The importance of size and distribution of air-voids, as con-
trasted with total volume of voids alone, can be seen in the re-
sults of a study made some years ago in the laboratories of the
Portland Cement Association. Air-entrained concretes were pre-
pared using an acceptable proprietary air-entraining admixture
and four nonproprietary materials that exhibited a potential for
entraining air. A non-air-entrained concrete was also included
in these tests. In addition to the determination of air content of
the freshly mixed concrete as described in ASTM Test Method
for Air Content of Freshly Mixed Concrete by the Pressure
Method (C 231), the air content, void spacing factor, specific
surface, and number of voids per lineal inch of traverse were
determined on the hardened concretes as described in ASTM
Practice for Microscopical Determination of Air-Void Content
and Parameters of the Air-Void System in Hardened Concrete
(C 457). Additional refinements of the technique enabled the de-
termination of the total number of air-voids per unit volume of
concrete. The results of these measurements and the perform-
ance of the concretes when frozen and thawed while immersed
in water are shown in Table 2. It is apparent from these data that
an air-entraining admixture must not only be capable of en-
training some volume of air but also that the air-void system
must be characterized by a large number of small, well-distrib-
uted air-voids to provide a high degree of frost resistance.
Recently, a number of refinements to the interpretation of
various microscopic analysis have been proposed to allow bet-
ter correlation of air-void systems in hardened concrete to
freeze-thaw durability. Pleau et al. [25] found that the flow
length concept, whereby the flow length is defined by the au-
thors as the distance that freezable water must travel through
the cement paste to reach the perimeter of the nearest air-void.
The authors found that the size distribution of circles inter-
cepted by a plane and chords intercepted by a line of traverse
provide an indication of the actual spatial distribution of air-
voids in concrete. The two studies [26,27] probed the conse-
quence of in-filling of air-voids by the deposition of ettringite
crystals. The degree of in-filling is reported to be associated
with the duration of moist curing coupled with wet/dry cycling,
and may increase the effective spacing factor, thus possibly
rendering the concrete less durable than otherwise indicated
by the spacing factor.
Factors Influencing Amount and Character of
Entrained Air In Freshly Mixed Concrete
General
Mielenz et al. [22] and Bruere [16,28–30] have made significant
contributions to the understanding of the mechanism by which
air-entraining admixtures function and the influence of a num-
ber of different variables. More recently, Whiting and Nagi
[11] have prepared a comprehensive summary of the various
factors—concrete materials and mix design, handling opera-
tions, construction practices, and field conditions—that can
affect air content and quality. Mielenz and his co-workers dealt
extensively with the origin, evolution, and effects of the air-void
system in concrete. They showed that in the concentrations
normally used in concrete, air-entraining admixtures are ad-
sorbed at air-water interfaces and that the surface tension of
the water is decreased about 25 %. This adsorption at air-water
interfaces produces a “film” of air-entraining admixture that in-
fluences the air-retention properties of discrete air-voids
formed during mixing. For some air-entraining admixtures, the

TABLE 2—Influence of Air-Void Characteristics on Resistance of Concrete to Freezing and Thawing

Air-Void Characteristics (ASTM C 457)

Void Spacing Factor (L),

Freezing and
Air Content Specific Number of Thawing
% Pressure Air Surface, Voids/in.3 Cycles for
Air-entraining Meter Content, Number of in.2/in.3 Concrete, 0.10%
Admixture (C 231), % % C 457 Voids/in. in. (mm) of air millions Expansion

None 1.8 1.1 0.8 0.031 (0.79) 302 0.08 19

A 6.0 4.1 4.0 0.013 (0.33) 387 0.11 29
B 6.0 4.1 4.9 0.010 (0.25) 480 0.22 39
D 5.0 3.2 3.3 0.013 (0.33) 416 0.26 82
E 5.8 3.5 5.1 0.009 (0.23) 577 0.78 100
Fa 5.2 3.9 9.6 0.006 (0.15) 990 3.79 550

a
A commercial air-entraining admixture meeting the requirements of ASTM C 260.
 JEKNAVORIAN ON AIR-ENTRAINING ADMIXTURES 477

calcium salt of the active constituent in the admixture may be
only slightly soluble in water. In such instances, the film at the
air-water interface may include a precipitated solid or gelati-
nous film enclosing each air-void.
The amount and character of the air-entrained in concrete
is influenced by numerous factors, some of which are: (1) con-
centration and type of the air-entraining admixture and its in-
fluence on surface tension; (2) use of other admixtures in the
concrete mixture; (2) the fineness and composition of cement
and supplementary cementitious materials; (3) amount of mix-
ing energy (time and shear rate); (4) flow and slump of mortar
or concrete mixture; (5) temperature, water-cement ratio, and
water content of the mixture; and (6) gradation of the fine and
coarse aggregates. Mielenz et al. [21] have theoretically con-
cluded that both the total volume of air and the size distribu-
tion of the air-voids can change in the unhardened concrete
due to interchange of air between air-voids and dissolution of
air. Bruere [30], however, has shown that such changes do not
take place to any significant degree in air-entrained pastes af-
ter cessation of mixing, although such interchange is of signifi-
cance during the mixing process and may be for a few minutes
thereafter. Moreover, the overall experience with air-entrained
cementitious mixtures is consistent with the observations by
Mielinz that as long as concrete in the plastic state and in some
state of motion, evolution of the air-void system can occur, thus
possibly accounting for both air gain and air loss.
Type and Amount of Air-Entraining Admixture
Mielenz and his co-workers theorize that the type of organic in-
gredient in the air-entraining admixture influences the amount
and character of entrained air-voids by its effect on: (1) surface
tension, (2) the elasticity of the film at the air-water interface,
(3) transmission of air across the air-water interface, and (4)
adhesion of the air-voids to particles of cement or aggregate.
All of these factors will be operative during the mixing opera-
tion. Based on extensive field experience with the common
classes of air-entraining agents, the author prepared Table 3
(cited in [11]), which associates general performance charac-
teristics with the various types of agents.
At the same volumetric air content, different air-entraining
admixtures will produce air-void systems having different spe-
cific surfaces, number of air-voids per unit volume, and void

TABLE 3—Classification and Performance Characteristics of

Common Air-entraining Agents
Classification Chemical Description Notes and Performance Characteristics

Wood derived Alkali or alkanolamine salt Rapid air generation, especially in

acid salts of a mixture of tricyclic low slump mixes. Minor air gain some
Vinsol Resin® acids, phenolic, and air loss possible with continuous mixing.
terpenes Mid-sized air bubbles. Compatible with
all admixtures. Some air loss possible.

Tall Oil Fatty acid—major Slower air generation. Air may increase
component; tricyclic with prolonged mixing. Smallest air-voids
acids—minor among common agents. Compatible
with all admixtures.

Vegetable Alkali and Relative to wood rosins, slower air

oil acids alkanolamine salts generation, both air gain and air loss
of coconut fatty acids possible with continuous mixing. Small to
mid-sized air-voids, and compatible with
all admixtures.

Synthetic Alkyl-aryl sulfonates and
detergents sulfates (e.g., sodium
dodecylbenzenesulfonate)
Rapid air generation. Minor air loss
with mixing. Coarser bubbles. Not
compatible with naphthalene sulfonate-
based HRWR. Applicable for cellular
concretes.

Synthetic Alkyl-aryl ethoxylates Primarily used in masonry mortars.

workability
aids

Miscellaneous Alkali/alkanoloamine Older technologies not currently used

acid salts of lignosulfonate as concrete air-entraining agents.
Oxygenated petroleum
residues
Proteinaceous materials
Animal tallow
Saponin
478 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
spacing factors. Furthermore, the rate at which air-voids are
entrained in various concrete mixtures can be affected by
the class of air-entraining admixture. Moreover, one can expect
the air-void system to be influenced by interaction between the
class of air-entraining admixture and the various mixing, han-
dling, placing, and consolidating operations.
An almost universal guide for the use of air-entraining
admixtures is that an increase in the dosage rate will increase
the volume of air-entrained and decrease the void spacing
factor.
Chemical Admixtures
A large variety of other chemical admixtures may be used
in air-entrained concrete. These include normal, mid-, and
high-range water reducers, set accelerators and retarders, cor-
rosion and ASR inhibitors, pumping aids, pigments, and
shrinkage control agents (SRAs). Little information has been
published that discusses the interaction of these admixtures
on air content and the air-void system in concrete. Whiting
and Stark [31] note that chemical admixtures such as water-
reducers, retarders, and accelerators may increase air content
somewhat when used in normal, recommended dosages, re-
quiring adjustments in dosages of air-entraining admixtures.
This would especially apply to lignosulfonate-based water re-
ducing admixtures and polycarboxylate-based superplasticiz-
ers. The authors state further that high-range water reducers
may possibly result in an altered void size distribution of the
entrained air, manifested by higher void spacing factors than
those normally considered acceptable for adequate resistance
to freezing and thawing. Nevertheless, excellent freeze-thaw
durability has been obtained both in laboratory and field con-
cretes with these admixtures. Guidance on how to assure ac-
ceptable air-void systems in concrete admixed with SRAs has
been reported by Berke et al. [32]. Several studies [33–36]
involving high-performance concrete mixtures, with and
without superplasticizers, found that superplasticizers can
both increase and decrease air contents with the spacing fac-
tor either remaining unchanged or increasing slightly; more-
over, the various superplasticizers tested affected air-entrain-
ment differently. Several reports [37,38] found that the use of
viscosity modifying agents in air-entrained concrete has no
significant effect on freeze-thaw durability, suggesting mini-
mal impact on air-void quality.
Fine Aggregate
Changes in grading of sand may alter the volume and nature of
air in the mortar [39]. An appreciable increase (
3 %) in the
quantity of sand particles passing the No 200 sieve (75 m) will
decrease the amount of entrained air, and consequently require
higher doses of air-entraining agent to achieve specified air con-
tents [11]. The maximum and median size of the individual air-
voids may decrease [40]. Sand in the middle fractions, No
30–100 (600–150 m) is most effective stabilizing entrained air.
Sand gradation is of more importance in leaner versus richer
mixes, where the influence of gradation on entrained air is not
as marked. Other aggregate properties that can affect the per-
formance of air-entraining admixtures include surface texture
and shape and organic contaminants [11,41]. On the one hand,
air stability can be enhanced with angular sand particles, but de-
crease when air-entraining admixtures adsorb on rough and
cracked surfaces. Nonpolar contaminants such as oils can de-
crease air content, whereas oxidized decayed vegetable matter
can have the opposite effect.
Cement
As the cement content increases, the air-entraining potential of
an admixture will tend to diminish, and an increase in the fine-
ness of cement will result in a decrease of the air-entrained in
the mortar [42–44]. Some regular (non-air-entraining) cements
naturally entrain more air than others, and these require less
air-entraining admixture to develop a given mortar air content.
Soluble alkalis in cements will influence the required amount
of air-entraining admixture dosage [11,45]. At fixed dosage lev-
els, higher air contents will be obtained with higher alkali ce-
ments. Therefore, if more than one cement is being used and
soluble alkali contents differ significantly, care must be exer-
cised to adjust dosages when necessary. The ASTM C 185 mor-
tar test can be useful to detect possible changes in air content
associated with cement properties.
Water
An increase in water-cement ratio is likely to result in an in-
crease in air content. Although the volume of air-entrained
may increase, the specific surface of the air-voids generally de-
creases and the void spacing factor increases [21]. Nondegrad-
able detergents present in water can result in excessively high
and variable air contents. When air-entraining agents are added
to recycled wash water or potable water with relatively high
hardness, the active components may partially precipitate, thus
requiring an increased dosage to achieve target air content.
Fibers
Synthetic and steel fibers may possibly increase air content if
treated with surface-active coatings.
Workability and Flowability
Within the normally used range, increase in initial slump up to
approximately 6–7 in. (150–175 mm) is accompanied by an
increase in air content in concrete mixtures [11,15,42,44]. At
higher slumps (Fig. 1), the viscosity of the mix becomes in-
sufficient to retain the air-voids and prevent coalescence [11].
Furthermore, when retempering water is used to restore work-
ability to the target slump, air contents will most often increase
with a far lesser probability of some air loss. Work by Klieger
Fig. 1—Effect of slump on entrained air content (Ref 11).
 JEKNAVORIAN ON AIR-ENTRAINING ADMIXTURES
[23] indicates that the optimum mortar air content remains at
about 9.0 %. The impact of slump on air generation can be
most significant at the far ends of the workability range for
modern day concrete operations, namely, no slump and self-
consolidating concrete mixtures. With no slump concrete (as
in the case of paving and extruded concrete applications), the
use of up to ten times the normal dose of air-entraining agent
is not uncommon to achieve target air contents. In one study
[46], considerable irregularly-shaped, entrapped voids can be
included in the entrained air-void system from compaction op-
erations. As indicated in Table 3, field experience has found the
Vinsol Resin®, gum rosin, and wood rosin-based air-entraining
agents to be more effective for these applications. With regard
to self-consolidating (SCC) and self-leveling (SLC) concrete
mixtures, a number of investigators [47–52] have confirmed
that these highly workable mixtures exhibit comparable freeze-
thaw durability to similar corresponding mixtures with lower
workability. Khayat et al. [49,50] have cautioned that entrained
air can lower the viscosity of SCC mixtures thus increasing the
risk of segregation and the coalescence of air bubbles. The use
of viscosifying admixtures or fillers such as limestone can re-
store the required viscosity to minimize these potential con-
cerns.
Supplementary Cementing Materials
Supplementary cementing materials, such as pozzolans (fly
ash, silica fume, etc.) and ground granulated blast-furnace
slags, generally require increased amounts of air-entraining
admixtures to attain the proper volume of entrained air
[53–55]. Some ASTM C 618 class C ashes may actually lower
the dosage of air-entraining admixture dosage. Klieger and
Gebler [56] called attention to the effect of certain fly ashes
in reducing the stability of the entrained air-void system as a
function of time after mixing. Further details concerning this
phenomenon and techniques for control are described in an
ACI Committee Report [57]. In order to minimize unexpected
changes in air content due to changes in fly ash properties
such loss-on-ignition, several screening tests have been pro-
posed to predict relative changes in the dosage of air-
entraining agent. The “Foam Index Test” [6], which has be-
come a common practice by many concrete producers, is a
relatively simple procedure involving adding increments of
an air-entraining agent to an aqueous slurry of fly ash until a
stable foam is produced. A reported improved version of the
test, which claims improved predictability to concrete and
less variability, calls for using a reagent-grade surfactant and
including cement in the fly ash slurry [58]. Other investiga-
tors feel that fly ash uniformity and changes in air content
are possible by measuring the surface area of the carbon con-
tent in fly ashes [59]. Metakaolin, unlike silica fume, is re-
ported to have no significant effect on air-entraining agent
dosages to achieve a target air content [11].
Batching: Sequence of Material Addition
The air content of concrete mixtures can be affected by the
order of material addition to a truck mixer. Although higher
air contents have been reported when the air-entraining ad-
mixture is added after the cement has been batched [11], lower
values are also not uncommon. Preferably, air-entraining
agents should be dispensed separately from the other chemical
admixtures. A common mode of batching is adding the air-
entraining agent to the sand either contained in the weigh
hopper or on the conveyor belt. Alternately, the air-entraining
479
admixture can be introduced near the discharge of the water
line prior to the water reducers and the addition of cement and
supplementary cementitious materials.
Mixing
The amount of air-entrained can vary with the type of mixer,
condition of blades, mixing speed, and mixing time [11,15,60].
The amount of air-entrained by any given mixer will decrease
appreciably as the blades become worn, or as the mixing action
is impaired if hardened mortar is allowed to accumulate in
the drum and on the blades. An increase in entrained air will
occur if the mixer is loaded to less than rated capacity, and a
decrease will result from overloading the mixer. A central
drum stationary mixer, a paving mixer, and a transit mixer may
develop significant differences in the volume of air-entrained
in a given concrete mixture. The air content will increase with
increased time of mixing up to about 2 min in central station-
ary [15] or paving mixers (and up to about 15 min in some
transit mixers), after which the air content may remain ap-
proximately constant for a considerable period before de-
creasing. The reduction in air may result from an increase in
very fine particles in the mixture with prolonged mixing action,
from an increase in the ratio of air-escape to foam-generation
in the latter portion of the mixing period, from adsorption of
the chemical by unburned carbon in fly ashes, or from ad-
sorption of the chemical on rapidly hydrating aluminate
phases of the cement. The air-void system, as characterized by
specific surface and spacing factor, does not usually appear to
be harmed by prolonged agitation. Different air-entraining ad-
mixtures may require significantly different mixing periods to
reach maximum and constant air content. In some cases, air
contents may possibly increase with prolonged mixing, espe-
cially when the concrete is re-tempered with water or normal
and high range water reducing agents at the jobsite.
Temperature
For a constant amount of air-entraining admixture, less air will
be entrained at 100°F (38°C) than at 70°F (21°C) and more will
be entrained at 40°F (4.4°C). In other words, everything else
being equal, air-entrainment varies inversely with temperature
[15,43]. One general rule of thumb, an approximate 30 %
increase in air-entraining agent dosage would correspond be
required for a roughly a 30°F (15°C) change in concrete tem-
perature. Furthermore, the rate of air content loss increases
with higher slump [11]. Changes in concrete temperature do
not generally affect the hardened air-void system, as long as the
air content remains unchanged by adjusting the air-entraining
agent dosage.
Vibration
Intensive internal vibration applied to freshly mixed concrete
will cause air-voids to rise to the surface and be expelled. The
larger natural voids are most readily expelled [21,61]. Moder-
ately small air-voids may tend to work upward if the vibration
is intense and prolonged. There is increasing evidence,
however, that the critically important spacing of small en-
trained-air-voids in the matrix is not significantly disturbed,
even by intense vibration. If vibration is applied as required,
with just enough intensity and duration to effect consolidation,
and if the mixture is designed properly, removal of the effec-
tive portion of the entrained air will not occur. The concrete
slump will influence the extent to which vibration can alter
air content [11]. For concrete slumps above 5 in. (125 mm),
480 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
significant air loss (up to 4 %) can occur after 30 s of vibration.
In some instances, externally applied vigorous vibration may
cause an increase in air content. However, in this case, the
added air is in the form of relatively large natural voids. As a
general guide for slip-form operations, a vibration frequency
of 8000 vpm is recommended for paver speeds greater
than 3 ft/min (0.9 m/min), with lower frequencies at lower
paver speeds.
General Comments
One of the most frequent and pronounced causes for varia-
tions in air contents may possibly result from variation in the
amount, type, or condition of the air-entraining admixture.
This last cause, as with many of the other variations in concrete
materials and production practices, is a function in turn of the
alertness and adequacy of the control and inspection given the
work. Since air-entraining admixtures are generally incompati-
ble with other admixture types, care must be exercised to pre-
vent them coming in direct contact while being dispensed into
the concrete during mixing.
Any influence that would maintain or even actually im-
prove the distribution of the air-voids (number, or spacing fac-
tor) within the paste fraction or increase the ratio of air
boundary surface to air volume (specific surface) would be
desirable.
Methods for Determining Air-Void
Characteristics
Freshly Mixed Concrete
Up until recently, only the total air content could be deter-
mined in freshly mixed concrete either by the gravimetric
method described in ASTM Test Method for Unit Weight, Yield,
and Air Content (Gravimetric) of Concrete (C 138), the pres-
sure method described in ASTM C 231, or the volumetric
method (ASTM C 173), which is most useful for determining
the air contents of concretes made with lightweight aggregates.
With the introduction of the AVA (the so-called “air-void ana-
lyzer”) instrument [62,63], originally developed by European
researchers in the early 1990s, both total air content and some
indication of the quality of the air-void distribution (specific
surface and spacing factor) can be estimated while the con-
crete is still in the plastic state. The method calls for sieving the
mortar fraction from a concrete mixture, and injecting into a
viscous fluid contained within a column. The viscous fluid re-
tains bubble size, and allows the bubbles to rise and contact a
buoyancy recorder. Migration rate of the air-voids is a function
of bubble size, where the larger bubbles rise faster than smaller
ones. The change in buoyancy is recorded as a function of
time, which can be related to bubble size distribution. While
this technique holds some promise as a means of applying ad-
ditional quality checks on air-entrained concrete prior to place-
ment, extensive correlation of results with the established
ASTM C 457 method needs to be performed before the AVA
method can be recommended for acceptance testing. Further-
more, the delicate buoyancy measurements are intolerant of vi-
bration and temperature fluctuations; and thus the AVA, as
currently designed, is not expected to be operated under field
conditions.
Regarding the ASTM C 231 Pressure Air Meter method,
this procedure is generally adequate for use with all ordinary
types of mortar or concrete mixtures containing reasonably
dense aggregate. Large errors may be introduced where highly
vesicular or porous aggregates are used due to the inability of
differentiating between the air in the aggregate particles and
the entrained air in the paste. The volumetric method de-
scribed in the C 173 Test Method for Air Content of Freshly
Mixed Concrete eliminates the possibility of significant errors
in differentiating between air in the aggregate particles and air
in the paste. However, this method is time consuming and yield
inaccurately low air content readings due to insufficient time
to expel the air.
Specifications and control tests will continue to be prima-
rily based on the volume of air-entrained in the concrete,
rather than on the size and distribution of the air-voids in the
cement-paste matrix, until techniques such as the AVA can re-
liably indicate air-void parameters directly on the freshly
mixed concrete in the field. Until such a test has become ac-
cepted by standards organization such as ASTM, concrete pro-
ducers and specifiers will continue to rely on the total air con-
tents in the range of the optimum air contents shown in Table
1, and will be assured that the size and distribution of air-voids
will provide adequate resistance to freezing and thawing when
produced by air-entraining admixtures conforming to the re-
quirements of the ASTM C 260 Specification for Air-Entraining
Admixtures for Concrete.
Hardened Concrete
The important characteristics of the entrained-air-voids can
most readily be determined in hardened concrete by micro-
scopic examination of sawed and ground surfaces of a sample
of the hardened concrete. ASTM C 457 is a procedure for de-
termining the total air volume, specific surface, and spacing
factor of air-voids by either a linear traverse method or a modi-
fied point-count method. Additional refinements of the linear
traverse equipment enable the measurement of chord-size dis-
tribution of air-voids from which the total number of air-voids
per unit volume of concrete can be calculated, as shown in
Table 2.
Mielenz and his co-workers [21] show the results of meas-
urements of air-void characteristics of cores taken from a wide
variety of structures. Although such measurements are time
consuming, they can provide reassuring evidence of the ef-
fectiveness of the air-entraining admixture in providing the
desired air-void system. As an improved means of better ascer-
taining the accuracy of spacing factor to predict the distance
water must travel to the nearest air-void, a computer program
was used to place nonoverlapping spheres, representing air-
voids, in a cubic cell of cement paste [64]. Points in the paste
were then chosen at random and the distance to the nearest
air-void surface tabulated for each point, thus providing a spa-
tial distribution. Attiogbe [65] feels that the air-void parameters
as measured and calculated by ASTM C 457, specifically a sin-
gle spacing factor, do not correlate well with ASTM C 666
freeze-thaw data because the predicted air-void distribution
does not adequately represent the actual random distribution
of air-void. A mean spacing model for air-voids is proposed
whereby three zones of durability—probable, intermediate, and
nondurable—can be predicted.
Progress has been made with various automated tech-
niques for measuring the air-void parameters in hardened con-
crete [66–69]. One of the more promising methods is based on
the RapidAir 457 Automated-Air-Void-Analyzer, which consists
of comprises a computerized control unit (PC) with a 19 in.
color monitor, a video camera, and a microscope objective
mounted on a moving stage. Following the traditional grinding
 JEKNAVORIAN ON AIR-ENTRAINING ADMIXTURES
and polishing steps of ASTM C 457, a contrast enhancing tech-
nique (described in EN 480-11) is used to obtain a surface of
the concrete plane section where air-voids are bright white,
and the rest of the surface is black. The plane section is
mounted onto the moving stage placed under the video cam-
era. After scanning, the air-void parameters are immediately
calculated. The accuracy of the RapidAir system was verified
recently by an extensive round robin test program conducted
by 13 European laboratories [69].
Status of Current Specifications and Test
Results for Air-Entraining Admixtures
During the early 1940s, the size and distribution of the air-voids
in concrete mixtures was recognized to be a major factor with
respect to the effectiveness of the entrained air in enhancing
durability. Since there was no ready and reliable means for de-
termining these air-void characteristics and since there was a
need to evaluate the influence of these air-entraining materials
on other concrete properties, a performance-type specification
(ASTM C 260) was developed in 1950 by ASTM. It remains es-
sentially the same as it appeared initially.
ASTM C 260 currently evaluates the effects that any given
air-entraining admixture under test may exert on the bleeding,
compressive and flexural strength, resistance to freezing
and thawing, and the length change on drying of a concrete mix-
ture, all in comparison with a similar concrete mixture
containing a reference air-entraining admixture, neutralized
Vinsol Resin®. The methods by which these effects may be
tested are given in ASTM Methods of Testing Air-Entraining Ad-
mixtures for Concrete (C 233). The criteria of ASTM C 260 af-
ford assurance that if, under the conditions of the specified mix-
tures and conditions in ASTM C 233, the particular sample of
the admixture under test exerts satisfactory influence on certain
properties of the laboratory concrete, it will be reasonable to
expect that the quantity of the air-entraining admixture repre-
sented by the sample will develop satisfactory air-entrainment
in field concrete. A recent modification to ASTM C 233 and
C 260 eliminates the need for later age (6 and 12 month) com-
pressive strength tests, which have been found from statistical
analysis of numerous C 260 certification reports to have no ad-
ditional significance versus the 28-day results.
The testing required by ASTM C 260 reduces simply to a
very indirect method of determining whether: (1) the particu-
lar admixture under test will produce relatively stable air-voids
that will become widely dispersed throughout the matrix of
field mortar or concrete so as to produce an air-void system
having the proper characteristics for enhancing durability; and
(2) that the admixture contains nothing that will have a delete-
rious effect on other properties of such mixtures. This specifi-
cation, with its attendant test methods, has provided a means
for evaluating air-entraining admixtures on a performance ba-
sis. The wide variety chemically of materials that can function
as satisfactory air-entraining admixtures precludes the inclu-
sion of chemical requirements.
A further consideration that is receiving attention is the
possibility that the freezing and thawing tests, which are prob-
ably the most costly and time-consuming part of the testing pro-
cedure, can be supplemented by an examination of the charac-
teristics of the air-void system produced by the admixture under
test and a comparison with the system produced by the refer-
ence admixture. The CSA Standard A23.1, Concrete Materials
481
and Methods of Concrete Construction (Canada), has adopted
this alternative and considers the concrete to have a satisfactory
air-void system if the average of all tests of the hardened con-
crete shows a void spacing factor not exceeding 0.009 in. (0.23
mm) and no single test greater than 0.010 in. (0.26 mm).
References
[1] Gonnerman, H. F., “Air-Entrained Concrete, A Look at the
Record,” Consulting Engineer, Oct. 1954, pp. 52–61.
[2] Swayze, M. A., “More Durable Concrete with Treated
Cement,” Engineering News-Record, Vol. 126, 19 June 1941,
pp. 946–949.
[3] Hansen, W. C., “History of Air-Entraining Cements,” Proceed-
ings, American Concrete Institute, Vol. 58, pp. 243–245; also,
Concrete Briefs, Aug. 1961.
[4] Halstead W. J. and Chaiken, B., “Chemical Analysis and Sources
of Air-Entraining Admixtures for Concrete,” Public Roads, Vol.
27, No. 12, Feb. 1954, pp. 268–278.
[5] Rixom, M. R., “Chemical Admixtures for Concrete,” 3rd ed.,
Wiley, New York, 1999.
[6] Dodson, V. H., Concrete Admixtures, Van Nostrand Reinhold,
New York, 1990.
[7] Ramachandran, V. S., Concrete Admixtures Handbook: Proper-
ties, Science, and Technology, 2nd ed., Noyes Publications, Park
Ridge, NJ, 1995.
[8] Paillere, A.M., Application of Concrete Admixtures, Rilem
Report 10, Capman & Hall, London, 1995.
[9] Kodama, K., “Air-entraining Agents and Air-entraining Water
Reducing Agents for Concrete,” Konkurito Kogaku, Vol. 40, No.
1, 2002, pp. 23–26.
[10] Anonymous, “Manufacturing Air-entrained Concrete,” Beton-
werk & Fertigteil-Technik, Vol. 68, No. 1, 2002, pp. 46–52.
[11] Whiting, D. A. and Nagi, M. A., “Manual on Control of Air Con-
tent in Concrete,” PCA, 1998.
[12] Piroja, E., Lippmaa, H., Raado, L. M., and Nikitina, N., “Effect of
Alkylsulfonates on Freezing Resistance of Cement Mortars,”
Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences, Engineering,
Vol. 2, No. 1, 1996, pp. 61–71.
[13] Fujiwara, H., Douzono, A., Maruoka, M., and Numanno, T.,
“Study on Relation Between Void Structure and Sound Absorp-
tion Characteristic of Porous Concrete,” Semento, Konkurit,
Ronbunshu, Vol. 56, 2002, pp. 291–297.
[14] Wang, H. and Gillot, J. E., “Combined Effect of an Air-Entrain-
ing Agent and Silica Fume on Alkali-Silica Reaction,” 9th Inter-
national Conference on Alkali-Aggregate React. Concr., Vol. 2,
1992, pp. 1100–1106.
[15] Lerch, W., “Basic Principles of Air-Entrained Concrete,” Research
Laboratories, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IL, 1950.
[16] Bruere, G. M., “Relative Importance of Various Physical and
Chemical Factors on Bubble Characteristics in Cement Paste,”
Australian Journal of Applied Science, Vol. 12, No. 1, March
1961, pp. 78–86.
[17] Powers, T. C., “A Working Hypothesis for Further Studies of Frost
Resistance of Concrete,” Journal, American Concrete Institute,
Feb. 1945; Proceedings, Vol. 41, pp. 245–272; Discussion by R. D.
Terzaghi, D. McHenry, H. W. Brewer, A. Collins, and T. C. Pow-
ers, Journal, American Concrete Institute, Nov. 1945, Supple-
ment; Proceedings, Vol. 41, pp. 272–1 to 272–20; Bulletin No. 5A,
Research Department, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IL.
[18] Powers, T. C., “The Air Requirement of Frost Resistant Con-
crete,” Proceedings, Highway Research Board, Vol. 29, 1949,
pp. 184–211; Bulletin No. 33, Research Department, Portland
Cement Association, Skokie, IL.
[19] Powers, T. C., “Void Spacing as a Basis for Producing Air-
Entrained Concrete,” Journal, American Concrete Institute,
482 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
May 1954; Proceedings, Vol. 50, pp. 741–760; Bulletin No. 49,
Research Department, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IL.
[20] Powers, T. C. and Helmuth, R. A., “Theory of Volume Changes
in Hardened Portland Cement Paste During Freezing,” Pro-
ceedings, Highway Research Board, Vol. 32, 1953; Bulletin No.
46, Research and Development Laboratories, Portland Cement
Association, Skokie, IL.
[21] Chatterji, S., “Freezing of Air-Entrained Cement-based Materi-
als and Specific Actions of Air-Entraining Agents,” Cement &
Concrete Composites, Vol. 24, 2004, pp. 759–765.
[22] Mielenz, R. C., Wolkodoff, V. E., Backstrom, J. E., and Flack, H.
L., “Origin, Evolution, and Effects of the Air-void System in Con-
crete. Part 1—Entrained Air in Unhardened Concrete,” Journal,
American Concrete Institute, July 1958; Proceedings, Vol. 55;
“Part 2—Influence of Type and Amount of Air-Entraining
Agent,” Journal, American Concrete Institute, Aug. 1958;
Proceedings, Vol. 55; “Part 3—Influence of Water-Cement Ratio
and Compaction,” Journal, American Concrete Institute,
Detroit, MI, Oct. 1958, and Proceedings, Vol. 55.
[23] Klieger, P., “Effect of Entrained Air on Strength and Durability
of Concrete Made with Various Maximum Sizes of Aggregate,”
Proceedings, Highway Research Board, Vol. 31, 1952,
pp. 177–201; Bulletin No. 40, Research and Development Labo-
ratory, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IL.
[24] Klieger, P., “Further Studies on the Effect of Entrained Air on
the Strength and Durability of Concrete Made with Various
Maximum Sizes of Aggregate,” Proceedings, Highway
Research Board, Vol. 34, 1955; Bulletin No. 77, Research and
Development Laboratory, Portland Cement Association,
Skokie, IL.
[25] Pleau, R., Pigeon, M., Laurencot, J. L., and Gagne, R., “The Use
of Flow Length Concept to Assess the Efficiency of Air-entrain-
ment with Regards to Frost Durability: Part II-Experimental
Results,” Cement, Concrete, and Aggregates, Vol. 18, No. 1,
1996, pp. 30–41.
[26] Ouyang, C. and Lane, J., “Effect of Infilling of Air-Voids by
Ettringite on Resistance of Concretes to Freezing and Thaw-
ing,” ACI SP-177 Ettringite–the Sometimes Host of Destruction,
1999, pp. 249–261.
[27] Mather, B., “Crystal Growth in Entrained Air-Voids,” Concrete
International, Vol. 23, No. 5, 2001, pp. 35–36.
[28] Bruere, G. M., “Effect of Type of Surface-Active Agent on Spac-
ing Factors and Surface Areas of Entrained Bubbles in Cement
Pastes,” Australian Journal of Applied Science, Vol. 11, No. 2,
1960, pp. 289–294.
[29] Bruere, G. M., “Air-Entrainment in Concrete,” Australian Jour-
nal of Applied Science, Vol. 11, No. 3, 1960, pp. 399–401.
[30] Bruere, G. M., “Rearrangement of Bubble Sizes in Air-Entrained
Cement Pastes During Setting,” Australian Journal of Applied
Science, Vol. 13, No. 3, 1962, pp. 222–227.
[31] Whiting, D. and Stark, D., “Control of Air Content in
Concrete,” National Cooperative Highway Research Program
Report 258, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC,
May 1983.
[32] Bae, J., Berke, N. S., Hoopes, R. J., and Malone, J., “Freezing and
Thawing Resistance of Concretes with Shrinkage Reducing
Admixtures,” Rilem Proceedings, PRO 24 Frost Resistance of
Concrete: From Nanostructure and Pore Solution to Macro-
scopic Behavior and Testing, 2002, pp. 327–333.
[33] Obla, K., Hill, R., and Sarkar, S. L., “Impact of Chemical Admix-
tures on Air-entrainment of High Performance Concrete,”
Rilem Proceedings, PRO Role of Admixtures in High Perfor-
mance Concrete, 1999, pp. 255–270.
[34] Attiogbe, E. K., Nmai, C. K., and Gay, F., “Air-Void System
Parameters and Freeze-thaw Durability of Concrete Containing
Superplasticizers,” Concrete International, Vol. 14, No. 7, 1992,
pp. 57–61.
[35] Okkenhaug, K. and Gjoerv, O. E., “Effect of Delayed Addition
of Air-Entraining Admixtures to Concrete,” Concrete Interna-
tional, Vol. 14, No. 10, 1992.
[36] Baalbaki, M. and Aitchin, P.C., “Cement-Superplasticizer-Air-
entraining Agent Compatibility,” ACI SP-148, 1994, pp. 47–62.
[37] Khayat, K., “Viscosity-Enhancing Admixtures for Cement-based
Materials—An Overview,” Cement Concrete Composites, Vol.
20, No. 2/3, 1998, pp. 171–188.
[38] Kim, M., Kwon, Y-J., Kang, S-P., Yeo, D-K., Kim, Y-R., and Jang,
J-H., “An Experimental Study on the Air-Void System and Frost
Resistance of High Flowing Concrete Using Viscosity Agent,”
Nonmunjip-Ch’ungnam Tashakkyo Sanop Kisul Yon’guso, Vol.
15, No. 10, 2000, pp. 203–210.
[39] Scripture, E. W., Jr., Hornibrook, F. B., and Bryant, D. E.,
“Influence of Size Grading of Sand on Air-entrainment,”
Journal, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI, Nov. 1948;
Proceedings, Vol. 45, pp. 217–228.
[40] Mather, K., “Crushed Limestone Aggregates for Concrete,”
Mining Engineering, Oct. 1953, pp. 1022–1028; Technical
Publication No. 36164, American Institute of Mining, Metallur-
gical, and Petroleum Engineers.
[41] Scripture, E. W., Jr. and Litwinowicz, F. J., “Some Factors
Affecting Air-entrainment,” Journal, American Concrete
Institute, Detroit, MI, Feb. 1949; Proceedings, Vol. 45,
pp. 433–442.
[42] Scripture, E. W., Jr., Benedict, S. W., and Litwinowicz, F. J.,
“Effect of Temperature and Surface Area of the Cement on
Air-entrainment,” Journal, American Concrete Institute, De-
troit, MI, Nov. 1951; Proceedings, Vol. 48, pp. 205–210.
[43] Wright, P. J. F., “Entrained Air in Concrete,” Proceedings,
Institute of Civil Engineers, London, Vol. 2, Part 1, May 1953,
pp. 337–358.
[44] Greening, N. R., “Some Causes for Variation in Required
Amount of Air-Entraining Agent in Portland Cement Mortars,”
Journal, PCA Research and Development Laboratories, May
1967; Bulletin No. 213, Research and Development Laborato-
ries, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IL.
[45] Marchand, J., Boisvert, L., Tremblay, S., Maltais, J., and Pigeon,
M., “ Air-Entrainment in No Slump Mixes,” Concrete Interna-
tional, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 38–44.
[46] Khayat, K., “Optimization and Performance of Air-Entrained
Self-Consolidating Concrete,” ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 97,
No. 5, 2000, pp. 526–535.
[47] Oyamada, T., Sato, T., Jiang, D., and Fujiwara, T., “Influence of
Air Content on Properties of High Fluidity Concrete,” Semento,
Konkurito Ronbunshu, Vol. 53, 1999, pp. 373–378.
[48] Beaupre, D., Lacombe, P., and Khayat, K. H., “Laboratory Inves-
tigation of Rheological Properties and Scaling Resistance of
Air-Entrained Self-Consolidating Concrete,” Materials and
Structures, Vol. 32, No. 217, 1999, pp. 235–240.
[49] Khayat, K. and Assaad, J., “Air-void Stability in Self-Consolidat-
ing Concrete,” ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 99, No. 4, 2002,
pp. 408–416.
[50] Persson, B., “Internal Frost Resistance and Salt Frost Scaling of
Self-Compacting Concrete,” Cement and Concrete Research,
Vol. 33, No. 3, 2003, pp. 373–379.
[51] Tokuhashi, K., Aba, M., and Shoya, M., “Frost Resistance and
Air-Void System of Self-Compacting Concrete with Fine Slag
Aggregates,” Semento, Konkurito Ronbunshu, Vol. 55, 2001,
pp. 507–512.
[52] Mather, B., Discussion of “Investigations Relating to the Use of
Fly Ash as a Pozzolanic Material and as an Admixture in Port-
land-Cement Concrete,” Proceedings, ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA, Vol. 54, pp. 1159–1164.
[53] Malhotra, V. M. and Carette, G. G., “Silica Fume Concrete—
Properties, Applications, and Limitations,” Concrete Interna-
tional, May 1983.
 JEKNAVORIAN ON AIR-ENTRAINING ADMIXTURES
[54] “Ground Granulated Blast-Furnace Slag as a Cementitious
Constituent in Concrete,” ACI 226.1R-87, American Concrete
Institute, Detroit, MI, 1987 (now ACI 233).
[55] Gebler, S. and Klieger, P., “Effect of Fly Ash on the Air-Void Sta-
bility of Concrete,” Fly Ash, Silica Fume, Slag and Other Mineral
By-Products in Concrete, SP-79, American Concrete Institute,
Detroit, MI, 1983.
[56] “Use of Fly Ash in Concrete,” ACI 226.3R-87, American Concrete
Institute, Detroit, MI, 1987 (now ACI 232).
[57] Kulaots, I., Hsu, A., Hurt, R., and Suuberg, E., “Adsorption of
Surfactants on Unburned Carbon in Fly Ash and Development
of a Standardized Foam Index Test,” Cement and Concrete
Research, Vol. 33, 2003, pp. 2091–2099.
[58] Baltrus, J. P., LaCount, R. B., and Kern, D. G., “Relationships
Between Foam Index, AEA Adsorption and Unburned Carbon
Content of Coal-Combustion Fly Ash,” ACS Division of Fuel
Chemistry Symposia, Vol. 46 No. 1, 2001, pp. 304–305.
[59] Scripture, E. W., Jr. and Litwinowicz, F. J., “Effects of Mixing
Time, Size of Batch, and Brand of Cement on Air-entrainment,”
Journal, American Concrete Institute, May 1949; Proceedings,
Vol. 45, pp. 653–662.
[60] Higginson, E. C., “Some Effects of Vibration and Handling on
Concrete Containing Entrained Air,” Journal, American
Concrete Institute, Sept. 1952; Proceedings, Vol. 49, pp. 1–12.
[61] R&T Update Concrete Pavement and Research Technology, No.
4.05, May 2003.
483
[62] Magura, D. D., “Evaluation of the Air-Void Analyzer,” Concrete
International, Vol. 18, No. 8, 1996, pp. 55–59.
[63] Snyder, K. A. and Clifton, J. R., “Measures of Air-Void Spacing,”
Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift–Hochschule fuer Architektur
und Bauwesen Weimar-Universitaet, Vol. 40, No. 5/6/8, 1994,
pp. 155–158.
[64] Attiogbe, E. K. and Snyder, K., “Influence of Measurement
Technique on the Air-Void Structure of Hardened Concrete,”
ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 93, No. 5, 1996, pp. 510–512.
[65] Pleau, R., Pigeon, M., and Laurencot, J-L., “Some Findings on
the Usefulness of Image Analysis for Determining the Charac-
teristics of the Air-Void System on Hardened Concrete,”
Cement Concrete Composites, Vol. 23, No. 2/3, 2001,
pp. 237–246.
[66] Dequiedt, A-S., Coster, M., Chermant, L., and Chermant, J-L.,
“Distances Between Air-Voids in Concrete by Automatic
Methods,” Cement Concrete Composites, Vol. 23, No. 2/3, 2001,
pp. 247–254.
[67] Peterson, K., Sutter, L., and VanDam, T., “Air-Void Analysis of
Hardened Concrete with a High Resolution Flatbed Scanner,”
Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Cement
Microscopy, 2002, pp. 304–316.
[68] Pade, C., Jakobsen, U. H., and Elsen, J., “A New Automatic
Analysis System for Analyzing the Air-Void System in Hardened
Concrete,” Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on
Cement Microscopy, 2002, pp. 204–213.
42
Chemical Admixtures
Bruce J. Christensen1 and Hamid Farzam2
Preface
THE FIRST EDITION OF THE CHAPTER ON “CHEMICAL
Admixtures” was issued in 1966 and was prepared by Dr. Bruce
Foster [1]. The chapter in ASTM STP 169B [2], published in
1978, was an updating of Dr. Foster’s paper prepared by Bryant
Mather. In 1994, the chapter was again updated by Bryant
Mather and appeared in ASTM STP 169C [3]. In the preparation
of this chapter, the contents of the previous editions were drawn
upon and some duplication of information from the previous
edition exists. We acknowledge the authors of the previous edi-
tions and their contributions to the literature on this topic. The
current edition will update the topics addressed previously, pro-
vide up to date references, and focus primarily on new tech-
nologies that have been developed. The review period has been
limited to contributions made during the last decade. Attempts
have been made to uncover all relevant research, but undoubt-
edly, important research may not be covered or may be un-
knowingly omitted in this review.
This discussion is limited to certain features of chemical
admixtures regarded as most appropriate to the scope of this
volume. For a more comprehensive review of knowledge in
this field, reference should be made to the following additional
works:
a. In 1991, the American Concrete Institute (ACI) published
its most recent report of its Committee 212 on Admixtures
for Concrete, entitled “Chemical Admixtures for Concrete”
(ACI 212.3R-91) [4].
b. In 1993, Committee 212 published its most recent report
on Superplasticizers for Concrete, entitled “Guide for the
Use of High-Range Water-Reducing Admixtures (Super-
plasticizers) in Concrete” (ACI 212.4R-93) [5].
c. In 1995, V. S. Ramachandran published the second edition
of the Concrete Admixtures Handbook: Properties, Sci-
ence, and Technology [6].
d. In 2002, the Portland Cement Association published the
fourteenth edition of Design and Control of Concrete
Mixtures, where Chapter 6 discusses Chemical Admix-
tures [7].
e. In 2003, ACI published the most recent report of its Com-
mittee E-701 on Materials for Concrete Construction, enti-
tled Chemical Admixtures for Concrete (ACI E4-03) [8].
1
Group Manager, Admixture Product Development, Degussa Construction Chemicals, Master Builders Inc., Beachwood, OH 44122.
2
Vice President, Product Development and Quality, Cemex USA, Houston, TX 77024.
484
Introduction
Most chemical admixtures react chemically with the cement in
concrete. The reports of unfavorable behavior of some admix-
tures with certain cements and under certain conditions of
use are counterbalanced by a record of successful use under
controlled conditions in many concreting operations. How-
ever, when experience with specific admixture-cement combi-
nations under similar job conditions is not available, tests
with specific materials should precede a decision for use in
construction.
The use of chemical admixtures has become an integral
part of everyday concrete production. Newer levels of concrete
performance are now possible that previously were not [9–12].
Economic benefits are available for the concrete producer by
the use of chemical admixtures, creating a win-win situation
for manufacturer and user [13].
Many of the admixtures currently have a valid ASTM speci-
fication (refer to the 2003 edition of the Annual Book of ASTM
Standards [14–22]) by which to demonstrate conformance
against. Many of the newer admixtures, though, do not and
various levels of activity in committee are underway to develop
them. It seems prudent that this document should discuss both
categories of chemical admixtures, as both are currently used
in the field.
Types of Materials and Their Action
in Concrete
Admixtures Currently With an ASTM
Specification
Water-Reducing and Set-Retarding
Admixtures
Water-reducing admixtures may be used in at least three
different ways: (1) to produce concrete with a lower water to
cementitious materials ratio (w/cm); with no change in cement
content or slump; (2) to produce a higher slump, with no
change in cement content or w/cm; or (3) to produce concrete
with reduced cement content, with no change in w/cm or
slump. In the first case, the usual benefits accruing from the
use of a lower w/cm normally will be obtained, and, in many
 CHRISTENSEN AND FARZAM ON CHEMICAL ADMIXTURES
cases an increase in strength greater than that normally
produced by the reduction in w/cm alone may result. In
the second application, easier placing of concrete may be
obtained. In the third application, a reduced cost should result.
Set-retarding admixtures may be used in at least two
different ways: (1) to delay the time of setting, and (2) improve
compressive strength development. In the first case, the benefits
are typically realized when concrete temperatures are greater
than room temperature. In the second case, the benefits are
from changes in the chemical hydration and not necessarily
from additional water reduction.
Materials used as conventional set-retarding and/or water-
reducing admixtures are some of the following: (1) lignosulfonic
acids and their salts; (2) modifications and derivatives of ligno-
sulfonic acids and their salts; (3) hydroxylated carboxylic acids
and their salts; and (4) modifications and derivatives of hydroxy-
lated carboxylic acids and their salts. In each of these, the
primary component has both water-reducing and set-retarding
properties. In the formulation of products of Classes 2 and 4,
these admixtures may be modified by the addition of other com-
ponents to give various degrees of retardation, no significant
change in setting time, or acceleration, while at the same time
preserving the water-reducing properties. They also may be
modified by the addition of an air-entraining admixture. The
water reduction resulting from the use of conventional water-
reducing admixtures is typically from 5–12 % [8]. A part of the
water reduction found with lignosulfonate water-reducers may
be the result of the additional air entrained by these materials.
In addition to varying with the particular cement employed, the
amount of water reduction by a given admixture is also
influenced by dosage, cement content, type of aggregate, and the
presence of other admixtures, such as air-entraining agents or
pozzolans. Water-reducing admixtures are effective with all
types of portland cement, portland blast-furnace slag cement,
portland-pozzolan cement, and high-alumina cement.
The extent of retardation in time of setting caused by
retarders depends on the cement characteristics, the tempera-
ture, the admixture dosage, and other factors. Overdosage
may produce times of setting in excess of 24 h or more, but
in such cases, if the concrete finally sets and has been pro-
tected from drying, ultimate strengths developed may be
satisfactory if forms are left in place for a sufficient length of
time. Severe overdosage of lignosulfonate admixtures may
produce excessive air contents and consequently reduced
strength. Lignosulfonate water-reducing retarders usually
entrain 2–3 % of air when used in normal dosages. The hy-
droxylated carboxylic admixtures do not entrain air. How-
ever, both classes of material enhance the effectiveness of air-
entraining admixtures from the standpoint of volume of air
produced, so that less air-entraining admixture may be re-
quired when added to concrete containing one of these other
admixtures. It is important to note that while the air-void
spacing obtained with water-reducing retarders is slightly
greater than that for an equivalent amount of entrained air
produced by typical air-entraining admixtures, the perform-
ance of concrete containing water-reducing retarders, as
measured by freezing and thawing tests, often has been found
to be better than concrete of the same air content, but with-
out the water-reducing retarders. This increase might be the
result of the reduction in w/cm.
Contrary to expectations, water-reducing retarders usually
have not been found effective in reducing slump loss resulting
from substantial delays in placing mixed concrete. The use of
485
retarders with some cements may actually produce an early stiff-
ening. The outcome may be highly dependent on the chemistry
of both the cement and the set-retarding admixture used [23].
The effects of molecular weight fractionation on the
retardation and dispersing efficiency of lignosulfonates have
been reported [24–26]. Reknes and Gustaffsson [24] found that
the high molecular weight fractions of a softwood sodium
lignosulfonate obtained from the sulfite process gave better
dispersing efficiency and slump retention, as well as less retar-
dation, than the low molecular weight fraction. Maximum
achievable water reductions were increased from 10–20 %.
Zhor and coworkers [25,26] reported investigations on a
methylsulponated organosolv lignin that was also fractionated.
They found that the minimum level of retardation occurred at
the maximum molecular weight, but an optimum in dispersing
performance was observed in the middle of the molecular
weight range.
Accelerating Admixtures
Accelerators have their primary application in cold weather
concreting. They may be used to permit earlier starting of
finishing operations. They reduce the time required for curing
and permit earlier removal of forms because of more rapid
early-strength development.
The accelerating admixture that is most widely used is
calcium chloride [27]. The addition of recommended amounts
of calcium chloride, which are typically 1–2 % by cement
weight, has been found to reduce the water requirement by a
small amount over that required to produce the same slump
with no calcium chloride added. The magnitude of the effect
of calcium chloride on time of setting depends on the dosage,
the particular cement used, the temperature, and other factors.
The recommended maximum dosage has a substantial effect
on time of setting at normal temperatures and can produce a
very rapid set at high temperatures, as is also the case with a
very large dosage at normal temperatures.
Calcium chloride does not entrain air but its use enhances
the effectiveness of air-entraining admixtures so less air-
entraining admixture is required for a given air content.
Calcium chloride may result in early stiffening and in many
cases, therefore, is not added until after mixing has com-
menced. Calcium chloride used at maximum dosages can
affect the color of the hardened concrete.
The addition of calcium chloride to reinforced concrete
has the potential to promote corrosion. As such, other non-
chloride accelerators are used in applications where corrosion
of embedded steel is a concern. Common materials are inor-
ganic sodium or calcium salts of nitrites, nitrates, thiocyanates
and thiosulfates [6], of which thiocyanates are the only class
with a potential for promoting corrosion. At the dosages used
in commercial accelerators, though, they have been shown not
to promote corrosion [28]. Alkali metal salts are very rapid
accelerators and often used in shotcreting applications [29,30].
Lithium-based salts are commonly used to accelerate calcium
aluminate cements [31]. Other materials are organic accelera-
tors, such as triethanolamine or calcium formate.
Nonchloride accelerators, such as nitrites, nitrates, and
thiocyanates are most effective at temperatures below 21°C,
performing much better at 5–10°C [6,32,33]. ASTM C 494
specification for Type C admixtures requires testing at nomi-
nally 21°C, which does not fully elucidate the effectiveness of
these materials. Consideration should be given to testing these
admixtures under more appropriate conditions [34].
486 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
High-Range Water-Reducing Admixtures
(HRWR)
High-range water-reducing (HRWR) admixtures were added to
ASTM C 494 in 1980 and their use to produce flowing concrete
is covered by ASTM C 1017, adopted in 1985. They have been
used to produce high-strength concrete by taking advantage of
their ability to substantially lower the w/cm. Alternatively, they
can be used to produce “flowing” concrete (200 mm slump)
or self-consolidating concrete (550–750 mm slump flow)
discussed in Chapter 58. Early generation HRWRs based on
melamine or some versions of naphthalene generally had poor
workability retention, often requiring addition of the HRWR at
the job site. New generation HRWRs often maintain adequate
workability retention over time, thereby they may be added at
the batch plant.
The addition of HRWRs to air-entrained concrete may in-
crease the spacing factor and decrease the specific surface area
of the air-void system [5]. However, a reduction in the resist-
ance of such concretes to freezing and thawing has not been
observed, provided the spacing factor is generally not more
than double the maximum recommended limit [35]. Some
reduction in resistance to salt scaling has been observed with
concrete exhibiting increased spacing factors [7], but on other
occasions concrete with poor air void systems has performed
adequately [36]. Nevertheless, it would be prudent to evaluate
the effect of a specific high-range water reducer on the frost
resistance of a concrete mixture if this is a significant factor for
the application of the concrete.
Seven CANMET/ACI Symposia have been held on the topic
of Superplasticizers and Other Chemical Admixtures to date
[37]. This document focuses exclusively on the developments
that have been discussed during the last four meetings, which
covers the period from 1994 to 2003.
The most significant new development in HRWRs in the last
decade has been the introduction of a class of materials known
as polycarboxylate ethers (PCE) [38–50]. These polymers consist
of an ionic backbone grafted with pendant nonionic side chains.
These polymers provide dispersion by means of both electro-
static and steric repulsion, the latter of the two believed to be the
dominant mechanism [51,52]. As a result, these polymers are
highly efficient dispersants, typically 2 to 3 times more effective
on a mass basis than naphthalene or melamine-based HRWRs,
and exhibit excellent workability retention. Water reduction is
essentially linear with increasing dosage of polymer and can
exceed 40 %. Another advantage of this dose efficiency is the
lack of retardation with these polymers, since less of the surface
of the cement grain is covered with adsorbed polymer.
Another key aspect to the performance benefits of the
PCEs is the ability to tailor the polymer to the needs of specific
applications. Modifications to conventional HRWRs are lim-
ited primarily to changes in overall molecular weight or
substitutions of other monomers [53,54]. Variations to the
structures of PCEs, on the other hand, are considerable and of-
ten result in a performance difference when used in concrete
[55–57]. Variations in length and graft density of the side
chains, charge density in the backbone, and molecular weight
of the overall polymer are all examples of molecular modifi-
cations that can affect such performance characteristics as
early strength development, time of setting, workability reten-
tion and viscosity of the cementitious system. Additional func-
tional chemistries, such as shrinkage-reducing admixtures, can
be grafted to the polymer to provide further enhanced per-
formance [58].
The primary disadvantage of the PCEs is a propensity to
entrain some amount of air in the absence of an air-entraining
agent. The amount of air entrained increases with increasing
dosage, similar to a lignosulfonate. This is the result of the
surfactant-like structure of the polymer, namely a hydrophopic
backbone with hydrophilic side chains. To offset this defi-
ciency, many commercial products are formulated with
defoamers or other components to minimize air entrainment.
Admixtures Currently Without an ASTM
Specification
Mid-Range Water-Reducing Admixtures
(MRWR)
Mid-range water-reducing (MRWR) admixtures were first
introduced to the market in the mid-1980s [59,60]. The first
generation products contained lignosulfonate as the primary
dispersing component. The retardation, which typically
increased as the dosage of water reducer increased, was offset
by the additions of the appropriate amount and type of accel-
erating additives. Newer generation admixture formulations
may contain polycarboxylate ethers as the primary dispersants.
It is possible to achieve water reduction levels of 5–12 % or
more with these admixtures or slump levels of 125–200 mm.
MRWRs are also noted for the improvements they provide to
the workability of the concrete. Pumping pressures have been
shown to decrease by the addition of these admixtures [59].
The finishing characteristics of the concrete containing
MRWRs are improved, making these admixtures highly
desirable for flat work applications [61].
At this time, there is no ASTM specification for MRWRs.
Most are certified to meet the requirements of a Type A,
whereas some are able to meet the requirements of a Type F.
There was considerable effort put forth in ASTM Committee
C09.23.3 in the late 1990s and into the early 2000s to develop
a specification for these types of admixtures. First efforts were
to develop a modified version of ASTM C 1017, where the
target slump was adjusted down from 215 mm (
25 mm) to a
value of 150 mm (
12 mm). The time of setting and compres-
sive strength of the MRWRs were compared against that of a
Type A water reducer. It was found that it was not possible to
adequately differentiate the MRWRs from a Type A based on
these characteristics. The next efforts were again to use an ap-
proach based on ASTM C 1017, where the starting slump was
decreased from 100 mm to 50 mm and increasing dosages of
the admixtures were used to increase the slump while moni-
toring the time of setting. This was continued until differences
in the time of setting as a function of slump increase were ob-
served. No differences in setting time at a fixed slump increase
were observed until the retardation levels were on the order of
2.5 h beyond a control, which were well beyond the 1.5-h limit
in the standard. The final efforts focused on using the differ-
ences in finishing characteristics as a means of distinguishing
the MRWRs from Type A water reducers. Data collected using
a finishing machine [61] were inconclusive and the pursuit of
a specification was abandoned.
Corrosion-Inhibiting Admixtures (CIA)
Steel reinforcing bars embedded in concrete form a passive
oxide film, due to the high pH created by hydroxyl ions. This
oxide film can be destroyed by a sufficiently high concentra-
tion of chloride ions or because of a decrease in pH from car-
bonation, resulting in corrosion. The products of the corrosion
 CHRISTENSEN AND FARZAM ON CHEMICAL ADMIXTURES
reactions create a volume expansion, causing cracking and
spalling of the concrete structure. Reduction in chlorides or
water ingress can be achieved by a number of approaches.
Addition of mineral admixtures decreases the permeability of
the concrete internally, while surface sealers or membranes
will limit penetration at the surface. Neither of these ap-
proaches may be sufficient, though, if a crack forms from the
surface, providing a low resistance pathway for the chloride
ions to the steel.
Chemical admixtures are another means for delaying or
eliminating the onset of corrosion in concrete structures.
HRWRs can reduce the w/cm, thereby decreasing the perme-
ability of the structure. In addition, the use of corrosion-
inhibiting admixtures (CIA) has been shown to be effective
[62–65]. One classification method is to define the CIAs by
their chemical nature, namely whether they are inorganic, or-
ganic, or vapor-phase. The more common method is to classify
them by the electrochemical reaction that they predominantly
affect, which are the anodic or cathodic reaction, or both
(mixed). Some CIAs can be applied topically [65,66], though
the majority of the literature discusses the use of integral CIAs.
Calcium nitrite is one of the most widely used CIAs and is
believed to act as an anodic inhibitor [70]. Typical dosages range
from 5–30 L/m3 of concrete for a 30 % solution. It also acceler-
ates hydration and must be used in combination with a retard-
ing admixture to achieve acceptable times of setting under
summer conditions. It has been reported to meet the require-
ments for an ASTM C 494 Type C – Accelerating Admixture [67].
Alkanolamines are also used in formulating CIAs [65]. Spe-
cific details are not readily available in the literature, as these
compounds are components in many proprietary CIA formu-
lations. Brown et al. reported on the performance of these
materials [68,69] and compared them to calcium nitrite and
other organic CIAs.
Nmai et al. [70] discussed an organic-based CIA, consisting
of a mixture of amines and esters in a water medium. The ad-
mixture was characterized as a mixed inhibitor and has a rec-
ommended dosage of 5 L/m3 of concrete. It imparts corrosion
protection by a dual mechanism: (1) inhibition by amine tech-
nology already used in the petrochemical industry, and (2) pro-
tection by film formation on steel reinforcing bar from fatty es-
ters. Tests with precracked concrete beams subjected to
chloride ponding showed significantly longer times to corro-
sion for samples treated with this organic inhibitor than those
treated with calcium nitrite.
Tourney and Berke [71] discussed the need for an ASTM
specification for a corrosion-inhibiting admixture. Their con-
tention was that specifications like ASTM C 494 are designed
primarily to demonstrate harmlessness and do not evaluate the
performance of the CIA for what it is claimed to do—delay or
prevent corrosion. In 2003, the final form of a specification
was approved at the main committee of C09 and is due for
publication in 2004. A key aspect of the specification is the
requirement that the amount of chloride required to initiate
corrosion must be higher in the presence of the CIA than in
its absence. Therefore, materials that only slow the rate of
chloride ingress will not meet the specification.
Admixtures for Suppressing Alkali-Silica
Reactions
The deleterious effects of alkali-silica reaction (ASR) are well
known [72–89] and expounded on in Chapter 34 of this volume.
In short, the reaction requires two main components: (1) reac-
487
tive siliceous aggregate, and (2) a sufficient concentration of hy-
droxyl ions, i.e., high pH. Since sodium and potassium oxides
are the main species affecting the pH of the pore solution, the
latter requirement is met by the presence of soluble alkalis.
Sources of the alkali can be internal—cement, aggregate or poz-
zolan, or external—seawater, deicing salts or the like. The alkali-
silica reaction itself is not destructive. The product of the reac-
tion, though, is a gel that is susceptible to swelling in the
presence of water. Due to the low tensile strength of concrete,
the expansion forces generated by this swelling can result in
cracking and spalling [73].
Various strategies have been employed to mitigate or sup-
press ASR [72]. The first is to eliminate reactive aggregates
from the cementitious mixture. Good quality aggregate is not
available in many regions and it is often economically or physi-
cally impractical to ship in appropriate aggregates. Another
approach is the use of mineral admixtures, namely low-alkali
pozzolanic materials like metakaolin, class F fly ash or silica
fume, as well as hydraulic materials like ground granulated
blast furnace slag. All have been shown to provide reduction in
expansion [72]. Class F fly ash has been stated to be the most
cost effective approach, but may not completely mitigate ASR
in some instances [72].
Two primary classes of chemical admixtures are discussed
in the literature to mitigate ASR. The first is the use of air-
entraining admixtures (AEAs). This approach is somewhat
effective but has created concerns that the air voids cannot
provide sufficient space for both the expansive gel and an
advancing ice front when used in freeze-thaw environments
[72,74]. The second is the use of lithium salts, i.e., LiOH, LiCl,
Li2CO3, LiNO3. There have been numerous reports on the abil-
ity of these materials to virtually eliminate expansion due to
ASR over long periods of time [75–83]. The preferred salt form
in most instances is LiNO3. This is primarily because it does not
exhibit a concentration that must be exceeded to prevent
expansion, referred to as the pessimum limit. Compounds such
as LiOH2 will increase the pH of the pore solution and can
actually cause expansion if an insufficient amount is used [84].
LiNO3 has also been shown to have insignificant effects on the
plastic and hardened properties of either air or non air-
entrained concrete when used at the dosages typically required
for ASR suppression [85].
The recommended dosage of lithium is based on the alkali
content of the cement and a molar ratio of [Li]/[NaK]0.7 to
0.8 should be exceeded [77]. This translates to dosages in the
range of 3–5 L/m3 of a 30 % solution of LiNO3. Combinations of
class F fly ash and LiNO3 have been shown to be particularly ef-
fective, both from an economic and technical perspective [72].
Yet another approach to minimize ASR is to limit the
ingress of water into the structure. This is typically a strategy
used for existing structures that do not contain concrete
designed to address the potential for ASR. Application of
lithium salt solutions to the exteriors of structures has only
been marginally successful. Another approach is to dry the
surface of the structure and apply a sealer to prevent addi-
tional ingress of moisture.
No ASTM specification exists at this time for these admix-
tures, though a task group has been formed to develop one.
The primary focus of the group is to develop an acceptable test
method from which to develop specifications for expansion.
The current ASTM C 1260 method requires some modification,
especially to prevent leaching of lithium salt from the mortar
bar during testing. This is potentially being addressed by
488 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
addition of lithium salt to the sodium hydroxide bath during
testing [86]. Modifications to the molds are also potentially
required to address issues discussed by Ong and Diamond [87].
An AASHTO method that is similar to ASTM C 1260 is of
relevance, as well [88].
Viscosity-Modifying and Anti-washout
Admixtures
Many applications for concrete (underwater concreting, for
example) require that the mixture remain highly cohesive dur-
ing transport, pumping, placing and prior to setting. Sufficient
cohesion may not always be achieved by mixture proportion-
ing alone. Concrete contains cementitious materials, which are
fine powders and can therefore easily be washed out of the
concrete mixture during placement in water or in the presence
of moving water. In this application, the viscosity-modifying
admixture (VMA) acts as an anti-washout admixture (AWA).
Another application is in the production of self-consolidating
concrete (SCC) discussed in more detail in Chapter 58. These
mixtures are highly fluid, yet must remain stable—i.e., resist
segregation in both a dynamic and static state, until hardened.
Early approaches to maintaining stability and minimizing
bleeding were to increase the proportion of fine materials
(cement, sand, filler, etc.) in the mixture. These mixtures are
more susceptible to creep and shrinkage [90]. In contrast, ad-
dition of a VMA makes it possible to use a more conventional
mixture design, while still maintaining the desired stability.
Organic versions of these admixtures are based on a
number of different chemistries [91–98]. One class is the natu-
ral polymers. These include such materials as polysaccharide
gums (welan, xanthan, etc.), starches (potato, corn, etc.), and
proteins. A second class is semi-synthetic polymers like cellu-
lose ether-based materials (hydroxy methyl, hydroxyl propyl,
carboxymethyl, etc.). A third class is the synthetic polymers like
polyethylene glycols, polyvinyl alcohols, or polyacrylamides.
Inorganic versions can include swelling clays (bentonite), as
well as high surface area materials like silica fume or colloidal
silica [99].
Some of the materials impart cohesiveness by binding
water, thereby increasing the viscosity of the water phase. Oth-
ers, like gums, are believed to affect the interaction between ce-
ment grains through polymer entanglement and hydrogen
bonding, thereby increasing the viscosity of the mixture [91].
Yet others, such as silica fume, significantly increase the sur-
face area of the mixture and the physical binding of the water.
Bury et al. [100] discussed a modified cellulosic polymer
in the form of a fluidized suspension that binds the free water,
minimizing bleeding and imparting viscosity modification. Use
of the polymer as an AWA decreased the mass loss to roughly
one-tenth of the amount lost in the absence of the AWA. Unlike
some other cellulose ethers [101], this particular polymer
exhibited little change in time of setting from the control
mixture.
Khayat and coworkers have published extensively on the
effects of VMAs on the plastic and hardened properties of
concrete [102–108]. In one study, it was found that the use of
welan gum or HPMC lowered the flexural strength by 10–30 %
and gave similar or slightly better compressive strength
relative to reference concrete. In another study, it was found
that the resistance to freezing and thawing cycles of concrete
containing VMA was acceptable. The best air void system was
obtained when the AEA was added after the VMA and a HRWR
were added.
At this time, there is no ASTM specification for VMAs. The
need for a specification has been discussed at recent meetings,
but no activity has occurred to date. Many of the materials
mentioned above have been tested in a manner consistent with
ASTM C 494, with no water reduction taken into account, and
found to be harmless to the concrete properties.
Shrinkage-Reducing Admixtures (SRA)
One of the mechanisms of cracking in concrete is volume
change due to drying shrinkage. One means of minimizing this
type of shrinkage, and subsequently the tendency of structures
to crack, is by the use of a shrinkage-reducing admixture (SRA).
These materials first appeared in Japan in the early 1980s and
the US patent literature in the mid-1980s [109]. The admixtures
consist primarily of low molecular weight polyoxyalkylene
aklyl ethers. They are liquids at room temperature and soluble
in aqueous systems and some hydrocarbon solvents. Typically
they are treated as water in the cementitious mixture, so the
amount of added mix water is reduced by the amount of SRA
used. Dosages of 0.75–2 % by cement weight are used resulting
in typical reductions in unrestrained drying shrinkage of as
much as 80 %.
The primary mechanism of action of these materials is the
reduction of capillary tension inside the pores that develops
during drying [110]. This tension pulls on the interior walls of
the pores, resulting in shrinkage of the bulk specimen. The
reduction in capillary tension is achieved by decreasing the
surface tension of the water in the pores, which results by
addition of the SRA to the mixtures. Pore sizes in the range of
a few to tens of nanometers are believed to be the main sizes
contributing to shrinkage [110].
Additions of SRAs have been shown to decrease the com-
pressive strength of concrete at 28 days by up to 15 % [111]. This
can be offset best by using a water reducer to decrease the w/cm
and still maintaining workability. Depending on the specific
chemistry of the SRA, a slight increase in air content of 0.5–1 %
can be observed on occasion [109], as well as some retardation
of time of setting [112]. It has also been reported that because
these materials affect the surface tension of the pore water, they
can potentially impede the ability of an air-entraining admix-
ture (AEA) to develop an adequate air-void system [113]. As
such, the resistance of concrete containing a SRA to freezing
and thawing cycles can be negatively impacted. This is espe-
cially true when the SRA is used in combination with a rosin-
based AEA and a naphthalene-based HRWR [114]. Kamimoto et
al. [113] showed that the resistance of concrete to freezing and
thawing cycles could be improved by delaying the addition of
the SRA versus adding it initially to the mixing water.
Despite the lack of an ASTM specification [111] and some
of the disadvantages discussed above, SRAs are now finding
widespread usage in concrete applications in Japan and North
America [115–117]. Shah et al. [118–120] have published a num-
ber of works on the benefits of this class of admixtures. See et
al. [121] have demonstrated the benefits of an SRA using ring
tests, where both the shrinkage rate and shrinkage potential
were decreased in mixtures containing the admixture. Tests by
the Hawaii Department of Transportation reported positive
benefits in the field when used in a bridge application [122].
Cold Weather Admixtures
Accelerating admixtures have been discussed and are used to
increase the rate of hydration, particularly as the concrete tem-
perature approaches the freezing point of water. While these
 CHRISTENSEN AND FARZAM ON CHEMICAL ADMIXTURES
materials accelerate time of setting and early strength devel-
opment, they do not necessarily prevent the concrete from
freezing. When temperatures below the freezing point of water
are experienced, additional precautions may be necessary to
ensure that the concrete does not freeze and cease to gain
strength. Examples of traditional approaches to minimizing
the potential for freezing are: (1) heating the concrete before
leaving the batch plant, (2) using higher cement contents
and/or Type III cements, and (3) heating and insulating the
area of placement. Option 1 can increase the potential for plas-
tic shrinkage cracking [123], while in-place costs using Option
3 can be twice that of summer concreting [124].
Another approach is the use of cold weather admixtures
(CWA), sometimes referred to as antifreeze or freezing-
protection admixtures. CWAs have a dual mechanism of
action: they depress the freezing point of the pore solution and
accelerate hydration of the cement. Most of the chemicals that
are used are inorganic salts that exhibit eutectic (easily
dissolved) temperatures significantly below 0°C [6]. Organic
materials such as propylene glycol are also mentioned [125].
Senbetta and Scanlon [28] discussed test results of con-
crete containing a CWA that would prevent the concrete from
freezing at temperatures as low as 20°F (7°C). The CWA was
found to meet the requirements of ASTM C 494 for Types C
and E. Because the admixture contains sodium thiocyanate, it
was evaluated for its effect on corrosion of steel and was found
not to promote corrosion at a dosage of 8L/100 kg of cement.
Korhonen and Brook [126] documented a more comprehen-
sive study on this commercial CWA. Similar work on another
commercial admixture and a developmental product was
published the following year [127].
Farrington and Christensen [128] have recently published
results on a further improvement to the original CWA devel-
oped by Brook et al. [129]. Concrete was batched at 11–13°C
and cured at temperatures as low as 11°C. Acceptable times
of setting and early compressive strength development were
possible with combinations of the CWA and a HRWR. Korho-
nen and coworkers [124–127,130–132] have published exten-
sively on the performance of CWAs and the benefits of using
them for cold weather concreting. Additional studies have
been conducted in Japan [133], as well as field data reported
by Nmai [134].
Most CWAs will meet the requirements for ASTM C 494
Type C and/or E. As such, the harmlessness of the material
with regard to the parameters of the standard is demon-
strated. At this time, though, there is not a specification for a
CWA that demonstrates its ability to provide freezing point
depression. Therefore, a new section, ASTM C09.23.5, has re-
cently been created to oversee the development of an appro-
priate test method and specification for this class of chemical
admixtures.
Hydration Controlling Admixtures (HCA)
The production of ready-mixed concrete results in waste from
wash water and returned plastic concrete. Disposal of these
materials is an economic burden for the producer, as well as an
environmental concern for the surrounding community. Reuse
of the material into freshly batched concrete generally results in
accelerated hydration and slump loss, making its use impracti-
cal in many instances. One means of making this waste concrete
reusable is with the use of a hydration-controlling admixture
(HCA), sometimes referred to as a hydration-stabilizing or
extended-setting admixture.
489
HCAs are retarding admixtures that act on all the cement
phases to delay hydration, in contrast to conventional sugar-
based retarders, which act primarily on the silicate phases
[135]. Hydration can be arrested for weeks at a time with an
HCA, if desired, and then when the effect of the HCA wears off,
setting and strength development proceed as normal. Hydra-
tion that is still arrested by an HCA can be re-activated by the
addition of an accelerating admixture meeting the require-
ments of ASTM C 494 Type C. This attribute is particularly use-
ful for long hauls, overnight or weekend stabilization of plastic
concrete. High dosages of conventional retarding admixtures,
on the other hand, can permanently arrest hydration and make
the concrete unusable. They can also cause rapid stiffening,
exhibiting similar signs to flash or false setting.
Dosage rates of HCA, and the corresponding amounts of
accelerator to reactivate, are highly variable and depend on a
number of factors [136]. These include the age of the concrete,
length of stabilization time required, temperature of the con-
crete, and time of setting required after reactivation, etc. HCAs
are formulated using carboxylic acids and/or phosphorus-
containing organic acids and/or their respective salt forms
[6,140].
Senbetta and Scanlon [28] reported that concrete in which
an HCA was used and reactivated after 18 h of storage, when
tested for resistance to freezing and thawing, gave equally good
results as concrete not so treated. The same HCA was studied
by Senbetta and Dolch [138] for effects on paste as revealed by
X-ray diffraction, thermogravimetric analysis, differential ther-
mal analysis, scanning electron microscopy, and determination
of nonevaporable water content, surface area, and pore size
distribution. No significant differences between treated and
untreated pastes were noted. Additional studies by Ragan and
Gay [139], as well as many others [140–143], have showed the
utility of these admixtures and the general lack of degradation
in properties of the stabilized concrete once activated.
No specific ASTM category exists for HCAs. Most commer-
cial products meet the requirements for ASTM C 494 Type B or
Type D. No recent discussion has occurred in the ASTM C09.23
subcommittee around the need for a separate specification.
Other Chemical Admixtures
Other types of admixtures not discussed in this document
include gas-forming admixtures, grouting admixtures, expan-
sion-producing admixtures, bonding admixtures, flocculating
admixtures, fungicidal, germicidal, and insecticidal admix-
tures, damp-proofing admixtures, permeability-reducing
admixtures, and color-conditioning admixtures. Air-entraining
admixtures are discussed in a previous chapter of this book,
hence are not discussed here, as well.
Acknowledgment
We appreciate the efforts of Laura Holland, Librarian, and
Peggy Enderle, Administrative Assistant, in securing the refer-
ences for this document and assisting with the bibliography.
References
[1] Foster, B. E., “Chemical Admixtures,” Significance of Tests and
Properties of Concrete and Concrete-Making Materials, ASTM
STP 169A, ASTM International, West Conshohocken. PA, 1966,
pp. 556–564.
490 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
[2] Mather, B., “Chemical Admixtures,” Significance of Tests and
Properties of Concrete and Concrete-Making Materials, ASTM
STP 169B, ASTM International, West Conshohocken. PA, 1978,
pp. 823–835.
[3] Mather, B., “Chemical Admixtures,” Significance of Tests and
Properties of Concrete and Concrete-Making Materials, ASTM
STP 169C, ASTM International, West Conshohocken. PA, 1994,
pp. 734–746.
[4] 212.3R-04 – Chemical Admixtures for Concrete, 2004.
[5] 212.4R-04 – Guide for the Use of High-Range Water-Reducing
Admixtures (Superplasticizers) in Concrete, 2004.
[6] Ramachandran, V. S., “Chemical Admixtures—Recent Develop-
ments,” Concrete Admixtures Handbook, 2nd ed., Noyes Publi-
cations, Park Ridge, N.J., 1995, pp. 137–184.
[7] Kosmatka, S., Kerkhoff, B., and Panarese, W. C., “Admixtures
for Concrete,” Design and Control of Concrete Mixtures, 14th
ed., Portland Cement Assn., Skokie, IL, pp. 105–119.
[8] ACI E4, Chemical Admixtures for Concrete, ACI Education
Bulletin No. E4-03, American Concrete Institute, Farmington
Hills, MI, March 2003, 12 pp.
[9] Spiratos, N. and Jolicoeur, C., “Trends in Concrete Chemical
Admixtures for the 21st Century,” 6th CANMET/ACI Interna-
tional Conference on Superplasticizers and Other Chemical
Admixtures in Concrete, SP-195, American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 2000, pp. 1–16.
[10] Balogh, A., “What’s New in Chemical Admixtures?” Concrete
Construction, Vol. 38, No. 8, August 1993, pp. 533–537.
[11] Phelan, W. S., “Admixtures and HPC: A Happy Marriage,”
Concrete International, Vol. 20, No. 4, April 1998, pp. 27–30.
[12] Anon, “Chemical Admixtures for Concrete,” Concrete Interna-
tional, Vol. 15, No. 10, October 1993, pp. 48–53.
[13] Rixom, R., “The Economic Aspects of Admixture Use,” Cement
and Concrete Composites, Vol. 20, No. 2-3, 1998, pp. 141–147.
[14] ASTM C 233-01, “Standard Test Method for Air-Entraining
Admixtures for Concrete,” Annual Book of ASTM Standards,
Vol. 04.02, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2003.
[15] ASTM C 260-01, “Standard Specification for Air-Entraining
Admixtures for Concrete,” Annual Book of ASTM Standards,
Vol. 04.02, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA,
2003.
[16] ASTM C 403/C 403 M-99, “Test Method for Time of Setting of
Concrete by Penetration Resistance,” Annual Book of ASTM
Standards, Vol. 04.02, ASTM International, West Conshohocken,
PA, 2003.
[17] ASTM C 494/C 494 M-99, “Standard Specification for Chemical
Admixtures in Concrete,” Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol.
04.02, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2003.
[18] ASTM C 796-97, “Standard Test Method for Foaming Agents for
Use in Producing Cellular Concrete Using Preformed Foam,”
Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 04.02, ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA, 2003.
[19] ASTM C 869-91, “Standard Specification for Foaming Agents
Used in Making Preformed Foam for Cellular Concrete,” Annual
Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 04.02, ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 2003.
[20] ASTM C 979-99, “Standard Specification for Pigments for
Integrally Colored Concrete,” Annual Book of ASTM Standards,
Vol. 04.02, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2003.
[21] ASTM C 1017/C 1017 M-98, “Standard Specification for Chemical
Admixtures for Use in Producing Flowing Concrete,” Vol. 04.02,
Annual Book of ASTM Standards, ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 2003.
[22] ASTM D 98-98, “Standard Specification for Calcium Chloride,”
Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 04.03, ASTM Interna-
tional, West Conshohocken, PA, 2000.
[23] Baskoca, A., Ozkul, M. H., and Artirma, S., “Effect of Chemical
Admixtures on Workability and Strength Properties of
Prolonged Agitated Concrete,” Cement and Concrete Research,
Vol. 28, No. 5, 1998, pp. 737–747.
[24] Reknes, K. and Gustafsson, J., “Effect of Modifications of
Lignosulfonate on Adsorption on Cement and Fresh Concrete
Properties,” 6th CANMET/ACI International Conference on
Superplasticizers and Other Chemical Admixtures in Concrete,
SP-195, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI,
2000, pp. 127–142.
[25] Zhor, J., Bremner, T. W., and Lora, J. H., “Effect of Chemical
Characteristics of ALCELL Lignin-Based Methylsulphonates on
Their Performance as Water-Reducing Admixtures,” 4th
CANMET/ACI International Conference on Superplasticizers
and Other Chemical Admixtures in Concrete, SP-148, American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1994, pp. 333–352.
[26] Zhor, J. and Bremner, T. W., “Influence of Lignosulphonate Mol-
ecular Weight Fractions on the Properties of Fresh Cement,” 5th
CANMET/ACI International Conference on Superplasticizers and
Other Chemical Admixtures in Concrete, SP-173, American Con-
crete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1997, pp. 781–806.
[27] Lackey, H. B., “Factors Affecting Use of Calcium Chloride in
Concrete,” Cement, Concrete, and Aggregates, Vol. 14, No. 2,
Winter 1992, pp. 97–100.
[28] Senbetta, E. and Scanlon, J. M., “Effects of Three New Innova-
tive Chemical Admixtures on Durability of Concrete,” Supple-
mentary Papers, 2nd CANMET/ACI International Conference on
Durability of Concrete, Montreal, Canada, 1991, pp. 29–48.
[29] Prudencio, L. R., Armelin, H. S., and Helene, P., “Interaction
between Accelerating Admixtures and Portland Cement for
Shotcrete: The Influence of the Admixture’s Chemical Base and
the Correlation Between Paste Tests and Shotcrete Perfor-
mance,” ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 93, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1996, pp.
619–628.
[30] Wang, H., Eubanks, K., Fitch, B., Manissero, C., and Marin, F.,
“Effective Use of Lithium-Based Admixtures for Set Control of
Cementitious Systems,” 5th CANMET/ACI International Confer-
ence on Superplasticizers and Other Chemical Admixtures in
Concrete, SP-173, American Concrete Institute, Farmington
Hills, MI, 1997, pp. 893–908.
[31] Matusinovic, T. and Vrbos, N., “Alkali Metal Salts as Set
Accelerators for High Alumina Cement,” Cement and Concrete
Research, Vol. 23, No. 1, 1993, pp. 177–186.
[32] Justnes, H. and Nygaard, E. C., “Technical Calcium Nitrate as Set
Accelerator for Cement Pastes at Low Temperatures,” Advances
in Cement Research, Vol. 8, No. 31, July 1996, pp. 101–109.
[33] Jeknavorian, A. A., Berke, N. S., and Shen, D. F., “Performance
Evaluation of Set Accelerators for Concrete,” 4th CANMET/ACI
International Conference on Superplasticizers and Other
Chemical Admixtures in Concrete, SP-148, American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1994, pp. 385–406.
[34] Scanlon, J. M., “Chemical Admixtures: Are ASTM Standards
Appropriate to the Needs of the User?” Concrete International,
Vol. 16, No. 8, Sept. 1994, pp. 61–64.
[35] Attiogbe E. K., Nmai, C. K., and Gay, F. T., “Air-Void System
Parameters and Freeze-Thaw Durability of Concrete Containing
Superplasticizers,” Concrete International, Vol. 14, No. 7, July
1992, pp. 57–61.
[36] Aitcin, P.-C., “The Art and Science of High-Performance
Concrete,” Nelu Spiratos Symposium on Superplasticizers, 6th
CANMET/ACI International Conference on Advances in Con-
crete Technology, Bucharest, Romania, June 2003, pp. 69–88.
[37] Molhatra, V. M., Preface, ACI SP-217, Berlin, Germany, October
2003.
[38] Mitsui, K., Yonezawa, T., Kinoshita, M., and Shimono, T.,
“Application of a New Superplasticizer for Ultra High-Strength
Concrete,” 4th CANMET/ACI International Conference on
Superplasticizers and Other Chemical Admixtures in Concrete,
SP-148, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI,
1994, pp. 27–46.
 CHRISTENSEN AND FARZAM ON CHEMICAL ADMIXTURES
[39] Kinoshita, M., Suzuki, T., Yonezawa, T., and Mitsui, K., “Prop-
erties of an Acrylic Graft Copolymer-Based New Superplasti-
cizer for Ultra High-Strength Concrete,” 4th CANMET/ACI
International Conference on Superplasticizers and Other
Chemical Admixtures in Concrete, SP-148, American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1994, pp. 281–300.
[40] Uchikawa, H., Sawaki, D., and Hanehara, S., “Influence of Kind
and Added Timing of Organic Admixture on the Composition,
Structure and Property of Fresh Cement Paste,” Cement and
Concrete Research, Vol. 25, No. 2, February 1995, pp. 353–364.
[41] Ohta, A., Sugiyama, T., and Tanaka, Y., “Fluidizing Mechanism
and Application of Polycarboxylate-Based Superplasticizers,”
5th CANMET/ACI International Conference on Superplasticizers
and Other Chemical Admixtures in Concrete, SP-173, American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1997, pp. 359–378.
[42] Khurana, R. and Torresan, I., “New Admixtures for Eliminating
Steam Curing and its Negative Effects on Durability,” 5th
CANMET/ACI International Conference on Superplasticizers
and Other Chemical Admixtures in Concrete, SP-173, American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1997, pp. 83–104.
[43] Kinoshita, M., Suzuki, T., Soeda, K., and Nawa, T., “Properties of
Methacrylic Water-Soluble Polymer as a Superplasticizer for
Ultra High-Strength Concrete,” 5th CANMET/ACI International
Conference on Superplasticizers and Other Chemical
Admixtures in Concrete, SP-173, American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 1997, pp. 143–162.
[44] Jeknavorian, A. A., Roberts, L. R., Jardine, L., Koyota, H., and
Darwin, D. C., “Condensed Polyacrylic Acid-Aminated Polyether
Polymers as Superplasticizers for Concrete,” 5th CANMET/ACI
International Conference on Superplasticizers and Other
Chemical Admixtures in Concrete, SP-173, American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1997, pp. 55–82.
[45] Sakai, E., Kang, J. K., and Daimon, M., “Action Mechanisms of
Comb-Type Superplasticizers Containing Grafted Polyethylene
Oxide Chains,” 6th CANMET/ACI International Conference on
Superplasticizers and Other Chemical Admixtures in Concrete,
SP-195, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI,
2000, pp. 75–90.
[46] Kinoshita, M., Nawa, T., Iida, M., and Ichiboji, H., “Effect of
Chemical Structure on Fluidizing Mechanism of Concrete
Superplasticizer Containing Polyethylene Oxide Graft Chains,”
6th CANMET/ACI International Conference on Superplasticizers
and Other Chemical Admixtures in Concrete, SP-195, American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2000, pp. 163–180.
[47] Ohta, A., Sugiyama, T., and Uomoto, T., “Study of Dispersing
Effects of Polycarboxylate-Based Dispersant on Fine Particles,”
6th CANMET/ACI International Conference on Superplasticizers
and Other Chemical Admixtures in Concrete, SP-195, American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2000, pp. 211–228.
[48] Sugiyama, T., Ohta, A., and Uomoto, T., “Dispersing Mechanism
and Applications of Polycarboxylate-based Superplasticizers,”
11th International Congress on the Chemistry of Cement,
Cement and Concrete Institute, Durban, South Africa, 2003,
9 pp.
[49] Yamada, K. and Hanehara, S., “Working Mechanism of
Polycarboxylate Superplasticizer Considering the Chemical
Structure and Cement Characteristics,” 11th International
Congress on the Chemistry of Cement, Cement and Concrete
Institute, Durban, South Africa, 2003, 12 pp.
[50] Tsukada, K., Ishimori, M., and Kinoshita, M., “Performance of
an Advanced Polycarboxylate-Based Powder Superplasticizer,”
7th CANMET/ACI International Conference on Superplasticizers
and Other Chemical Admixtures in Concrete, SP-217, American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2003, pp. 393–408.
[51] Uchikawa, H., Hanehara, S., and Sawaki, D., “The Role of Steric
Repulsive Force in the Dispersion of Cement Particles in Fresh
Paste Prepared with Organic Admixture,” Cement and
Concrete Research, Vol. 27, No. 1, January 1997, pp. 37–50.
491
[52] Yoshioka, K., Sakai, E., Daimon, M., and Kitahara, A., “Role of
Steric Hindrance in the Performance of Superplasticizers for
Concrete,” Journal of the American Ceramic Society, Vol. 80,
No. 10, October 1997, pp. 2667–2671.
[53] Torresan, I., Magarotto, R., and Khurana, R., “Development of
a New Betanaphthaline Sulfonate-Based Superplasticizer
Especially Studied for Precast Application,” 5th CANMET/ACI
International Conference on Superplasticizers and Other
Chemical Admixtures in Concrete, SP-173, American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1997, pp. 559–582.
[54] Page, M., Moldovan, A., and Spiratos, N., “Performance of
Novel Naphthalene-Based Copolymer as Superplasticizer for
Concrete,” 6th CANMET/ACI International Conference on
Superplasticizers and Other Chemical Admixtures in Concrete,
SP-195, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI,
2000, pp. 615–637.
[55] Leidholdt, C., Nmai, C., and Schlagbaum, A., “Effectiveness and
Impact of a Polycarboxylate-Based High-Range Water-Reduc-
ing Admixture in a Precast/Prestressed Operation,”
PCI/FHWA/FIB International Symposium on High Performance
Concrete, Proceedings, Orlando, Florida, 25–27 Sept. 2000, L. S.
Johal, (Paul) Ed., Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute,
Chicago, IL, pp. 24–32.
[56] Bury, M. A. and Christensen, B. J., “The Role of Innovative
Chemical Admixtures in Producing Self-Consolidating
Concrete,” 1st North American Conference on the Design and
Use of Self-Consolidating Concrete, Hanley-Wood, Addison, IL,
2002, pp. 137–141.
[57] Berke, N. S., Cornman, C. R., Jeknavorian, A. A., Knight, G. F.,
and Wallevik, O., “The Effective Use of Superplasticizers and
Viscosity-Modifying Agents in Self-Consolidating Concrete,” 1st
North American Conference on the Design and Use of Self-
Consolidating Concrete, Hanley-Wood, Addison, IL, 2002, pp.
165–170.
[58] Nakanishi, H., Tamaki, S., Yaguchi, M., Yamada, K., Kinoshita,
M., Ishimori,M., and Okazawa, S., “Performance of a Multi-
functional and Multipurpose Superplasticizer for Concrete,”
7th CANMET/ACI International Conference on Superplasticizers
and Other Chemical Admixtures in Concrete, SP-217, American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2003, pp. 327–342.
[59] Nmai, C. K., Schlagbaum, T., and Violetta, B., “A History of Mid-
Range Water-Reducing Admixtures,” Concrete International,
Vol. 20, No. 4, April 1998, pp. 45–50.
[60] Schaefer, G. E., “How Mid-Range Water Reducers Enhance
Concrete Performance,” Concrete Construction, Vol. 40, No. 7,
July 1995, pp. 599–602.
[61] Bury, M. A., Bury, J. R., and Martin, D., “Testing Effects of New
Admixtures on Concrete Finishing,” Concrete International,
Vol. 16, No. 1, Jan. 1994, pp. 26–31.
[62] Hansson, C. M., Mammoliti, L., and Hope, B. B., “Corrosion
Inhibitors in Concrete—Part I: The Principles,” Cement and
Concrete Research, Vol. 28, No. 12, Dec. 1998, pp. 1775–1782.
[63] Montes, P., Bremner, T. W., and Mrawira, D., “Influence of
Calcium Nitrite Inhibitor and Fly Ash on the Corrosion of High-
Performance Concrete Slabs Containing a Construction Joint,”
7th CANMET/ACI International Conference on Superplasticizers
and Other Chemical Admixtures in Concrete, SP-217, American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2003, pp. 51–70.
[64] Saraswathy, V., Muralidharan, S., Kalyanasundaram, R. M.,
Thangavel, K., and Srinivasan, S., “Evaluation of a Composite
Corrosion-Inhibiting Admixture and its Performance in
Concrete under Macrocell Corrosion Conditions,” Cement and
Concrete Research, Vol. 31, No. 5. May 2001, pp. 789–794.
[65] Monticelli, C., Frignani, A. and Trabanelli, G, “A Study on
Corrosion Inhibitors for Concrete Application,” Cement and
Concrete Research, Vol. 30, No. 4, April 2000, pp. 635–642.
[66] Poulsen, E., Risberg, J. E., and Stilling, J. E., “Migrating Corro-
sion Inhibiting Admixtures Documentation Tests and Model for
492 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
Increase of Service Lifetime,” 6th CANMET/ACI International
Conference on Superplasticizers and Other Chemical
Admixtures in Concrete, SP-195, American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 2000, pp. 335–350.
[67] Berke, N. S. and Weil, T. G., “World Wide Review of Corrosion
Inhibitors in Concrete,” Advances in Concrete Technology, 2nd
ed., CANMET, Ottawa, ON, 1994, pp. 891–914.
[68] Brown, M. C., Weyers, R. E., and Sprinkel, M. M., “Solution Tests
of Corrosion-Inhibiting Admixtures for Reinforced Concrete,”
ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 99, No. 4, July-Aug. 2002, pp.
371–378.
[69] Brown, M. C., Weyers, R. E., and Sprinkel, M. M., “Effect of
Corrosion-Inhibiting Admixtures on Material Properties of
Concrete,” ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 98, No. 3, May–June
2001, pp. 240–250.
[70] Nmai, C. K., Farrington, S. A., and Bobrowski, G. S., “Organic-
Based Corrosion-Inhibiting Admixture for Reinforced Concrete,”
Concrete International, Vol. 14, No. 4, April 1992, pp. 45–51.
[71] Tourney, P. and Berke, N., “A Call for Standardized Tests for
Corrosion-Inhibiting Admixtures,” Concrete International, Vol.
15, No. 4, April 1993, pp. 57–62.
[72] Malvar, L. J., Cline, G. D., Burke, D. F., Rollings, R., Sherman, T.
W., and Greene, J. L., “Alkali–Silica Reaction Mitigation: State
of the Art and Recommendations,” ACI Materials Journal, Vol.
99, No. 5, Sept.–Oct. 2002, pp. 480–489.
[73] Kurtis, K. E. and Monteiro, P. J. M., “Chemical Additives to
Control Expansion of Alkali-Silica Reaction Gel: Proposed Mech-
anisms of Control,” Journal of Materials Science, Vol. 38, No. 9,
2003, pp. 2027–2036.
[74] Gillott, J. E. and Wang, H., “Improved Control of Alkali-Silica
Reaction by Combined Use of Admixtures,” Cement and
Concrete Research, Vol. 23, No. 4, July 1993, pp. 973–980.
[75] Berra, M., Mangialardi, T., and Paolini, A. E., “Use of Lithium
Compounds to Prevent Expansive Alkali-Silica Reactivity in
Concrete,” Advances in Cement Research, Vol. 15, No. 4,
October 2003, pp. 145–154.
[76] Kawamura, M. and Fuwa, H., “Effects of Lithium Salts on ASR
Gel Composition and Expansion of Mortars,” Cement and
Concrete Research, Vol. 33, No. 6, June 2003, pp. 913–919.
[77] Thomas, M. D. A. and Stokes, D. B., “Use of Lithium-Bearing
Admixture to Suppress Expansion in Concrete Due to Alkali-
Silica Reaction,” Concrete in Pavements and Structures,
Transportation Research Record No. 1668, Transportation
Research Board, Washington, DC, 1999, pp. 54–59.
[78] Ramachandran, V. S., “Alkali-Aggregate Expansion Inhibiting
Admixtures,” Cement and Concrete Composites, Vol. 20, No.
2–3, 1998, pp. 149–161.
[79] Wang, H., Tysl, S., and Gillott, J. E., “Practical Implications of
Lithium-Based Chemicals and Admixtures in Controlling Alkali-
Aggregate Reactions,” 4th CANMET/ACI International Confer-
ence on Superplasticizers and Other Chemical Admixtures in
Concrete, SP–148, American Concrete Institute, Farmington
Hills, MI, 1994, pp. 353–366.
[80] Stokes, D. B., Wang, H. H., and Diamond, S., “A Lithium-Based
Admixture for ASR Control That Does Not Increase the Pore
Solution pH,” 5th CANMET/ACI International Conference on
Superplasticizers and Other Chemical Admixtures in Concrete,
SP–173, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI,
1997, pp. 855–868.
[81] Shon, C.-S., Zollinger, D. G., and Sarkar, S. L., “A New Rapid Test
Method to Predict LiNO3 Dosage for Controlling ASR Expan-
sion,” 7th CANMET/ACI International Conference on Superplas-
ticizers and Other Chemical Admixtures in Concrete, SP–217,
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2003, pp.
423–436.
[82] Stark, D. C., Lithium Salt Admixtures—An Alternative Method
to Prevent Expansive Alkali-Silica Reactivity, RP307, Portland
Cement Association, Skokie, IL, 1992, 10 pp.
[83] Wang, H. and Gillott, J. E., “Alkali-Carbonate Reaction:
Significance of Chemical and Mineral Admixtures,” Magazine
of Concrete Research, Vol. 47, No. 170, March 1995, pp. 69–75.
[84] Diamond, S., “Unique Response of LiNO3 as an Alkali Silica
Reaction-Preventive Admixture,” Cement and Concrete
Research, Vol. 29, No. 8, August 1999, pp. 1271–1275.
[85] Thomas, M. D. A., Stokes, D., and Rodgers, T., “The Effect of
Lithium-Based Admixtures on the Properties of Concrete,” 7th
CANMET/ACI International Conference on Superplasticizers
and Other Chemical Admixtures in Concrete, SP–217, American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2003, pp. 483–498.
[86] Mangialardi, T., “Reconsideration of ASTM C 1260 Test Results
in the Light of a Recent Kinetic Model,” Advances in Cement
Research, Vol. 14, No. 2, April 2002, pp. 51–60.
[87] Ong, S. and Diamond, S., “Measurement of Immediate ASR
Expansion of Steam Cured Mortar Bars,” Cement and Concrete
Research, Vol. 24, No. 7, July 1994, pp. 1305–1310.
[88] Barringer, W. L., “Using Accelerated Test Methods to Specify
Admixtures to Mitigate Alkali-Silica Reactivity,” Cement,
Concrete, and Aggregates, Vol. 21, No. 2, December 1999, pp.
165–172.
[89] Lumley, J. S., “ASR Suppression by Lithium Compounds,”
Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 27, No. 2, 1997, pp.
235–244.
[90] Daczko, J. A. and Attiogbe, E. K., “Self-Consolidating
Concrete—A Technology for the 21st Century,” Structural Engi-
neer, Vol. 3, No.12, Jan. 2003, pp. 22–25.
[91] Ghio, V. A., Monteiro, P. J. M., and Gjorv, O. E., “Effect of Poly-
saccharide Gums on Fresh Concrete Properties,” ACI Materials
Journal, Vol. 91, No. 6, Nov.–Dec. 1994, pp. 602–606.
[92] Bury, J. and Farzam, H., “Laboratory Evaluation of a Unique
Anti-Washout Admixture in Grouts,” 5th CANMET/ACI Interna-
tional Conference on Superplasticizers and Other Chemical
Admixtures in Concrete, SP–173, American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 1997, pp. 445–474.
[93] Wolf, J. L. and Pera, J., “Valorization of Modified Starch in
Mortars,” 6th CANMET/ACI International Conference on
Superplasticizers and Other Chemical Admixtures in Concrete,
SP–195, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI,
2000, pp. 43–60.
[94] Hibino, M., “Effect of Viscosity Enhancing Agent on Self-
Compactability of Fresh Concrete,” 6th CANMET/ACI Interna-
tional Conference on Superplasticizers and Other Chemical
Admixtures in Concrete, SP–195, American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 2000, pp. 305–320.
[95] Yammamuro, H., Izumi, T., and Mizunuma, T., “Study of Non-
Adsorptive Viscosity Agents Applied to Self-Compacting Con-
crete,” 5th CANMET/ACI International Conference on
Superplasticizers and Other Chemical Admixtures in Concrete,
SP–173, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI,
1997, pp. 427–444.
[96] Matsuoka, Y., Shindoh, T., Yakota, K., and Kusui, S., “Property
of -1,3-Glucan (Curdlan) as a Viscosity Agent for Super-
Workable Concrete,” 5th CANMET/ACI International Confer-
ence on Superplasticizers and Other Chemical Admixtures in
Concrete, SP–173, American Concrete Institute, Farmington
Hills, MI, 1997, pp. 475–492.
[97] Skaggs, C. B., Rakitsky, W. G., and Whitaker, S. F., “Applications
of Rheological Modifiers and Superplasticizers in Cementitious
Systems,” 4th CANMET/ACI International Conference on
Superplasticizers and Other Chemical Admixtures in Concrete,
SP–148, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI,
1994, pp. 189–208.
[98] Phyfferoen, A., Monty, H., Skaggs, B., Sakata, N., Yanai, S., and
Yoshizaki, M., “Evaluation of the Biopolymer, Diutan Gum, for
Use in Self-Compacting Concrete,” 1st North American
Conference on the Design and Use of Self-Consolidating
Concrete, Hanley-Wood, Addison IL, 2002, pp. 141–146.
 CHRISTENSEN AND FARZAM ON CHEMICAL ADMIXTURES
[99] Skarp, U, Engstrand, J., Jansson, I., and Reed, M., “A Concept for
Enhancing Early Strength Development in Self-Consolidating
and Normal Concrete by Means of Increase Stability and
Homogeniety,” 1st North American Conference on the Design
and Use of Self-Consolidating Concrete, Hanley-Wood,
Addison, IL, 2002, pp. 325–330.
[100] Bury, M. A., Nmai, C. K., Amekuedi, G., and Bury, J. R.,
“Unique Applications of Cellulose-Based Antiwashout Ad-
mixture,” Concrete International, Vol. 23, No. 4, April 2001,
pp. 23–28.
[101] Ohtomo, T., Matsuoka, Y., Nakagawa, Y., and Nakahira, J.,
“Influence of Materials on the Action of Admixtures in
Antiwashout Underwater Concrete,” ACI Materials Journal,
Vol. 92, No. 3, May–June 1995, pp. 315–320.
[102] Khayat, K. H., “Effects of Antiwashout Admixtures on Fresh
Concrete Properties,” ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 92, No. 2,
March–April 1995, pp. 164–171.
[103] Khayat, K. H., “Frost Durability of Concrete Containing Viscos-
ity-Modifying Admixtures,” ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 92, No.
6, Nov.–Dec. 1995, pp. 625–633.
[104] Khayat, K. H. and Guizani, Z., “Use of Viscosity-Modifying
Admixture to Enhance Stability of Fluid Concrete,” ACI
Materials Journal, Vol. 94, No. 4, July–Aug. 1997, pp. 332–340.
[105] Khayat, K. H., “Effects of Antiwashout Admixtures on Proper-
ties of Hardened Concrete,” ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 93,
No. 2, March–April 1996, pp. 134–146.
[106] Khayat, K. H. and Saric-Coric, M., “Effect of Welan Gum-
Superplasticizer Combinations on Properties of Cement
Grouts,” 6th CANMET/ACI International Conference on Super-
plasticizers and Other Chemical Admixtures in Concrete,
SP–195, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI,
2000, pp. 249–268.
[107] Yahia, A. and Khayat, K. H., “Experiment Design to Evaluate
Interaction of High-Range Water-Reducer and Antiwashout
Admixture in High-Performance Cement Grout,” Cement and
Concrete Research, Vol. 31, No. 5, May 2001, pp. 749–757.
[108] Khayat, K. H. and Assaad, J., “Relationship Between Washout
Resistance and Rheological Properties of High-Performance
Underwater Concrete,” ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 100, No. 3,
May–June 2003, pp. 185–193.
[109] Nmai, C. K., Tomita, R., Hondo, F., and Buffenbarger, J.,
“Shrinkage-Reducing Admixtures,” Concrete International,
Vol. 20, No. 4, April 1998, pp. 31–37.
[110] Balogh, A., “New Admixture Combats Concrete Shrinkage,”
Concrete Construction, Vol. 41, No. 7, July 1996, 5 pp.
[111] Holland, T., “Using Shrinkage-Reducing Admixtures,” Con-
crete Construction, Vol. 44, No. 3, March 1999, pp. 15–18.
[112] Newberry, C., “Using Shrinkage-Reducing Admixtures to Min-
imize Shrinkage Cracking,” Quality Concrete, Vol. 7, No. 11,
Nov.–Dec. 2001, pp. 179–181.
[113] Kamimoto, H., Ishikawa, K., and Uchida, Y., “Freezing and
Thawing Resistance of Concrete Using Shrinkage-Reducing
Admixture,” 6th CANMET/ACI International Conference on
Superplasticizers and Other Chemical Admixtures in Concrete,
SP–195, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI,
2000, pp. 415–430.
[114] Berke, N. S., Li, L., Hicks, M. C., and Bae, J., “Improving Con-
crete Performance with Shrinkage-Reducing Admixtures,” 7th
CANMET/ACI International Conference on Superplasticizers
and Other Chemical Admixtures in Concrete, SP–217, Ameri-
can Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2003, pp. 37–50.
[115] Brooks, J. J. and Jiang, X., “The Influence of Chemical Ad-
mixtures on Restrained Drying Shrinkage of Concrete,”
5th CANMET/ACI International Conference on Superplasticiz-
ers and Other Chemical Admixtures in Concrete, SP–173,
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1997,
pp. 249–266.
493
[116] Berke, N. S., Dallaire, M. P., Hicks, M. C., and Kerkar, A.,
“New Developments in Shrinkage-Reducing Admixtures,”
5th CANMET/ACI International Conference on Superplasticiz-
ers and Other Chemical Admixtures in Concrete, SP–173,
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1997,
pp. 971–998.
[117] Ribeiro, A. B., Carrajola, A., and Goncalves, A., “Effectiveness
of Shrinkage-Reducing Admixtures on Different Concrete
Mixtures,” 7th CANMET/ACI International Conference on
Superplasticizers and Other Chemical Admixtures in Concrete,
SP–217, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI,
2003, pp. 299–310.
[118] Shah, S. P., Karaguler, M. E., and Sarigaphuti, M., “Effects of
Shrinkage-Reducing Admixtures on Restrained Shrinkage
Cracking of Concrete,” ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 89, No. 3,
May–June 1992, pp. 289–295.
[119] Shah, S. P., Marikunte, S., Yang, W., and Aldea, C., “Control of
Cracking with Shrinkage-Reducing Admixtures,” Advances in
Concrete and Concrete Pavement Construction, Transporta-
tion Research Record No. 1574, Transportation Research
Board, November 1997, pp. 25–36.
[120] Shah, S. P., Weiss, W. J., and Yang, W., “Shrinkage Cracking—
Can it be Prevented?” Concrete International, Vol. 20, No. 4,
April 1998, pp. 51–55.
[121] See, H. T., Attiogbe, E. K., and Miltenberger, M. A., “Shrinkage
Cracking Characteristics of Concrete Using Ring Specimens,”
ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 100, No. 3, May–June 2003, pp.
239–245.
[122] Fujiwara, D. and Hamada, H., “Field Evaluation of Shrinkage-
Reducing Admixture,” Final Report, HWY–L–2002–01, Febru-
ary 2003, Hawaii Department of Transportation, Highways
Division, Honolulu, HI, 36 pp.
[123] Senbetta, E. and Bury, M. A., “Control of Plastic Shrinkage
Cracking in Cold Weather,” Concrete International, Vol. 13,
No. 3, March 1991, pp. 49–53.
[124] Korhonen, C. and Ryan, R., “New Low-Temperature Admix-
tures,” Concrete International, Vol. 22, No. 5, May 2000, pp.
33–38.
[125] Korhonen, C. J. and Cortez, E. R., “Antifreeze Admixtures for
Cold Weather Concreting,” Concrete International, Vol. 13,
No. 3, March 1991, pp. 38–41.
[126] Korhonen, C. J. and Brook, J. W., “Freezing Temperature
Protection Admixture for Portland Cement Concrete,” Special
Report SR–96–28, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Cold Regions
Research and Engineering Laboratory, Oct. 1996, 38 pp.
[127] Korhonen, C. J., Cortez, E. R., Durning, T. A., and Jeknavorian,
A. A., “Antifreeze Admixtures for Concrete,” Special Report
97–26, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Cold Regions Research
and Engineering Laboratory, October 1997, 46 pp.
[128] Farrington, S. A. and Christensen, B. J., “The Use of Chemical
Admixtures to Facilitate Placement of Concrete at Freezing
Temperatures,” 7th CANMET/ACI International Conference on
Superplasticizers and Other Chemical Admixtures in Concrete,
SP–217, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI,
2003, pp. 71–86.
[129] Brook, J. W., Factor, D. F., Kinney, F. D. and Sarkar, A. K., Cold
Weather Admixtures,” Concrete International, Vol. 10, No. 10,
Oct. 1988, pp. 44–49.
[130] Korhonen, C. J., “Antifreeze Admixtures for Cold Regions
Concreting: A Literature Review,” Special Report SR 90–32,
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Cold Regions Research and Engi-
neering Laboratory, Sept. 1990, 14 pp.
[131] Korhonen, C. J., and Orchino, S. A., “Off-the-Shelf Antifreeze
Admixture for Concrete: Initial Laboratory Investigation,”
ERDC/CRREL Technical Report TR–01–2, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Jan.
2001, 17 pp.
494 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
[132] Korhonen, C., “New Developments in Cold-Weather Concret-
ing,” Cold Regions Engineering: Cold Regions Impacts on
Transportation and Infrastructure, Proceedings of the 11th
International Conference, Anchorage, AK, American Society
of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, pp. 531–537.
[133] Sakai, K., Watanabe, H., Nomachi, H., and Hamabe, K., “An-
tifreeze Admixture Developed in Japan,” Concrete Interna-
tional, Vol. 13, No. 3, March 1991, pp. 26–30.
[134] Nmai, C. K., “Cold Weather Concreting Admixtures,” Cement
and Concrete Composites, Vol. 20, No. 2–3, 1998, pp. 121–128.
[135] Paolini, M. and Khurana, R., “Admixtures for Recycling of
Waste Concrete,” Cement and Concrete Composites, Vol. 20,
No. 2–3, 1998, pp. 221–229.
[136] Borger, J., Carrasquillo, R. L., and Fowler, D. W., “Use of Recy-
cled Wash Water and Returned Plastic Concrete in the Pro-
duction of Fresh Concrete,” Advanced Cement Based Materi-
als, Vol. 1, No. 6, 1994, pp. 267–274.
[137] Ramachandran, V. S. and Lowery, M. S., “Effect of a Phospho-
nate-Based Compound on the Hydration of Cement and
Cement Components,” 4th CANMET/ACI International Confer-
ence on Superplasticizers and Other Chemical Admixtures in
Concrete, SP–148, American Concrete Institute, Farmington
Hills, MI, 1994, pp. 131–152.
[138] Senbetta, E. and Dolch, W. L., “The Effects on Cement Paste
of Treatment with an Extended Set Control Admixture,”
Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 21, No. 5, Sept. 1991,
pp. 750–756.
[139] Ragan, S. A. and Gay, F. T., “Evaluation of Applications of
DELVO Technology,” Final Report, CPAR–SL–95–2, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicks-
burg, MS, Dec. 1995, 114 pp.
[140] Lobo, C., Guthrie, W. F., and Kacker, R., “A Study on the Reuse
of Plastic Concrete Using Extended Set-Retarding Admix-
tures,” Journal of Research of NIST, Vol. 100, No. 5, Sept.–Oct.,
1995, pp. 575–589.
[141] Ragan, S. A., “Effects of an Extended Set-Control Admixture
on the Properties of Fresh and Hardened Concrete,” Materials
for the New Millennium: Proceedings of the 4th Materials
Engineering Conference, Vol. 2, American Society of Civil
Engineers, New York, NY, 1996, pp. 1617–1626.
[142] Nakamura, S. and Roberts, L. R., “Recycling Returned
Concrete,” Concrete Engineering International, Vol. 3, No. 3,
April 1999, pp. 56–61.
[143] Muszynski, L., Chini, A., and Bergin, M., “Re-using Wash Wa-
ter in Ready-Mixed Concrete Operations,” Concrete (London),
Vol. 36, No. 2, Feb. 2002, pp. 16–18.
43
Supplementary Cementitious Materials
Scott Schlorholtz1
Preface
THIS WRITER IS INDEBTED TO PRIOR AUTHORS OF
this chapter [1–4] because their work provides the background
for this version. I have borrowed from their ideas and specific
words. However, following the format provided by Cain [4],
this chapter will present less discussion of the use of these ma-
terials in concrete and more on the characteristics of the var-
ious materials and the significance and use of their accept-
ance tests. For discussion of the use of these materials in
concrete, the reader is referred to three reports from the
American Concrete Institute (ACI): ACI 232.1R “Use of Natural
Pozzolans in Concrete” [5]; ACI 232.2R-96 “Use of Fly Ash in
Concrete” [6]; and ACI 234R-96 “Use of Silica Fume in
Concrete” [7]. Updated reports on these materials are
currently being prepared by the appropriate ACI Committees.
Introduction
This chapter will touch on the history of the use and interest in
fly ash, natural pozzolans, and silica fume. It will chronicle the
paths that the various specifications for these materials have
taken through ASTM task groups, subcommittees, and com-
mittees. A discussion of tests and specification limits will follow
at that point in the chapter.
Supplementary Cementitious Materials
Readers of this chapter will note that a change in terminology has
taken place. Prior versions of this chapter all used the term “min-
eral admixture” throughout the title and text of the document to
describe the wide variety of materials that are commonly added
to concrete to increase the paste content of the mixture. These
same materials will now be referred to as “supplementary ce-
mentitious materials (SCMs)” throughout this chapter. This
change was needed because the ASTM Subcommittee on Termi-
nology (C09.90) could not reach a consensus on an adequate def-
inition of the term “mineral admixture.” Hence, part of this sec-
tion will be devoted to explaining the reasons for the change.
Definitions
The term admixture is defined in ASTM Standard Terminology
Relating to Concrete and Concrete Aggregates (C 125-03) as
follows:
1
Scientist, Materials Analysis and Research Laboratory at Iowa State University, Room 68 Town, Ames, Iowa 50011; also, chair of ASTM Subcommittee CO9.24 on
Supplementary Cementitious Materials.
495
admixture, n — a material other than water, aggregates, hy-
draulic cementitious material, and fiber reinforcement that is
used as an ingredient of a cementitious mixture to modify its
freshly mixed, setting, or hardening properties and that is
added to the batch before or during its mixing.
The definition continues to list the various types of ad-
mixtures that are commonly available. The verbiage given for
the term mineral admixture is as follows:
mineral admixture, n
deprecated term.
DISCUSSION – This term has been used to refer to different
types of water insoluble, finely divided materials such as poz-
zolanic materials, cementitious materials, and aggregate. These
materials are not similar, and it is not useful to group them un-
der a single term. The name of the specific material should be
used; for example, use “pozzolan,” “ground granulated blast-
furnace slag,” or “finely divided aggregate,” as is appropriate.
Hence, the use of “mineral admixture” has been discour-
aged. However, what will now be used to denote a generic ref-
erence to this broad class of apparently dissimilar materials
that were all used for similar reasons? The discussion given
above indicates that the specific term (i.e., “pozzolan”) should
be used; however, that is lengthy and awkward when referring
to several materials at the same time. For example, who will
pay attention when a speaker indicates that the talk will be
about Class C fly ash, Class F fly ash, calcined natural poz-
zolans, and ground granulated blast-furnace slag rather than
simply mineral admixtures? This has led to the use of another
generic term for these materials. That term is supplementary
cementitious material (SCM). The term is not currently defined
in ASTM C 125. The American Heritage dictionary [8] gives the
following definition for the word “supplement”:
supplement, n – something added to complete a thing,
make up for a deficiency, or extend or strengthen the whole.
The new terminology is not perfect but it does give a bet-
ter indication of why the various materials are added to con-
crete mixtures. It also gets rid of the word “admixture” which
is of questionable merit when high replacements (dosages) of
the supplementary cementitious material are used. The over-
all thrust of the change in terminology appears to be a posi-
tive step forward. It gives a clearer indication that the mate-
rials are being added to supplement (i.e., strengthen) both
physical and chemical properties of the mixture; and hence,
the materials are not simply being used to replace portland
cement. The new verbiage also pertains when the SCM is sim-
496 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
ply being used to reduce the cost of the concrete mixture (i.e.,
extend).
Fundamental Properties
According to Mielenz [9], “mineral admixtures include finely di-
vided materials that fall into four types: those that are (a) ce-
mentitious, (b) pozzolanic, (c) both cementitious and pozzolanic,
and (d ) those that are nominally inert chemically.” They include
natural materials, processed natural materials, and artificial ma-
terials. They are finely divided and therefore form pastes to sup-
plement portland cement paste. This is in contrast to soluble ad-
mixtures that act as chemical accelerants or retardants during
the hydration of portland cement or otherwise modify the prop-
erties of the mixture. The chemical compositions of the four
types of finely divided materials vary widely, both within and be-
tween the various groups, and this has made categorization dif-
ficult. This is illustrated in Fig. 1. The data for the figure were ex-
tracted from a variety of historical papers and reports on fly ash
[10–16]. The deprecation of the term “mineral admixture” was
related to the fact that it was difficult to define. Figure 1 suggests
that this may be partially due to the fact that the materials tra-
verse such a wide range of chemical composition.
For instance, silica fume is currently specified to contain
at least 85 % SiO2. This restricts its overall (bulk) composition
to the apex of the triangle shown in Fig. 1. Natural pozzolans
exhibit a very wide range of chemical composition. However,
they typically contain only small amounts of calcium and mag-
nesium [17–19], and this means that they will plot very near the
SiO2
(Al2O3  Fe2O3) axis of the triangle. Fly ashes, shown
as data points in the figure, appear to break into different
groups; however, there is considerable overlap between the
groups. Class F fly ashes roughly plot parallel to the SiO2

(Al2O3  Fe2O3) axis. In contrast, Class C fly ash plots roughly
perpendicular to the SiO2
(Al2O3  Fe2O3) axis. These gen-
eral trends in bulk chemical composition fail to indicate the
similarities between the various materials. However, the mate-
rials from the SCM types denoted above as a, b, and c do have
a property that makes them all similar. The common property
is the lack of crystalline structure—all of these finely divided
materials are primarily composed of glass. This fact is illus-
Fig. 1—Ternary diagram illustrating the bulk composition
of fly ash, natural pozzolans, and silica fume.
trated in Fig. 2, where the crystalline compounds and the glass
scattering halos have been labeled on the various X-ray dif-
fractograms. This is not a new observation; rather it is an old
observation that is often forgotten [20–27].
The composition of the glass varies considerably between
the materials as do the crystalline minerals that are commonly
observed (refer to Fig. 2). For example, the “reactivity” of fly ash
has been linked to the amount of amorphous material, the ther-
mal history, the presence of specific crystalline components, the
chemical composition of the glass phase(s), and the particle size
(fineness) of the bulk material [27–29]. All of these complicat-
ing factors have made it difficult to devise a single (simple) cate-
gorization scheme that works for all SCMs. Hence, the current
thrust in Subcommittee C09.24, the subcommittee that has ju-
risdiction over the specifications pertinent to their use, has been
to push towards the use of a series of performance tests that iso-
late the key properties that the SCM is being used to enhance.
Cementitious Materials Not Discussed
Cementitious materials such as natural cements, hydraulic
limes, portland-pozzolan cements, ground granulated blast-
furnace slag, and slag cements were discussed in the previous
versions of this chapter. They will not be dealt with here be-
cause specifications for those materials are no longer under
the jurisdiction of ASTM Subcommittee C09.24.
Low-Reactivity Materials Not Discussed
Such materials as ordinary clay, ground quartz, ground lime-
stone, bentonite, hydrated lime, and talc were once used to im-
prove workability and reduce bleeding in concrete. However,
they are admixtures with low reactivity. Now, more suitable
and available materials such as fly ash and slag have largely
taken their place for these purposes. Therefore, such materials
will not be dealt with further in this chapter. Interested readers
should refer to prior chapters in this series [1–3] for additional
information on these types of materials.
Fly Ash and Natural Pozzolans
History and Use
Although slag cements and natural pozzolans had been used in
concrete in local areas for many years, it was the use and
acceptance of fly ash in concrete in the national market in the
late 1940s and early 1950s that created the need for national
specifications governing the use of these materials. It was
recognized that the use of fly ash in concrete would have the
following benefits:
(a) improved workability,
(b) lower heat of hydration,
(c) lower cost concrete,
(d) improved resistance to sulfate attack,
(e) improved resistance to alkali-silica reactions (ASR),
(f) higher long-term strength,
(g) opportunity for higher strength concrete,
(h) equal freeze-thaw durability,
(i) lower shrinkage characteristics, and
(j) lower porosity and decreased permeability.
Good results were being obtained with fly ash [10–13,30,31]
and natural pozzolans [20,32], and therefore there was a need
for an ASTM specification for their use. A very simplistic time-
line of events pertinent to the development of the various speci-
fications is given in Fig. 3. For completeness, the figure also in-
cludes events related to the development of the specification for
silica fume.
 SCHLORHOLTZ ON SUPPLEMENTARY CEMENTITIOUS MATERIALS 497

Fig. 2—X-ray diffractograms for common supplementary cementitious materials: (2a) Silica
fume, SRM 2696; (2b) Class N pozzolan, CCRL 32; (2c) Class F fly ash, CCRL 11; (2d) Class C fly ash, CCRL
27; (2e) GGBFS (slag cement).

The preparation of a specification for fly ash for use in port-
land-cement concrete was begun in 1948 by ASTM Committee
C-9 on Concrete and Concrete Aggregates. This work was done
by Subcommittee III-h dealing with all admixtures, chemical
and mineral, later designated as Subcommittee C09.03.08. In
early 1953, the Subcommittee proposed two standards on fly
ash. One of these dealt with the methods of testing and was
published as ASTM Tentative methods of Test for Fly Ash as an
Admixture for Portland Cement Concrete (C 311-53T). The
other proposed standard dealt with specifications for fly ash
with various chemical and physical limits. This latter proposal
met with serious opposition from some members of the cement
industry and was not approved by Committee C-9 until several
changes were made. In point of fact, these changes lumped all
fly ash into one class where a class distinction would have allowed
the better fly ashes better recognition. It was published as ASTM
Tentative Specifications for Fly Ash for use as an Admixture in
Portland Cement Concrete (C 350-54T) and covered only the use
of what is now designated as Class F fly ash in concrete “where
the use of increased quantities of fine material may be indicated
to promote workability and plasticity.” The fly ash was to be
treated only as a portion of the fine aggregate and not as a par-
tial replacement or substitute for portland cement. Notes of
caution on the use of fly ash in concrete were inserted in the
early versions of the specification and dealt with the amount of
sulfur, magnesium oxide, and effect on autoclave expansion. Ex-
perience has shown them to be of less concern than expected,
but many of the reflected limits are still in the specification.
498 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
Fig. 3—Time line of important events for natural pozzolans, fly ash, and silica fume.
ASTM C 350 was revised repeatedly based on new experi-
ence and research. In 1960, the scope of ASTM C 350 was
extended to cover fly ash as a pozzolan in concrete acknowl-
edging the prospect that the use of fly ash in the mixture might
result in a reduced amount of portland cement.
In 1957, ASTM Tentative Specifications for Raw or Calcined
Natural Pozzolans for Use as Admixtures in Portland-Cement
Concrete (C 402-57T) was published. At that time differences
between natural pozzolans and fly ash were recognized by
different requirements on drying shrinkage, loss on ignition,
fineness, and reactivity with cement alkalies. Then in 1968,
ASTM C 350 was combined with ASTM C 402 resulting in ASTM
Specification for Fly Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural Pozzolan
for Use in Portland Cement Concrete (C 618-68T). Three classes
of material were dealt with in three columns. Class F was the fly
ash from ASTM C 350. Class N was the natural pozzolan from
ASTM C 402. A new Class S having the same requirements as
Class F allowed for other materials that could not meet the
requirements for natural pozzolans, but could contribute
desirable qualities to the concrete mixture.
In 1977, Class C fly ash was added to ASTM C 618 to rec-
ognize it as a material with cementitious characteristics com-
pared to those of the original Class F. There was no apparent
use of Class S pozzolan in the construction industry, so the
designation was dropped from ASTM C 618 in 1980.
In 1980, ASTM Committee C-9 formed a new subcommit-
tee, ASTM C09.03.10 on Fly Ash, Slag, Mineral Admixtures, and
Supplementary Cementitious Materials, with Robert E. Philleo
as chairman. The number designation of the subcommittee
was changed to C09.24 in 1992. The scope of ASTM C09.24 was
“to develop and maintain test methods and specifications for
finely divided mineral materials other than cement and pig-
 SCHLORHOLTZ ON SUPPLEMENTARY CEMENTITIOUS MATERIALS
ments, used in substantial proportions in concrete.” This new
subcommittee now had no concern for chemical admixtures
and instead had new interest in slag and eventually silica fume.
In 2001, the name of the subcommittee was changed to
Supplementary Cementitious Materials. The scope of the
subcommittee was changed to reflect the formation of a new
subcommittee (C09.27) for slag cement. The new scope for
C09.24 is “to develop and maintain standards for supplemen-
tary cementitious materials other than ground granulated blast
furnace slag.” Hence, the main materials currently under the
jurisdiction of C09.24 are fly ash (Classes F and C), natural
pozzolans, and silica fume.
Classification
There have been many attempts to classify natural pozzolans
and fly ash into subgroups that reflect how a specific source of
material will perform when mixed with hydrated lime or ce-
ment. Performance in most instances is normally interpreted
as the ability of the material to enhance the ultimate strength
of the mixture. These classification schemes have been based
on bulk chemistry, mineralogy, and geological origin. None of
the classification schemes has been adopted for practical use.
Since 1968, when ASTM Specification for Natural Pozzolans
in Concrete (C 402) was combined with the fly ash specification,
ASTM C 350, to form the current ASTM C 618, there have been
no changes to the requirements for natural pozzolans that were
not brought on because of experiences with fly ash. However, in
2000, there was enough interest in the use of natural pozzolans
that users requested the formation of a new task group in C09.24
to review the status of test methods and specification limits for
natural pozzolans. The task group was disbanded in 2002 after
four consecutive meetings failed to produce any items to be bal-
loted. Hence, much of this section will deal primarily with fly ash.
Comments about natural pozzolans will be interjected when the
specification limits differ from those for fly ash.
In 1977, when Class C fly ash was added to ASTM C 618, there
was recognition of the fact that this was a new material made
available because utilities had begun to burn larger quantities of
low-sulfur coal from the western United States. This new fly ash
exhibited both chemical and mineralogical differences from the
Class F fly ash around which the earlier version (C 350) of the
specification had been written [33,34]. Class C fly ash often ex-
hibits self-cementitious characteristics when mixed with water. It
contains higher amounts of elemental calcium (commonly ex-
pressed as calcium oxide, CaO) and is less of a pozzolan
[30,35,36]. Mielenz [37] was among the first to note that “Class C
fly ashes that display cementitious properties when gauged with
water do not conform to the definition of pozzolans.” This cre-
ated a dilemma that we are still dealing with today—fly ash is
generically (classically) attributed with enhancing the properties
of concrete summarized in the History and Use section of this
chapter. How do we deal with the divergence of properties man-
ifested by test specimens containing these different classes of ma-
terials? After all, Class C fly ash generally exhibits greater hy-
draulicity and makes a greater contribution to early strength than
that obtained from the Class F fly ash. Also, as noted by several
authors [38–44], there is considerable evidence that Class F fly
ashes perform better than Class C ashes for controlling ASR or
enhancing sulfate resistance. Currently the only differentiation
made between the two classes of fly ash in ASTM C 618 is coal
source and bulk chemistry. ASTM C 618 states that Class F fly ash
is “normally produced from burning anthracite or bituminous
coal” and Class C fly ash is “normally produced from lignite or
499
subbituminous coal.” This distinction has been controversial. The
subcommittee has not been able to make a better one. Recently,
the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) has split fly ash into
three groups based on analytical calcium content [45]. Attempts
have been made to ballot similar fly ash classification schemes in
ASTM C 618; however, to date all attempts have failed.
Chemical Requirements
Table 1 of ASTM C 618 gives the chemical requirements for fly
ash and natural pozzolans. There is a limit on the sum of three
elements, expressed as oxides, namely, silicon dioxide (SiO2)
plus aluminum oxide (Al2O3) plus iron oxide (Fe2O3). There are
also limits on the sulfur trioxide (SO3), moisture content, and
loss on ignition. ASTM C 311, specifying the methods to be
used in the determinations, refers to ASTM Test Methods for
Chemical Analysis of Hydraulic Cement (C 114) with modifi-
cations for a material with a high insoluble residue. Rapid and
instrumental methods may be employed similar to those in C
114 or in ASTM Test Method for Major and Minor Elements in
Coal and Coke Ash By X-ray Fluorescence (D 4326).
The earliest versions of ASTM C 618 assumed that the poz-
zolanic contribution had to come from its makeup of SiO2,
Al2O3, and Fe2O3. The minimum requirement placed on these
three constituents is based on that assumption. However, vari-
ations in the total of those three constituents for any material
have not been observed to correlate directly with results in con-
crete. At one point in the development of the specification,
there was a suggestion to remove the requirement with the ra-
tionale that it served only to define the material as a pozzolan
[46]. At that time, the expense and delay in running these tests
was significant and not altogether worthwhile. Now, with
quicker instrumental chemical testing procedures, the deter-
mination of the total SiO2, Al2O3, and Fe2O3 (plus many addi-
tional elements of interest) is not a concern.
The only specified difference between fly ash Classes F
and C is the total of SiO2 plus Al2O3 plus Fe2O3. Class F has
always required a minimum of 70 % and this limit served well
for many years. Class C requires a minimum of 50 %. Actually,
this is the subcommittee’s way of recognizing that Class C may
have 20 % more analytical calcium (expressed as an oxide,
CaO) content than Class F with the corollary result of lowering
the sum of the other three oxides. This is the only chemical dif-
ference recognized between Classes F and C in the specifica-
tion. Any material passing the Class F requirement will also
pass as Class C. Therefore, this is not a helpful distinction.
Sulfur in fly ash and natural pozzolans is reported as SO3.
The first editions of this specification limited the SO3 to 3 %.
Subsequent research showed that a fly ash with up to 17 % SO3
did not give significant delayed volume changes or setting
problems. Hence, the SO3 limits for fly ash were raised to 5 %
(maximum). The SO3 content for natural pozzolans is currently
listed at 4.0 % (maximum). Higher amounts of sulfur trioxide,
especially when associated with soluble alkali, can contribute
to efflorescence, so when they are present, testing for discol-
oration can be considered.
The moisture content is limited to 3 % maximum because
the material would become sticky and hard to handle if too
much moisture were encountered. The test is easy and inex-
pensive to run and the values determined are needed in other
parts of the test methods.
The limit on loss on ignition (LOI), now set at a maximum of
6.0 %, was originally set at 12.0 %. At that time, many of the fly
ashes available in the eastern United States could not pass limits
500 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE

TABLE 1—CCRL Test Results for the Available Alkali Test

Number Available Alkali Standard Coefficient of
Sample Year Class of Labs (as %Na2Oe) Deviation Variation, %

CCRL 1 1987 C 12 0.97 0.28 29.0

CCRL 2 1987 C 12 1.52 0.60 39.5
CCRL 3 1988 F 20 0.56 0.21 37.3
CCRL 4 1988 F 20 0.74 0.35 47.1
CCRL 5 1989 F 27 2.21 0.57 25.8
CCRL 6 1989 F 27 2.69 0.50 18.6
CCRL 7 1990 F 29 0.47 0.14 30.0
CCRL 8 1990 F 29 0.40 0.12 29.8
CCRL 9 1991 C 28 3.77 1.80 47.7
CCRL 10 1991 C 28 6.18 2.70 43.7
CCRL 11 1992 F 27 0.54 0.18 33.6
CCRL 12 1992 F 27 0.48 0.19 39.6
CCRL 13 1993 C 23 1.33 0.25 18.8
CCRL 14 1993 C 23 1.40 0.59 42.3
CCRL 15 1994 F 27 0.50 0.10 19.8
CCRL 16 1994 F 27 0.79 0.19 24.1
CCRL 17 1995 C 29 1.23 0.40 32.4
CCRL 18 1995 C 29 1.11 0.38 34.1
CCRL 19 1996 F 28 1.24 0.32 25.8
CCRL 20 1996 F 28 1.14 0.44 38.8
CCRL 21 1997 C 23 2.43 0.65 26.7
CCRL 22 1997 C 23 2.21 0.81 36.7
CCRL 23 1998 C 25 1.33 0.24 18.1
CCRL 24 1998 C 25 1.24 0.25 20.1
CCRL 25 1999 F 20 0.45 0.10 23.0
CCRL 26 1999 F 20 0.38 0.10 25.4
CCRL 27 2000 C 25 1.37 0.15 10.9
CCRL 28 2000 C 25 1.46 0.15 10.3
CCRL 29 2001 F 20 0.70 0.15 21.4
CCRL 30 2001 F 20 0.52 0.13 24.9
CCRL 31 2002 N 23 0.36 0.13 36.1
CCRL 32 2002 N 23 0.30 0.13 43.3
CCRL 33 2003 C 20 1.15 0.19 16.5
CCRL 34 2003 C 20 1.43 0.22 15.4

much lower, and they were giving satisfactory results in concrete.
With the advent of better (more complete) combustion in electric
power plants and with the coming of Class C fly ash to the mar-
ket, it was found that many agencies were dropping the limit to
6.0 %. Subcommittee C09.03.08 was divided in the action to lower
the limit. The maximum LOI was already at 6.0 % for Class C fly
ash. The note under ASTM C 618, Table 1, was added providing
for a 12.0 % maximum LOI if acceptable performance records
were provided. Everyone concedes, however, that the lower the
loss on ignition, the easier will be the control of air entrainment
content in the concrete. Class C fly ash is usually below 1 % LOI.
Agencies frequently lower this maximum when they are sure
there are competitive materials available in their marketplace.
LOI for natural pozzolans is set at a maximum of 10.0 %. This is
the same value given in the initial version of C 402, issued in 1957.
It is important to note that the LOI of natural pozzolans is not nor-
mally associated with the presence of free carbon. Rather it is
more commonly attributed to the presence of minerals that de-
compose during heating at 750°C (e.g., clays or carbonates).
Historically, loss on ignition in fly ash is directly related to
carbon content (see Fig. 4). When the specification was first
written, the determination of LOI was chosen because it was an
available test method from ASTM C 114 and was preferable to
the determination of free carbon. LOI is run at 750°C rather
than 950°C, the temperature given in ASTM C 114. Currently,
instrumental tests for carbon are frequently run instead of LOI
and are quicker and more desirable [47]. This is especially true
when additional fuels such as petroleum coke are burned along
with coal. In that instance, the LOI test method given in C 311
typically fails to burn off all of the carbon present in the fly ash.
Supplementary Optional Chemical Requirements
Currently there are no supplementary optional chemical re-
quirements for fly ash or natural pozzolans. The supplementary
optional chemical requirements were removed in 1983 (bulk
magnesium oxide) and 2001 (available alkali). The removal of
these optional requirements was associated with the replacement
of prescriptive chemical requirements with performance tests.
The bulk magnesium oxide content (analytical Mg, ex-
pressed as an oxide) of fly ash and natural pozzolan has histor-
ically been limited to 5 % (maximum). This was initially a
mandatory requirement (1968 through 1976) and then an op-
tional chemical requirement (1977 through 1983). This meant
that specifiers could limit usage based on an optional chemical
requirement even if the SCM met the mandatory physical re-
quirement by passing the autoclave test. Originally, this limit
 SCHLORHOLTZ ON SUPPLEMENTARY CEMENTITIOUS MATERIALS
Fig. 4—Relationship between carbon content and loss on ignition for fly ash. Historical data
extracted from Davis [10,11], Minnick [12], Brink and Halstead [13], ASTM [14], and EPRI [15].
was based on the concern that the presence of magnesium
would indicate the presence of periclase (MgO) in the SCM. Per-
iclase, while only sporadically identified in Class F fly ash and
natural pozzolans, is very common in Class C fly ash (compare
Fig. 2b, 2c and 2d). Hence, after the subcommittee became
more comfortable with the conservative results produced by the
autoclave test, the redundant specification limit was removed.
Later work indicated that the relationship between bulk mag-
nesium oxide content and the presence of periclase in fly ash
was considerably more complex than had been anticipated [16].
Up until 2001, the available alkali (or available “alkalies” in
older versions) content was limited to 1.5 % (maximum) in the
chemical or optional chemical requirements. This initially only
applied to fly ash but later the limit was also applied to natural
pozzolans. A note to this supplemental chemical requirement
stated that the limit was “Applicable only when specifically re-
quired by the purchaser for mineral admixtures to be used in
concrete containing reactive aggregate and cement to meet a
limitation on content of alkalies.” Since about 1989 there had
been much discussion in the subcommittee about the available
alkali test and its relevance to the ongoing battle against alkali-
silica reaction (ASR). Concerns were voiced about both the re-
liability of the test method and the significance of the 1.5 %
limit. Since no member of the subcommittee could remember
why the limit was originally set at 1.5 % the historical signifi-
cance and rationale behind the limit remains a mystery.
The available alkali test method dates back to about 1950
[48]. At that period in time the test method was most probably
considered highly innovative because it employed new tech-
nology (flame photometry) that was greatly enhancing the abil-
ity of analysts to determine the alkali content of a wide variety
of materials. Prior to the use of the flame photometer the de-
termination of sodium and potassium was not trivial—it was la-
borious and required highly trained technical staff. Hence,
when the method proved fruitful in the determination of water
501
soluble and total alkali in portland cements [49], it rapidly be-
came the method of choice for measuring alkali content. How-
ever, fly ash and pozzolans are only partially soluble in acid so
another method had to be devised to put the alkali into solu-
tion. That method became the “available alkalies” test. The
method summarized in ASTM C 311-53T is very similar (but
not identical) to one described by Moran and Gilliland [50] (see
Appendix B, page 126), which was used by the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation during the 1940s.
The purpose of the available alkali test is to estimate the
amount of alkali (sodium and potassium, normally expressed as
equivalent sodium oxide) that a fly ash or pozzolan can release
when it is reacted with calcium hydroxide. The test is long and
tedious. The specimens are cured for 28 days at a temperature
of 38°C and then the alkalis are washed from the pulverized
specimens. In concept, this was assumed to give an estimate of
how much alkali the fly ash could contribute to alkali-silica re-
action. However, the test method typically exhibits poor inter-
laboratory precision (see Table 1) and this limits the applicabil-
ity of the test results. This is especially true when the test results
approach the 1.5 % specification limit (note, if the precision val-
ues for CCRL samples 9 and 10 are ignored, that the D2S limit
is about 0.9 %, absolute, for this test method). The poor preci-
sion has been linked to a variety of different experimental vari-
ables, such as: (a) calibration standards do not adequately rep-
resent the unknown samples; (b) specimen grinding and
washing during the alkali extraction phase are poorly defined;
and (c) carbonation of the calcium hydroxide has a major im-
pact on the test results. Also, alkali solubility data for a small
number of natural pozzolans and Class F fly ashes indicated that
the release of alkali could continue out to 90 days of curing [50].
Using a larger suite of fly ash samples, Brink and Halstead [13]
showed that the release of alkali from Class F fly ash often con-
tinued past the 28-day curing period specified in the available
alkali test. Similar observations were reported for Class C fly ash
502 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE

Fig. 5—Relationship between available alkali content and the reduction of

mortar bar expansion for data from the Cement and Concrete Reference
Laboratory (CCRL) Pozzolan Proficiency sample program.

in 1986 [51]. Work by Buttler, Morgan, and Walker [52] indi-
cated that the selection of the fly ash to calcium hydroxide ratio
used in the test method also plays a critical role in the amount
of alkali that was liberated during the 28-day curing period.
Their test results indicated that the amount of alkali extracted
increased when the fly ash-calcium hydroxide ratio was
decreased. In addition, test results from the CCRL Pozzolan
Proficiency testing program show little indication of a strong
relationship between available alkali content and the reduc-
tion in mortar bar expansion (see Fig. 5). There is a consider-
ably better relationship between the sum of the oxides
(SiO2Al2O3Fe2O3) and the reduction in mortar bar expan-
sion (see Fig. 6). These facts made the 1.5 % limit very difficult
to support. Since the subcommittee could not remember the
rationale for setting the limit at 1.5 % in 1957, they reached a
consensus to remove the limit.
The strategy for removal of the specification limit was com-
posed of three steps. First, a performance test was adopted that
would differentiate between SCMs based on their ability to re-
duce the expansion caused by ASR. The test method that was
adopted will be described later in this chapter. Secondly, a test
method for measuring the total sodium and potassium content
was provided so that the alkali content of the SCM could be
measured and the total alkali burden of the cementitious mate-
rial could be calculated. The determination of total alkali con-
tent is fast and allows one to perform testing on a routine basis
with a much better turnaround time than was possible with the
available alkali test. Finally, the 1.5 % specification limit for

Fig. 6—Relationship between the oxide sum (SiAlFe) and the reduction of
mortar bar expansion for data from the Cement and Concrete Reference
Laboratory (CCRL) Pozzolan Proficiency sample program.
 SCHLORHOLTZ ON SUPPLEMENTARY CEMENTITIOUS MATERIALS
available alkali was removed. No maximum limit was placed on
the total alkali content of the SCM because the subcommittee
could not reach a consensus on an appropriate value for the
limit. Instead, they indicated that the performance test results
should guide the selection and replacement level appropriate
for any given mixture of SCM and cement.
Physical Requirements
The mandatory physical requirements, set forth in Table 2 of
ASTM C 618, consist of fineness, strength activity index, water
requirement, soundness, and uniformity of fineness and den-
sity. This section will deal with them in that order.
Fineness of a SCM is important in its contribution to a con-
crete mixture. Although there is not a direct correlation, the
amount of water needed to produce a concrete mixture of ad-
equate workability and the apparent reactivity of the SCM are
both dependent on fineness. The first versions of this specifi-
cation used specific surface as a measure of fineness. Specific
surface was measured by ASTM Test Method for Fineness of
Hydraulic Cement by Air-Permeability Apparatus (C 206) (this
is the Blaine test adjusted to compensate for the density of the
material being analyzed). Then, mean particle diameter was
substituted in 1965. The consensus went back to specific sur-
face in 1968. At that time, a new fineness requirement was
added for Class N pozzolans that consisted of fineness as de-
termined by wet washing through a 45 m (No. 325) sieve. A
maximum of 12 % retained was the original limit. Fly ash
added the new fineness test and a new specification limit in
1971. The limit was initially set at 20 % (maximum, % retained)
but was later raised to 34 % (maximum) in 1973, when the pro-
cedure in ASTM Test Method for Fineness of Hydraulic Ce-
ment by the 45-m (No. 325) Sieve (C 430) began to call for the
use of the new electroformed sieves [4,53,54]. These changes
are mentioned to indicate the difficulty experienced measuring
fineness in a way that correlates with results in concrete. In the
C 206 test, higher carbon contents can give readings indicating
higher surface area, which would assume a finer product when
actually the material is coarser or less fine [55]. The percent-re-
tained test does not measure the fine material that is actually
contributing to the concrete reaction, but it generally acts as an
accurate indicator of the amount of fine material present. The
test is simple, quick, and inexpensive and can be run at a high
frequency for quality control purposes. The sieve calibration
procedure was changed in 1994 to utilize an additive correc-
tion factor rather than the multiplicative correction factor
TABLE 2—CCRL Summary of Test Results from the Lime Pozzolanic
Strength Index
Number
Sample Year Class of Labs
CCRL 5 1989 F 21
CCRL 6 1989 F 21
CCRL 7 1990 F 25
CCRL 8 1990 F 25
CCRL 9 1991 C 23
CCRL 10 1991 C 23
CCRL 11 1992 F 26
CCRL 12 1992 F 26
503
given in C 430. This was done in response to concerns voiced
about both the calibration procedure and the calibration
standards used in the test method [56]. The new calibration
procedure appeared to effectively remove the bias in the test
results reported for CCRL Pozzolan Proficiency samples 7 and
8 [57]. This is in good agreement with the work by Butler and
Kanare [56], which indicated that the selection of a calibration
standard was less critical when the additive correction factor
was used. Their test results indicated that the cement calibra-
tion standard (SRM 114n) “gave results comparable to the best
SRM fly ash results.” Hence, this appeared to fix the fineness
calibration problem and still allowed laboratories to use only a
single SRM (cement standard 114) for both cement and fly ash
fineness determinations.
Strength tests have always played a fundamental role in the
acceptance of fly ash and natural pozzolans for use in concrete.
Strength testing is normally conducted on mortar specimens con-
taining specific proportions of lime and SCM (pozzolanic activity
index with lime) or on mortar cubes containing specific amounts
of portland cement and SCM (compressive strength of mortar
cubes, pozzolanic activity index with portland cement, strength
activity index with portland cement). The history of early changes
in the test methods and associated specification limits has been
discussed by Mielenz [37,48,53]. The mortar tests and associated
specification limits have always been subject to criticism because
they do not directly correlate with the performance of the SCM
in concrete. However, the reader must bear in mind that the pur-
pose of standardized testing is to ensure that the product (fly ash
or natural pozzolan) meets minimum requirements listed in the
standards. The tests are meant to be used as product acceptance
tests on a nationwide basis and not as a guide to mixture designs
for specific projects. Hence, a note stating this disclaimer has
been used since the early versions of the specifications.
The strength activity index test with lime was controversial
for some time prior to being removed from the specification.
Part of the reason for the controversy was probably related to
the very poor interlaboratory precision of the test method (see
Table 2). The exact reason for the poor precision is difficult to
pinpoint; however, the test was felt to be as much a test of the
lime (fineness, purity, etc.) as it was of the fly ash or natural poz-
zolan. The requirement was dropped for Class C fly ash in 1985.
Class C fly ash makes its own contribution of lime to the mix-
ture, so this test was irrelevant. The requirement was dropped
for Class F and Class N pozzolans in 1992. Part of the reason the
method had stayed around so long was because it was quick; it
Standard
Mean (psi) deviation (psi) COV (%)
1042.3 267.5 25.7
960.3 222.5 23.2
782.4 188.0 24.0
595.4 211.0 35.4
2144.9 405.5 18.9
2851.7 937.0 32.9
1068.7 193.5 18.1
947.7 200.1 21.1
504 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
was the only strength test that produced a result in seven days.
The other tests all required 28 days of curing prior to produc-
ing a test result. Hence, it was retained for that reason alone.
During the mid to late 1980s, the pozzolanic activity index
test with portland cement was subjected to considerable
scrutiny. The method was subjected to several round robin stud-
ies and extensive changes in procedure and evaluation resulted
from the studies (ASTM report RR: C09-1001). The changes
were substantial so the revised test method was given a new
name to avoid confusion with the old method. Also, the name
was changed to reflect the subcommittee’s opinion that any test
conducted at room temperature, with a maximum duration of
only 28 days, was too short to ascertain the “pozzolanic” nature
of the SCM. Rather, the method would simply indicate how a
SCM behaved with any given cement. The new test method was
named the strength activity index with portland cement and it
was published in 1990. The changes in the method pertained to
SCM replacement level, curing temperature, flow properties,
and the alkali content of the lab cement that would be used in
the testing. The changes to the flow properties of the mortar will
be described later with the discussion on the water requirement
limit. In the new method, the replacement of portland cement
is done by mass (20 %) rather than volume (35 % in the old
method) to reflect field usage. This also helped to eliminate the
need to conduct density tests prior to proportioning the mortar.
The curing temperature was reduced from 38°C (sealed con-
tainers) to standard laboratory conditions (23°C, submerged in
lime water). This greatly simplified the curing requirements of
the test method. One side effect of the reduction in curing tem-
perature was that the alkali content of the portland cement
needed to be constrained within a specific range (0.50 % to
0.80 %, as equivalent Na2O). High alkali cements tended to
increase the early strength gain of the test specimens. In addi-
tion, low alkali cements tended to decrease the early strength
gain of the test specimens. Hence, for standardization purposes
the alkali content of the lab cement needed to be constrained
so that test results could be compared across the country. This
did not mean that job cement of any arbitrary composition
could not be used in the evaluations. Rather it simply meant that
the subcommittee was striving to reduce the interlaboratory
variation in the test method. The most important addition to the
new test method was a 7-day alternate with the previous 28-day
requirement. The availability of a 7-day result from the strength
activity index test allowed the subcommittee to delete the 7-day
lime pozzolanic activity test.
One complaint about the strength activity index with port-
land cement test has been that it fails to consistently reject finely
ground materials that exhibit marginal to negligible pozzolanic
properties (for example, pulverized quartz). This can be partly
attributed to the low dosage of SCM (20 % replacement) that is
used in the mixture. During the development of the test method
a coarse Class F fly ash was used to simulate a material that
would consistently fail to meet the specification limit; however,
this approximation apparently failed to cover an adequate
range of behavior. The subcommittee has discussed this issue
several times and is currently waiting to see how frequently test-
ing labs report this anomalous behavior. To date, after using the
new test method for a little over a decade, two labs have re-
ported instances where materials have passed the specification
limit but exhibited little potential as a pozzolanic material.
Hence, this is still an active issue in the subcommittee.
The water requirement limit gives some measure of the
contribution to workability that the SCM will impart to a
concrete mixture. The test is performed using the mortar that
is prepared for the strength activity index with portland
cement test. The control mortar is proportioned at a fixed wa-
ter-cement ratio of 0.485 and the flow for the mixture is deter-
mined. The flow of the test mortar (containing 20 % SCM) is
constrained to be  5 % of the flow value that was obtained for
the control mortar. Ultimately, by trial and error, this dictates
the amount of water that will be used for the test mortar. For
fly ash, the limit is set at a maximum water demand of 105 %,
relative to the control cement. For fly ash, this limit will de-
pend on fineness, carbon (or LOI), and, to a lesser extent, on
the glassy spherical particles in the fly ash. For natural poz-
zolans this limit is set at a maximum of 115 %, and depends pri-
marily on the fineness and surface characteristics of the mate-
rial. When the pozzolanic activity index test was replaced with
the strength activity index test in the late 1980s, the water re-
quirement limits were held constant. This was done even
though the amount of SCM used in the test mixture was sig-
nificantly reduced. Hence, this has impacted the usefulness of
the water requirement limits because it has reduced the range
of test results that are obtained. Good fly ashes, which often re-
duced the water demand about 8 % to 10 % in the pozzolanic
activity index test, now only reduce the water demand about
5 % for the current test method. Of more concern are tests con-
ducted on fly ash or pozzolans that have high water demands.
Reducing the quantity of SCM that is added to the test mortar
makes the method less sensitive to problematic behavior [58].
However, such behavior may no longer be relevant to field
applications because chemical admixtures (water reducers)
have become so commonly used in the construction industry.
Soundness, as measured by the autoclave expansion test,
will indicate any possible delayed expansion problems related
to periclase and free lime, if those materials are present in dele-
terious quantities. Extensive testing has indicated that the auto-
clave test provides a conservative approach to identifying
potential soundness problems related to periclase and/or free
lime in fly ash [16,59,60]. Helmuth and West [61] have reported
concerns about the validity of the autoclave test when evaluat-
ing blended cements; however, these concerns were attributed
to the influence of unsound cements containing pozzolans, not
unsound pozzolans. The drier consistency of the paste used in
the autoclave test constrains the hydration of periclase and lime
when they are present in a “hard burned” state. Some Class F
fly ash has failed this test due to the lime, even though the lime
would have been adequately hydrated when used in concrete at
normal water-to-cementitious-materials ratios. Users still need
to pass the autoclave test when using higher SCM replacements.
Note D of Table 2 states that “If the fly ash or natural pozzolan
will constitute more then 20 % by weight of the cementitious
material in the project mix design, the test specimens for auto-
clave expansion shall contain that anticipated percentage. Ex-
cessive autoclave expansion is highly significant in cases where
the water to fly ash or natural pozzolan and cement ratios are
low, for example, in block or shotcrete mixes.”
The mandatory physical requirements for uniformity in-
clude limits for fineness ( 5 percentage points) and density
( 5 %). Both requirements are compared to the average of the
ten prior test results. The uniformity of the fineness is specified
since it is an easily determined indicator of a change in the
product. Such a change is important because it might affect
water demand in concrete. The other uniformity requirement
in Table 2 of ASTM C 618 is on density. However, a change of
5 % in the uniformity of density is not thought to be significant
 SCHLORHOLTZ ON SUPPLEMENTARY CEMENTITIOUS MATERIALS 505

either as an indicator of product change or in effect on con- to 25 %). Therefore, this has served to cause the rejection of
crete mixture design. This is probably because most agencies materials that might have been helpful in correcting alkali-sil-
currently limit SCM replacements to about 15 % to 25 % of ica reaction in concrete. The 0.020 % limit was set assuming
the cement in the mixture. Hence, the 5 % uniformity limit on that low-alkali portland cements (less than 0.60 %, expressed as
the SCM tends to be obscured by the variability present in the equivalent Na2O) could meet that limit [69]. However, recent
other raw materials [62]. changes in the storage containers for the test procedure have
increased the sensitivity of the test and this limit can now only
Supplementary Optional Physical Requirements be reached by cements with very low alkali contents [70,71].
ASTM C 618, Table 3, lists the supplementary optional physical Extensive work by many researchers has clearly indicated that
requirements as multiple factor, drying shrinkage, uniformity fly ash replacement level is a major factor in controlling ex-
requirement for air-entraining solution demand, effectiveness pansion caused by ASR [32,42,44,67,68]. This is especially true
in controlling alkali-silica reactivity, and effectiveness in when the replacement level is near the pessimum level for the
contributing to sulfate resistance. cementitious system. Also, Dunstan [41] has hypothesized that
The multiple factor is defined as the sieve fineness multi- fly ash class designation should impact the ability of a fly ash
plied by the LOI (or free carbon content). For Class F fly ash to reduce the expansion caused by ASR (see Fig. 7; note that
the multiple factor has exhibited good correlation with the rel- the trend is also evident in CCRL test results illustrated in Fig.
ative water requirement; and hence, has been linked to 6). These inconsistencies forced the subcommittee to improve
strength parameters in mortar and concrete [58]. The multiple the test method and specification limit for the test.
factor helps to avoid the situation where increasing fineness The new test procedure is called the Effectiveness of Fly Ash
values and carbon content (LOI) lead to an increase in water or Natural Pozzolan in Controlling Alkali Silica Reactions and it
demand. This relationship does not apply to Class C fly ash be- was adopted in 1993. The new test procedure is accompanied by
cause the LOI is generally below 1 % and is, therefore, too low a commentary describing how the procedure should be used
to act as a multiplier. In addition, the relationship does not and interpreted (see Appendix X1 of C 311). Briefly, the test pro-
apply to natural pozzolans because the LOI is not related to cedure is based on the mortar bar expansion test described in
carbon content and the fineness can be adjusted by manufac- the Standard Test Method for the Effectiveness of Pozzolans or
turing processes. Ground Blast-Furnace Slag in Preventing Excessive Expansion
Increase of drying shrinkage is a requirement because of Concrete Due to the Alkali-Silica Reaction, ASTM C 441. This
some natural pozzolans will cause an unacceptable increase in method was modified to substitute SCM for cement on a mass
drying shrinkage. This is typically related to the increased wa- equivalent basis and a control cement is used to set the level of
ter demand of the mixture. Fly ash will generally reduce dry- expansion (performance) that the test specimens will be com-
ing shrinkage [63,64]. The test method, which dates back to the pared against. This concept is illustrated in Fig. 8.
1950s, originated from a time when the SCM was commonly The control cement for the test is typically chosen with an
used to replace a portion of the aggregate. This is in contrast alkali content between 0.50 % and 0.60 % equivalent Na2O
to modern practice in which the SCM is treated as part of the (Control 1 in Fig. 8, alkali content  0.52 % as Na2O). However,
cementitious material. Hence, the paste content of the mortar
containing the SCM is greater than in the control mortar. Since
total cementitious material content and water content both
have a significant influence on shrinkage, this tends to put the
test specimen containing SCM at a disadvantage. Hence, the
test method is currently being re-evaluated and may be revised
in the future.
The test procedure for the uniformity of air-entraining
agent demand has recently been challenged as not being sen-
sitive enough [65]. The problem with the test method is related
to the high air content (18  3 %) used in the evaluation. The
subcommittee will consider a lower air content that would
make the test more sensitive. In the meantime, this optional
test will deal with the concern that some fly ash causes prob-
lems with control of entrained air in the concrete mixture.
Class F fly ash and natural pozzolans have been used to re-
duce the expansion caused by alkali-silica reaction for over 50
years. Early work by Hanna [32], Davis [20], Lerch [66], Stan-
ton [67], and Pepper and Mather [68] set a firm foundation
upon which nearly countless other authors have built. Mielenz
et al. [69] have indicated that natural pozzolans typically per-
form better than fly ash in controlling expansion related to
ASR (also, refer to Fig. 5). However, the reactivity with cement
alkalies test has not been a satisfactory method for selecting fly
ash that can help to reduce expansion caused by alkali-silica re-
action. The required “reduction of mortar expansion” does not
apply to fly ash and the required mortar bar expansion at 14 Fig. 7—Theoretical relationship between fly ash replace-
days (0.020 %, maximum) is too low for many otherwise ac- ment level and expansion due to alkali-silica reaction
ceptable fly ashes (especially when the replacement is limited (adapted from Dunstan [41]).
506 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
Fig. 8—Illustration of how the new test for the Effectiveness of Fly Ash or
Natural Pozzolan in Controlling Alkali-Silica Reactions can be used to select fly ash
and replacement levels.
control cements with considerably lower alkali contents may
also be used to decrease the expansion of the control speci-
mens (Control 2 in Fig. 8, alkali content  0.39 % as Na2O).
This tends to make the test more conservative and it also makes
the method applicable to regions that only have access to very
low alkali cements. The cement used to fabricate the test spec-
imens should have an alkali content equaling or exceeding that
of the job cement (Job Cement in Fig. 8, alkali content  0.75 %
as Na2O). The test is run at several levels of SCM replacement
to evaluate how dosage influences mortar bar expansion in the
test specimens. This helps to avoid using SCM dosages that are
near the pessimum level for that particular cementitious sys-
tem. In this instance two different fly ashes (A and B in Fig. 8)
were used with the job cement at replacement levels of 15 %,
35 %, and 22 %, respectively. A test mixture must exhibit an
expansion less than, or equal to, the control specimen (Control
1 in Fig. 8) to be considered “effective.” Fly ash B was effective
at the 22 % replacement level, while fly ash A was just effective
at the 35 % replacement level. In this particular instance, at the
replacement levels used in the study, neither fly ash could
reduce the expansion below the level of the very low alkali
cement (Control 2). In addition, it is apparent that the 14-day
criterion tends to provide a conservative estimate of the SCM’s
ability to reduce expansion.
The new ASR test method was created to provide a better
method of selecting good material combinations (those effec-
tive at reducing expansion) from the many different sources of
material that are commonly available for any given job. The
method is relatively quick because test results are available in
14 days. It also provides a more robust solution to the problem
of materials selection and optimization than was ever provided
by the available alkali test. The method was not designed to
provide a mitigative solution to the ASR problem. That is why
a joint C09.24-C09.26 Task Group entitled “ASR and Perfor-
mance Limits” is still actively pursuing more robust methods
of eliminating or minimizing the impact of ASR on concrete.
The new techniques and associated specification limits will be
adopted when they become available.
A new test method was adopted for the effectiveness in
contributing to sulfate resistance in 1996. The test method is
based on the Standard Test Method for Length Change of Hy-
draulic-Cement Mortars Exposed to Sulfate Solution, ASTM C
1012. This test method, and the associated specification limits
given in C 618, was needed because of the concerns voiced in
the literature about how different sources of fly ash influence
the performance of concrete exposed to soluble sulfates
[38–40,72,73]. Again, the test was adopted to simplify the se-
lection of combinations of materials that could provide the per-
formance needed for specific job requirements. The new test
procedure is accompanied by a commentary describing how it
should be used and interpreted (see Appendix X2 of C 311).
The specification limits can be applied via two different proce-
dures. In both instances the test takes at least six months to
complete.
The first method (Procedure A) is very similar to that
given in C 1012. The expansion of the mortar bar specimens
containing fly ash or natural pozzolan is compared to the
absolute expansion limits given in Table 3 of C 618. The ab-
solute expansion limits are selected based on the level of
sulfate resistance needed for a particular job. The second
method (Procedure B) uses control specimens containing
only portland cement to designate the level of expansion that
would be acceptable for any particular job. In this instance,
test specimens containing various proportions of job cement
and SCM are simply checked to make sure that they provide
performance equivalent to the control cement. Hence, this is
the reason for the 100 % (maximum) expansion limit given in
Table 3 of C 618.
Test Requirements Not in the Specification
Various other tests have been proposed and used in research.
These have been considered for use in these specifications, but
they were not generally applicable or definitive enough to
include. These dealt with, among other things, discernment
between Classes F and C, heat of hydration, and effect on air
entrainment.
This chapter has already suggested that the distinction be-
tween Classes F and C fly ash is not properly drawn in ASTM C
618. The subcommittee has worked with a test for hydraulic in-
dex in hopes of being able to forecast the possible contribution
 SCHLORHOLTZ ON SUPPLEMENTARY CEMENTITIOUS MATERIALS
of a pozzolan to the strength of a concrete mixture. This seemed
at least to be one factor that could be isolated. Such a test would
help discern between Classes F and C. No such test procedure
has proven totally acceptable because the complex contribution
to a concrete mixture made by a pozzolan with various cements,
in various proportions, at various temperatures, and in various
types of concrete mixtures has not allowed any correlations that
are acceptable. Manz [74] suggested a performance test meas-
uring strength with no cement in the mixture. If such a mixture
gave a measurable strength, the fly ash would be assumed to be
Class C; if not, Class F. Various other strength tests of mortars
or even of mixtures without aggregate were tried. Temperature
rise tests were also tried without conclusive results. Members of
the subcommittee have just been slow to accept new testing pro-
grams such as those proposed by McKerrall and Ledbetter [75]
for Class C fly ash.
These same temperature rise tests on mortars have been
used for information on heat of hydration with varying degrees
of success. However, in measuring both contribution to
strength and heat of hydration, it is more advisable to test a
complete concrete mixture rather than a laboratory mortar.
The foam-index test is a quick test to show possible
changes in the amount of air-entraining agent required when
using fly ash in the concrete. Since it deals with one cement
and only the source of fly ash under test, the results apply only
to that single combination.
Quality Assurance
Some of the tests discussed earlier could be used as part of a
quality assurance program, inasmuch as ASTM C 618 and
ASTM C 311 cannot be expected to be a complete quality as-
surance program. A quality assurance program can better be
done by a producer of fly ash than by a user, since the pro-
ducer will know more about the factors that affect change and
will therefore know the tests that really apply to his situation.
Fly ash is a by-product of coal combustion in an electric steam
power plant and acceptability is therefore more a matter of
quality assurance than quality control. Some agencies, such as
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, once used sealed storage
and complete testing before shipment. In 1984, that organiza-
tion began an effort to avoid the consequent cost and delay by
qualifying sources of pozzolan based on prior testing history
and producer product certification [76]. Such a program
might use some tests not discussed in this chapter that a pro-
ducer has found to indicate possible changes in product. The
ACI Committee reports [5,6] discuss some of those tests that
cannot be used in a specification such as ASTM C 618 but can
be used effectively for quality assurance.
Silica Fume
History and Use
Silica fume (sometimes referred to as condensed silica fume or
microsilica) is a by-product from the production of silicon
metal or ferrosilicon metal in submerged-arc electric furnaces
[77,78]. According to Malhotra et al. [77], “The first investiga-
tions on condensed silica fume began in the late 1940s and
since then Norway has made significant advances on various
aspects of silica fume.” Some of the first field experimentation
with silica fume in concrete in the United States was done in
Kentucky in 1982. In January 1985, ASTM Subcommittee
C09.03.10 organized a task group to develop a specification for
the use of silica fume in concrete. According to Richter [79],
507
silica fume can be used to make concrete with the following
desirable properties:
(a) reduced heat of hydration,
(b) retarded alkali-aggregate reaction,
(c) reduced freeze-thaw effects and water erosion,
(d) high strength,
(e) increased sulfate resistance, and
(f) reduced permeability.
Silica fume is almost as fine as tobacco smoke. Along with
this fineness, it is mostly amorphous (refer to Fig. 2a) and is
spherical in shape [80]. The ASTM task group at first thought
to add silica fume as a new class or column in the existing
ASTM C 618. Test procedures from ASTM C 311 were to be
used where possible and modified when needed. Prescription
and performance specifications were both to be used when
they gave desirable information. By late 1986, it was decided
not to try to incorporate silica fume into ASTM C 618. Still,
much of the thinking from that specification, as well as ASTM
C 311, has guided the preparation of the initial version of the
ASTM Standard Specification for Silica Fume for Use in
Hydraulic-Cement Concrete and Mortar (C 1240) that was
published in 1993. Since then, both the base document and the
title of the specification have been subjected to a number of re-
visions. In 2003, the title of the specification was changed to
the ASTM Standard Specification for Silica Fume Used in
Cementitious Mixtures, when the deprecated term “mineral
admixture” was removed from the document.
Chemical Requirements
Chemical requirements for silica fume are listed in Table 1 of
C 1240. They consist of mandatory requirements for silicon
dioxide, moisture content, and loss on ignition.
Silicon, reported as silicon dioxide (SiO2), is usually con-
sidered the active constituent in silica fume. The limit was set at
a minimum of 85 % when it was found that, with 16 different
fumes with a minimum of 85 % SiO2, no other oxide except
potassium oxide (K2O), which was at 2.27 %, was over 2 % [79].
According to Richter, “most research has been done on silica
fume produced from the production of silicon or ferrosilicon
alloys. Since very little is known about the other types at the
present time, the Canadian specification and ASTM are limiting
silicon (expressed as SiO2) to 85 % and higher” [45,79]. The orig-
inating task group from ASTM decided to report elements from
the chemical analysis as conventional oxides even though in
some fumes none or very little of that oxide is present. Note in
Fig. 2a that small amounts of reduced mineral species may oc-
casionally be found in silica fume (moissanite is silicon carbide,
SiC). The determination of the bulk chemistry of silica fume had
long been hampered because of the lack of high-silica content
standards. That limitation was resolved by a round robin con-
ducted in 2003, which yielded a standard reference material
(SRM 2696) for silica fume. The remaining two requirements,
moisture content and LOI, appear to have been directly adopted
from C 618. Moisture content is limited to 3 % maximum to
avoid problems in handling. Most of the 6 % LOI is due to “for-
eign materials” such as carbon and wood chips. These foreign
materials do not come from contamination, but are present
from the process that produces silica fume.
The early versions of C 1240 had an optional chemical re-
quirement for the available alkali content of silica fume. This
requirement was adopted directly from ASTM C 618. However,
the requirement was removed in 2000 because it was consid-
ered “prescriptive” and a performance test was available for
508 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
determining the ASR resistance of cement-silica fume combi-
nations. An interesting fact became apparent when the avail-
able alkali limit was being balloted for removal. Discussion
with both users and producers indicated that few were deter-
mining the available alkali content as specified in C 311. Rather
most had been determining the total alkali content of the silica
fume. They had been conducting this type of testing on a rou-
tine basis for as long as they had been testing silica fume.
Hence, the current specification allows one to monitor and re-
port the total alkali content of silica fume.
Physical Requirements
Physical requirements are given in Table 2 of C 1240. The phys-
ical requirements consist of the determination of oversize, the
uniformity of the oversize measurements, the accelerated
pozzolanic strength activity index, and specific surface.
Under physical requirements, there is an oversize provi-
sion that 10 % (maximum) of the material may be retained on
the 45-m (No. 325) sieve. Normally, all of the silica fume will
easily pass through a 45-m (No. 325) sieve. Material retained
on the 45-m (No. 325) sieve is an indication of foreign mate-
rials such as carbon and wood chips in the bulk product. How-
ever, Note A of Table 2 warns that agglomerations of extremely
fine material can also fail to pass through the sieve. Hence, the
task group is currently working on procedural changes to the
test method that will provide results that are more concise. The
uniformity requirement for the percentage oversize test
appears to have been directly adopted from C 618.
With respect to the accelerated pozzolanic activity index
test, it should be noted that specimens are cured at 65°C; this is
different from any prior methods published in ASTM C 311. The
round-robin work conducted for this specification was per-
formed before ASTM C 311 was changed in 1989. The specifi-
cation limit at seven days, 85 % (minimum) of control, was set
with the old C 311 test procedure (pozzolanic activity index,
sealed curing at 38°C) but with higher temperatures in mind.
The initial version of the test was replaced with the accelerated
pozzolanic strength activity index in 2002. This was done to cor-
rect some discrepancies in the test method. The major discrep-
ancy in the method was related to the fact that the test speci-
mens (containing 10 % silica fume) were proportioned on a
constant flow basis. This caused the test specimens to always
have a significantly higher water-to-cementitious-material ratio
than the control mixture (formulated at a fixed w/c  0.485).
The new version of the test method allows the use a high-range
water reducer in the mixture containing silica fume. This allows
the technician to vary the water reducer dosage to make the
flow of the test mortar similar to the control mortar, while main-
taining a water-to-cementitious-material ratio of 0.485. This
change greatly increased the compressive strength of cubes
from the test mixture and the specification limit was increased
to 105 % (minimum) of the control, to reflect this increase in
strength. The note at the bottom of Table 2 in the specification
points out that “Accelerated pozzolanic activity index is not to
be considered a measure of the compressive strength of con-
crete containing the silica fume. This is a measure of the reac-
tivity of a given silica fume with a given cement and may vary
as to the source of both the silica fume and the cement.”
The task group developing the silica fume specification
also felt a need to measure particle size or specific surface area
because this often appeared to be a property relevant to the use
of the material. The air permeability (Blaine fineness) test was
evaluated and rejected because of the variation of results
between operators and laboratories. Finally, it was decided to
measure the specific surface area by the Brunauer, Emmett,
and Teller (BET) nitrogen adsorption method. The method is
similar to the ASTM Test Method for Specific Surface Area of
Alumina or Quartz by Nitrogen Adsorption, C 1069. A mini-
mum specific surface area of 15 m2/g is specified in Table 2 of
C 1240.
Optional Physical Requirements
Optional physical requirements for silica fume are given in
Table 3 of C 1240. The optional physical requirements consist
of the determination of the uniformity of air content measure-
ments, the reactivity with cement alkalies, and sulfate resist-
ance. All of the optional physical requirements are currently
being re-evaluated by the silica fume task group because they
are rather inflexible and, in the instance of the sulfate resistance
test, can significantly delay the certification of the material.
The uniformity of air content test was directly adapted
from C 311. The test measures the amount of admixture that
is required to produce a specific amount of air (18  3 %) in
a mortar mixture. The test is meaningful because it reinforces
the notion that finely divided materials containing free car-
bon can have a significant impact on the amount of admix-
ture required to entrain a stable air-void system. However, the
test uses mix proportions that consider the silica fume an ag-
gregate addition (rather than a cement replacement). Since
the use of a high-range water reducer is not allowed, the
water demand of the mixture containing 9 % silica fume
tends to be high.
The reactivity with cement alkalies test was directly
adapted from C 441. The silica fume replacement is fixed at
10 % by mass of cement. Again, since the water required to pro-
duce a plastic mortar mixture is determined using the flow test,
the control mix tends to contain much less water than the test
mixture containing silica fume. The specification limit is set at
an 80 % reduction in expansion as compared to the control
specimen. It is uncertain why this value is different from the
normal value (75 % reduction), which has been used for natu-
ral pozzolans for more than 50 years.
The sulfate resistance test method for silica fume is basi-
cally the same as that which was described earlier for fly ash
and natural pozzolans (Procedure A, absolute expansion lim-
its). Again, the silica fume content of the mortar mixtures has
been set at a replacement of 10 % and the test does not allow
for the use of a high-range water reducer to correct for the
water demand of the silica fume. The specification limits are
also similar to those given for fly ash and natural pozzolans;
however, a new expansion category (very high resistance,
0.05 % expansion at one year) has been added to Table 3.
Closing Statements
Enhanced awareness of environmental concerns has led to a
resurgence in the use of supplementary cementitious materi-
als. However, it has also changed the way that the materials are
employed. In many instances today, especially in the case of fly
ash, the user simply wants to be assured that it will not cause
any problems in concrete. This is in contrast to the original rea-
son for using the material, which was to enhance specific prop-
erties of the concrete mixture. However, in very recent times
the push has been to produce high performance concrete on a
routine basis for many different applications. These demands
require the use of supplementary cementitious materials.
 SCHLORHOLTZ ON SUPPLEMENTARY CEMENTITIOUS MATERIALS
What needs to be done to make the specifications for these
materials better? The silica fume specification is only about one
decade old and is still in a constant state of revision; hence, that
document is currently moving forward at a good pace. How-
ever, the specifications for fly ash and natural pozzolans (C 618)
are another matter. These specifications are now about 50 years
old and sometimes they appear to be firmly rooted in the past
rather than looking ahead to future concerns. Current issues,
such as co-combustion of biomass with coal, low NOx burners,
precipitator additives, burning of spot market coal, and pro-
duction of high-reactivity metakaolins, all stretch the specifica-
tions to their limit. Many authors have reviewed C 618 and C
311 and many have been critical of them [29,54,74,81–85].
Many of the criticisms have been addressed by the subcommit-
tee; however, much work still needs to be done. The direction
that subcommittee C09.24 needs to take to improve these doc-
uments is to get back to basics coupled with the use of new an-
alytical strategies or techniques. This suggests a rethinking of
many facets of the existing test methods and specifications.
There is little doubt of what we need to produce—we need to en-
sure that the materials are used to produce concrete that meets
the needs specified by the user. All efforts must be directed at
keeping the new or refined requirements as performance-
oriented as possible. This will be necessary because at present
it is difficult to predict where changes will occur. For example,
some agencies have already developed mixtures of two or more
materials (say, silica fume and fly ash) that they now wish to
market. What specification, the silica fume or the fly ash, would
apply to the composite material? Would either existing specifi-
cation provide robust enough requirements for the acceptance
(or rejection) of the material, or should they even be applied to
the new material? If reliable performance limits could be set for
the whole group of generic materials covered under the speci-
fications then it would greatly simplify dealing with such mix-
tures. Mixtures of this type will probably generate great appeal
because they have the potential of imparting the benefits from
each of the constituents [44,86]. Also, there is no reason to limit
the number of materials that can be combined. Performance
needs to be the goal.
In conclusion, the supplementary cementitious materials
dealt with in this chapter have properties that can provide sig-
nificant benefits to concrete mixtures. The benefits range from
enhanced performance to production of mixtures that are more
economical. These benefits have been verified by decades of use
in the field. The many tests used in the ASTM specifications dis-
cussed in this chapter are significant in controlling and defin-
ing the aforementioned properties and their use in the concrete
industry. However, these specifications cannot be static. They
must be in a continuous state of revision and refinement. This
relates directly to the fact that the majority of the materials are
by-products from major industries. As these industries change
to meet new environmental regulations or the rapidly changing
economic climate, they have the potential to alter the quality of
the supplementary cementitious materials that are produced.
References
[1] Meissner, H. S., “Mineral Admixtures,” Significance of Tests and
Properties of Concrete and Concrete Aggregates, ASTM STP 169,
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 1955, pp. 375–387.
[2] Higginson, E. C., “Mineral Admixtures,” Significance of Tests
and Properties of Concrete and Concrete-Making Materials,
ASTM STP 169A, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA,
1966, pp. 543–555.
509
[3] Tuthill, L. H. “Chapter 46—Mineral Admixtures,” Significance
of Tests and Properties of Concrete and Concrete-Making
Materials, ASTM STP 169B, ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 1978, pp. 804–822.
[4] Cain, C. J., “Chapter 46 - Mineral Admixtures,” Significance of
Tests and Properties of Concrete and Concrete-Making Materi-
als, ASTM STP 169C, ASTM International, West Conshohocken,
PA, 1994, pp. 747–759.
[5] American Concrete Institute, “Use of Natural Pozzolans in
Concrete,” Manual of Concrete Practice, Part 1—Materials and
General Properties of Concrete, ACI 232.1R, Committee 226,
Admixtures for Concrete, ACI, Detroit, MI, 2002.
[6] American Concrete Institute, “Use of Fly Ash in Concrete,”
Manual of Concrete Practice, Part 1—Materials and General
Properties of Concrete, ACI 232.2R-96, Committee 226, Admix-
tures for Concrete, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI,
2002.
[7] American Concrete Institute, “Use of Silica Fume in Concrete,”
Manual of Concrete Practice, Part 1—Materials and General
Properties of Concrete, ACI 234R-96, Committee 226, Admix-
tures for Concrete, ACI, Detroit, MI, 2002.
[8] American Heritage Dictionary, Third Edition, Version 3.6, Soft-
Key International Incorporated, Cambridge, MD, 1994.
[9] Mielenz, R. C., “Mineral Admixtures - History and Background,”
Concrete International, August 1983, pp. 34–42.
[10] Davis, R. E., Carlson, R. W., Kelly, J. W., and Davis, H. E., “Prop-
erties of Cements and Concrete Containing Fly Ash,” Proceed-
ings, American Concrete Institute, Vol. 33, May-June 1937, pp.
577–612.
[11] Davis, R. E., Davis, H. E., and Kelly, J. W., “Weathering Resis-
tance of Concrete Containing Fly Ash Cements,” Proceedings,
American Concrete Institute, Vol. 37, 1941, pp. 281–293.
[12] Minnick, L. J., “Investigations Relating to the Use of Fly Ash as
a Pozzolanic Material and as an Admixture in Portland-Cement
Concrete,” Proceedings, ASTM International, West Con-
shohocken, PA, Vol. 54, 1954, pp. 1129–1158.
[13] Brink, R. H. and Halstead, W. J., “Studies Relating to the Testing
of Fly Ash for Use in Concrete,” Proceedings of the ASTM, Vol.
56, 1956, pp. 1161–1206.
[14] ASTM, “Report of Subcommittee III-h on Methods of Testing
and Specifications for Admixtures,” Proceedings, ASTM Inter-
national, West Conshohocken, PA, Vol. 62, 1962, p. 314.
[15] Electric Power Research Institute, “Classification of Fly Ash for
Use in Cement and Concrete,” EPRI CS-5116, Project 2422-10,
Final Report, 1987.
[16] McCarthy, G. J., Solem, J. K., Manz, O. E., and Hassett, D. J., “Use
of a Database of Chemical, Mineralogical and Physical Proper-
ties of North American Fly Ash to Study the Nature of Fly Ash
and Its Utilization as a Mineral Admixture in Concrete,”
Proceedings, Materials Research Society Symposium, Vol. 178,
1990, pp. 3–33.
[17] Lea, F. M., The Chemistry of Cements and Concrete, 3rd ed.,
Edward Arnold Ltd., London, 1970.
[18] Cook, D. J., “Natural Pozzolans,” Cement Replacement Materi-
als, Surrey University Press, Glasgow, England, 1986, pp. 1–39.
[19] Massazza, F., “Pozzolana and Pozzolanic Cements,” Chapter 10,
Lea’s Chemistry of Cement and Concrete, 4th Edition, Arnold
Publishing Company, London, 1998, pp. 471–631.
[20] Davis, R. E., “Pozzolanic Materials and Their Use in Concrete,”
ASTM STP 99, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA,
1950, pp. 3–15.
[21] Schieltz, N. C., “The Interpretation of X-ray Patterns of Poz-
zolans,” Appendix C in “Summary of Methods for Determining
Pozzolanic Activity,” ASTM STP 99, ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA 1950, pp. 127–130.
[22] Minnick, L. J., “Fundamental Characteristics of Pulverized
Coal Fly Ashes,” Proceedings, ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, Vol. 59, 1959, pp. 1155–1177.
510 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
[23] Simons, H. S. and Jeffery, J. W., “An X-ray Study of Pulverized
Fuel Ash,” Journal of Applied Chemistry, Vol. 10, Part 8, 1960,
pp. 328–336.
[24] Diamond, S., “The Characterization of Fly Ashes,” Effects of Fly
Ash Incorporation in Cement and Concrete, Proceedings,
Symposium N, Materials Research Society, 1981, pp. 12–23.
[25] McCarthy, G. J., Swanson, K. D., Keller, L. P., and Blatter, W. C.,
“Mineralogy of Western Fly Ash,” Cement and Concrete
Research, Vol. 14, No. 4, 1984, pp. 471–478.
[26] McCarthy, G. J. and Johansen, D. M., “X-ray Powder Diffraction
Study of NBS Fly Ash Standard Reference Materials,” Powder
Diffraction, Vol. 3, 1988, pp. 15–25.
[27] Hemmings, R. T. and Berry, E. E., “On the Glass in Coal Fly Ashes:
Recent Advances,” Proceedings, Materials Research Society
Symposium, Vol. 113, 1988, pp. 3–38.
[28] Clifton, J. R., Brown, P. W., and Frohnsdorff, G., “Reactivity of
Fly Ashes with Cement,” Chapter 15, Cement Research Progress,
1977, pp. 321–341.
[29] Helmuth, R., Fly Ash in Cement and Concrete, Portland Cement
Association, Skokie, IL, 1987, 203 pp.
[30] Abdun-Nur, E. A., “Fly Ash in Concrete, An Evaluation,” Highway
Research Board, Bulletin 284, Washington, DC, 1961, 138 pp.
[31] Lamond, J. F., “Twenty-Five Years’ Experience Using Fly Ash in
Concrete,” Proceedings, First CANMET/ACI Conference on Fly
Ash, Silica Fume, Slag & Other Mineral By-Products in Concrete,
SP-79, Volume I, Montebello, Canada, American Concrete Insti-
tute, Detroit, MI, 1983, pp. 47–69.
[32] Hanna, W. C., “Unfavorable Chemical Reactions of Aggregates
in Concrete and a Suggested Corrective,” Proceedings, ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA, Vol. 47, 1947, pp.
986–999.
[33] Price, W. H., “Pozzolans – A Review,” ACI Journal, Vol. 72, 1975,
pp. 225–232.
[34] Harris, H. A., Thompson, J. L., and Murphy, T. E., “Factors
Affecting the Reactivity of Fly Ash from Western Coals,” Ce-
ment, Concrete, and Aggregates, Vol. 9, No. 1, 1987, pp.
34–37.
[35] Cain, C. J., “Effects of Various Types of Fly Ash on Behavior and
Properties of Concrete,” Effects of Fly Ash Incorporation in
Cement and Concrete, Proceedings, Symposium N, Materials
Research Society, 1981, pp. 260–268.
[36] Aitcin, P. C., Autefage, F., Carles-Gibergues, A., and Vaquier, A.,
“Comparative Study of the Cementitious Properties of Differ-
ent Fly Ashes,” Proceedings, Second CANMET/ACI Conference
on Fly Ash, Silica Fume, Slag & Natural Pozzolans in Concrete,
Madrid, Spain, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI, 1986,
pp. 91–114.
[37] Mielenz, R. C., “Specifications on Fly Ash for Use in Concrete:
Where We Are – Where Should We Go?,” Proceedings, Fifth
Ash Symposium, U.S. DOE/METC/SP-79/10, Washington, DC,
1979, pp. 482–495.
[38] Dunstan, E. R., Jr., “Performance of Lignite and Subbituminous
Fly Ash in Concrete – A Progress Report,” Report REC-ERC-76-1,
Engineering and Research Center, Bureau of Reclamation,
Denver, CO, 1976, 23 pp.
[39] Dunstan, E. R., Jr., “A Spec Odyssey—Sulfate Resistant Concrete
For The 80’s,” A Paper Presented at the Verbeck Memorial
Symposium of Sulfate Resistance, American Concrete Institute
Annual Meeting, March 2–7, 1980.
[40] Dunstan, E. R., Jr., “A Possible Method for Identifying Fly Ashes
that Will Improve the Sulfate Resistance of Concretes,” Cement,
Concrete, and Aggregates, Vol. 2, No. 1, 1980, pp. 20–30.
[41] Dunstan, E. R., Jr., “The Effect of Fly Ash on Concrete Alkali-
Aggregate Reaction,” Cement, Concrete, and Aggregates, Vol.
2, No. 2, 1981, pp. 101–104.
[42] Carrasquillo, R. L. and Snow, P. G., “Effect of Fly Ash on Alkali-
Aggregate Reaction in Concrete,” ACI Materials Journal, July-
August 1987, pp. 299–305.
[43] Manz, O. E., “Coal Fly Ash: A Retrospective and Future Look,”
Energeia, University of Kentucky, Center for Applied Energy
Research, Vol. 9, No. 2, 1998, pp. 1–5.
[44] Shehata, M. H. and Thomas, M. D. A., “Use of Ternary Blends
Containing Silica Fume and Fly Ash to Suppress Expansion Due
to Alkali-Silica Reaction in Concrete,” Cement and Concrete
Research, Vol. 32, 2002, pp. 341–349.
[45] Canadian Specification CAN/CSA-A23.5-98, “Supplementary
Cementing Materials,” Canadian Standards Association,
Etobicoke, Ontario, Canada, 1998.
[46] Philleo, R. E., “Recent Developments in Pozzolan Specifica-
tions,” Proceedings, Second CANMET/ACI Conference on Fly
Ash, Silica Fume, Slag & Natural Pozzolans in Concrete, Madrid,
Spain, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI, Supplementary
Paper #27, 1986, pp. 1–9.
[47] Hooton, R. D. and Buckingham, J. H., “The Use and Standard-
ization of Rapid Test Methods for Measuring the Carbon Con-
tent and Fineness of Fly Ash Pozzolan,” Proceedings, Seventh
International Ash Symposium and Exposition, Vol. I, U.S.
DOE/METC-85/6018, Washington, DC, 1985, pp. 465–472.
[48] Mielenz, R. C., “ASTM Specifications on Fly Ash for Use in
Concrete,” Proceedings, 1st Ash Symposium, Bureau of Mines IC
8348, 1967, pp. 271–286.
[49] Gilliland, J. L. and Bartley, T. R., “Water-Solubility of Alkalies in
Portland Cement,” Proceedings, American Concrete Institute,
Vol. 47, 1951, pp. 153–160.
[50] Moran, W. T. and Gilliland, J. L., “Summary of Methods for
Determining Pozzolanic Activity,” ASTM STP 99, ASTM Interna-
tional, West Conshohocken, PA, 1950, pp. 109–126.
[51] Lee, C., Schlorholtz, S., and Demirel, T., “Available Alkalis in Fly
Ash,” Proceedings, Materials Research Society Symposium, Vol.
65, 1986, pp. 125–130.
[52] Buttler, F. G., Morgan, S. R., and Walker, E. J., “Studies on the
Rate and Extent of Reaction Between Calcium Hydroxide and
Pulverized Fuel Ash at 38°C,” Proceedings, Fifth International
Conference on Alkali Aggregate Reaction in Concrete, Cape
Town, South Africa, National Building Research Institute,
S252/38, 1981.
[53] Mielenz, R. C., “Specifications and Methods of Using Fly Ash in
Portland Cement Concrete,” Proceedings, Third International
Ash Utilization Symposium, U.S. Bureau of Mines, IC 8640, 1974,
pp. 61–74.
[54] Majko, R. M., “Status of ASTM and Other National Standards
for the Use of Fly Ash Pozzolans in Concrete,” Proceedings,
Material Research Society Symposium, Vol. 86, 1987,
pp. 293–306.
[55] Chopra, S. K. and Narain, S. N., “Measurement of Specific
Surface of Fly Ash,” ASTM, Materials, Research and Standards,
Vol. 4, No. 9, 1964, pp. 487–490.
[56] Butler, W. B. and Kanare, H. M., “Testing Fly Ash for Fineness to
ASTM C 430: Sieve Calibration,” Proceedings, Materials
Research Society Symposium, Vol. 136, 1989, pp. 107–112.
[57] Poole, T., “Problems with Fineness Testing of Coal Fly Ash for
Use in Concrete,” U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Ex-
periment Station, Misc. Paper SL-93-9, September 1993, 11 pp.
[58] Minnick, L. J., Webster, W. C., and Purdy, E. J., Jr., “Predictions
of the Effect of Fly Ash in Portland Cement Mortar and
Concrete,” ASTM, Journal of Materials, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1971, pp.
163–187.
[59] Schlorholtz, S. and Demirel, T., “Autoclave Expansion of Port-
land Cement - Fly Ash Pastes,” Proceedings, Materials Research
Society Symposium, Vol. 43, 1985, pp. 85–94.
[60] Schlorholtz, S., “Soundness Characteristics of Portland Cement-
Fly Ash Mixtures,” Cement, Concrete, and Aggregates, Vol. 20,
No. 1, 1998, pp. 186–192.
[61] Helmuth, R. and West, P. B., “Reappraisal of the Autoclave
Expansion Test,” Cement, Concrete, and Aggregates, Vol. 20,
No. 1, 1998, pp. 194–219.
 SCHLORHOLTZ ON SUPPLEMENTARY CEMENTITIOUS MATERIALS
[62] Fiorato, A. E., “Variability of Concrete-Making Materials,”
Significance of Tests and Properties of Concrete and Concrete-
Making Materials, ASTM STP 169C, ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 1994, pp. 31–37.
[63] Berry, E. E. and Malhotra, V. M., “Fly Ash or Use in Concrete – A
Critical Review,” ACI Journal, March-April 1980, pp. 59–73.
[64] Crow, R. D. and Dunstan, E. R., Jr., “Properties of Fly Ash
Concrete,” Effects of Fly Ash Incorporation in Cement and
Concrete, Proceedings, Symposium N, Materials Research
Society, 1981, pp. 214–224.
[65] Lane, D. S., “Testing Fly Ash in Mortars for Air-Entrainment
Characteristics,” Cement, Concrete and Aggregates, Vol. 13,
No. 1, 1991, pp. 25–31.
[66] Lerch, W. C., “Studies of Some Method of Avoiding Expansion
and Pattern Cracking Associated with the Alkali-Aggregate
Reaction,” ASTM STP 99, ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 1950, pp. 153–177.
[67] Stanton, T. E., “Studies of the Use of Pozzolans for Counteract-
ing Excessive Concrete Expansion Resulting from Reaction
Between Aggregates and Alkalies in Cement,” ASTM STP 99,
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 1950, pp. 178–201.
[68] Pepper, L. and Mather, B., “Effectiveness of Mineral Admixtures
in Preventing Expansion of Concrete Due to Alkali-Aggregate
Reaction,” Proceedings of the ASTM, Vol. 59, 1959,
pp. 1178–1202.
[69] Milenz, R. C., Greene, K. T., Benton, E. J., and Geier, F. H.,
“Chemical Test for Alkali Reactivity of Pozzolans,” Proceedings
of the ASTM, Vol. 52, 1952, pp. 1128–1144.
[70] Lane, D. S. and Ozyildirim, H. C., “Use of Fly Ash, Slag or Silica
Fume to Inhibit Alkali-Silica Reactivity,” Final Report, Virginia
Transportation Research Council, VTRC 95-R21, 1995, 38 pp.
[71] Roy, D. M., Tikalsky, P. J., Scheetz, B. E., and Rossenberger, J. L.,
“Relationship of Portland Cement Characteristics to Concrete
Durability,” Final Report for NCHRP Project 18-5, 2001, 177 pp.
[72] Dikeou, J. T., “Fly Ash Increases Resistance of Concrete to
Sulfate Attack,” Research Report 23, Water Resources Technical
Publication, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, 1975, 17 pp.
[73] von Fay, K. F. and Pierce, J. S., “Sulfate Resistance of Concretes
with Various Fly Ashes,” ASTM Standardization News, December,
1989, pp. 32–37.
[74] Manz, O. E., “Review of International Specifications for Use of
Fly Ash in Portland Cement Concrete,” Proceedings, First
CANMET/ACI Conference on Fly Ash, Silica Fume, Slag & Other
Mineral By-Products in Concrete, SP-79 Volume I, Montebello,
Canada, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI, 1983,
pp. 187–200.
511
[75] McKerall, W. C. and Ledbetter, W. B., “Variability and Control
of Class C Fly Ash,” Cement, Concrete, and Aggregates, Vol. 4,
No. 2, 1982, pp. 87–93.
[76] Lamond, J. F. and Faber, J. H., “Fly Ash Quality Assurance and
the Corps of Engineers ‘Pozzolan Quality Management
System,’” Proceedings, Seventh International Ash Symposium
and Exposition, Vol. I, U.S. DOE/METC-85/6018, Washington,
DC, 1985, pp. 213–215.
[77] Malhotra, V. M., Ramachandran, V. S., Feldman, R. F., and
Aitcin, P. C., Condensed Silica Fume in Concrete, CRC Press, Boca
Raton, FL, 1987.
[78] Fidjestol, P. and Lewis, R., “Microsilica as an Addition,” Chapter
12, Lea’s Chemistry of Cement and Concrete, 4th Edition, P.
Hewlett, Ed., Arnold Publishing Company, London, 1998, pp.
675–708.
[79] Richter, R. E., “Development of ASTM Specification for Silica
Fume,” unpublished files of Task Group 4, ASTM Subcommittee
CO9.24, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 1988.
[80] Buck, A. D. and Burkes, J. P., “Characterization and Reactivity of
Silica Fume,” Miscellaneous Paper SL-81-13, Final Report, U.S.
Army Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, 1981,
10 pp.
[81] Butler, W. B., “A Critical Look at ASTM C 618 and C 311,”
Cement, Concrete, and Aggregates, Vol. 4, No. 2, 1982,
pp. 68–72.
[82] Helmuth, R., “Some Questions Concerning ASTM Standards and
Methods of Testing Fly Ash for Use with Portland Cement,”
Cement, Concrete, and Aggregates, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1983,
pp. 103–110.
[83] Manz, O. E., “Review of American and Foreign Specifications
for Use of Fly Ash in Portland Cement Concrete,” Proceedings,
Sixth International Ash Symposium, U.S. DOE/METC-82-52,
Washington, DC, 1982, pp. 235–245.
[84] Manz, O. E., “Proposed Revisions to Specifications and Test
Methods for Use of Fly Ash in Portland Cement Concrete,”
Proceedings, Second CANMET/ACI Conference on Fly Ash, Silica
Fume, Slag & Natural Pozzolans in Concrete, Madrid, Spain,
American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI, 1986, pp. 659–680.
[85] Metha, P. K., “Standard Specifications for Mineral Admixtures –
An Overview,” Proceedings, Second CANMET/ACI Conference
on Fly Ash, Silica Fume, Slag & Natural Pozzolans in Concrete,
Madrid, Spain, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI, 1986,
pp. 637–658.
[86] Halstead, W. J., “Overview of the Use of Fly Ash Concrete in
Highway Construction,” Transportation Research Record, 1284,
1990, pp. 95–98.
44
Slag as a Cementitious Material
Jan R. Prusinski1
Preface
IN PREPARING THIS CHAPTER ON SLAG AS A CE-
mentitious material, the contents of the 4th edition were drawn
upon. The author acknowledges the authors of the previous
editions, where this subject was included in the chapter on
Mineral Admixtures. The authors were C. J. Cain, L. H. Tuthill,
and E. C. Higginson, respectively, of each previous edition. This
current edition will review and update the topic as addressed
by the previous authors, introduce new technology that has
been developed, and include up-to-date references.
Introduction
Iron blast furnace slag is used as a supplementary cementitious
material in concrete when it is granulated or pelletized, then
ground to a fine powder. This chapter will cover the develop-
ment and requirements of the ASTM standards, a brief history,
its use as a blending material with portland cement, and the ef-
fects of slag on the freshly mixed and hardened properties of
concrete.
The material when used with an appropriate activator to
produce mortars or grouts will not be covered in this chapter.
Some of the reasons for using slag as a supplementary
cementing material in concrete are [1]:
• higher ultimate strengths with a tendency toward lower
early strengths,
• improved resistance to sulfates and seawater,
• lowered expansion from alkali-silica reaction,
• lower temperature rise due to lower heat of hydration,
• better finish and lighter color,
• equivalent durability in freezing and thawing, and
• decreased porosity and chloride penetration.
As a supplementary cementing material, slag replaces a
portion of portland cement in concrete at rates generally be-
tween 20 % and 80 % by mass of cementitious material,
depending on application and desired properties. This re-
placement can occur by adding slag as a separate material dur-
ing concrete batching, or can be in the form of a portland-blast
furnace slag blended cement. Table 1 shows typical replace-
ment rates for various applications [2].
1
Executive Director, Slag Cement Association, 14090 Southwest Freeway, Suite 300, Sugar Land, TX 77478.
512
Definition
Iron blast furnace slag is described by ASTM Terminology Re-
lating to Concrete and Concrete Aggregates (C 125) as “the non-
metallic product, consisting essentially of silicates and alumi-
nosilicates of calcium and other bases, that is developed in the
molten condition simultaneously with iron in a blast furnace.”
ASTM C 125 further defines ground granulated blast furnace
slag as “the glassy granular material formed when molten
[iron] blast-furnace slag is rapidly chilled as by immersion in
water . . . and ground to cement fineness.” Like portland ce-
ment, ground granulated blast-furnace slag is a hydraulic ce-
ment since it sets and hardens by chemical reaction with water,
and can do so under water.
Ground blast furnace slag with cementitious properties
can also be produced using a pelletization process described in
the “Production” section of this chapter.
Ground granulated (or pelletized) blast furnace slag is also
commonly referred to as “slag cement” and this term will be
used within this chapter to describe both the ground granulated
and ground pelletized forms of the product.
History
The first recorded instance of slag being used as a cementitious
material was in 1774, when it was combined with hydrated lime
and used as a mortar by Loriot. Since the late 19th century, slag
cement use has been common in many areas of the world. For
instance, slag-lime cements were used in the construction of the
Paris underground metro system beginning in 1889. Blended
portland blast-furnace slag cements were first produced in the
United States in 1896. Portland blast-furnace slag cement was
utilized in the Empire State Building’s masonry mortar. In the
1950s slag cement as a separate material—added at the concrete
mixer—was first developed in South Africa, then gained popu-
larity in many other countries, including the United States and
Canada. Separate cementitious slag produced with the pelletiz-
ing process was introduced in Canada in the late 1970s. Wide-
spread use of slag cement in the United States began in 1982,
with the opening of the granulation and grinding facility at Beth-
lehem Steel’s Sparrows Point, MD steel plant. Popularity of the
 PRUSINSKI ON SLAG AS A CEMENTITIOUS MATERIAL 513

product in the Mid-Atlantic area of the United States grew

TABLE 1—Suggested Slag Cement Replace- quickly, coinciding with publication of ASTM Standard Specifi-
ment Levels [2] cation for Ground Granulated Blast-Furnace Slag for Use in Con-
Concrete Application Slag Cement* crete and Mortars (C 989) in 1982 and ACI 233-R in 2003 [3].
Use of slag cement expanded rapidly in the following
Concrete Paving 25–50 % decades with the expansion of granulation and grinding plants
Exterior flatwork not exposed to deicer salts 25–50 % in other U.S. regions. Slag cement use has more than tripled in
Exterior flatwork exposed to deicer salts with 25–50 % the United States since 1996 to about 3.5 million tons in 2004
w/cm
0.45 (Fig. 1) [4].
Interior flatwork 25–50 %
Basement floors 25–50 % Specifications
Footings 30–65 %
Walls and columns 25–50 %
Slag cement is available as a separate cementitious material
Tilt-up panels 25–50 %
Prestressed concrete 20–50 % and as a component of blended cements. When used as a sep-
Precast concrete 20–50 % arate product in concrete, ASTM C 989 is the specification nor-
Concrete blocks 20–50 % mally cited. The American Association of State Highway and
Concrete pavers 20–50 % Transportation Officials equivalent specification of the same
High strength concrete 25–50 % name is AASHTO M302. If a blended cement is desired, ASTM
Alkali-silica reaction mitigation 25–70 % Standard Specification for Blended Hydraulic Cements (C 595)
Sulfate resistance is specified (or the equivalent AASHTO M240).
Type II Equivalence 25–50 % In Canada, the applicable standard for all cementitious
Type V Equivalence 50–65 %
materials—including portland and slag cement, as well as
Lower permeability 25–65 %
blended cement—is CSA A3001, Cementitious Materials for Use
Marine exposure 25–70 %
Mass concrete (heat mitigation) 50–80 % in Concrete.

* Percentages indicate replacement for portland cement by mass. These
replacement rates are recommended for individual applications and are based on
historical performance. Variations in material sources and environmental
conditions may require alternate substitution rates. Consult your slag cement
supplier for additional assistance. As with all concrete mixtures, trial batches should
be performed to verify concrete properties. Results may vary due to a variety of
circumstances, including temperature and mixture components, among other
things. You should consult your slag cement professional for assistance. Nothing
contained herein shall be considered or construed as a warranty or guarantee,
either expressed or implied, including any warranty of fitness for a particular
purpose.
Specification Development
ASTM C 989 was originally developed under the jurisdiction of
Committee E38 on Resource Recovery in 1982. By starting in
ASTM Committee E38, the task group working on the specifi-
cation was able to avoid unnecessary prescription specifica-
tions and instead develop performance-based criteria. That
task group succeeded in getting realistic test requirements that
had a minimum of long drawn out testing and at the same time
included all reasonably effective slags. The task group based its
findings on (a) extensive tests of a wide range of ground slags
from North America, Japan, England, and South Africa (the
last two with extensive use records as admixtures); and (b) all
available literature. Once it was developed, jurisdiction for this

Fig. 1—U.S. slag cement use 1996–2004 [4].

514 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
standard was changed to ASTM Committee C09 on Concrete
and Concrete Aggregates in November of 1982.
Slag Activity Index and Grade
ASTM C 989 specifies three “grades” of slag cement: Grade 80,
Grade 100, and Grade 120. Slag grades are defined by the “slag
activity index” (SAI) as shown in Table 2. The SAI is the ratio of
the strength of mortar cubes (tested at 7 and 28 days in accor-
dance with ASTM Test Method for Compressive Strength of
Hydraulic Cement Mortars (C 109)) that have 50 % slag cement
replacement, to the strength of companion cubes made with the
reference 100 % portland cement. The reference cement used
must have a minimum 28-day strength of 5000 psi and an alkali
content between 0.6 and 0.9 %. It was found that performance
of slag might vary significantly with other portland cements and
that the standard cement provided the best differentiation be-
tween grades of slag. Most of the slag cement available in the
North America is either a grade 120 or 100 and can be used in
virtually all concrete applications. Proportioning of mixtures
for field use should be based on applicable concrete tests with
project cement.
Laboratory strength test procedures can be misleading in
evaluating a slag’s performance in the field. Because the test
involves curing at room temperatures and the average field
temperature of concrete placed in the United States is higher
than room temperature, slag is penalized by the lower labora-
tory temperature. Slag is more sensitive to temperature differ-
ences than is portland cement, because slag hydration is ac-
celerated to a greater extent by increases in curing
temperature and it is retarded more at lower temperatures.
Slag’s strength contribution to concrete in the field will often
be greater than shown in laboratory tests, but also can be less
if field temperatures are low.
It should also be noted that slag is not usually given
proper credit for its contribution to better workability in a
concrete mixture. Although the ASTM C 109 procedure does
adjust for water requirement by equalizing flow, that test and
the slump test do not measure the contribution to workabil-
ity, placeability, or ease of consolidation that slag will make.
In concrete, this contribution results in less water required
and in better concrete overall. The smooth, dense surface tex-
ture and the particle shape of the ground slag account for
this benefit [5,6].
TABLE 2—Slag Activity Index (ASTM C 989)
Slag Activity Average of last five
Index consecutive Any individual
Minimum % samples sample
7-Day Index
Grade 80 — —
Grade 100 75 % 70 %
Grade 120 95 % 90 %
28-Day Index
Grade 80 75 % 70 %
Grade 100 95 % 90 %
Grade 120 115 % 110 %
Fineness
ASTM C 989 (Table 2) sets forth not only the slag activity index,
but also a fineness requirement of a maximum of 20 % re-
tained on a 45 m (No. 325) sieve. Specific surface by air per-
meability is to be determined and reported, but no limits are
set for that parameter. One of the benefits of grinding slag sep-
arately, as compared to intergrinding with cement at the mill,
is the opportunity to grind the slag finer. Slag is harder to grind
than portland cement. An interground blend will result in the
cement being finer than the slag, which is the opposite of what
is desired. By grinding the two materials separately, each can
be ground to its optimum fineness. Idorn concludes that the
fineness of the slag should be about 5000 to 5500 cm2/g and
portland cement should be about 3800 cm2/g [7].
Chemical Requirements
Sulfide sulfur is limited to 2.5 % maximum and sulfate ion, re-
ported as SO3, is limited to 4 % maximum in ASTM C 989
(Table 2). This is to avoid any excess amounts of these prod-
ucts in the concrete, although there is no apparent evidence
that this would affect the slag reactions. Some feared that sul-
fides would produce sulphuric acid and corrode rebars (al-
though it has never happened), and others felt that SO3 might
affect the cement and provide the effect of an over-sulfated ce-
ment. The task group did not feel that the specification would
be approved without some limits on sulfur. Also, ASTM C 989
provides for the determination of chloride content of the slag
but has no limits placed.
Use of Appendicies in ASTM C 989
ASTM C 989 has three appendices. They are X1. Contribution
of Slag To Concrete Strength; X2. Sulfate Resistance; and X3.
Effectiveness of Slag in Preventing Excessive Expansion of Con-
crete Due to Alkali-Aggregate Reaction. This nonmandatory
information is helpful in interpreting the specification and in
evaluating the slag when any of the preceding factors are im-
portant to a user of concrete.
It should be noted that the current version of ASTM C 989,
Appendix X3, recommends ASTM Test Method for Effective-
ness of Pozzolans or Ground Blast-Furnace Slag in Preventing
Excessive Expansion of Concrete Due to the Alkali-Silica Reac-
tion (C 441). This test method utilizes highly reactive pyrex glass
as the “aggregate” to determine the effectiveness of pozzolans
or slag cement in preventing alkali-silica reaction. In 2004,
ASTM approved a new test method, ASTM Test Method for Po-
tential Alkali-Silica Reactivity of Combinations of Cementitious
Materials and Aggregate (Accelerated Mortar-Bar Method) (C
1567). This accelerated method utilizes job materials (aggre-
gates, slag and portland cements) and is helpful in determining
specific dosages of slag cement required if the job materials are
known. ASTM C 1567 may result in lower dosages of slag ce-
ment required to control expansion of a specific reactive ag-
gregate than ASTM C 441 (which would only test a specific
slag/portland cement combination to control reactivity of a
pyrex glass aggregate).
Quality Control Test
In 1985, ASTM Committee C09 gave approval to ASTM Test
Method for Hydraulic Activity of Ground Slag by Reaction with
Alkali (C 1073). This method originally was designated ASTM E
1085 because its preparation had been started when the origi-
nating task group was under Committee E38, but that number
was quickly changed by ASTM to a C number so it could be
 PRUSINSKI ON SLAG AS A CEMENTITIOUS MATERIAL
found in the construction volumes of the test methods. ASTM
C 1073 states, “This test method can be used as a quality-con-
trol test for slag production from a single source after ade-
quate correlation with tests stipulated in Specification C 989.”
The test is helpful in guiding fineness level required and “in
evaluating the hydraulic activity of slags from different
sources.”
Blended Cement
ASTM C 595 defines three types of blended cement that con-
tain slag:
• Type IS, portland blast-furnace slag cement, which contains
between 25 and 70 % ground granulated blast-furnace slag
along with portland cement
• Type I(SM), slag-modified portland cement, which con-
tains less than 25 % ground granulated blast-furnace slag
along with portland cement
• Type S, “slag cement,” which contains at least 70 % ground
granulated blast-furnace slag along with portland cement
and/or hydrated lime. (Note that Type S “slag cement” is
rarely used and that the term “slag cement” in current
practice, and according to the American Concrete Institute
[3], generally refers to “ground granulated blast furnace
slag” as specified by ASTM C 989).
Production
An iron blast furnace (Fig. 2) chemically reduces and converts
iron oxides into molten iron. This iron is then subsequently
used as a material in steel manufacturing.
When iron is manufactured in a blast furnace, the fur-
nace is batch fed with three materials from the top: iron ore,
coke, and limestone. These materials descend—over a 6 to 8 h
period—to the bottom of the blast furnace, where preheated
air is blown in from the bottom. The final products, tapped
Fig. 2—Iron blast furnace.
515
periodically from the bottom of the blast furnace, are molten
iron and molten slag.
The molten iron is sent to the steel production facility. The
molten slag can be processed in three ways, two of which can
result in the material that becomes slag cement:
• Air-cooled slag is produced when the molten slag is al-
lowed to cool slowly in ambient air. It can be processed by
screening and crushing for use as a construction aggre-
gate, or as a concrete aggregate conforming to ASTM
Standard Specification for Concrete Aggregates (C 33).
This material has a low glass content, is not cementitious,
and cannot be used as a slag cement (Fig. 3).
• Pelletized/expanded slag is cooled quickly through the use
of water or steam. Pelletization of slag involves feeding the
molen material into a rotary drum which tosses the mate-
rial into the air resulting in rapid cooling. This product is
used as a lightweight aggregate or it can be finely ground
into slag cement, if the glass content is high enough.
• Granulated slag is made when the molten material is rapidly
quenched in a “granulator” with large quantities of water to
produce a sand-like, glassy “granule” that can be finely
ground into slag cement. Most of the slag cement available
in the United States is produced using a granulator (Fig. 4).
Once the slag has passed through the granulator it is slur-
ried to dewatering bins where most of the granulation water is
removed (and recycled in plant operations) and the granules
are transported to storage piles.
Slag granules (Fig. 5) are the similar to portland cement
clinker, as they both require grinding before they can be clas-
sified as hydraulic cements. The morphology of a slag granule
at this point is principally a glass (noncrystalline), which allows
the material to have cementitious properties, once finely
ground. Stockpiled granules are transported to a grinding
mill (such as a ball mill or a vertical mill) and ground to a fine
powder. The resulting powder is slag cement (Fig. 6).
516 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE

Fig. 3—Molten slag being drained into a pit (inset). Cooling in am-
bient air will produce air-cooled, noncementitious slag. After screening
and crushing this slag can be used as a construction aggregate.

Composition and Quality

Typical chemical and physical properties of slag cements avail-
able in North America are shown in Table 3 [3]. These proper-
ties are determined by the raw feeds into the blast-furnace,
the granulation (or pelletization) process, and the grinding
operations.
Although slag cement is a by-product of iron production, it
is a manufactured material, and is highly consistent in compo-
sition and properties because of the quality control and assur-
ance procedures of the blast-furnace and granulation/grinding

Fig. 5—Slag granules in a stockpile (background) waiting

to be finely ground into slag cement.

Fig. 4—Molten slag entering a granulator, which

will rapidly quench the slag and solidify it in a glassy state.
When finely ground, slag with a high glass content (generally
greater than 90 %) will have cementitious properties. Fig. 6—After grinding, the slag granules become slag cement.
 PRUSINSKI ON SLAG AS A CEMENTITIOUS MATERIAL
TABLE 3—Typical Composition of U.S. Slag
Cements [3]
Chemical Oxides (except sulphur) Typical Range (% by wt)
SiO2 32–42 %
Al2O3 7–16 %
CaO 32–45 %
MgO 5–15 %
S 0.7–2.2 %
Fe2O3 0.1–1.5 %
MnO 0.2–1.0 %
Fineness (Blaine) 4000–6500 cm2/kg
Specific Gravity 2.85–2.94
operations. During blast furnace operations, the plant operator
pays careful attention to the slag chemistry (both composition
and variability) as slag behavior is a major consideration in
ensuring the quality of hot metal (molten iron). Both the
slag granules (before grinding) and slag cement (subsequent
to grinding) are closely monitored to ensure high levels of
consistency and performance.
Slag reactivity and performance depends on the inter-re-
lationship among numerous variables. The reactivity of slag
will depend significantly on glass content, particle size, and
slag chemistry; however, many other factors are also involved.
To ensure product quality, slag cement manufacturing facili-
ties will each have their own quality procedures, but some of
the variables that may be monitored include:
• Particle size and/or Blaine fineness
• Glass content
• Chemical composition
• Color
• Loss on ignition
• Chloride content
• Titanium content
• Basisity
Ultimately, ground granulated blast furnace slag must
meet the performance requirements of ASTM C 989 (if a sepa-
rate material), or the applicable sections of ASTM C 595 (for use
in blended cements). As a result of these statistically based speci-
fications and the well-controlled production process, slag ce-
ment is found to be one of the most consistent materials used
in concrete.
Effect on Hydraulic Activity
As previously mentioned, slag cement is a hydraulic cement,
since it chemically hardens by reaction with water and does so
under water. The principal hydration product from the slag-
water reaction is the same as with portland cement, calcium-
silicate hydrate (C-S-H). By itself, slag cement will hydrate at
a slower pace than portland cement, but the hydration will
continue for a longer period of time.
It is generally recognized that glass content of the granu-
lated slag is a primary factor in determining its contribution
to a concrete mixture or its hydraulicity. The granulation
process in the slag processing procedure is fundamental.
Rapid chilling or quenching of the molten slag inhibits the
formation of a crystalline structure. Consequently this quick
cooling is necessary so that the slag will be composed largely
517
of glass or amorphous material. One method for determining
glass content is by microscopic count. As important as glass
content is in slag, investigators have not developed clear-cut
relationships between glass content and the strength contri-
bution of slag.
In a portland/slag cement system, both the portland and
slag components produce C-S-H when combined with water.
However, hydrated portland cement also produces about 15 to
25 % calcium hydroxide, by mass. Calcium hydroxide is a
highly soluble mineral; it does not contribute to concrete
strength and its presence contributes to increased porosity, ef-
florescence, decreased aggregate/paste bond, and decreased
concrete durability. With a slag/portland system, the relative
amount of C-S-H is increased and calcium hydroxide is de-
creased. This is due to both a dilution of lime-containing port-
land cement compounds and the reaction of the calcium
hydroxide portland cement product with the glass phase of the
slag cement (to form more C-S-H). The result of a portland/slag
cement system is generally a concrete with significantly de-
creased permeability, stronger paste-aggregate interface,
higher strength, and greater durability.
While the reactivity of slag cement alone is very slow, the
reactivity of portland/slag cement binders can be very differ-
ent. The reactivity of portland/slag cement cementitious sys-
tems in concrete (or mortar) depends on the interaction of the
slag and portland cements, including the alkali concentration,
slag cement glass content and chemical composition, fineness
of the portland and slag cements, slag cement proportions and
curing temperature.
The hydration of slag cement is significantly activated by
alkali hydroxides, calcium hydroxides (among other activa-
tors), and heat. Therefore, the addition of even relatively
small amounts of portland cement can substantially acceler-
ate the reaction of slag cement. Slag can also be activated by
alkali hydroxides alone (alkali-activated concrete) or with hy-
drated lime (as in some Type S blended cements). Heat in-
creases the solubility of alkali hydroxides, as well as promotes
increased reactivity of the portland/slag binder. Therefore,
when cured at higher temperature situations (such as heat
curing in a precast plant), portland/slag cementitious systems
can achieve similar—or even superior—early strengths as port-
land-only systems [8,9].
Effect on Properties of Freshly Mixed Concrete
Workability, Finishability, and Consolidation
The use of slag cement has several effects on the plastic prop-
erties of concrete. It can reduce water demand, increase work-
ability/finishability, slump retention, improve consolidation,
and can increase pumpability.
Reduced water demand (or alternatively, increased slump)
is shown in Fig. 7, for a specific concrete mixture [10]. As the
percentage of slag cement is increased, the amount of water to
achieve a given slump is reduced (or the slump for a given
amount of water is increased). Generally, the amount of water
reduction with slag cement can vary from 0 to 5 %.
Workability and finishability are difficult to quantitatively
measure, but are important parameters for concrete contrac-
tors, since they often dictate the pace and manpower require-
ments to perform a finishing task, and also impact the quality
of the finished concrete surface. Concrete containing slag ce-
ment is often cited as having superior workability and finisha-
bility properties. This is attributed by several researchers
518 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
Fig. 7—Slump versus water content for a plain portland
cement concrete and the same concrete with 50 % slag
cement replacement [10].
[5,6,10,11] to improved rheological properties and particle
characteristics, including:
• Increased paste cohesiveness and volume
• Smooth, dense surface of slag cement particles
• Low water absorption after mixing
• Better particle dispersion
• Higher fluidity of paste
• Reduced vibration to achieve consolidation
Fig. 8—Time of set characteristics for a typical concrete at various temperatures and slag cement
replacement percentages [12].
These improvements may reduce the time of placement of
concrete, improve consolidation of concrete, particularly in
congested reinforced members, reduce vibration require-
ments, allow increased speeds for slip-form pavers, improve
surface finish of flatwork, and produce finishes with fewer
“bugholes” in formed surfaces.
Bleeding
Bleeding capacity and bleeding rate of concrete with and with-
out slag cement are similar. The main difference will be
whether the slag is more coarsely or finely ground when com-
pared with the portland cement it is replacing, and whether or
not the unit volume of water is the same. Bleeding may be re-
duced when slag fineness is higher or unit water content is
lower. Bleeding capacity and rate are important, particularly
with regard to finishing, as concrete finished too soon or too
late (with respect to bleed water formation) may result in poor
surface durability and plastic shrinkage cracking.
Time of Set
Slag cement at levels above 25 % of cementitious material by
mass will generally increase the time of set of concrete at 70°F.
This difference will reduce substantially and may become in-
significant as the temperature increases to above 85°F; in cooler
temperatures, time of set will increase significantly. Figure 8
illustrates, for a specific concrete mixture, the times of set for a
range of slag cement percentages and temperatures [12].
In higher temperatures, a longer time of set may be an
advantage as it will provide more working time; however, at
lower temperatures, chloride or non-chloride accelerating ad-
mixtures, and use of heated materials are effective in reduc-
ing time of set. Also, because the portland cement setting
properties, and the quantity of portland cement in a mixture
significantly affect time of set, a reduction in slag percentage
or an increase in portland cement content will also be a po-
tential strategy for maintaining appropriate times of set at
low temperatures.
 PRUSINSKI ON SLAG AS A CEMENTITIOUS MATERIAL
Curing Requirements
As with all concrete, proper curing practices must be followed
to achieve desired concrete properties. Curing is necessary to
ensure that the concrete will have sufficient moisture available
to develop required properties. Typical curing practices, such
as fogging, ponding, wet burlap, polyethylene, and curing com-
pound are compatible with concrete containing slag cement.
Duration of curing is dictated by many factors including tem-
perature, rate of evaporation, water/cementitious ratio, and
rate of strength gain. Duration of curing may or may not be af-
fected by the presence of slag cement in the concrete. Higher
percentages of slag cement (particularly in mass concrete
placements, where slag cement percentage may be up to 80 %)
may necessitate longer curing times. However, lower percent-
ages may gain sufficient strength and maturity in the time that
plain portland cement concrete is normally cured, and curing
duration is not extended.
Effect on Properties of Hardened Concrete
Strength
Slag cement will generally have a positive effect on the ulti-
mate strength (both compressive and flexural) of concrete.
This is due principally to the higher volume of calcium-silicate
hydrate that is generated in a portland/slag cement system, as
well as an improved paste-aggregate bond. The initially slower
hydration characteristics of a portland/slag cement system will
normally cause lower initial strength gain compared to a plain
portland cement system. Concrete made with slag cement typi-
cally available in North America will generally produce higher
strength than an equivalent plain portland cement concrete
mixture, between 7 and 14 days when cured at 70° or higher.
Early strengths can be significantly affected by several factors
including the temperature, the characteristics of the portland
Fig. 9—(a) Mortar cube strength at various slag cement replacement levels, from one day to one year [9];
(b) concrete compressive strength at various slag cement replacement levels, from 3 to 28 days [9].
519
cement, the w/cm ratio and the curing conditions. As noted
previously, the application of heat, as practiced in some pre-
cast concrete production operations, will tend to significantly
increase the rate of strength gain of slag cement concrete to
the point that adequate release strength can be achieved in less
than 24 h without an increase in total cementitious materials
content [8,13].
Figure 9 illustrates the compressive strength of mortar
cubes and concrete mixtures at various slag cement replace-
ment levels and ages.
Permeability
It is well documented that the use of slag cement in concrete
will result in significant reductions in permeability [14–17].
Reducing permeability is a key factor in improving many as-
pects of concrete durability, such as corrosion resistance, mit-
igating sulfate attack, and combating alkali-silica reaction. As
permeability is reduced the transport of deleterious sub-
stances within the concrete and propagation of deterioration
mechanisms are commensurately reduced.
Permeability is decreased principally by the higher volume
of calcium-silicate hydrate generated in a slag/portland cement
system. The microstructure is changed as pores are partly filled
with C-S-H in lieu of calcium hydroxide. Overall pore size is re-
duced and the interconnectivity of pores becomes more tortu-
ous. Permeability reductions begin generally within the first 28
days of placement, and continue as long as hydration continues.
The reduction in permeability beyond 28 days is much more sig-
nificant in slag cement concrete than in plain portland cement
concrete. Additionally, permeability reductions are positively
correlated with the percent of slag replacement, through 70 %
or greater. Figure 10 shows an example of the reduction in elec-
trical conductivity due to increased slag cement contents—as
measured by ASTM Standard Test Method for Electrical Indi-
520 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
Fig. 10—Permeability of concrete based on the rapid chloride permeability test (ASTM C 1202)
[adapted from Ref 14]. Cementitious materials content is 635 lb/cu yd. “Low” permeability is generally
defined as less than 2000 coulombs.
cation of Concrete’s Ability to Resist Chloride Ion Penetration
(C 1202)—at a range of w/cm from 0.35–0.45 [14].
Corrosion Resistance
The use of slag cement in concrete has a positive influence
on the corrosion resistance of reinforced concrete, as noted
by many researchers [5,9,16–21]. Reduced permeability plays
the largest role in this effect, by limiting the transport of chlo-
rides to the reinforcing steel thus maintaining the passivity of
the steel. Additionally, the slight reduction of pH in a port-
land/slag system has been shown to not affect steel rein-
forcement passivity.
Some research has indicated that even when a critical con-
centration of chloride ions do reach the reinforcing steel and
corrosion is initiated, the rate of corrosion is slowed in concrete
containing slag cement [20]. The research showed that increas-
ing slag contents (between 25 and 50 %) resulted in increased
concrete electrical resistivity and lower chloride diffusion rates.
The reduced diffusion rates are attributed to both reduced per-
meability from pore structure refinement and greater chloride
binding capacity of slag cement concrete. Another study con-
cluded that the corrosion rate in cracked concrete containing
as little as 25 % slag cement is also reduced [21]. The researcher
suggested that the lower corrosion is due to both continued
long-term hydration inducing autogenous healing of cracks,
and higher resistivity of the concrete.
Mitigation of Alkali-Silica Reaction
Slag cement can significantly reduce or eliminate the expan-
sion potential of a reactive aggregate, as documented by nu-
merous researchers [9,19,22–24]. Slag cement mitigates ASR in
several ways:
• It reduces the total alkalis in the system thus reducing the
alkali-silica ratio.
• It consumes alkalis in hydration, making them unavailable
for reaction.
• It reduces permeability, therefore slowing the mobility of
the alkali.
• It reduces the hydroxyl concentration of pore liquid that
reacts with an aggregate.
When using slag cement to reduce ASR, it is important to
use an appropriate level of slag cement in the mixture. Sev-
eral factors will influence the rate and severity of ASR, in-
cluding aggregate reactivity, portland cement alkali content,
presence of water in the concrete, wet/dry cycles, and aggre-
gate size. Therefore testing is recommended to ensure that
appropriate expansion reduction can be achieved. The use of
ASTM C 1567 can serve to quickly determine (within 16 days)
whether specific combinations of portland and slag cements
and aggregates will exhibit expansive reactions. If ASTM C
1567 is inconclusive or if greater assurance of nonreactivity
is required, ASTM Standard Test Method for Determination
of Length Change of Concrete Due to Alkali-Silica Reaction (C
1293) can be used, but this test takes one year to run. Al-
though ASR reduction can be accomplished with as little as
25 % slag cement, often 40 % to as much as 70 % slag cement
may be needed to reduce potential expansion to the desired
level [3,23,25].
Figure 11 is one example of how slag cement can reduce
ASR. The concrete was made with two reactive aggregates in
combination with a high-alkali portland cement. Slag cement
levels varied from 0 to 50 % and were measured using the con-
crete prism test ASTM C 1293. To mitigate ASR in the Spratt
limestone, a slag cement level of 35 % of cementitious material
would be required, while with the Sudsbury greywacke, 25 %
would be required [23].
Mitigation of Sulfate Attack
External sulfate attack—where waterborne sulfates react with
hydration products of the tri-calcium aluminate phase of port-
land cement and with calcium hydroxide to form expansive
ettringite—can be controlled with appropriate amounts of slag
 PRUSINSKI ON SLAG AS A CEMENTITIOUS MATERIAL 521

Fig. 11—Mortar bars, tested in accordance with ASTM C 1293, tested for two years at various levels
of slag cement substitution, with two different reactive aggregates [adapted from Ref 23]. Using 1-year
expansion limits of 0.40 % as a guide (ASTM C 1293 Appendix X1), expansion of the Spratt aggregate is
mitigated using 35 % slag cement, while the Sudbury aggregate is mitigated at 25 %.

cement in concrete. Slag cement can reduce sulfate attack
through three mechanisms:
• Reduction in concrete permeability, thus reducing trans-
port of sulfates into the concrete.
• Reduction in calcium hydroxide, which is a contributor in
the reaction.
• Reduction in the total amount of tri-calcium aluminate
through dilution.
Slag cement can be used in conjunction with a Type I or II
cement to provide moderate or high levels of sulfate resistance.
Very high levels of resistance can be achieved with a combina-
tion of Type V and slag cements.
It is important to test the specific materials that will be
used in concrete to determine the appropriate amount of slag
cement needed to achieve the required level of protection.
ASTM C 989 proposes expansion limits, using ASTM Standard
Test Method for Length Change of Hydraulic-Cement Mortars
Exposed to a Sulfate Solution (C 1012), of 0.10 and 0.05 % at
six months to achieve moderate and high levels of sulfate
resistance, respectively.
The alumina content of slag cement can influence its abil-
ity to mitigate sulfate attack; therefore, it is particularly impor-
tant to evaluate the sulfate resistance of the portland/slag ce-
ment combination if the alumina content of the slag cement
exceeds 11 %. This situation may require higher replacement
levels of portland with slag cement to achieve an appropriate
level of sulfate resistance.
Figure 12 shows the effect of slag cement replacement on
sulfate resistance for a slag cement combined with Type I port-
land cement. For this concrete, a “high” level of sulfate resist-
ance was achieved at 35 % replacement [26]. In many cases, as
much as 50 % slag cement may be needed for moderate sulfate
resistance, and up to 65 % for high sulfate resistance.
A different type of sulfate attack, delayed ettringite for-
mation (DEF, or sometimes referred to as “internal sulfate
attack”), occurs when concrete is subject to high (160°F)
curing temperatures. This is one reason that curing tempera-
tures are limited in precast operations and controlled in mass
concrete pours. Although the mechanism of DEF is not com-
pletely understood, research has found that the use of slag
cement may be effective in controlling DEF expansion at
higher temperatures. One researcher found that as little as
17.5 % slag cement substitution was effective in eliminating
DEF expansion in temperatures up to 195°F, with no strength
penalty even in early strength [27]. Another researcher pro-
posed that at least 35 % slag cement should be used to miti-
gate DEF in higher-temperature curing (160°F for most
portland cements or 150°F for portland cements with rapid
early strength development) [28].
Reduction of Heat in Mass Concrete
The hydration characteristics of slag cement, as well as its in-
creased strength potential, enable it to facilitate the control of
heat and mitigation of cracking in mass concrete placements.
Typically, when the minimum thickness of a concrete element
is large enough to cause concern that the heat generated by ce-
ment hydration will result in a high maximum temperature in
concrete, as well as a significant differential temperature be-
tween the internal concrete and external surface, measures to
reduce heat are required. Among other measures that can be
taken to control heat (e.g., insulation blankets, cooling pipes,
reduced portland cement content), the use of slag cement has
been found to be highly effective. Slag cement helps reduce
heat by:
• Reducing portland cement content by the percentage of
slag used.
• Reducing the rate of early heat generation due to slag
cement hydration characteristics.
• Reducing the amount of total cementitious material
required to achieve required strength.
Another benefit of using slag cement is the reduced po-
tential for delayed ettringite formation, discussed previously in
522 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE

Fig. 12—Testing in accordance with ASTM C 1012 shows the sulfate expansion of a mortar bar made
with Type I (non-sulfate resistant) cement and various levels of slag cement substitution. ASTM C 989
proposes that mortar bars that expand less than 0.10 % at 6 months achieve equivalence to a Type II
moderate sulfate resistant cement, and 0.05 % at 6 months achieve equivalence to a Type V high sulfate
resistant cement. These levels are achieved by 15 and 35 % slag cement, respectively [26].

the section on sulfate attack. One of the reasons for limiting
peak temperature in mass concrete is DEF potential.
Figure 13 shows the effect of slag cement on heat of hydra-
tion from 0 to 75 % substitution when tested in a semi-adiabatic
condition. Not only is the peak specific heat of hydration re-
duced by nearly 50 % at the 75 % substitution level, but the area
under the curve, representing total heat generated, is reduced by
an even greater amount. In adiabatic testing, the increase in tem-
perature accelerates the hydration of portland/slag cement sys-
tems; therefore, to achieve appropriate heat reduction in mass
concrete elements, a slag cement content from 65 to 80 % of ce-
mentitious material (by mass) is usually recommended. Figure
14 shows, for the 10-ft thick massive footings on the I-895 Poca-
hontas Parkway Bridge in Virginia, the temperature rise in the
center and surface of a 10-ft thick concrete footing, using 75 %
slag cement and 564 lb/cy (334 kg/cm) total cementitious mate-
rials. Peak temperature was limited to 130°F and differential did
not exceed 28°F, well within specification limits [30].

Fig. 13—Specific heat of hydration of plain portland cement and substitution with slag cement
up to 75 % [29].
 PRUSINSKI ON SLAG AS A CEMENTITIOUS MATERIAL 523

Fig. 14—Temperature of concrete at the center a surface of 10-ft thick footing for I-895
Pocahontas Parkway Bridge in Virginia [30]. A 75 % slag cement concrete mixture with 564 lb/cy of
cementitious material was able to not exceed maximum specification requirements for peak and
differential temperatures (specification values of 165°F and 35°F, respectively).

Shrinkage restrained conditions, the drying shrinkage of concrete con-

Shrinkage in slag cement concrete is generally not significantly
different than shrinkage in plain portland cement concrete. In-
dividual studies have found shrinkage to be less, more, or the
same when comparing slag and non-slag concretes. A compre-
hensive study, which examined 32 references and analyzed data
from 62 comparable concrete mixtures, concluded that in un-
taining slag cement was only marginally higher than concrete
without slag cement [31]. The average increase in shrinkage was
2.9 %, and when corrected for paste volume (due to slag ce-
ment’s lower specific gravity than portland), the difference was
reduced to 1.5 % (Fig. 15). Also, the amount of slag cement in
the mixture, when varied from 20 to 80 %, had no discernable

Fig. 15—Relative shrinkage (see note above) of slag cement concrete at various slag substitution
levels [31]. Over 62 mixtures, the increase of shrinkage of slag versus non-slag concrete was very small
(2.9 %), and no correlation was found between shrinkage and slag substitution level.
524 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE

effect on the level of shrinkage. Other factors, such as environ- cent survey [41], several Northern U.S. State Departments of
mental conditions (temperature, humidity), surface-to-volume Transportation (that specify and utilize slag cement in concrete)
ratio of the concrete member, curing practices, and material have not experienced problems with scaling, nor has the the On-
factors other than slag cement (volume and elastic modulus of tario Ministry of Transportation [39].
aggregate, paste content, w/cm of paste) had the most signifi- Some researchers feel that ASTM C 672 is a particularly
cant effects on shrinkage. harsh test that does not correlate well with the performance of
As minimizing paste content (or, conversely, aggregate vol- field concrete made with slag (or fly ash) [42–44]. These re-
ume) is critical in limiting shrinkage, mixtures containing slag searchers suggest that a different testing standard, BNQ NQ
cement can reduce shrinkage by: 2621-900—the laboratory scaling resistance test procedure
• Adjusting paste volume of the mixture to take into account adopted by the Quebec Ministry of Transportation—may provide
the lower specific gravity (and higher relative volume) of significantly improved correlation between lab and field per-
the slag versus portland cement. formance of concretes made with supplementary cementing
• Where applicable, the higher ultimate strength of slag ce- materials.
ment may allow a decrease in total cementitious material,
thus reducing total paste volume. Color
A comprehensive study of creep in slag cement mixtures Slag cement is a light-colored material when finely ground,
has not been undertaken, but several individual studies have generally much lighter than portland cement, fly ash, or silica
indicated that long-term creep may be less [32,33]. One particu- fume (Fig. 16). The light color of slag cement generally will
lar study of restrained shrinkage cracking of slag cement con- give concrete a lighter appearance. In exposed architectural
crete indicated that cracking was delayed to later ages, and concrete this is generally considered a positive attribute and, in
resulted in smaller crack widths [33]. some cases (such as the Canadian Embassy in Washington, DC,
Fig. 17; or the Rock ‘n Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland, Fig. 18),
has been used in lieu of, or in conjunction with, white portland
Durability in Freezing and Thawing
cement. In highways and parking facilities, the light color im-
Environments
proves night visibility and may reduce lighting requirements.
Most studies of concrete produced with slag cement under freez-
The Delaware Department of Transportation eliminated the re-
ing and thawing conditions show that the concrete is durable
quirement for painting Jersey median barriers when slag ce-
and compares similarly to ordinary portland cement concrete
ment was used, because of their increased visibility.
[5,9,34–38]. As with all concrete, freezing and thawing resistance
In colored concrete, the use of slag may reduce the
is closely related to development of an appropriate air void
amount of pigment or coloring agent required for certain col-
system with adequate air content and proper bubble size and
ors; however, darker colors may require more pigment. In any
spacing. Slag cement contains no carbon and has relatively con-
case, increased percentages of slag cement will increase the
sistent particle size, so entrainment of air is generally no more
lightness of the concrete.
variable than with concrete containing only portland cement.
Slag cement may help lessen the propensity of concrete or
Additionally, adequate strength must be developed in any con-
mortar to effloresce. The decreased level of calcium hydrox-
crete prior to the first frost cycle, and repeated cycles of freez-
ide—a principal contributor to efflorescence staining as it
ing and thawing. Because slag cement concrete strength gains
leaches out of concrete or mortar, as well as lowered permea-
are more sensitive to temperature—and because these gains gen-
bility—helps achieve this reduction.
erally develop more slowly at early ages—it is important to en-
Another aspect of slag cement is the tendency of hardened
sure that adequate strength is achieved prior to freezing (or, if
concrete containing the material to temporarily turn a dark
early freezing is expected, to protect the concrete appropriately).
Any concrete exposed to deicing salts in freezing and thaw-
ing environments is potentially susceptible to scaling. When
good concreting design and placement practices are used, slag
cement concrete—with up to 50 % replacement for portland
cement—has provided good scaling durability in the field.
However, many laboratory studies using ASTM Test Method for
Scaling Resistance of Concrete Surfaces Exposed to Deicing
Chemicals (C 672) (or similar tests) have indicated that concrete
made with slag cement is less resistant to deicer salt scaling, es-
pecially at higher replacement levels [39–41]. Other laboratory
and field studies have shown similar or even improved scaling
resistance with slag cement concrete, compared to non-slag con-
crete [9,34,37,38]. ACI 318, Building Code Requirements for
Structural Concrete, allows up to 50 % slag cement replacement
when concrete is exposed to deicing chemicals, assuming that
w/cm is 0.45 or less, and concrete compressive strength is at
least 4500 psi. Proper finishing and appropriate curing tech-
niques are particularly important for concrete of any type that
will be exposed to deicer salts and freezing/thawing conditions.
Slag cement concrete, as noted above, may require longer cur- Fig. 16—Cementitious materials from top, going
ing times, especially if placement temperatures are low. Finish- clockwise: slag cement, silica fume, Class C fly ash, and port-
ing practices must take into account potentially longer times of land cement. Fly ash produces lighter colored concrete as slag
set and differences in bleed water rates and amounts. In a re- cement substitution levels increase.
 PRUSINSKI ON SLAG AS A CEMENTITIOUS MATERIAL 525

Fig. 17—Canadian embassy in Washington, DC used slag cement in architec-

tural concrete to achieve a very light color.

green or green-blue color. Typically called “greening,” this phe-
nomenon is due to a reaction of sulfide sulfur in slag cement
with various portland cement compounds. The propensity to-
ward greening depends on the rate of oxidation, the amount of
slag in the concrete, curing conditions, and porosity of the con-
crete surface. Visible greening is a harmless condition, and will
normally disappear with a few days’ exposure to air and light
(this propagates an oxidation reaction that eliminates the
greening effect). Concrete where formwork remained for ex-
tended periods, or has undergone high levels and long periods
of moist curing, may exhibit greening for longer periods of
time. Figure 19 illustrates greening in exposed architectural
concrete at the Canadian Embassy in Washington, DC shortly
after form removal. Because form stripping was delayed sev-
eral months, greening was initially extensive, but disappeared
after several weeks and developed the typical light color of slag
cement concrete (Fig. 17) [45]. Often, concrete test cylinders
that appear very light on the outside will exhibit greening on
the inside once broken. Additionally, old concrete that contains
slag and is being demolished may show internal evidence of

Fig. 18—Rock ‘n Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland used slag cement concrete in the exposed concrete pier
foundation (inset) in lieu of white portland cement to closely match the white color of the tile exterior.
526 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
Fig. 19—Greening is evident after forms were removed from the Canadian Embassy
in Washington, DC. Greening disappeared after several weeks resulting in the desired
light concrete appearance of slag cement concrete (see Fig. 17).
greening, once the concrete is cracked and opened. The only
time greening might be a concern is in those situations where
appearance is important and when concrete is not allowed to
be exposed to air and/or light (such as a swimming pool). In
these cases, the use of slag cement is not recommended.
Compatibility with Other Materials
Aggregates
Slag cement compatibility with aggregates is no less than the
compatibility of portland cement with aggregates. When
aggregates are susceptible to alkali-silica reaction, slag cement
reduces the potential for expansion, as previously discussed.
Additionally, slag cement tends to improve the paste-aggregate
interface thus producing a stronger bond and a less permeable
interface [46].
Chemical Admixtures
When used with chemical admixtures, slag cement has no
known limitations, and is compatible in the same way as port-
land cement. As with any change to a concrete mixture, when
slag cement replaces a portion of the portland cement, small
adjustments may need to be made to admixture addition rates.
For instance, if the slag cement is finer than the portland ce-
ment it replaces, air entraining admixture addition may in-
crease slightly. However, once the rate has been established,
highly consistent air contents are achievable, as slag is a con-
sistent material that contains no carbon.
Other Supplementary Cementitious Materials
Slag cement is compatible with all supplementary cementi-
tious materials, such as fly ash and silica fume [47]. Using three
cementitious materials in a concrete mixture is referred to as
a ternary mixture, and is gaining increasing acceptance by
specifiers.
Silica fume is sometimes used in high-performance con-
crete to achieve high levels of strength or low permeability, or
both. The use of slag cement in combination with silica fume
has the benefits of improving the workability of the port-
land/silica fume system to decrease stickiness of the mixture
and improve finishability. Additionally, research has shown
that when both early and long-term strength or permeability re-
ductions, or both, are important, a portland/slag/silica fume
system can achieve superior results by enhancing strength and
permeability reductions at early ages (principally through the
silica fume), and beyond 14 days and throughout the life of the
structure (principally through the slag cement) [46]. An early
high-strength concrete application for high-rise construction
was the Key Tower in Cleveland, which utilized 1050 lb/yd3 of
cementitious material, 65 % portland cement, 27 % slag ce-
ment, and 9 % silica fume and which achieved 15 000 psi field
strength in 56 days. The use of slag cement was especially help-
ful in improving mixture workability and reducing stickiness
due to the fine particle size of the silica fume.
Both Class C and Class F fly ashes have been used suc-
cessfully with slag cement to improve strength, durability, and
economy, and/or to reduce embodied energy and heat of hy-
dration associated with concrete mixtures. In locations where
fly ash is typically used in much of the concrete produced, slag
cement can be included to increase the total level of supple-
mentary cementitious materials in a mixture. Fly ash substitu-
tion beyond 20 % for a Class F fly ash or 30 % for a Class C fly
ash is unusual and can necessitate special testing requirements
and admixture use. However, if higher levels of supplementary
materials are desired to achieve enhanced strength, permea-
bility reduction, or lower embodied energy and emissions, slag
cement can replace an additional percentage of the portland
cement. The Iowa Department of Transportation uses ternary
mixtures in most of its concrete, including pavements with 35
% slag and 10 % fly ash, 20 % slag and 15 % fly ash, and, in high-
performance concrete, 35 % slag and 15 % fly ash [41]. The
construction of Houston’s Reliant Stadium utilized a high-
performance concrete with 30 % slag cement and 20 % fly ash
to achieve high-strength (13 000 psi) [48]. Additionally, the use
 PRUSINSKI ON SLAG AS A CEMENTITIOUS MATERIAL 527

Fig. 20—Reliant Stadium in Houston, home of the NFL Texans, utilized a high-performance
ternary mixture of portland and slag cements and Class C fly ash in the four massive “super
columns” that support the retractable roof (inset). The concrete met the requirements of high
strength (13 000 psi), low heat (massive placement), and virtually self-consolidating consistency.

of slag cement provided low-heat of hydration and virtually
self-consolidating concrete for the four “super columns” that
support the retractable roof. The 900 lb/cy mixture typically
achieved field strengths of 17 000 psi at 28 days (Fig. 20).
Environmental Benefits
Slag cement, being a by-product of an iron blast furnace, is a
recovered industrial material that has low embodied energy
and emissions, when compared to portland cement. Using slag
cement in concrete has several environmental benefits:
• Use of a recycled material
• Reduced landfill requirements
• Reduced virgin material use
• Reduced energy
• Reduced greenhouse gas emissions
A study comparing the energy to produce a ton of portland
cement versus a ton of slag cement showed an 86 % reduction
in energy required to produce slag cement [49]. Additionally,
the production of slag cement provides a 93 % reduction in vir-
gin materials used (including water) and a 98 % reduction in
carbon dioxide emissions. In concrete this is highly significant
because, even though portland cement comprises only about 10
to 25 % of the ingredients by weight in concrete, it is responsi-
ble for about 90 % of the embodied energy and carbon dioxide
emissions contributed from all the ingredients, as well as trans-
portation and concrete plant operations.
The high level of portland cement replacement that is
commonly achievable with slag cement enables dramatic re-
ductions in embodied energy, emissions, and virgin material
use in concrete. Table 4 shows the percent reductions achiev-
able when 35 and 50 % slag cement are used as a substitute in

TABLE 4—Reductions in Embodied Energy, Carbon Dioxide Emissions, and Virgin Material Use in
Concrete Using Slag Cement [49]
3000 psi Ready Mixed 5000 psi Ready Mixed 7500 psi Precast
Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Block
Item
35 % Slag 50 % Slag 35 % Slag 50 % Slag 35 % Slag 50 % Slag 35 % Slag 50 % Slag

Virgin Material 4.8 % 6.8 % 6.8% 9.8 % 10.3 % 14.6 % 4.3 % 6.3 %
Energy 21.1 % 30.2 % 23.5% 33.7 % 25.7 % 36.5 % 19.9 % 28.6 %
Carbon Dioxide Emissions 30.1 % 42.9 % 31.2% 44.7 % 32.3 % 46.1 % 29.2 % 42.0 %

* Reduction percentages are based on substituting 35 or 50 % slag cement with portland cement in a typical concrete mixture for the specified concrete type. Material,
energy, and carbon dioxide values include all operations and transportation required to produce the concrete raw materials, as well as concrete plant operations. Values
for all materials are based on average values calculated in the referenced studies.
528 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
Fig. 21—Forty-five percent slag cement concrete was used
in the structural concrete in The Helena, in Manhattan, to help
gain green building certification and a New York State tax
incentive for green building construction. Two-day forming
cycle was not affected by the use of slag cement, even though
much of the construction occurred during the winter.
several different types of concrete (3000 and 5000 psi ready
mixed concrete, 7500 psi precast concrete, and concrete
block). Virgin material is reduced by up to 15 %, energy by up
to 37 %, and carbon dioxide emissions by up to 46 %.
Using recycled materials, and materials with lower embod-
ied energy and emissions is becoming more mainstream with
the advent of green building certification systems such as the
U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED™ rating system. The He-
lena (Fig. 21) in Manhattan utilized slag cement at a 45 % level
in the structural concrete in this 45-story high-rise residential
structure to help gain LEED certification, as well as a New York
State tax incentive for sustainable construction practices [50].
Conclusions
Slag cement is a widely available supplementary cementing
material in most parts of the United States and Canada.
Worldwide, it has a long history of accepted use (since the late
19th century). Wide-scale use of slag cement in the United
States began in the early 1980s, corresponding with the open-
ing of granulation and grinding facilities at the Sparrows Point,
MD blast furnace and the publication of ASTM C 989.
Slag cement substitutes for 20 to 80 % of the portland ce-
ment in concrete and provides a wide range of benefits.
These benefits result primarily from the increased C-S-H and
decreased calcium hydroxide in slag cement concrete, com-
pared with ordinary portland cement concrete. Also, the
particle shape, surface density, and smoothness provide bene-
fits in the workability of freshly mixed concrete. Some of the
benefits are:
• Freshley mixed concrete—
• Reduced water demand
• Improved workability and consolidation
• Longer working times in warm weather
• Hardened concrete—
• Higher ultimate strength
• Lower permeability
• Greater protection for steel reinforcing against
corrosion
• Mitigation of alkali-silica reaction
• Mitigation of sulfate attack and delayed ettringite
formation
• Reduction of heat in mass concrete
• Lighter color
• Compatibility with other concrete-making materials
Besides these benefits, it should be noted that slag cement
concrete is durable in freezing and thawing conditions, is re-
sistant to deicer salt scaling (up to a level of 50 % replacement),
and exhibits approximately equivalent shrinkage characteris-
tics to ordinary portland cement concrete.
Placing, finishing, and curing slag cement concrete is simi-
lar to plain portland cement concrete, but contractors may
experience some differences, including:
• Increased time of set, especially at lower placement tem-
peratures
• Lower strength before about 7–10 days (unless curing
temperatures are elevated)
• Slight changes in admixture requirements (but once
changed, should remain relatively consistent)
• Differences in bleed water capacity and rate
These differences are normally minor, but may require
some adjustments to finishing and curing practices, or even
mixture design.
Finally, slag cement contributes to the environmental sus-
tainability of concrete by reducing raw material use, lowering
emissions, and decreasing energy.
References
[1] Lewis, D. W., Discussion of “Admixtures for Concrete” (ACI
212.1R-81), Concrete International: Design & Construction, Vol.
27, No. 5, May 1982, pp. 64–65.
[2] Concrete Proportioning, SCIC No. 2, Slag Cement Association,
Sugar Land, TX, 2002.
[3] Slag Cement in Concrete and Mortar (ACI 233-R), American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2003.
[4] 2004 U.S. Slag Cement Statistics, URL: http://www.slagcement.
org, Slag Cement Association, Sugar Land, TX, November 2005.
[5] Fulton, F. S., “The Properties of Portland Cement Containing
Milled Granulated Blast-Furnace Slag,” Monograph, Portland
Cement Institute, Johannesburg, 1974, pp. 4–46.
[6] Wood, K., “Twenty Years of Experience with Slag Cement,”
Symposium on Slag Cement, University of Alabama, Birming-
ham, 1981.
[7] Idorn, G. M., The Effect of Slag Cement in Concrete, NRMCA
Publication No. 167, National Ready Mixed Concrete Associa-
tion, Silver Spring, MD, April 1983.
 PRUSINSKI ON SLAG AS A CEMENTITIOUS MATERIAL
[8] Campbell, G. M. and Detwiler, R. J., “Development of Mix De-
signs for Strength and Durability of Steam-Cured Concrete,”
Concrete International, Vol. 15, No. 7, July 1993.
[9] Hogan, F. J. and Muesel, J. W., “Evaluation for Durability and
Strength Development of a Ground Granulated Blast-Furnace
Slag,” Cement, Concrete and Aggregates, Vol. 3, No. 1, 1981,
pp. 40–52.
[10] Muesel, J. W. and Rose, J. H., “Production of Granulated Blast
Furnace Slag at Sparrows Point, and the Workability and
Strength Potential of Concrete Incorporating the Slag,” Fly Ash,
Silica Fume, Slag and Natural Pozzolans in Concrete, SP-79,
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, Vol.1, 1983,
pp. 867–890.
[11] Wu, X. and Roy, D. M., “Zeta Potential Investigation During Hy-
dration of Slag Cement,” Proceedings, Material Research Soci-
ety Symposium, Boston, 1983.
[12] Concrete Time of Set, SCIC No. 2, Slag Cement Association,
Sugar Land, TX, 2002.
[13] Producing Precast and Prestressed Concrete with Slag Cement,
SCIC No. 16, Slag Cement Association, Sugar Land, TX, 2003.
[14] Ozyildirim, C., “Fabricating and Testing Low-Permeability Con-
crete for Transportation Structures,” VTRC 99-R6, Virginia
Transportation Research Council, August 1998.
[15] Hooton, R. D. and Emery, J. J., “Sulfate Resistance of a Canadian
Slag,” ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 87, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1990, pp.
547–555.
[16] Rose, J. H., “The Effect of Cementitious Blast-Furnace Slag on
Chloride Permeability of Concrete,” Corrosion, Concrete and
Chlorides, SP-102, American Concrete Institute, Farmington
Hills, MI, 1987, pp. 107–125.
[17] Roy, D. M., “Hydration, Microstructure and Chloride Diffusion
of Slag-Cement Plasters and Mortars,” Fly Ash, Silica Fume, and
Natural Pozzolans in Concrete, SP-114, American Concrete In-
stitute, Farmington Hills, MI, Vol. 2, 1989, pp. 1265–1281.
[18] Mehta, P. K., “Durability of Concrete in Marine Environment—
A Review,” Performance of Concrete in Marine Environment,
SP-65, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1980,
pp. 1–20.
[19] Bakker, R. F. M., “On the Cause of Increased Resistance of Con-
crete Made from Blast-Furnace Cement to Alkali Reaction and
to Sulfate Corrosion,” Thesis RWTH-Aachen, 1980.
[20] Hope, B. B. and Ip, A. K. C., “Corrosion of Steel in Concrete
Made with Slag Cement,” ACI Materials Journal, Nov.-Dec.
1987, pp. 525–531.
[21] Mendoza, A. R., “Corrosion of Reinforcing Steel in Loaded
Cracked Concretes Exposed to De-icing Salts,” Masters Thesis,
University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 2003.
[22] Thomas, M. D. A, “Review of the Effect of Fly Ash and Slag on
Alkali-Aggregate Reaction in Concrete,” Building Research Es-
tablishment Report, BR 314, Construction Research Communi-
cations Ltd., Waterford, UK, 1996.
[23] Bleszynski, R., Thomas, M, and Hooton, D., “The Efficacy of
Ternary Cementitious Systems for Controlling Expansion Due to
Alkali-Silica Reaction in Concrete,” Proceedings, 11th Interna-
tional Conference on Alkali-Aggregate Reaction, Quebec City,
Quebec, Canada, June 2000.
[24] Thomas, M. D. A. and Innis, F. A., “Effect of Slag on Expansion
Due to Alkali-Aggregate Reaction in Concrete,” ACI Materials
Journal, Vol. 95, No. 6, 1998, pp. 716–724.
[25] Mitigating Alkali Silica Reaction, SCIC No. 8, Slag Cement Asso-
ciation, Sugar Land, TX, 2002.
[26] Mitigating Sulfate Attack, SCIC No. 7, Slag Cement Association,
Sugar Land, TX, 2002.
[27] Miller, F. M. and Conway, T., “Use of Ground Granulated Blast
Furnace Slag for Reduction of Expansion Due to Delayed Et-
tringite Formation,” Cement, Concrete, and Aggregates, Vol.
25, No. 2, Dec. 2003.
529
[28] Ramlochan, T., “The Effect of Pozzolans and Slag on the Ex-
pansion of Mortars and Concrete Cured at Elevated Tempera-
ture,” Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University
of Toronto, 2003.
[29] Reducing Thermal Stress in Mass Concrete, SCIC No. 9, Slag
Cement Association, Sugar Land, TX, 2002.
[30] Gajda, J., Presentation to New York City Department of Envi-
ronmental Protection, March 2002.
[31] Hooton, D. R., Stanish, K., and Prusinski, J., “The Effect of
Ground, Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (Slag Cement) on the
Drying Shrinkage of Concrete—A Critical Review of the Litera-
ture,” Eighth CANMET/ACI International Conference on Fly
Ash, Silica Fume, Slag and Natural Pozzolans in Concrete, Host
Committee Supplementary Papers, American Concrete Insti-
tute, 2004.
[32] Brooks, J. J., “How Admixtures Affect Shrinkage and Creep,”
Concrete International, Vol. 21, No. 4, Apr. 1999, pp. 35–38.
[33] Li, Z., Qi, M., Li, Z., and Ma, B., “Crack Width of High-Perfor-
mance Concrete due to Restrained Shrinkage,” Journal of Ma-
terials in Civil Engineering, Vol. 11, No. 3, 1999, pp. 214–223.
[34] Klieger, P. and Isgerner, A. W., “Laboratory Studies of Blended
Cement—Portland Blast-Furnace Slag Cements,” Journal, PCA
Research and Development Department Laboratories, Vol. 9,
No. 3, Sept. 1967, pp. 2–22.
[35] Malhotra, V. M., “Strength and Durability Characteristics of
Concrete Incorporating a Pelletized Blast Furnace Slag,” Fly
Ash, Silica Fume, Slag And Other Mineral By-Products in Con-
crete, SP-79, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI,
1980, pp. 47–64.
[36] Mather, B., “Laboratory Tests of Portland Blast-Furnace Slag
Cements,” ACI Journal, Proceedings, American Concrete Insti-
tute, Farmington Hills, MI, Vol. 54, No. 3, Sept. 1957, pp.
205–232.
[37] Luther, M. D., Nikols, W. J., DeMaio, A. J., and Whitlinger, J. E.,
“Scaling Resistance of Ground Granulated Blast Furnace (GGBF)
Slag Concretes,” Durability of Concrete Third International
Conference, Proceedings, SP-145, American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 1994, pp. 47–64.
[38] Luther, M. D., Imse, D. J., and LaFollette, L. L., “Resistance to De-
icer Scaling—Concretes Containing ASTM C989 Ground Granu-
lated Blast Furnace Slag,” Durability of Concrete Fifth Interna-
tional Conference, Proceedings, SP-192, American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2000, pp. 73–90.
[39] Hooton, R. D. and Boyd, A., “Effect of Finishing, Forming and
Curing on De-Icer Salt Scaling Resistance of Concretes,” Inter-
national RILEM Workshop on Resistance of Concrete to Freez-
ing and Thawing With or Without De-icing Chemicals, Univer-
sity of Essen, Germany, 1997, pp. 174–183.
[40] Afrani, I. and Rogers, C. A., “The Effects of Different Cementing
Materials and Curing on Concrete Scaling,” Cement, Concrete,
and Aggregates, Vol. 16, No. 2, 1994, pp. 132–139.
[41] Sippel, C. and Cramer, S., “Effects of Ground Granulated Blast
Furnace Slag in Portland Cement Concrete,” Wisconsin
Department of Transportation Report 05–04, Feb. 2005,
Madison, WI.
[42] Pigeon, M. and Marchand, J. “The Deicer Salt Scaling Resistance
Of Concrete Containing Supplementary Cementing Materials,”
Scientific Report GCS-96-05, Presented to Lafarge, Chapter 6,
August 1996.
[43] Bouzoubaa, N., Bilodeau, A., and Fournier, B., “De-icing Salt
Scaling Resistance of Concrete Incorporating Supplementary
Cementing Materials,” CANMET Materials Technology Labora-
troy Report MTL2004-15(TR-R), Oct. 2004.
[44] MacLeod, N., “A Synthesis of Data on the Use of Supplementary
Cementing Materials (SCMs) in Concrete Pavement Applica-
tions Exposed to Freeze / Thaw and Deicing Chemicals,” Ce-
ment Association of Canada Report, March 2005.
530 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
[45] Greening, SCIC No. 10, Slag Cement Association, Sugar Land,
TX, 2002.
[46] Hooton, R. D., “Canadian Use of Ground Granulated Blast-
Furnace Slag as a Supplementary Cementing Material for En-
hanced Performance of Concrete,” Canadian Journal of Civil
Engineering, Vol. 27, No. 4, 2000, pp. 754–760.
[47] Ternary Concrete Mixtures with Slag Cement, SCIC No. 20, Slag
Cement Association, Sugar Land, TX, 2003.
[48] “Reliant Stadium Achieves High-Strength, Low-Heat, Self-
Consolidating Concrete,” Slag Cement Association News, URL:
http://www.slagcement.org, Slag Cement Association, Sugar
Land, TX, 2004.
[49] Prusinski, J. R., Marceau, M. L., and VanGeem, M. G., “Life Cycle
Inventory of Slag Cement Concrete,” Eighth CANMET/ACI In-
ternational Conference on Fly Ash, Silica Fume, Slag and Nat-
ural Pozzolans in Concrete Host Committee Supplementary Pa-
pers, American Concrete Institute, 2004.
[50] “LEED-NC™ 2.1 Guide: Using Slag Cement in Sustainable Con-
struction,” Version 1.0, Slag Cement Association, Sugar Land,
TX, 2005.
 PART VI
Specialized Concretes
45
Ready-Mixed Concrete
Colin L. Lobo1 and Richard D. Gaynor2
Preface
THIS CHAPTER ON READY-MIXED CONCRETE HAS
been a part of ASTM STP 169 since it was first published in
1955. Colin Lobo is the current secretary of ASTM Subcom-
mittee C09.40 on Ready-Mixed Concrete and Richard Gaynor
has been a member of the subcommittee since the early 1960s.
This chapter follows the organization of ASTM Specifica-
tion C 94/C 94M on Ready-Mixed Concrete and provides the
authors’ perspective of the intent of the specification require-
ments, developments in technology that are changing the
ready-mixed concrete industry and how it operates, and the
potential impact on these specifications. This discussion
pertains to ASTM C 94/C 94M-04a, the current version of the
specification at the time of this printing.
Introduction
ASTM International has two specifications covering ready-
mixed concrete: ASTM Specification for Ready-Mixed Concrete
(C 94/C 94M) and ASTM Specification for Concrete Made by
Volumetric Batching and Continuous Mixing (C 685/C 685M).
This paper will cover both specifications, but the emphasis will
be on ASTM C 94/C 94M because of its much greater use.
ASTM C 94/C 94M and C 685/C 685M are specifications
for concrete, as manufactured and delivered to a purchaser in
a freshly mixed and unhardened state. They form the basis for
a contract between a manufacturer and a purchaser [1,2].
History of the Industry
The first concrete mixed off-site and delivered to the job may
have been furnished in 1913, but it was not a recognizable in-
dustry in the United States until the late 1920s when the first
revolving drum truck mixers were developed [3]. ASTM C 94/C
94M was first published in 1933. The volumetric batching with
continuous mixing specification, ASTM C 685/C 685M, was
published in 1971. In 1933, the ready-mixed concrete industry
consumed about 5 % of the portland cement produced in the
United States. In the early days, the competition was with site-
mixed concrete. However, as measured by the amount of
cement used within the United States, the industry’s use grew
from about one-third to two-thirds in the period from 1950 to
1
Vice President of Engineering, National Ready-Mixed Concrete Association, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
2
Retired from National Ready-Mixed Concrete Assocation since 1995, and now a consultant from Silver Spring, MD.
533
1975. In 2003 the industry used approximately 75 % of the total
cement consumption [4]. At that time, the estimated U.S. ready-
mixed concrete production was 405 million cubic yards (310
million cubic meters) [5].
The 1994 edition of this chapter on ready-mixed concrete
[6] indicated a change in trend of the ready-mixed concrete in-
dustry whereby acquisitions and consolidation had resulted in
larger companies that operated across several states. This
trend has continued with larger multinational corporations
establishing vertically integrated company structures that in-
clude cementitious materials, aggregates, concrete and other
building products, and asphalt paving operations. Trends in
industry statistics are better quantified with reporting by pub-
lic companies and information on the Internet. However, there
still exists a large segment of the industry, quantified by the
number of companies that still operate smaller local family-
owned businesses. There also exist a significant number of
large privately held companies that produce in the range of 2
to 5 million cubic yards (1.5 to 3.8 million cubic meters). The
estimated number of companies has changed from about 5000
in 1978 to 3700 in 1994 to about 2400 in 2003 [7,8]. The his-
torical pattern where 10 % of the companies produced 50 % of
the concrete has changed, and now 6 or 7 % of companies pro-
duce 50 % of the concrete. The “average” ready-mixed concrete
company produces about 700 000 cubic yards (535 000 cubic
meters), and operates about 12 plants and 125 mixer trucks.
The average quantity of concrete produced per plant is in the
range of 60 000 cubic yards (46 000 cubic meters) annually in
the United States [8]. These average numbers are quite skewed
due to a wide distribution of company size and structure. At the
present time, small companies operating less than 15 trucks
account for more than half the number of companies and pro-
duce less than 10 % of the concrete.
The changing demographics of companies operating in the
industry also fosters greater technical sophistication and greater
use of performance specifications. Increasingly, the ready-mixed
concrete producer is the concrete technology expert. He is now
relied on as an expert on concrete material technology and in-
novative products by highway departments and other specifiers.
His involvement in standards development, research, and op-
portunities for technology transfer through the American Con-
crete Institute, ASTM International, Transportation Research
Board, and other technical organizations have helped greatly.
534 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
Specifications
ASTM C 94/C 94M and C 685/C 685M are specifications for
ready-mixed concrete. As such, the specifications address the
separate and joint responsibilities of the various parties in a
typical job—the owner, specifying agency, contractor, concrete
producer, and testing agency.
The ASTM C 94/C 94M and C 685/C 685M specifications
are used in a number of rather different situations.
In major public and private construction, they are incor-
porated by reference in the job specifications. Here, the basic
contract is between an owner and his representative (the speci-
fier) and a contractor. The concrete producer is a material
supplier who agrees in his contract with the job contractor to
comply with ASTM C 94/C 94M or C 685/C 685M.
At the other end of the scale, in small jobs, these ASTM
specifications form the basis for an agreement to furnish ma-
terial for incidental construction, perhaps to a homeowner.
A third and important use is the protection of the public
interest by incorporation by reference in public building codes.
In this instance, the requirements, which are binding on the
owner, are then passed down to the contractor and finally to
the concrete producer through a purchase order from the con-
tractor. It is, however, the purchaser’s responsibility to invoke
the pertinent code requirements in the construction specifica-
tion and the purchase order for concrete.
Inevitably, circumstances often dictate that job specifica-
tion requirements differ from those in ASTM C 94/C 94M and
C 685/C 685M. Therefore, both specifications include the state-
ment that if there are differences, the purchaser’s specifica-
tions shall govern.
Since the ready-mixed concrete producer functions as a
supplier of materials and often has no binding contract with
the owner, there is a need for close cooperation between the
contractor and the concrete producer. In 1965, the Associated
General Contractors and the National Ready-Mixed Concrete
Association adopted a “Joint Statement of Responsibilities”
that has been found useful over the years and has been re-
viewed by both associations periodically and republished with-
out change [9]. The statement addresses the separate and joint
responsibilities of each party and is helpful in defining the tra-
ditional roles of each. More recently a partnership between the
American Society for Concrete Contractors and the National
Ready-Mixed Concrete Association have produced checklists
for concrete preconstruction conferences and ordering con-
crete that provide guidelines to establish responsibilities and
identify responsible individuals to address specific situations
and make decisions during the course of the job [10].
Basis of Purchase
An early section in both ASTM C 94/C 94M and C 685/C 685M
defines the cubic yard (or cubic meter) of concrete as the ba-
sis of purchases and then describes the method of testing and
calculation of the volume of fresh concrete. The volume of con-
crete is defined as the total weight of the batch divided by the
concrete density (unit weight) as determined by ASTM Test
Method for Density (Unit Weight), Yield, and Air Content
(Gravimetric) of Concrete (C 138). The unit weight used is the
average of the results of three tests made on separate samples
from different loads. Although the density method, ASTM C
138, permits tests in 0.2 ft3 (6 L) air meter bases, ASTM C 94/C
94M requires tests in standard 1/2 ft3 (14 L) unit weight buck-
ets for improved accuracy. There has been some consideration
of deferring to the smaller density measure sizes permitted in
C 138 based on coarse aggregate size, because in real practice
the larger density measures are cumbersome to handle and are
seldom seen on the job site. This might be a revision in future
versions of C 94/C 94M and C 685/C 685M.
Yield or Volume In-Place
A note explains that the volume of concrete delivered may be
less than expected due to waste, spillage, over-excavation,
spreading of forms, settlement in forms, or some loss of air.
Further, the volume of hardened concrete is about 2 % less
than its volume in the plastic state. Because the quantity of con-
crete actually used on a job will be greater than that calculated
from plan dimensions, yield tests must be made early in the job
and appropriate adjustments made in batch proportions if de-
ficiencies are found.
When yield is confirmed by the density test, another possi-
ble source of error is in the weights of materials batched. Scale
accuracy should be checked at three- to six-month intervals and
certified calibrations should be conducted at least annually. If
these checks are made, the concrete discharged from the truck
should be within 1 or 2 % of that determined by the standard
yield test. Due to different tolerances on weighing materials, air
content, and other factors that affect the yield determination, a
tolerance on the yield from the quantity ordered is difficult to
establish. Seldom do the contractors’ initial estimates agree that
closely with the amount delivered by the concrete producer.
The practice of ordering full loads by many contractors practi-
cally ensures that 2 to 3 % more will be ordered than is needed.
Estimates should be revised towards the end of every pour and
communicated to the concrete producer to avoid returning un-
used concrete or ordering short loads. A 6-in. (150-mm) slab that
is 3/8 in. (9 mm) too thick will require 6 % more concrete, and
deflection of bar joist construction, which is not shored, can
produce slabs that average 1 in. (25 mm) too thick [11,12].
Under ASTM C 685/C 685M, for concrete batched volu-
metrically using mobile mixers, a check on the yield is made by
weighing the concrete discharged in a given number of revo-
lutions of the cement feeder and then determining the density
of that concrete by ASTM C 138. The volume of concrete dis-
charged is then the weight of concrete discharged per revolu-
tion times the number of revolutions divided by the density.
Truck Mixer Hold Back
Generally, it is realized that when concrete is batched into a
clean, washed-out truck mixer, it will take 1 to 2 % of a capac-
ity batch to coat the drum and blades. This material is princi-
pally mortar with a negligible amount of coarse aggregate.
Since mixers are washed out and wash water and solids dis-
charged only at the end of the day, this does not significantly
affect the volume of concrete delivered if the truck delivers
four or five batches each day.
However, when a 1 yd3 (0.76 m3) batch is mixed in a clean
10 yd3 (7.6 m3) capacity truck mixer, the effect on concrete pro-
portions can be dramatic. Compared to the batched propor-
tions, if the amount of mortar retained is equal to 2 % of the
weight of a capacity batch, the cement content of the concrete
discharged will drop from 600 to 470 lb/yd3 (356 to 280
kg/m3), and the sand as a percentage of the total aggregate will
decrease from 36 to 26 %. The batch will be harsh to handle
and will have low cement content and low strength.
 LOBO AND GAYNOR ON READY-MIXED CONCRETE
The solution is to increase cement, sand, and water
weights up to about 40 % in such small truck-mixed batches, re-
ferred to as short loads. If a clean tilting central mixer is used,
the effect on proportions is much more dramatic since the
gross volume of the drum is about 25 % larger than a truck
mixer, the surface to be coated is much greater, and the hold
back perhaps 50 % greater.
Ordering Information
Both ASTM specifications include the fundamental elements of
prescription and performance specifications and list the basic
information needed by both parties. However, the purchaser
often includes additional requirements. Sometimes this is an
attempt to ensure quality, perhaps because of past bad experi-
ences or in an effort to provide characteristics that were not
readily available in standard mixes. The growing number of
types of chemical admixtures and supplementary cementitious
materials permits the concrete producer to produce concrete
with properties quite different from the “standard mixes” in
common use a few years ago. Some of the newer applications
are flowing concrete, self-consolidating concrete, anti-wash-out
concrete, low-permeability corrosion-resistant concrete, con-
crete with reduced shrinkage characteristics, fiber-reinforced
concrete, controlled low-strength materials, pervious concrete,
and high-performance concrete. Concrete with three or even
five admixtures is becoming more common. Control of such
mixtures can be a significant challenge for concrete producers,
especially when a variety of concrete types are batched during
a particular period.
The Ordering Information section requires the purchaser
to specify the size of coarse aggregate, slump, air content, unit
weight of structural lightweight concrete, and one of three op-
tions: A, B, or C. The options are as follows:
Option A is the performance format in which the pur-
chaser specifies strength and the producer selects proportions
of ingredients.
Option B is the prescription format in which the pur-
chaser specifies cement content, maximum water content, and
admixtures.
Option C is a mixed format in which the purchaser speci-
fies minimum cement content, required strength, and admix-
tures, if required.
At least at this point, the performance format of ordering
concrete in C 94/C 94M is based on strength. A broader per-
formance-based method that addresses other characteristics to
include durability is most likely covered in job contract docu-
ments, which would apply. The producer should ensure that
the basic information required for the mixture is provided with
the order, although C 94/C 94M indicates that it is the pur-
chaser’s responsibility. The situations can vary but in many
cases the producer may have more expertise or knowledge
than the purchaser on acceptable local practice [13].
Water-Cementitious Materials Ratio in
Specifications
The A, B, and C options do not include a requirement for a
maximum water-cementitious materials (w/cm) ratio even
though Option B does include both cement and water content.
The principal reason that it is not included is the difficulty of
actually measuring the w/cm ratio in practice. From the user’s
perspective, a w/cm ratio is needed to ensure durability, that is,
resistance to freezing and thawing, deicer salts and associated
535
scaling, sulfate exposure, or intrusion of chlorides in rein-
forced concrete. The maximum w/cm ratios usually cited are
those required in the “Building Code Requirements for Struc-
tural Concrete” (ACI 318) [14] or “Specifications for Structural
Concrete” (ACI 301) [15], which range from 0.50 to 0.40. In
many high-performance concretes, it is possible to produce
concretes with w/cm ratios as low as 0.30 or lower and values
as low as 0.35 are being specified in parking structures for re-
sistance to intrusion of chlorides.
The concrete producer has difficulty conforming to a max-
imum w/cm ratio since the amount of water necessary to pro-
duce a given slump will vary with local ingredient materials
and delivery time, which depends on delays related to traffic or
on the job site. Additionally, the moisture content of the ag-
gregates will vary from batch to batch making accurate meas-
urement and/or adjustments difficult. Another difficulty is that
the procedures used by specifiers to determine compliance
with maximum w/cm ratio specifications are rarely defined;
and if every batch is to be checked, the production and place-
ment schedule will be disrupted.
In practice, specifiers use a number of systems of enforc-
ing maximum w/cm ratio specifications. One of the simplest is
to require submission of laboratory trial batch or previous
field mixture proportions with accompanying test data demon-
strating compliance with the specified maximum w/cm ratio
and then relying on routine strength tests to determine com-
pliance. This system breaks down if the specified strength is
not reasonably consistent with the strength obtained at the de-
sired w/cm ratio. Increasingly, large agencies are requiring 2 to
4 yd3 (1.5 to 3 m3) trial batches instead of laboratory trial
batches to improve the accuracy of the mix approval process.
For all of the above reasons, if the w/cm ratio is to be
strictly enforced in the field, then compliance with a specified
maximum w/cm ratio for field acceptance is inappropriate
without an understood statistical tolerance, not unlike that
used in ACI 318 or in ASTM C 94/C 94M for strength.
On well-controlled jobs, the standard deviation of the
w/cm ratio ranges from 0.02 to 0.03. A concrete producer
would have to furnish concrete with an average w/cm ratio of
as low as 0.35 or even lower to avoid batches that have calcu-
lated w/cm ratios greater than 0.40!
For some time AASHTO has had a test procedure, AASHTO
T 318, for determining the water content of concrete by rapidly
drying a small sample of concrete in a microwave oven [16].
Currently, ASTM subcommittee on Fresh Concrete Tests,
C09.60, has started work on standardizing a similar procedure.
The idea is that the measured water content in the test can be
used with the recorded quantity of cementitious material
batched to calculate a w/cm ratio. Several State DOTs have tried
the method and although they have thought it was useful it has
not been widely used in their specifications. The Port Authority
of New York and New Jersey have used it in specifications that
include payment adjustments in airport construction and feel
that it has helped greatly to improve construction quality [17].
The writers’ opinions on w/cm ratio specifications is that
they should not be used and do not, as a single mixture pa-
rameter, provide better assurance of “durability” than other
much more reliable, more accurately measured performance
characteristics. At a minimum, the strength level specified for
the concrete should be consistent with the specified w/cm ra-
tio, so that the purchaser is at least assured that concrete being
delivered is of the desired quality. This issue is one that has
been under considerable discussion for several years [18,19].
536 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
Approval of Mixtures
Under all three of the options of ordering concrete in ASTM C
94/C 94M and C 685/C 685M, if the purchaser requests it, the
manufacturer is required to furnish proportions of ingredients
that will be used. This information is related to that required to
be furnished on the delivery ticket.
The system of requiring submittal and “approval” of con-
crete proportions is firmly embedded in specifications and
codes in the United States. This process started prior to about
1940 when virtually all concrete was furnished as prescription
or cement content mixes—not strength or for other perform-
ance-based requirements. C 94/C 94M does not address mixture
submittals. These are addressed in ACI 318 for mixtures and in
ACI 301 for mixtures and construction means and methods.
Today, most mixtures have specified design strengths.
Once mixture proportions are identified in a submittal, it is dif-
ficult to reduce cement content without generating opposition
or suspicion from specifiers or contractors. The net result is
that there is little incentive for the concrete producer to im-
plement a quality control program that is designed to control
strength with a high degree of uniformity at the target level
that complies with the specified strength, and the concrete is
furnished with higher cement content and much higher
strength than is actually needed.
There has been some question as to the usefulness of a sub-
mittal of mixture proportions in the case of a strength-based
specification. The design professional or specifier rarely “ap-
proves” the submittal, and the strength acceptance criteria of
strength test results during the course of the job govern in any
event. Ideally, for a performance-based specification, the sub-
mittal should furnish mixture pre-qualification test data indi-
cating compliance with specification requirements. The com-
position of the concrete mixture that describes the details of the
ingredients and proportions are really irrelevant. Selected job
site acceptance tests can then be used to demonstrate compli-
ance with the job specification and the pertinent submittal.
Another aspect of adhering to submitted mixture propor-
tions is that adjustments to concrete mixtures are necessary on
a real time basis to accommodate variations in ingredient ma-
terials and seasonal factors. Oftentimes a required resubmittal
can delay construction schedules. If the producer was free to
vary proportions to produce the required performance, the in-
centive would exist for him to invest in sophisticated quality
control processes that facilitate the production, batching, de-
livery, and testing of consistent and uniform concrete batches.
Adoption of performance-based requirements and elimination
of prescriptive mixture proportions are necessary before con-
crete suppliers will have the incentive to adopt more formal
and advanced quality control systems.
There is, in the American Concrete Institute (ACI) Building
Code ACI 318, a provision that permits a producer to recalcu-
late the required over-design when he has accumulated 15 tests
and to make adjustments in proportions to conform to a lower
required average strength level compared to what he would
furnish if he did not have a strength test record. This is at least
a beginning for performance specifications.
Materials
This section includes references to the commonly used ASTM
specifications for cement, aggregates, admixtures, and water. A
number of materials such as fibers, expansive cement, corro-
sion inhibitors, and other ingredients are not included, either
because there is no ASTM specification or because there is a
feeling that the use of the material requires different batching,
mixing, delivering, or testing procedures than those for “nor-
mal” concretes.
Water Quality
In 2004 a specification for mixing water for use in concrete,
ASTM C 1602/C 1602M, was approved and the requirements
for water in C 94/C 94M make reference to this specification.
ASTM C 1602/C 1602M defines water sources as potable, non-
potable, and water from concrete production operations. It rec-
ognizes that one or more of these sources may be combined to
make up the total mixing water used in concrete. Potable wa-
ter is permitted to be used without qualification testing. Quali-
fication requirements and associated testing frequencies are
established for other sources of water. The qualification of wa-
ter sources requires testing for effects of the water source on
strength and setting time when compared to control concrete
made with potable water. The qualification requirements indi-
cate that the strength should not be less than 90 % of the con-
trol and setting time should not be retarded by more than 90
min or accelerated by more than 60 min. The 90 % limit for
strength is intended to allow equivalence to acceptable water
with a statistical allowance for testing variability. The qualifi-
cation criteria apply to the total mixing water with the intent
that when a concrete producer qualifies a certain critical com-
position of water, those compositions of lesser impact on con-
crete properties can be used without qualification testing. For
instance, if a producer conducts qualification tests for a com-
bination of wash water and potable water at a solids content of
50 000 ppm, mixing water with lower concentrations of solids
are thereby qualified for use.
Considerable pressure from evolving environmental regu-
lations is forcing the ready-mixed concrete industry to reuse
more of its process water. These regulations control, and in
many cases prohibit, the disposal of wash water, yard runoff,
and returned concrete. As a result producers are increasingly
reusing wash water as mixing water and are considering in-
corporation of returned concrete or the partially hydrated ce-
ment from returned concrete in freshly mixed concrete.
Mixer Wash Water
ASTM C 1602/C 1602M permits the use of water from mixer
wash-out operations as mixing water in concrete if the water
meets the qualification tests for strength and set time men-
tioned above. The qualification criteria apply to the total mix-
ing water. The specification requires the density of wash water
to be measured daily and establishes testing frequency for
strength and setting time based on the density of the total wa-
ter that the producer intends to use. This recognizes that more
monitoring and control is needed when wash water with a
higher solids content is used.
Optional limits can be invoked by the purchaser on the
amount of chlorides, sulfates, alkalies, and total solids in the wa-
ter. The specification provides for a testing frequency for these
tests. As currently written, ASTM C 1602/C 1602M has an op-
tional limit of 50 000 ppm of solids in total mixing water. Typi-
cally, this permits up to about 15 lb/yd3 (9 kg/m3) of dry solids.
It should be noted that the amount of air-entraining ad-
mixture required to produce the required air content may in-
crease, and even double, if these admixtures are added to high
pH wash water before the water is batched into the mixer. The
air-entraining admixtures should be added either with the sand
 LOBO AND GAYNOR ON READY-MIXED CONCRETE
or with an increment of clean mixing water. Although it does
not appear that similar problems are experienced when other
commonly used accelerators, retarders, or water reducers are
batched into or at the same time as wash water, this possibility
should not be ignored with the increasingly sophisticated
admixture systems that are being developed and used.
Research and industry experience with the use of wash water
at relatively low solids content has been that effects on product
quality are not significant or important [20–23]. These studies
represent the use of wash water that has been clarified through
a settling pond system.
Increasingly the industry is moving towards zero-discharge
production facilities. Returned concrete and mixer wash water
is processed through concrete recycling or reclaiming units
that wash out and separate the aggregates. The cement and
sand fines are maintained in a slurry suspension in agitation
tanks. This slurry is then used as a part or whole of the mixing
water in concrete. The percentage used will depend on the den-
sity of the wash water slurry, which is related to the solids con-
tent. This operational process eliminates steps of removal of
fines from process or storm water settling basins, drying, and
disposal. Water slurries used at higher solids content, com-
posed primarily of partially hydrated cement, cause an in-
crease in the mixing water requirement for target slump and
can result in lower strength. Hydrated cement also causes ac-
celeration of the setting time of concrete [24–27]. Hydration
stabilizing admixtures (HSA), which suspend the hydration of
cement, have been used very effectively to overcome some of
the negative effects of using recycled water at higher solids
content. The use of these admixtures facilitates the use of a
larger quantity of wash water slurries with higher solids con-
tent without adverse affects on concrete properties. This allows
the producer to maintain a production mass balance whereby
the generated wash water is reused. Complete recycling sys-
tems include accurate water density gages, separate tanks that
feed admixture-treated water at constant solids content, and
computerized systems that automate the process [25,28]. Ef-
fective admixture dosages can be established by determining
the loss on ignition (LOI) of the dried solids from the water
slurry. A low LOI value represents a low degree of hydration of
cement indicating that the HSA is functioning for the storage
duration of the slurry [25]. A simpler qualitative quality control
tool is to monitor the rate of settlement of solids in a column
of water. Unhydrated cement will settle at a faster rate indicat-
ing the effectiveness of the admixture dosage used [28].
ASTM C 1603/C 1603M establishes procedures for meas-
uring the density and solids content of wash water slurries
reclaimed from returned concrete. It establishes methods of
estimating the solids content of water from the measured
density, a property that is easier to measure in production sit-
uations. ASTM C 1603/C 1603M also provides guidance on
blending two sources of water to stay within a predetermined
or specified target solids content or density.
Returned Concrete
ASTM C 94/C 94M is silent on the reuse of returned concrete
but there are efforts currently to address it in the specification.
In this scenario the concrete remaining in a truck mixer is tem-
pered with water at the job-site and fresh materials are batched
on top of it at the plant. Sufficient caution and control should
be exercised to ensure that the resulting concrete mixture
meets the purchaser’s requirements. Factors that affect the
properties of the resulting concrete include the quantity and
537
age of the returned concrete used, cement factor, and temper-
ature history. Generally, the resulting concrete will be of lower
strength due to a higher water content and will set faster. These
effects are exacerbated when a larger quantity of returned
concrete is used and when the returned concrete has reached
a higher degree of hydration [29,30]. Hydration stabilizing ad-
mixtures (HSA) were originally developed to treat and reuse re-
turned concrete. Returned concrete is stabilized for reuse on
the same day or even the next day. Laboratory studies have
demonstrated that returned concrete can be successfully
treated with HSA without adversely affecting concrete proper-
ties [31–33]. While several concrete producers have installed
systems that allow for the controlled and quantified use of
HSA-treated returned concrete, the operational challenges of
tracking a variety of factors have limited its widespread use.
Slump and Air Content
The section on slump in ASTM C 94/C 94M contains tolerances
in two different formats: a “maximum” or “not to exceed” value,
and a target value. The tolerance varies by level of slump. It also
establishes a 30-min period after arrival on the job during which
the producer is responsible for the slump. The job-site addition
of high-range water reducers (HRWR) to produce flowing con-
crete has created a number of field control problems when the
slump of the flowing concrete is subject to strict slump control
and testing. If job-site adjustment is preferred, a more practical
procedure is to specify the slump of the concrete before addi-
tion of the high-range water reducer and to accept the fact that
the slump of the flowing concrete will vary. New admixture
chemistries for high-range water reducers have reduced the
problems associated with slump loss with time and improved
the linear relationship of dosage to concrete slump level. Slump
retention has also improved with these newer generation
HRWR admixtures. It is more common for high-range water re-
ducers to be added at the plant. Requiring a slump level prior
to adding the admixture at the plant is not practical. With in-
creased use of self-consolidating concrete, alternative measures
of concrete consistency, such as slump flow and other empiri-
cal measures to quantify the rheology of concrete will be nec-
essary. Such methods are in the process of being standardized.
The section on air content contains a table of recom-
mended air contents taken from ACI Committee 211 [34]. The
delivery tolerance is
1.5 % of the specified air content. When
a preliminary sample is taken prior to discharge and has a low
air content, C 94/C 94M allows the addition of air entraining
admixture followed by 30 revolutions of mixing.
There have been a number of problems that have surfaced
recently in the control and measurement of air content. Some
years ago, Meininger [35] and Helmuth [36] described tests in-
dicating that some fly ashes containing carbon adsorb air-
entraining agent. This caused a higher dosage requirement of
the admixture for the required air content and a reduction of
concrete air content during delivery. Ozyildirim [37] and Hover
[38] have made studies to determine if the pressure meter ac-
curately measures the air content of plastic concrete and
whether the pressure method provides a reasonable estimate of
the amount to be expected in hardened concrete. These issues
are the subject of other chapters in this book. However, the an-
swer generally appears to be that ASTM Test Method for Air
Content of Freshly Mixed Concrete by the Pressure Method (C
231) does provide the desired measurement and that the air
content of hardened concrete is often either lower or higher for
538 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
a multitude of reasons. Another aspect is that newer technolo-
gies for air-entraining admixtures create more stable air void
systems but need additional mixing energy to develop the re-
quired air void system and air content. It has been reported that
the air void systems generated from these air entraining ad-
mixtures are of smaller size and could possibly function for
freezing and thawing resistance at lower total air contents. The
primary intent with entrained air is to obtain a proper air void
system in concrete characterized by a proper spacing factor and
bubble size, indicated by the specific surface. These parameters
have been typically measured in hardened concrete specimens
using ASTM C 457. More recently, there have been attempts to
standardize the Air Void Analyzer that measures the distribu-
tion of the size of air voids in plastic concrete [39,40].
Another issue is the observation that much of the initial air
can be lost during pumping, particularly with the newer long
boom pumps with 5-in. (125-mm) lines. The authors believe that
this occurs when a section of the boom is essentially vertical and
concrete slides down from its weight and develops a vacuum in
the pump line. The air bubbles then expand and fail to reform
when the concrete drops out the end of the pump line or im-
pacts an elbow in the boom [41]. The solution has been to insert
some resistance in the line. This can be as simple as inserting a
loop in the flexible hose or laying a length of hose on the deck
[42]. Under normal conditions, the loss of air in pumping
should not exceed 1 or 1.5 %. Air can also be lost when concrete
is dropped or discharged from a belt conveyor. Hover has
demonstrated that even though air content is reduced through
a variety of placement methods that cause concrete to fall
through a certain distance, the volume of air lost is in the larger
size bubbles and the remaining air content is adequate to pro-
vide resistance to cycles of freezing and thawing [43].
C 94/C 94M establishes that the point of sampling for
acceptance testing is at the discharge point from the trans-
portation unit. Some specifications require testing the con-
crete at the point of placement in the job, which makes the
concrete producer, the contractor, and the pumping contrac-
tor responsible for the final results for acceptance of the tests
for air content and strength. The concrete producer prefers
that tests be made on discharge from the truck. If he agrees to
provide 8 % air because 3 % will be lost during placing, it
should be recognized that strength tests will be reduced 15 to
20 % if cylinders are made from samples obtained at the truck
discharge. Likewise, if the test samples are obtained after
pumping with the pump located near the truck with the boom
near vertical, the air content will be reduced. However, if this
concrete is placed at a higher level with a less critical boom
configuration, the air will not be lost and the strength in-place
may be significantly lower. The problem is exacerbated if the
pump location is such that placement occurs both close to the
pump with a critical boom configuration and also a long dis-
tance away where the boom will be in a horizontal position.
The contractor, pumper, specifier, and producer need to work
closely together to determine if loss of air is likely to be a prob-
lem and what procedures will be used. Naturally these are is-
sues that must be resolved in a pre-job conference or earlier.
Another problem is the development of surface delamina-
tions and blisters when air-entrained concrete is steel troweled.
This occurs in industrial floors with mechanical and vibrating
screeds that are mechanically troweled. Although a number of
factors are involved, the solution is to avoid the use of en-
trained air in industrial floors or, at least, to keep the air con-
tent below 3 or 4 %.
Batching and Measuring Materials by
ASTM C 94/C 94M
ASTM C 94/C 94M requirements for measuring materials rec-
ognize both individual scales and hoppers for weighing a sin-
gle material and cumulative scales and an associated hopper
for weighing more than one material. This system, and the ter-
minology that is used, developed from the use of dial scales
where the material weights were accumulated as materials
were weighed. With the increasing use of computerized batch-
ing equipment, it has now become possible to have the
computer do the subtraction and print the weights of the indi-
vidual materials in a cumulative batcher, including a recogni-
tion of the zero reading or tare. A note is needed in ASTM C
94/C 94M to explain the fact that cumulative tolerances apply
to cumulative batchers irrespective of the format used to re-
port the batch weights. This means that the tolerance of any
individual weighing is based on a tolerance percentage of the
intended cumulative weight.
Cementitious Materials
Cement, slag, fly ash, and other pozzolans may be weighed cu-
mulatively on a single scale provided cement is weighed first.
The weighing tolerance is
1 % of the required cumulative
weight. For small batches where the cumulative weight is less
than 30 % of scale capacity, the tolerance is from 0 to 4 %.
The primary reason for weighing cement first is related to the
flow characteristics of fly ash that could cause it to be over-
weighed and result in a lower batched quantity of cement. This
requirement tends to ensure the correct cement weight and, if
anything, an excess of mineral admixtures. Cumulative weigh-
ing of cement and supplementary cementitious materials (also
referred to as mineral admixtures) also has the advantage that
the batcher tends to “rathole” when it discharges into the mixer
and the cementitious materials blend as they are loaded. There
have been a few instances when individual separate batchers
were used for cement and fly ash and the fly ash wound up in
one part of the batch, separate from most of the cement. When
separate batchers are used, which is rare, the batcher discharge
must blend the two materials.
Batching silica fume is not addressed in the current ver-
sion of C 94/C 94M; however, this is currently being considered
since it is a small amount and if it is weighed cumulatively as
the last ingredient it is possible to meet current batching toler-
ances by batching 60 % of the desired amount if 5 % by weight
of cementitious materials is desired. With the load cells and au-
tomation now available it is possible to treat the silica fume as
a separate material and batch it with an accuracy of 0.3 % of
scale capacity. Normally this would be within
10 % for 5 % of
silica fume and correspondingly less for 10 or 15 % of silica
fume by weight of cementitious materials. Another alternative
might be to weigh the silica fume to 100.3 % of the amount de-
sired with a tolerance of
0.3 % of the capacity of the scale.
This will slow down the batching process. Producers still using
dial scales and 5- or 10-year-old automation are likely to use sil-
ica fume in preweighed bags. Likewise even those with the
newer systems should not attempt to weigh silica fume for
batches less than about half the batching capacity of the
cumulative system. Naturally if the plant uses a separate indi-
vidual silica fume weigh batcher the tolerance would be
2 %
of the desired amount. This would speed up batching and pro-
vide some flexibility in controlling the batching process when
silica fume is used.
 LOBO AND GAYNOR ON READY-MIXED CONCRETE
Although it is not addressed in ASTM C 94/C 94M, many
concrete plants contain several silos for cementitious materi-
als, and there is always the possibility that material can be
placed in the wrong silo. Producers generally use different col-
ored fill pipes, different sized connections, signs, and distinc-
tively colored bills of lading to distinguish between materials.
In some cases, fill pipes can be at different locations in the
plant. Some producers use keys and locks on fly ash pipes and
control access to the keys. Because fly ash tends to flow freely
through cracks, some specifications [44,45] do not permit com-
mon walls between multi-compartment cement and fly ash si-
los. The space between these double-walled bins needs to be
free-draining with access provided for inspection.
Aggregates
Aggregates can be weighed either in cumulative or individual
weigh batchers. The basic batching tolerance in cumulative
batches is 1 % of the cumulative weight and 2 % of the required
amount in individual batchers. For cumulative weights less
than 30 % of scale capacity, the tolerance is
0.3 % of scale ca-
pacity or
3 % of the required cumulative weight, whichever
is less. This means that at less than 10 % of scale capacity, the
3 % tolerance will govern.
Mixing Water
ASTM C 94/C 94M defines mixing water as any water added to
the batch plus surface moisture on aggregates, ice, or liquid
admixtures. The tolerance on batching added water is
1 % of
the total water content, not a percentage of that being batched.
The tolerance on the total water is
3 % of the total water con-
tent. This does mean that if a water meter is accurate to about
10 lb (4.5 kg) or 1 gal (3.78 L), and the nominal total water con-
tent is 280 lb/yd3 (166 kg/m3), then the minimum batch size
that can be batched is about 3 yd3 (2.3 m3). The NRMCA Check-
list [46] establishes a tolerance of
1.5 % on added water and
is considered more realistic. When water is weighed, the pres-
ent ASTM C 94/C 94M tolerances are more easily achieved, but
the ultimate importance to concrete quality is questionable.
The total mixing water consists of that measured in the
plant plus that from free moisture on aggregates, or an ad-
justment for that absorbed by less than SSD aggregate; that
from wash water measured through the batch plant; and that
from certain water-based admixtures that are used in
significant quantities, such as high dosages of high range
water reducing admixtures, corrosion inhibitors, or shrinkage
reducing admixtures. Other sources of mixing water include
that which is in the mixer during a job site wash out, which
is generally quantifiable through the measuring device on the
truck water tank (site gage or water meter), and some mini-
mal quantities that could enter the mixer at the wash-down
rack before the vehicle departs the plant. Additionally, water
may be added from the truck water tank on arrival at the job
site that is within the limit permitted by the specification or
that which controls the strength of the concrete. Often the
delivery ticket will indicate the maximum additional water
permissible. The truck driver is normally advised by the
company to record the amount of job-site-added water on the
delivery ticket and obtain the signature of the person
requesting this addition.
Mixers need to be cleaned at the job site before returning
to the plant. This will require about 40 gal of water from the
truck water tank to wash down the truck chute, interior of
the drum, and fins. When facilities are not provided at the job
539
site to discharge this water, it is carried back to the plant and
either discharged or used with the next batch with the appro-
priate corrections to the plant batch water. The accuracy of the
quantity in the mixer truck prior to batching is possibly ques-
tionable as this is generally verbally communicated by the
driver to the batch man.
Chemical Admixtures
Chemical admixtures are rarely batched by weight, except
when they are added in prepackaged fixed amounts. Volumet-
ric dispenser systems are quite sophisticated and are inte-
grated into plant automation. Admixtures are required to be
batched to within
3 % of the desired amount or plus or mi-
nus the amount or dosage required per 100 lb (50 kg) of ce-
ment, whichever is greater.
It should be noted that on small batches of lean concrete
the admixture batching accuracy may be as large as
25 %
of the amount batched. Even in a 10-yd3 (7.6-m3) capacity
batch, if the dosage rate is 1/2 oz/100 lb (0.3 mL/kg) and the
dispenser is accurate to
1 oz (30 mL), the overall batching
accuracy will be
5 %. However, variations of this size would
not change the air content, setting time, or concrete strength.
In a 2-yd3 (1.5-m3) load, the effects will be significant.
Batching Plant
The requirements of ASTM C 94/C 94M for the batching plant
are relatively basic and straightforward. Scales are required to
be accurate to
0.2 % of the capacity of the scale when tested
with standard weights. C 94/C 94M requires testing the scale at
its quarter points. The scale accuracy requirements of the
NRMCA Check List [46] are the same as in C 94/C 94M, and
those of the Concrete Plant Manufacturer’s Bureau (CPMB)
[45] for new equipment are
0.1 % of capacity. The scale ac-
curacy and calibration requirements are similar to NIST Hand-
book 44 [47] with some minor differences that were clarified
by a revision to C 94/C 94M in 1992.
Scales in concrete plants generally consist of a container
supported at the four corners and transmit reduced loads
through a system of levers to a load cell.
Calibrated beam or springless dial-indicating devices are
now beginning to disappear. Use of load cells to support the
batchers has the potential to simplify a scale by eliminating
much of the lever system and dial scale that has typically been
used. Earlier load cells were not widely accepted since the dial
scale provides a mechanical backup in case of a failure of the
electronic load cell system in the middle of a placement.
ASTM C 94/C 94M does not define or require different
types of batching controls. The CPMB Standards [45] provide
a consistent terminology for plant control systems.
A manual control is one that is operated manually and is
dependent on the operator’s visual observation of the scale or
meter. A semiautomatic control is one that, when started, stops
automatically when the required weight has been reached. A
semiautomatic interlocked control is similar but contains pro-
visions to prevent discharge of the device until the material is
within tolerances.
An automated control starts and stops automatically and
includes interlocks to:
(a) prevent charging until the scale returns to zero,
(b) prevent charging if the discharge gate is open,
(c) prevent discharging if the charging gate is open, and
(d) prevent discharge until the material is within tolerances.
540 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
These definitions refer to the capability of a control as de-
signed but overrides are in place to allow for manual control
of batching.
A batching system consists of the required combination of
individual batchers. The CPMB Standards define the following
types:
1. Manual—a combination of manual batchers except that
water or admixture batchers may be semiautomatic or
automatic.
2. Partially automatic—includes at least one automatic or
semiautomatic batcher. Interlocks are optional.
3. Semiautomatic batching—a system of semiautomatic inter-
locked or automatic batchers and volumetric devices in
which the interlocks, other than those required for indi-
vidual batchers, are optional.
4. Automatic batching—requires a combination of automatic
devices:
(a) that must start with a single starting mechanism, ex-
cept water or admixture not batched at the same time,
and may have separate starting devices;
(b) where each batcher must return to zero within toler-
ance and reset to start; and
(c) where discharge of any ingredient may not start until
individual batchers have returned to zero and
all weighed ingredients have been batched within
tolerance.
The concrete producer is constantly trying to reduce the
time required for batching and moving truck mixers through
the plant. Several innovations in batching efficiency and plant
configurations have been developed to facilitate this. There are
batching systems that do not exactly follow the definition of
automatic systems above by which the batching of the next
batch is started before the previous batch is completely
charged into a mixer. This sequence allows a higher number
of trucks to be moved through the plant and increases the
production rating of the plant.
The development of computerized batching systems and
control panels has made great strides, and the cost of such
systems continues to decline. These have greatly simplified
the process of recording batch weights and printing delivery
tickets.
Recorders
The CPMB Standards define both digital and graphical
recorders. Graphical recorders were once popular for large jobs
where one mix design was produced for extended periods. This
made it easy to identify mistakes and malfunctions. More
recently, digital recorders have become the norm. They print de-
livery tickets, provide information for billing and inventory con-
trol, and provide a record for the producer to determine what
the scale did for every batch shipped. The CPMB Standards de-
fine three types: “Digital Recorders,” “Digital Batch Documenta-
tion Recorders,” and “Digital Concrete Certification Recorders.”
All require that if target weights, simulated weights, or other
than actual batch weights are recorded, they must be clearly
identified. Digital recorders must reproduce the scale reading
within 0.1 % of scale capacity or within one increment on volu-
metric batching devices. The differences between the types are
the degree to which they record and print tickets, identify the
material batched, give an indication of whether all materials are
within batching tolerances, sand moisture content, and whether
they record and print basic information such as plant, truck,
destination, and space for the driver and purchaser to sign.
Mixing Concrete
There are three types of mixing operations defined in ASTM C
94/C 94M:
a. Central mixing where concrete is mixed in a central plant
mixer and delivered to the job in a revolving drum truck,
an agitator, or nonagitating unit.
b. Shrink mixing where concrete materials are blended in a
central plant mixer with the mixing completed in a re-
volving drum truck mixer.
c. Truck mixing where ingredients are loaded into a revolv-
ing drum truck mixer for mixing and delivery.
The Standards of Plant Mixer Manufacturers Division
(PMMD) of the Concrete Plant Manufacturers Bureau [45] de-
fine four principal types of concrete plant mixers:
1. Tilting mixers—revolving drum mixers that discharge by
tilting. This is the type used in most ready-mixed concrete
plants. Standard sizes range from 2 to 15 yd3 (1.5 to 11.5
m3). The rated capacity ranges from 30 to 50 % of gross
drum volume.
2. Vertical shaft mixers—these mixers have an annular mix-
ing compartment with rotating blades or paddles. The mix-
ing compartment or pan may rotate or not. Generally, they
discharge through a door or hatch in the bottom of the
“pan.” They were popular several years ago because of
their low overall height and rapid mixing, but because of
rapid wear are little used today.
3. Non-tilting drum mixers—these are revolving drum hori-
zontal axis non-tilting mixers. These are similar to a truck
mixer in operation. There has been some renewed interest
in these mixers recently with demonstrated shorter mixing
cycles, reduced wear, and less noise.
4. Horizontal shaft mixer—these have a horizontal cylindrical
mixing compartment with blades or paddles rotating
about the horizontal axis. A number of new designs have
been introduced recently although the general concept is
not new.
In addition to the recognized PMMD types, there has
been considerable interest in several other high-energy mixing
designs that are reported to provide more efficient mixing at
higher energy levels, presumably shear rates that result in
more efficient dispersion of cement and produce significant
cement savings [48]. One of the most popular is a horizontal
shaft planetary mixer that is used in precast concrete plants.
Another type is a slurry mixer that mixes the cementitious
materials and water prior to charging this mixed slurry into
a truck mixer. It is generally an addition to a truck mixing
operation.
Central Mixing
The choice between central or truck mixing depends on a large
number of factors. The technical advantage of central mixing
is that it provides centralized control of the mixing process and
requires a less-skilled truck mixer operator. However, the
CPMB study of economic factors [49,50] shows that the deci-
sion will depend on a number of other factors, including the
market area, market volume, blade life in trucks, and truck uti-
lization. The percentage of the ready-mixed concrete produced
by central mixing is in the range of 20 to 25 % of total plants.
This contrasts with Europe and Japan where close to 100 % of
ready-mixed concrete is produced in central mixing plants.
The principal advantages of truck mixing are lower capital
investment, lower plant heights, lower electrical costs, and
 LOBO AND GAYNOR ON READY-MIXED CONCRETE
somewhat greater flexibility when long deliveries are required
in rural areas. With special loading sequences in truck mixing
plants designed to keep cement essentially dry until the con-
crete is mixed at the job site, loss of slump and use of retem-
pering water can be avoided [51,52].
In the mid-1960s, the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) [52,53] conducted mixing efficiency tests of tilting
drum central mixers. Generally, they demonstrated that 45 to
90 s mixing times were feasible if care was taken to blend or
ribbon-load all ingredients as they entered the mixer. The im-
portance of the loading sequences is likely much less if, as in
most ready-mixed concrete operations, the concrete will be
transported in a revolving drum truck mixer. As will be noted
later, loading sequences to ensure uniform mixing in truck
mixers must not attempt to achieve uniform ribbon loading or
blending of ingredients.
Although most State Departments of Transportation
(DOTs) permit 60 or 90 s mixing time in central mixers, ASTM
C 94/C 94M still requires a minimum of 1 min mixing for the
first cubic yard and an additional 15 s for each additional cu-
bic yard. This minimum can be reduced if mixing uniformity
criteria are met after shorter periods.
Shrink Mixing
Early in the development of the ready-mixed concrete industry,
shrink mixing was designed to permit hauling a larger batch in
a truck mixer. The idea was to partially mix and shrink the vol-
ume of concrete before it was placed in a truck mixer for final
mixing. Because of weight laws only a small percentage of pro-
ducers are able to ship a mixer loaded to 80 % of gross drum
volume. A large number of central mix plants use shrink mix-
ing to optimize production cycle times by using a shorter pe-
riod of 30 to 60 s of mixing in the central mixer and complete
the process by additional mixing at mixing speed in the truck
mixer. This also reduces wear in the truck mixers.
Truck Mixing
Two general types of inclined axis truck mixers are in use to-
day: the traditional rear discharge unit, and the front discharge
unit. Because the front discharge unit requires a special truck
chassis, it tends to be a somewhat more expensive unit than a
rear discharge unit. With a rear discharge unit, the mixer can
be more easily positioned on the truck chassis to comply with
the truck weight laws of the various states.
Many contractors prefer front discharge units because the
truck driver can drive into the job with little direction from
contractor personnel, control chute movement, and discharge
from within the truck cab.
The requirements of ASTM C 94/C 94M for truck mixers
are that the volume of mixed concrete not exceed 63 % of the
gross drum volume for truck-mixed or shrink-mixed concrete
or 80 % when used as an agitator for central mixed concrete.
The extra carrying capacity of central mixed concrete is
much less of a consideration with present weight laws and to-
day’s 9 to 11 yd3 (7 to 8.5 m3) mixers. When units were only 5
or 6 yd3 (4 to 4.5 m3) capacity, the angle of inclination of the
drum was greater and mixers would hold 80 % of the gross
drum capacity, even in hilly areas. With the larger units used
today the angle of inclination of the drum to the horizontal is
less and few, if any, can carry 80 % of the gross drum volume
without spilling, especially in hilly areas. The large discharge
openings used on truck mixers designed to discharge low
slump concrete for slip formed and paving applications are
541
especially sensitive to spilling concrete when they are used to
deliver concrete at a slump higher than about 4 in. (100 mm).
Front discharge units tend to have much larger gross drum
volumes than rear discharge units to allow for the cylindrical
section to clear over and past the truck cab and to avoid spilling
concrete. The result is that the manufacturer’s rated mixing ca-
pacity may be less than half the gross drum volume. The Stan-
dards of the Truck Mixer Manufacturers Bureau (TMMB) [54]
establishes minimum and maximum gross volume require-
ments for standard rated sizes of rear discharge truck mixers.
The same minimum limits apply to front discharge units but the
maximum limits are not applicable. All truck mixers that have a
TMMB Rating Plate conform to C 94/C 94M required maximum
of 63 % of gross drum volume for concrete mixing [54].
ASTM C 94/C 94M requires revolution counters on truck
mixers and that the mixer be capable of mixing concrete in 70
to 100 revolutions.
Uniformity of mixing in truck mixers depends greatly on
the batching sequence used to load cement aggregates and wa-
ter into the drum for mixing.
1. Ribbon Loading. Attempting to ribbon all materials simul-
taneously should not be done, but with several modifica-
tions it is preferred and most often used. The charging
of solids into a mixer should be started with the coarse
aggregate to ensure that about 10 % of the required weight
enters into the head of the drum. Then the coarse aggregate
and sand should be ribbon loaded together with about 10 %
coarse aggregate loaded last to clean off the blades in the
discharge end. Starting the charging sequence with coarse
aggregate helps avoid sand packing in the head of the
drum. The cementitious materials should be ribboned with
fine and coarse aggregate starting after the sand starts, ex-
tending through the charging procedure but ending before
the coarse aggregate to reduce dust. The charging sequence
of the water is important. About 25 % of the added water is
batched as the last ingredient either from the plant or the
rear nozzle from the truck water tank. The other 75 % of the
added water is incorporated prior to the solids and portions
ribboned with the solids. The final water batched washes all
the solids into the mixer and ensures uniform slump and
strength after adequate mixing.
2. Cement-last loadings are typically used for special cements
or when charging cement from a remote bin. This loading
follows procedures similar to ribbon loadings for aggre-
gate except adding a higher percentage of coarse aggre-
gate up front. The charging procedure is sensitive to the
quantity of water added at the tail end and this quantity
may need some adjustments.
3. Slurry Mixing. Today there are two types of slurry mixing,
one where water is batched into the truck mixer first fol-
lowed by the cementitious materials which are then mixed
for a minute or so and then the aggregates are added. Al-
though there is often insufficient water to make a true
slurry, this procedure will always eliminate cement balls.
This procedure slows down the loading process and tends
to produce cement dust, but in mixer drums without large
buildup of hardened concrete and worn blades it pro-
duces uniformly mixed batches of concrete. The other
type of slurry mixing is a process where a slurry is mixed
in a separate high energy mixer in the plant with the slurry
discharged into the truck mixer as the aggregates are be-
ing loaded. The specific loading and mixing procedures
vary with the particular slurry mixer used.
542 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
“Cement balls” and “sand streaks” are sometimes a prob-
lem in truck mixers with the traditional ribbon and cement-last
loadings. Generally what happens is that the sand charging is
started too early, packs into the head end of the drum and does
not get mixed until some of the concrete has been discharged.
Cement balls consist of cement, sand, and coarse aggregate.
They can usually be ground up by mixing concrete with a
slump of 3 in. (75 mm) or less and then adjusting the slump to
the desired level. Concretes with slumps over 6 in. with high ce-
ment factors are more prone to cement balls but usually a load-
ing procedure can be found to avoid them without going to
slurry mixing.
Another sign of improper mixing is the observation of
streaks of sand during discharge and could be related to the in-
ternal condition of the mixer.
Mixing Uniformity Testing
The limits set for mixing uniformity include tests for:
1. air-free unit weight of concrete,
2. air-free unit weight of mortar,
3. air content,
4. slump,
5. coarse aggregate content, and
6. 7-day compressive strength.
Acceptable performance requires compliance with five of
the six tests. Two distinct samples are taken after discharging
approximately 15 and 85 % of the load. For central mixers, the
samples can be taken during discharge or directly from the
mixer at points approximately equidistant from the front and
rear portions of the load.
Slump tests of samples taken after the discharge of 15 and
85 % of the load can be made as a quick test of the probable
degree of mixing uniformity. C 94/C 94M also requires mixers
to be examined or weighed routinely to detect accumulations
of hardened concrete. The NRMCA Plant Certification pro-
gram has a process in place for an annual inspection of trucks
that is a requirement for obtaining a Certification of Confor-
mance for the production facility [46].
Generally, it has been found that when blade wear or ac-
cumulations of hardened concrete have become significant
enough to affect mixing uniformity, discharge performance
will also have deteriorated enough to be noticeable, particu-
larly with moderately low slump concrete.
Control of the Addition of Water
ASTM C 94/C 94M recognizes that concrete loses slump with
the passage of time and that either water will have to be added
to restore slump or the slump on initial mixing will have to be
higher than that required at the job. The rate at which slump
is lost depends on a great number of factors, including con-
crete temperature, properties of the cementitious materials,
and the admixtures used. The literature on this issue is exten-
sive [51,55–58].
Under ASTM C 94/C 94M, within the limits set by the max-
imum w/cm ratio, water can be added only once on arrival at
the job. Because of the difficulty of measuring aggregate mois-
ture and inevitable traffic or job site delays, concrete is gener-
ally shipped from the plant at a slump less than the specified
maximum with some water held back to allow for a job site ad-
justment. Repeated tempering or retempering, especially after
discharge of a significant quantity, should not be permitted.
However, initial tempering to obtain the desired slump is
routinely necessary. The “one” addition of water permitted in
ASTM C 94/C 94M should not be taken too strictly and the
driver should be permitted to adjust the amount added over a
period of perhaps 3 to 5 min on arrival at the job site.
The specification requires 30 revolutions at mixing speed
to ensure incorporation of the water. Tests by NRMCA confirm
that the 30 revolutions are necessary if mixing is at less than
about 15 rpm. However, if mixing is at 22 to 25 rpm as few as 5
or 10 revolutions will be sufficient [58]. Many modern day mix-
ers are not equipped to mix at speeds higher than about 20 rpm.
The specifications further require that discharge be com-
pleted within 90 min after the cement is wetted or before the
drum has completed 300 revolutions, whichever comes first.
Both can be waived by the purchaser if the concrete can be
placed without the addition of water. The 90-min time limit has
been one of the more controversial requirements in the speci-
fication. Some time ago an attempt was made to allow 90 min
to the start of discharge with the provision that the concrete
could be used as long as the slump was acceptable for place-
ment and no water was added. The proposal was not accepted
by the ASTM Subcommittee. However, in the authors’ opinion,
it should have been. Both field and laboratory data demon-
strate that concrete strengths tend to improve with time, but
only when water is not added [51,55].
Clearly, the 90-min time limit is too conservative when the
concrete temperature is less than about 70°F (21°C) [59]. At
higher temperatures, the time limit can only be justified by a
concern that the prohibition against water addition, after the ad-
justment on arrival at the job site, cannot or will not be enforced.
The 300 revolution limit can be a problem with longer
haul distances and job site adjustments that require subse-
quent mixing. In the past, keeping within the 300 revolution
limit was a problem with addition of high range water reduc-
ing admixture at the job site. This was done because the older
generation of HRWR admixtures resulted in a high rate of
slump loss. With the carboxylate-based HRWR admixtures,
slump loss is less of a problem and the admixture is added at
the plant to a higher slump such that the desired slump is in
the required range at the job site. Concrete producers also pre-
fer to incorporate the admixture at the plant, and if slump loss
is a problem a small water addition at the job site will be suffi-
cient. It is important to note and recognize that the accuracy of
the slump test deteriorates at these high slump levels.
Except for a very few soft aggregates, the 300 revolution
limit is of no practical consequence. With soft aggregates that
are subject to grinding, the effect will be to decrease slump, re-
sulting in an increase of the mixing water requirement. Sand is
more subject to grinding than coarse aggregate because of its
large surface area. The 300 revolution limit was developed
many years ago when mixers were powered by separate mixer
engines and had only one basic drum speed, about 6 rpm. The
limit on revolutions tended to control delivery time.
C 94/C 94M provides for means to make job-site adjust-
ments for water and air by determining slump and/or air con-
tent on a preliminary sample before a significant quantity is
discharged. At least 30 revolutions are required at mixing
speed to incorporate these additions into the concrete mixture.
These adjustments can add up towards the limits of time and
total number of revolutions.
The ASTM specifications recognize that many of the re-
quirements such as the 90-min time limit can be waived by the
specifier. This is the type of issue that should be discussed at a
pre-job conference [10].
 LOBO AND GAYNOR ON READY-MIXED CONCRETE
C 94/C 94M covers concrete furnished in both cold and
hot weather. In cold weather a minimum concrete tempera-
ture requirement is imposed based on the section size and this
is repeated from ACI 306R [60]. C 94/C 94M does not specify a
maximum concrete temperature in hot weather but indicates
in a note that problems may be encountered as concrete tem-
peratures approach 90°F. Local specifications and practices
typically address temperature criteria for concrete.
Volumetric Batching and Continuous Mixing
Volumetric concrete mixers have been available since the
1960s, and are used to produce concrete in accordance with
ASTM C 685/C 685M. The equipment is truck- or trailer-
mounted and consists of individual bins for sand, coarse ag-
gregate, cement, and water. The aggregates are delivered
through calibrated gates that control the amount of material
being delivered. Water and admixtures are controlled with
valves and flow meters. Production rate is inversely propor-
tional to cement content. The materials are fed into an inclined
chute that contains a mixing auger. The auger mixes and ele-
vates the concrete for discharge. The units are available in sizes
from 4 to 12 yd3 (3 to 9 m3). The mixing auger holds about 2
ft3 (0.06 m3) of concrete and mixing time is 15 or 20 s. Slump
is readily adjustable and the unit can be started and stopped as
concrete is needed. ASTM C 685/C 685M requires calibration
at six-month intervals.
The unit is versatile and has been used in a variety of work,
both where the amount of concrete is relatively limited, and for
specialty applications. In somewhat larger work where re-
quirements are less than about 40 yd3 (30 m3) per hour, it has
been used as a job-site mixing plant.
The advantage of the unit is that it produces freshly mixed
concrete. Therefore, strengths and other properties are im-
proved. The units may encounter problems with false setting
cements because of the very short mixing time.
The Volumetric Mixer Manufacturers Bureau (VMMB), an
organization of equipment manufacturers, has established
standards for volumetric concrete mixers that establish mini-
mum bin capacities for rated capacity of concrete that can be
produced. The standard reflects many of the requirements of
C 685/C 685M and requires the manufacturers to conduct a
mixing uniformity evaluation on units of a similar design. Mix-
ers that meet the requirements of these standards are eligible
for VMMB rating plates [61].
Sampling and Testing
Testing Laboratories
Both ASTM C 94/C 94M and C 685/C 685M contain require-
ments that the individual who samples and tests the concrete
be qualified and knowledgeable in the proper conduct of the
test procedures required. This requires an ACI Concrete Field
Testing Technician, Grade I certification, or an equivalent
process. The concept of requiring demonstrated knowledge of
the test procedures has grown rapidly. As of 2004 there were
about 57 000 technicians currently certified under the ACI
Grade I Field Testing Technician program. More recently, C
94/C 94M has included requirements for certification of labo-
ratory technicians who are involved in concrete acceptance
testing. Certification requirements for laboratory technicians
are also a requirement for laboratories that conform to ASTM
C 1077. In 2004 there were about 3000 laboratory technicians
certified through one of the ACI Laboratory Technician
543
Certification programs. The ACI and the National Institute for
Certification in Engineering Technologies (NICET) personnel
certification programs are becoming increasingly popular.
Requirements for accreditation of laboratory facilities that
conduct acceptance testing are also increasing. Some of the
organizations that sponsor accreditation programs for labora-
tories that conduct testing of construction materials include:
1. AASHTO—American Association of State and Highway
Transportation Officials in Washington, District of
Columbia.
2. A2LA—American Association of Laboratory Accreditation,
in Gaithersburg, Maryland.
3. NVLAP—National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation
Program, in Gaithersburg, Maryland.
The AASHTO Accreditation program is probably the most
recognized by state highway agencies and is generally a re-
quirement for acceptance testing on transportation construc-
tion projects. There are about 900 accredited laboratories un-
der the AASHTO program and all 50 state central laboratories
hold the AASHTO accreditation. Another popular regional
laboratory accreditation program is that of the Concrete
Materials Engineering Council (CMEC), in Orlando, Florida.
The program is required by the Florida Building Code and is
supported by the concrete industry, engineering testing
laboratories, and the Florida Department of Transportation. In
2004 about 110 laboratories in Florida were certified and
accredited by CMEC to comply with ASTM C 1077.
Sampling
Under ASTM C 94/C 94M, concrete samples, except those for
uniformity testing, are required to be taken in accordance with
ASTM Practice for Sampling Freshly Mixed Concrete (C 172).
Generally, this means the sample should be taken at two or
more regularly spaced intervals “during discharge of the
middle portion of the batch.” In practice, this is seldom done
and the sample is taken as a single increment near the start of
discharge. Preliminary tests of air content and slump are per-
mitted if the samples are obtained after at least 1/4 yd3 (1/4 m3)
has been discharged. The procedure in ASTM C 685/C 685M
permits sampling any time after at least 2 ft3 (0.06 m3) has
been discharged.
Sampling at a single point during discharge should be
permitted in ASTM C 94/C 94M and C 172. The risk is that
when cement is the last ingredient loaded in the mixer and the
concrete is not well mixed, the first concrete discharged can
have high strength and will not be representative of the
majority of the batch. More often, the first portion of concrete
discharged is of a more fluid consistency than the bulk of the
load and samples from this portion are more likely to have
lower measured strengths.
Compressive Strength Testing
ASTM C 94/C 94M requires air, slump, and density tests when
strength specimens are made. If either falls outside the
specifications, a retest of a new sample is required before the
concrete is considered to have failed. Additionally, if the air
or slump is low, additional air-entraining admixture or water
can be added. The density test is considered useful for yield
calculations and additional information in the case of
problems with test results. This section of C 94/C 94M allows
density tests to be conducted in accordance with C 138/C
138M, which will allow the measurement with the base of a
pressure air meter.
544 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
Both ASTM C 94/C 94M and C 685/C 685M require that
strength specimens be made in accordance with ASTM Test
Methods of Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens in
the Field (C 31), cured under standard moist curing proce-
dures and tested by ASTM Test Method for Compressive
Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens (C 39). A test is
defined as the average of results from two cylinders made
from the same sample and tested at the same age. ASTM C
31 indicates that 6 by 12 in. (150 by 300 mm) is the standard
size, but allows 4 by 8 in. (100 by 200 mm) specimens when
required by the project specifications. Increasingly, 4 by 8 in.
(100 by 200 mm) cylinders are being used for concretes with
specified strengths greater than about 8000 psi (55 MPa). This
is because few compression testing machines are available
with load capacities greater than 300 000 lb (1335 kN), that
is, 10 600 psi (73 MPa) on a 6 by 12 in. (100 by 300 mm)
cylinder.
Several years ago, an unsuccessful attempt was made to
modify the section of ASTM C 94/C 94M that required dis-
carding the result of a test of a single cylinder if it “shows def-
inite evidence, other than low strength, of improper sampling,
handling, curing, or testing.” A proposal was made to set a limit
on the range of pairs of cylinders that are averaged for a test
and permit discarding the low value.
The average within-test coefficient of variation of 6 by 12
in. (150 by 300 mm) cylinder tests, for strength levels less than
about 8000 psi (55 MPa), is about 2.9 %, as indicated in the pre-
cision statement of ASTM C39, or even a little better [62]. Data
has shown that the multilab coefficient of variation of strength
test results, developed from several labs testing specimens
made from the same batch, is in the range of 5 % [63]. Within-
test coefficient of variation of 4 by 8 in. (100 by 200 mm)
cylinders is in the range of 3.0 % [64].
If the range between two cylinders exceeds 8 or 9 % of
their average more than 1 time in 20, the test should be con-
sidered suspect. Here is some general guidance that is the opin-
ion of the authors:
1. If the higher of the two values is more like the other tests
of this concrete, and the 7-day result is normal, discard the
lower result. If neither cylinder is unusually high or low,
average the two and accept the result.
2. And whether or not the lower or higher test is disregarded,
consider the possibility that the sampling and testing may
be poor (see Table 1 [62]). Testing with a within-test coef-
ficient of variation of 4 % will have one range in three ex-
ceeding 5.5 %! Improve testing.
Table 1 can be used to evaluate cylinder testing data, but
recognize that whether a single low test is sufficiently un-
usual to discard the result depends on “normal” quality of the
testing on that job. What this means is that when 15, 30, or
TABLE 1—Standards for Evaluating Perform-
ance of Testing Using Within Test Coefficient
of Variation [62]
Excellent Below 1.5 %
Very good 1.5 to 2.0 %
Good 2.0 to 3.0 %
Fair 3.0 to 4.0 %
Poor Above 4 %
60 pairs of cylinders have been tested, calculate the ranges
and convert the average range to the estimated coefficient of
variation.
FR

Cv  


X
where
Cv  coefficient of variation, %;


R  average range, psi (MPa);
F  factor used to estimate standard deviation from average
range: 0.8865 for two cylinders; 0.5907 for three cylin-
ders; and


X  average strength.
If the coefficient of variation is much over 2.9 %, realize that
many, if not most, jobs (laboratories) can do better. Note also
that if you have less than 60 pairs of results, the frequency of
large ranges can be larger than indicated in Table 1. With only
ten results, the ranges in Table 1 would be about 10 % larger
[65].
There is some concern that the within-test coefficient of
variation may be larger for very high strength concretes; but in
the writers’ opinion, this is the result of problems of capping,
curing, and testing these concretes. With careful attention, it
should be possible to obtain a within-test coefficient of varia-
tion of 2.9 % or less. However, sulfur mortar caps must be less
than 3/32 in. (2.4 mm) thick and probably should not be per-
mitted on concrete with strength greater than about 10 000 psi
(70 MPa). Neat cement caps are an option and often ground
ends are not sufficiently flat to give optimum results. Use of un-
bonded caps, C 1231, is now permitted for concrete strengths
up to 12 000 psi (80 MPa).
In 2005 ASTM C 94/C 94M and C 685/C 685M will be re-
vised to conform to the two acceptance criteria used in the ACI
318 building code:
1. The average of any three consecutive strength tests should
be equal to or greater than the specified strength, f’c.
2. No individual strength test should be more than 500 psi
(3.4 MPa) below the specified strengths up to 5000 psi [35
MPa] or less than 0.90 fc for specified strengths equal to
or greater that value.
A table provides advice on the “over-design” needed to
meet these requirements, depending on the standard deviation
expected. The values given have been calculated from the equa-
tions given in ACI 318–02 [14], with correction factors for in-
stances where the standard deviation is calculated from be-
tween 15 and 30 tests.
Failure to Meet Strength Requirements
A section in both specifications requires that, if the concrete
was properly tested, the manufacturer and purchaser confer to
see if they can agree on what adjustments, if any, should be
made. If they do not agree, then a decision is to be made by a
panel of three engineers. An arbitration process is preferred
and recommended as the first course of action.
NRMCA Publication 133 [66] outlines an orderly and de-
liberate process for determining the strength of the concrete
in the structure and for developing information on the as-
signment of responsibility for deficiencies, if any. The prac-
tice suggests that if the cause of the low strength was im-
proper testing, the party responsible should bear the cost of
the investigation.
 LOBO AND GAYNOR ON READY-MIXED CONCRETE
Closure
A statement in the 1994 version of this chapter recognized that
if everyone would accept responsibility for quality, not just the
quality control department, things will change greatly. The
quality focus has been emphasized from the federal and state
agencies through initiatives like the National Partnership for
Highway Quality and the FHWA “Highways for LIFE” Pro-
gram. The ready-mixed industry has made great strides to-
wards the goal of higher level of quality and this commitment
is clear at the highest levels of companies. There is a clear
recognition that an effective means of promoting the increased
use of concrete is to make certain that the quality assurance
process is in place, that the producer is confident that the prod-
uct will perform, and that the customer is assured of the pro-
ducer’s reliability. Towards that end the industry has increased
its investment in its people by requiring education and indus-
try certifications of drivers, plant operators, sales force, quality
control personnel, and middle and upper management.
There are new challenges on the regulatory front that
changes the way the concrete industry can function. Many of
these have an impact on the technical aspects of the product.
The industry has evolved to highly automated solutions of
environmental management that facilitates the processing and
reuse of returned concrete and wash water. To the extent that
innovations have been developed, the specifications have not
kept pace. A significant aspect in the future is the focus on
sustainable and “green” construction. This will offer new
challenges relative to the ingredients we use to make concrete.
Sustainability not only includes recycling but also conservation
of energy and resources and prolonged service life.
Self-consolidating concrete is likely to be the norm for
most structural concrete in the future and this will require the
development and revision of existing standards to allow for
its acceptance and use. Construction defect litigation has
developed a high level of caution and conservatism within the
construction industry and this stifles innovation. This has also
resulted in a reluctance by some entities to accept responsibil-
ity for certain aspects of projects.
There is a strong desire of the more technically competent
concrete producers and contractors, both small and large, to
evolve construction specifications to achieve a higher empha-
sis on performance while eliminating prescriptive limits,
especially when they create conflicts in specifications or cause
problems with the placement or service life of the structure.
This desire to attain more control of the product they produce
will also require a higher level of technical competence and
acceptance of responsibilities. The future of concrete con-
struction will only get better with these initiatives in place.
In 2005, ASTM International and NRMCA published a
more detailed discussion of ASTM C 94/C 94M that analyzes
the requirements and intent of every clause in the specification
supported by figures and numerical examples [67]. This refer-
ence will be of interest to readers of this chapter.
References
[1] Cement and Concrete Terminology, SP-19 (90)/ACI 116R01-90,
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI 1991, p. 116R-1.
[2] “327320 Ready-mixed Concrete,” North American Industry
Classification System, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of
the Census, Washington, DC, http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/
naics.html.
545
[3] Pictorial History of the Ready-Mixed Concrete Industry,
National Ready-Mixed Concrete Association, Silver Spring, MD,
1964, p. 44.
[4] “Cement in 2004,” Minerals Yearbook—Cement, U.S. Geologi-
cal Survey, http://minerals.er.usgs.gov/minerals.
[5] NRMCA Industry Fact Sheet, National Ready Mixed Concrete
Association, Silver Spring, Maryland, 2004, www.nrmca.org.
[6] Gaynor, R. D., “Ready Mixed Concrete,” Significance of Tests
and Properties of Concrete and Concrete-Making Materials,
ASTM STP 169C, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA,
1994, pp. 511–521.
[7] Fredericks, N. J., “Foreign Ownership of U.S. Ready Mix Firms,”
Concrete Products, June 1991, pp. 27–29.
[8] “Ready-Mixed Concrete Industry Data Report—2004 (2003
data),” National Ready-Mixed Concrete Association, Silver
Spring, Maryland, 2004.
[9] “Joint Statement of Responsibilities,” National Ready Mixed
Concrete Association and Associated General Contractors of
America, Silver Spring, MD, Jan. 1980, p. 1.
[10] “Checklist for Concrete Pre-Construction Conference” and
“Checklist for Ordering and Scheduling Ready-Mixed Con-
crete,” NRMCA-ASCC, National Ready Mixed Concrete Associa-
tion, Silver Spring, Maryland, 18 pp.
[11] “Discrepancies in Yield,” CIP 8 Concrete In Practice, National
Ready-Mixed Concrete Association, Silver Spring, MD.
[12] “Standard Specifications for Tolerances for Concrete Construc-
tion and Materials (ACI 117-90),” American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI.
[13] “Ordering Ready-Mixed Concrete,” CIP 31 Concrete in Practice,
National Ready-Mixed Concrete Association, Silver Spring, MD.
[14] “Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI
318-02) and Commentary (ACI 318R-02),” American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2002.
[15] “Specifications for Structural Concrete for Buildings (ACI 301-
99),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1999.
[16] AASHTO T 318 “Test Method for Water Content of Freshly
Mixed Concrete Using Microwave Oven Drying,” Standard
Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of
Sampling and Testing, 23rd Edition, 2003.
[17] Bognacki, C. J., Marsano, J., and Baumann, W., “Spending
Concrete Dollars Effectively,” ACI Concrete International, Vol.
22, No. 9, September 2000, pp. 50–56.
[18] Mather, B., “How to Make Concrete that Will Be Immune to the
Effects of Freezing and Thawing,” Paul Klieger Symposium on
Performance of Concrete in Aggressive Environments, ACI
Convention, 29 Oct. 1989, pp. 1–24.
[19] Barton, R. B., “Water-Cement Ratio is Passe,” Concrete
International, Nov. 1989, p. 75–77.
[20] Gaynor, R. D., “C 94/C 94M and C 685/C 685M Requirements for
Quality of Mixing Water,” unpublished memorandum to ASTM
Subcommittee C09.03.09 Methods of Testing and Specifications
for Ready Mixed Concrete, ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 16 June 1975, p. 9.
[21] Parker, L. C. and Slimak, M. W., “Waste Treatment and Disposal
Costs for the Ready-Mixed Concrete Industry,” Journal, Ameri-
can Concrete Institute, Vol. 74, No. 7, July 1977, pp. 281–287.
[22] Pistilli, M. F., Peterson, C. F., and Shah, S. P., “Properties and
Possible Recycling of Solid Waste from Ready-Mixed Concrete,”
Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 5, No. 3, May 1975, p. 249.
[23] Ullman, G. R., “Re-use of Wash Water as Mixing Water,” Back
Engineering Report No. 72-1, National Ready Mixed Concrete
Association, Silver Spring, MD, 30 March 1973, p. 4.
[24] Meininger, R. C., “Recycling Mixer Wash Water—Its Effect on
Ready-Mixed Concrete,” Back Engineering Report No. 72-2,
National Ready Mixed Concrete Association, Silver Spring, MD,
30 March 1973, p. 7.
546 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
[25] Lobo, C. and Mullings, G. M., “Recycled Water in Ready-mixed
Concrete Operations,” Concrete In Focus, National Ready
Mixed Concrete Association, Spring 2003, pp. 17–26.
[26] Thomas, M. D. A., Pratt, M., and Rhead, D., “Use of Slurry Water
in Concrete—Field and Laboratory Investigations, Implications
for Standards,” Personal communication and presentation to
CSA,1998, summary in Ref 25.
[27] Sandrolini, F. and Franzoni, E., “Waste Wash Water Recycling in
Ready-Mixed Concrete Plants,” Cement and Concrete Research,
Vol. 31, No. 3, March 2001, pp. 485–489.
[28] Nakamura, S. and Roberts, L. R., “A Novel Method of Recycling
Returned Concrete Using Extended Life Admixtures – A
Japanese Experience,” Proceedings of Congress the European
Ready-Mixed Concrete Organization (ERMCO), 1998.
[29] Lobo, C. and Gaynor, R. D., “Reusing Non-Admixtured Returned
Concrete,” The Concrete Producer, September 1998, pp. 621,
623.
[30] Borger, J., Carrasquillo, R. L., and Fowler, D. W., “Use of
Recycled Wash Water and Returned Plastic Concrete in the
Production of Fresh Concrete,” Journal of Advanced Cement
Based Materials, Vol. 1, 1994, pp. 267–274.
[31] Kinney, F. D., “Reuse of Returned Concrete by Hydration
Control: Characterization of a New Concept,” ACI SP-119,
Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on Superplasticiz-
ers and Other Chemical Admixtures in Concrete, Ottawa,
Canada, 1989, pp. 19–40.
[32] Ragan, S. A. and Gay, F. T., “Evaluation of Applications of
DELVO Technology,” Technical Report (U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Vicksburg, Mississippi) CPAR-SL-95-2, December
1995, 192 pp. Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA.
[33] Lobo, C., Guthrie, W. F., and Kacker, R., “A Study on the Reuse
of Plastic Concrete Using Extended Set Retarding Admixtures,”
Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, September–October 1995, pp 575–589.
[34] “Standard Practice for Selecting Proportions for Normal,
Heavyweight, and Mass Concrete (ACI 211.1–89),” American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1989.
[35] Meininger, R. C., “Use of Fly Ash in Air-Entrained Concrete—
Report of Recent NSGA-NRMCA Research Laboratory
Studies—Series J 153,” Technical Information Letter No. 381,
National Ready-Mixed Concrete Association, Silver Spring,
MD, 3 April 1981.
[36] Helmuth, R., “Fly Ash in Cement and Concrete,” SP040.01T,
Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IL, 1987, pp. 79–82.
[37] Ozyildirim, C., “Comparison of the Air Contents of Freshly
Mixed and Hardened Concretes,” Cement, Concrete and
Aggregates, Vol. 13, No. 1, Summer 1991, pp. 11–24.
[38] Hover, K. C., “Some Recent Problems with Air-Entrained
Concrete,” Cement, Concrete, and Aggregates, Vol. 11, No. 1,
Summer 1989, pp. 67–72.
[39] Magura, D. D., “Air Void Analyzer Evaluation,” FHWA-SA-96-
062, Federal Highway Administration, 1996.
[40] Crawford, G. L., Wathne, L. G., and Mullarky, J. I., “A ‘Fresh’
Perspective on Measuring Air in Concrete,” Proceedings 3rd
International Symposium on High Performance Concrete, PCI
National Bridge Conference, October 19-22, Orlando, FL,
2003.
[41] Yingling, J., Mullings, G. M., and Gaynor, R. D., “Loss of Air
Content in Pumped Concrete,” ACI Concrete International,
October 1992, pp. 57–61.
[42] Ksaibati, K., Zeng, M., Sellers, F. R., and Dolan C. W, “Air
Change in Hydraulic Concrete Due to Pumping,” presented at
the 82nd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research
Board, CD-ROM, January 2003, Washington DC.
[43] Hover, K. C. and Phares, R. J., “Impact of Concrete Placing
Method on Air Content, Air-Void System Parameters, and
Freeze-Thaw Durability,” Transportation Research Record TRR
1532, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 1996,
pp. 1–8.
[44] “Civil Works Construction Guide Specification CW-03305,” U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Office of the Chief of Engineers,
Washington, DC, Jan. 1985, pp. 3–28.
[45] “Concrete Plant Standards of the Concrete Plant Manufac-
turer’s Division,” CPMB 100-00, 12th revision, Concrete Plant
Manufacturers Bureau, Silver Spring, MD, www.cpmb.org,
November 2000.
[46] “Plant Certification Check List,” Publication QC 3, 9th revision,
National Ready Mixed Concrete Association, Silver Spring, MD,
October 2005, www.nrmca.org.
[47] Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements
for Weighing and Measuring Devices, NIST Handbook 44, U.S.
Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and
Technology, Washington, DC, 1990, pp. 1–274.
[48] Mass, G. R., “Premixed Cement Paste,” Concrete International,
Nov. 1989, pp. 82–85.
[49] “CPMB Does Cost Survey on Central Versus Transit Mixing,”
Concrete Products, Nov. 1974, p. 41.
[50] “A Study of Economic Factors of Central Mixing in the
Production of Ready-Mixed Concrete,” CPMB Publication 103,
Concrete Plant Manufacturers Bureau, Silver Spring, MD, 1976.
[51] Meininger, R. C., “Study of ASTM Limits on Delivery Time,”
Publication 131, National Ready Mixed Concrete Association,
Silver Spring, MD, Feb. 1969, pp. 1–17.
[52] Bozarth, F. M., Granley, E. C., and Grieb, W. E., “A Study of
Mixing Performance of Large Central Plant Concrete Mixers,”
Research and Development Report, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Bureau of Public Roads, Office of Research and
Development, Washington, DC, July 1966.
[53] Bozarth, F. M., “Case Study of Influence of Imbalances in
Charging of Cement and Water on Mixing Performance of an 8-
Cubic Yard Central Plant Mixer,” U.S. Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Bureau of
Public Roads, Washington, DC, July 1967.
[54] “Truck Mixer, Agitator and Front Discharge Concrete Carrier
Standards,” TMMB 100-01, Truck Mixer Manufacturers Bureau,
Silver Spring, MD, 2001, www.tmmb.org.
[55] Gaynor, R. D., “Effects of Prolonged Mixing on Properties of
Concrete,” Publication 111, National Ready Mixed Concrete
Association, Silver Spring, MD, 1963, pp. 1–18.
[56] Ravina, D., “Retempering a Prolonged-Mixed Concrete with
Admixtures in Hot Weather,” Journal, American Concrete
Institute, Vol. 72, No. 6, June 1975, pp. 291–295.
[57] Beaufait, F. W. and Hoadley, P. G., “Mix Time and Retempering
Studies on Ready-Mixed Concrete,” Journal, American Concrete
Institute, Vol. 70, No. 12, Dec. 1973, p. 810; and Discussion,
Journal, American Concrete Institute, Vol. 73, No. 4, April 1976,
p. 233.
[58] Gaynor, R. D. and Mullarky, J. I., “Mixing Concrete in a Truck
Mixer,” Publication 148, National Ready Mixed Concrete
Association, Silver Spring, MD, Jan. 1975, pp. 1–14.
[59] Gaynor, R. D., Meininger, R. C., and Khan, T. S., “Effect of
Temperature and Delivery Time on Concrete Proportions,”
Temperature Effects on Concrete, ASTM STP 858, ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA, June 1985; also
Publication No. 171, National Ready Mixed Concrete Associa-
tion, Silver Spring, MD.
[60] “Cold Weather Concreting”, ACI 306R-88 (2002), American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI.
 LOBO AND GAYNOR ON READY-MIXED CONCRETE
[61] Volumetric Mixer Standards of the Volumetric Mixer Manu-
facturers Bureau, VMMB 100-01, Volumetric Mixer Manufac-
turers Bureau, Silver Spring, MD, www.vmmb.org.
[62] “Simplified Version of the Recommended Practice for Evaluation
of Strength Test Results of Concrete, (ACI 214.3R-88),” American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1991, p. 214.3R-1.
[63] “Summary of Multilab Precision from Strength Testing Round
Robin Programs,” Research Report at ASTM International RR:
C09-1027, 2004.
[64] “Report of Within Test Precision of 4  8 in. Cylinders from
CCRL Reference Sample Program,” Research Report at ASTM
International RR: C09-1027, 2004.
547
[65] Harter, L., Order Statistics and Their Use in Testing and Estima-
tion, Vol. 1, Aerospace Research Laboratories, U.S. Air Force,
NTIS Document Acquisition No. ADA058262.
[66] “In-Place Strength Evaluation—A Recommended Practice,”
Publication 133-99, Committee on Research, Engineering and
Standards, National Ready-Mixed Concrete Association, Silver
Spring, MD, 1970, revised 1979, 1999, 10 pp.
[67] Daniel, D. G. and Lobo, C. L., “User’s Guide to ASTM Specifi-
cation C 94/C 94M on Ready-Mixed Concrete,” Manual 49,
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 130 p., 2005;
also available from NRMCA, Publication 2P MNL 49, Silver
Spring, MD.
46
Lightweight Concrete and Aggregates
Thomas A. Holm1 and John P. Ries1
Preface
THE GENERAL PRESENTATION OF THIS EDITION IS
similar to previous editions, with additional information on
structural properties of lightweight aggregates, as well as
strength making, durability, and placement characteristics of
lightweight concrete to reflect the current state of the art. This
edition also includes new discussions relative to the moisture
dynamics and the enhanced hydration of cementitious materi-
als brought about by internal curing when using water-
entraining lightweight aggregates. Specified density concrete,
concrete with densities between traditional lightweight and
normal-weight concretes, is also discussed. In ASTM STP 169
this chapter was authored by R. E. Davis and J. W. Kelly. ASTM
169A and ASTM 169B were authored by D. W. Lewis. ASTM
169C was authored by T. A. Holm.
Classification of Lightweight Aggregates
and Lightweight Aggregate Concretes
Lightweight aggregate concretes are broadly divided into three
groups based upon their use and physical properties: structural,
structural/insulating, and insulating. Bulk density, thermal con-
ductivity, and compressive strength ranges normally associated
with each class of concrete are summarized in Table 1.
This chapter primarily addresses structural concretes
where weight reduction is achieved through the use of light-
weight aggregates. Cellular concrete is covered in a separate
chapter in this volume, where lighter weight is developed pri-
marily by inclusion of large amounts of air or gas through the
use of foaming-type agents.
Structural
Structural lightweight concretes generally contain aggregates
made from pyroprocessed shales, clays, slates, expanded slags,
expanded fly ash, and those mined from natural porous vol-
canic sources. Structural lightweight concrete is normally
classified by a minimum compressive strength that was jointly
established by the ASTM Specification for Lightweight Aggre-
gates (C 330) and the Standard Building Code for Reinforced
Concrete (ACI 318) [1]. The 318 code definition is structural
concrete made with lightweight aggregate; the equilibrium den-
sity as determined by ASTM Test Method for Determining Den-
sity of Structural Lightweight Concrete (C 567) not exceeding
115 lb/ft3 and the compressive strength is more than 17.2 MPa
1
Director of Engineering and President, respectively, Expanded Shale Clay and Slate Institute, Salt Lake City, UT 84117.
548
(2500 psi). This is a definition, not a specification and project
requirements may permit higher equilibrium densities. Al-
though structural concrete with equilibrium densities from
1450 to 1920 kg/m3 (90 to 120 lb/ft3) are often used, most light-
weight aggregate concrete used in structures have equilibrium
densities between 1760 to 1840 kg/m3 (110 and 115 lb/ft3).
Virtually all manufactured structural lightweight aggre-
gates are produced from raw materials including suitable shales,
clays, slates, fly ashes, or blast furnace slags. Naturally occurring
lightweight aggregates are mined from volcanic deposits that in-
clude pumice and scoria types. Pyroprocessing methods include
the rotary kiln process (a long, slowly rotating, nearly horizontal
cylinder lined with refractory materials similar to cement kilns);
the sintering process wherein a bed of raw materials including
fuel is carried by a traveling grate under ignition hoods; and the
rapid agitation of molten slag with controlled amounts of air or
water. No single description of raw material processing is all-
inclusive and the reader is urged to consult the lightweight
aggregate manufacturer for physical and mechanical properties
of the aggregates and the concretes made with them.
Structural lightweight aggregates can be manufactured
from raw materials such as, for example, soft shales and clays that
have limited structural applications in their natural state. This is
an environmentally sound practice as it minimizes demands on
finite resources of quality natural sands, stones, and gravels.
Structural/Insulating
Industrial applications that call for “fill” concretes often re-
quire compressive strengths and densities in the intermediate
between structural and insulating concretes. These concretes
may be produced with high air contents and include structural
lightweight aggregate, or sanded insulating lightweight aggre-
gate mixtures, or they may incorporate both structural and in-
sulating lightweight aggregates. Compressive strengths from
3.4 to 17 MPa (500 to 2500 psi) are common with thermal re-
sistance ranging between insulating and structural concrete.
Insulating
Insulating concretes are very light nonstructural concretes, em-
ployed primarily for high thermal resistance, that incorporate
low-density low-strength aggregates such as vermiculite and per-
lite. With low densities, seldom exceeding 800 kg/m3 (50 lb/ft3),
thermal resistance is high. These concretes are not intended to
be exposed to weather and generally have a compressive
strength range from about 0.69 to 3.4 MPa (100 to 500 psi).
 HOLM AND RIES ON LIGHTWEIGHT CONCRETE AND AGGREGATES 549

TABLE 1—Lightweight Aggregate Concrete Classified According to Use and Physical Propertiesa

Type of Lightweight Typical Range of Typical Range of

Class of Lightweight Aggregate Used in Lightweight Concrete Typical Range of Thermal
Aggregate Concrete Concrete Density Compressive Strength Conductivities

Structural Structural-grade C 330
Structural/Insulating Either structural C 330
or insulating C 332
or a combination of
C 330 and C 332
Insulating Insulating-grade C 332
1440 to 1840 (90 to 115)  17 ( 2500) not specified in C 330
at equilibrium
800 to 1440 (50 to 90) 3.4 to 17 (500 to 2500) C 332 from (0.22)
at equilibrium (1.50) to (0.43) (3.00)
oven dry
240 to 800 (15 to 50) 0.7 to 3.4 (100 to 500) C 332 from (0.065)
oven dry (0.45) to (0.22) (1.50)
oven dry

a
Densities are in kg/m3 (lb/ft3), compressive strengths in MPa (psi), and thermal conductivity in W/m  °K (Btu  in./h  ft2  °F).

Properties of Lightweight Aggregate
Internal Structure of Lightweight Aggregates
Lightweight aggregates have a low particle density because of
the cellular structure. The cellular structure within the particles
is normally developed by heating certain raw materials to in-
cipient fusion, at which temperature gases are evolved within
the pyroplastic mass causing expansion that is retained upon
cooling. Strong, durable, lightweight aggregates contain a uni-
formly distributed system of pores that have a size range of ap-
proximately 5 to 300
m (0.000040 in.) and which are developed
in a relatively crack-free, high-strength vitreous matrix (Fig. 1).
the method of packing the material (loose, vibrated, rodded),
and varies not only for different materials, but for different
sizes and gradations of a particular material. Table 2 summa-
rizes the maximum bulk density for lightweight aggregates
listed in ASTM (C 330) and ASTM Specification for Lightweight
Aggregates for Concrete Masonry Units (C 331). ASTM Stan-
dard Specification for Lightweight Aggregates for Insulating
Concrete (C 332) provides minimum density requirements for
perlite and vermiculite to limit over-expanded, weak particles
that would break down in mixing. The relationship between
the particle relative density and the bulk density of a sample is
illustrated in Fig. 2 for a hypothetical lightweight aggregate.

Particle Shape and Surface Texture

Depending on the source and the method of production, light-
weight aggregates exhibit considerable differences in particle
shape and texture. Shapes may be cubical, rounded, angular,
or irregular. Textures may range from fine pore, relatively
smooth skins to highly irregular surfaces with large exposed
pores. Particle shape and surface texture directly influence
workability, coarse-to-fine aggregate ratio, cement content re-
quirements, and water demand in concrete mixtures, as well as
other physical properties.

Relative Density
The relative density of an aggregate is the ratio between the mass
of the material and the volume occupied by the individual parti-
cles contained in that sample. This volume includes the pores
within the particles but does not include the voids between the
particles. Relative density of individual particles depends both on
the relative density of the poreless vitreous material and the pore
volume within the particles, and generally increases when parti-
cle size decreases. The relative density of the pore-free vitreous
material may be determined by pulverizing the lightweight ag-
gregate in a jar mill and then following procedures used for de-
termination of the relative density of cement.

Bulk Density
Aggregate bulk density is defined as the ratio of the mass of a
given quantity of material and the total volume occupied by it.
This volume includes the voids between, as well as the pores
within, the particles. Bulk density is a function of particle
shape, density, size, gradings, and moisture content, as well as
Fig. 1—Contact zone—structural lightweight concrete
from 30-year-old bridge deck, W. P. Lane Memorial Bridge
over the Chesapeake Bay, Annapolis, Maryland: compression
strength 24 MPa (3500 psi); density 1680 kg/m3 (105 lb/ft3).
550 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE

TABLE 2—Requirements of ASTM C 330, C 331, and C 332 for Dry

Loose Bulk Density of Lightweight Aggregates
Maximum Dry Loose Minimum Dry Loose
Bulk Density Bulk Density
Aggregate Size and Group kg/m3 (lb/ft3) kg/m3 (lb/ft3)

ASTM C 330 and C 331

fine aggregate 1120 (70) ...
coarse aggregate 880 (55) ...
combined fine and coarse 1040 (65) ...
aggregate
ASTM C 332
Group 1
Perlite 196 (12) 120 (7.5)
Vermiculite 160 (10) 88 (5.5)
Group 2
fine aggregate 1120 (70) ...
coarse aggregate 880 (55) ...
combined fine and coarse 1040 (65) ...
aggregate

Grading the increase in relative density typical for the smaller

Grading requirements are generally similar to those provided particles of most lightweight aggregates, and that while
for normal-weight aggregate with the exception that light- standards are established by weights passing each sieve size,
weight aggregate particle size distribution permits a higher ideal formulations are developed through volumetric
weight through smaller sieves. This modification recognizes considerations.

Fig. 2—Schematic representation of lightweight aggregate bulk volume,

interparticle voids, and internal particle pores.
 HOLM AND RIES ON LIGHTWEIGHT CONCRETE AND AGGREGATES
Structural lightweight aggregate producers normally stock
materials in several standard sizes that include coarse, inter-
mediate, and fine gradings. By combining size fractions or by
replacing some or all of the fine fraction with a normal-weight
sand, a wide range of concrete densities may be obtained. The
aggregate producer is the best source of information for the
proper aggregate combinations to meet fresh concrete density
specifications and equilibrium density for dead load design
considerations.
Absorption Characteristics
Due to their porous structure, lightweight aggregates absorb
more water than their normal-weight aggregate counterparts.
Based upon a 24-h absorption test, conducted in accordance
with the procedures of ASTM Test Method Specific Gravity and
Absorption of Coarse Aggregate (C 127) and ASTM Test
Method Density, Relative Density and Absorption of Fine Ag-
gregate (C 128), lightweight aggregates will absorb from 5 to
more than 25 % by weight of dry aggregate. By contrast, nor-
mal-weight aggregates generally absorb less than 2 %. The im-
portant difference in measurements of stockpile moisture con-
tents is that with lightweight aggregates the moisture is largely
absorbed into the interior of the particles whereas in normal-
weight aggregates it is primarily adsorbed, surface moisture.
Recognition of this essential difference is important in mixture
proportioning, batching, and field control. Rate of absorption
of lightweight aggregates is dependent on the characteristics of
pore size, connection, and distribution, particularly those close
Fig. 3—Absorption vs. time for typical structural grade expanded shale, clay, or slate (ESCS).
551
to the surface. Pores close to the surface are readily permeable
and fill within the first few hours of exposure to moisture. In-
terior pores, however, fill slowly, with many months of sub-
mersion necessary. A fraction of the interior pores are essen-
tially non-interconnected and remain unfilled after years of
immersion.
Internally absorbed water within the particle is not imme-
diately available for chemical interaction with cement and
mixing water, but is extremely beneficial in maintaining longer
periods of curing essential to improvements in the hydration
of cement and the aggregate/matrix contact zone.
ASTM C 127 procedures prescribe measuring the “satu-
rated” particle density in a pycnometer and then determining
the absorbed moisture content on the sample that had been im-
mersed in water for 24 h. With lightweight aggregate it is more
accurate to report partially saturated after a 24-h soak because
the particle is not fully saturated yet. After a 24-h immersion in
water, the rate of moisture absorption into the lightweight
aggregate will be so low that the partially saturated particle
density will be essentially unchanged during the time neces-
sary to take weight measurements in the pycnometer. After the
moisture content is known, the over-dry particle density may
be directly computed. As can be seen in Fig. 3, the rate of
absorbtion can be divided into several regions.
Following the prescribed procedures, the degree of satura-
tion, that is, the fractional part of the pore volume occupied by
water, will generally be in the range of approximately 25
to 35 % of the theoretical total saturation of all pores for
552 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
structural lightweight aggregates. The use of the ASTM expres-
sion “saturated surface dry” for lightweight aggregates is
theoretically inaccurate, analytically misleading, and, therefore,
inappropriate.
From a practical perspective and considering the fact that
most lightweight concrete is placed by pumping, the usual
practice is to batch the lightweight aggregate at a moisture con-
dition greater than the “Absorption Value” defined by ASTM
procedures (24-h immersion). In this condition the absorbed
(internal) moisture content will be in excess of the arbitrarily
defined ASTM 24-hour “absorption” value. The degree of satu-
ration necessary for adequate pumping is determined by prac-
tical field experience for each aggregate and may be obtained
from the lightweight aggregate supplier.
Due to pre-wetting, there will invariably be a film of sur-
face water on the lightweight aggregate. As with normal-weight
concrete it is essential to evaluate this quantity of surface water
Fig. 4—Schematic representation of volumes occupied by the ceramic matrix,
the internal pores, and the degree of saturation of absorbed water (see Fig. 2).
for an accurate determination of the “net” mixing water to
achieve the desired workability and to determine the effective
water-to-cementitious materials ratio.
To accurately determine the amount of absorbed water
and the amount of surface water it is necessary to run the
usual moisture test as follows. Measure the weight of the wet,
ready-to-batch surface moist sample. After towel drying, meas-
ure the weight of the surface dry sample. Conduct the drying
test to calculate the moisture content absorbed within the sam-
ple. The surface water (adsorbed) on the lightweight aggregate
is then determined by the difference between the as-received
and the absorbed moisture contents. (Fig. 4)
Proportioning Lightweight Concrete
Proportioning procedures used for ordinary concrete mixes
apply to lightweight concrete with added attention given to
 HOLM AND RIES ON LIGHTWEIGHT CONCRETE AND AGGREGATES
concrete density and the water absorption characteristics of
the lightweight aggregate, Standard Practice for Selecting
Proportions for Structural Lightweight Concrete, ACI 211.2.
Structural lightweight concretes are generally proportioned
by absolute volume methods in which the fresh concrete
produced is considered equal to the sum of the absolute
volumes of cement, aggregates, net water, and entrained air.
Proportioning by this method requires the determination of
absorbed and surface moisture contents and the aggregate’s
relative density factor.
When lightweight aggregates have been preconditioned to
levels of absorbed moisture greater than that developed after a
one-day immersion, the rate of further absorption will be very
low and the water-to-cementitious materials ratios can be es-
tablished with precision. Thus, lightweight concrete can meet
water-to-cementitious materials specification requirements
with the same facility as normal-weight concrete. Water ab-
sorbed within the lightweight aggregate prior to mixing is not
used for calculating the water-to-cementitious materials ratio at
the time of setting. This absorbed water is available, however,
for internal curing and the continued cement hydration after
external curing has ended.
Air Content
As with normal-weight concrete, air-entrained lightweight
concrete significantly improves durability and resistance to
scaling, reduces density, and improves workability. With 4 to
6 % air contents, bleeding and segregation are reduced and
mixing water requirements are lowered while maintaining
optimum workability. Because of the elastic compatibility of
the lightweight aggregate and mortar matrix, strength reduc-
tion penalties due to high air contents will be lower for struc-
tural lightweight concrete than for normal-weight concretes.
Air content of lightweight aggregate concretes is deter-
mined in accordance with the procedures of ASTM Test
Method for Air Content of Freshly Mixed Concrete by the
Volumetric Method (C 173). Volumetric measurements assure
reliable results while the pressure method, Standard Test
Method for Air Content of Freshly Mixed Concrete by the
Pressure Method (ASTM C 231), will provide erratic data due
to the influence of aggregate porosity.
Air contents higher than required for durability considera-
tions are frequently developed for high thermal resistance, or
for lowering density of semi-structural “fill” concrete, with
reduced compressive strength as a natural consequence.
Admixtures
Use of water reducers, retarders, and superplasticizers will
result in improved lightweight concrete characteristics in a
manner similar to that of normal-weight concretes; however,
superplasticizers, while effective, will slightly increase the
density of lightweight concrete.
Mixing, Placing, and Curing
Properly proportioned structural lightweight concrete can be
mixed, delivered, and placed with the same equipment as normal-
weight concretes. The most important consideration in handling
any type of concrete is to avoid segregation of coarse aggregate
from the mortar fraction. The basic principles required to secure
a well-placed concrete also apply to lightweight concrete:
(a) well-proportioned, workable mixes that use a minimum
amount of mixing water;
553
(b) equipment capable of expeditiously moving the concrete;
(c) proper consolidation in the forms; and
(d) quality workmanship in finishing.
Well-proportioned structural lightweight concretes can be
placed and screeded with less physical effort than that required
for ordinary concrete. Excessive vibration should be avoided, as
this practice serves to drive the heavier mortar fraction down
from the surface where it is required for finishing. On comple-
tion of final finishing, curing operations similar to normal-
weight concrete should begin as soon as possible. Lightweight
concretes batched with pre-wet aggregates carry their own in-
ternal water supply for curing and as a result are more forgiving
to unfavorable ambient conditions and poor curing practices.
Prewetting
Lightweight aggregates may absorb part of the mixing water
when exposed to increased pumping pressures. To avoid loss
of workability, it is essential to properly prewet the lightweight
aggregates prior to pumping. Prewetting is often done at the
aggregate production plant and continued at the concrete
plant or can be done entirely at the concrete plant by wetting
stockpile with sprinkler systems. It is essential to consult the
aggregate supplier on methods and duration of prewetting.
Prewetting will significantly reduce the lightweight aggre-
gates’ rate of absorption, minimizing water transfer from the
mortar fraction that, in turn, causes slump loss during pumping.
Prewetting will result in an increased relative aggregate density
factor that, in turn, develops higher fresh concrete density. The
higher water content due to prewetting will eventually diffuse
out of the concrete, developing a longer period of internal cur-
ing as well as a larger differential between fresh and equilibrium
density than that associated with normal-weight concretes. Ag-
gregate suppliers should be consulted for mixture proportion
recommendations necessary for consistent pumpability.
Internal Curing
Lightweight aggregate batched at a high degree of absorbed
water may be substituted for normal-weight aggregates to pro-
vide “internal curing” in concrete containing a high volume of
cementitious materials. High cementitious concretes are vul-
nerable to self-desiccation and early-age cracking, and benefit
significantly from the slowly released internal moisture. Field
experience has shown that high strength concrete is not nec-
essarily high performance concrete and that high performance
concrete need not necessarily be high strength. A frequent, un-
intended consequence of high strength concrete is early-age
cracking. Blending lightweight aggregate containing absorbed
water is significantly helpful for concretes made with a low ra-
tio of water-to-cementitious material or concretes containing
high volumes of supplementary cementitious materials that
are sensitive to curing procedures. This process is often
referred to as water entrainment.
Time-dependent improvement in the quality of concrete
containing prewet lightweight aggregate is greater than that of
concrete containing normal-weight aggregate. The reason is
better hydration of the cementitious materials provided by
moisture available from the slowly released reservoir of ab-
sorbed water within the pores of the lightweight aggregate. The
fact that absorbed moisture in the lightweight aggregate is
available for internal curing has been known for more than
four decades. The first documentation of improved long term
strength gains made possible by the use of saturated normal-
weight aggregates was reported in 1957 by Paul Klieger [2],
554 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
who, in addition, commented in detail on the role of absorbed
water in lightweight aggregates for extended internal curing.
In his 1965 report, “Concrete Strength Measurement—
Cores vs. Cylinders,” presented to the National Sand and
Gravel Association and the National Ready Mixed Concrete As-
sociation, Bloem [3] states, “Measured strength for lightweight
concrete cylinders was not reduced by simulated field curing
methods employed. This would tend to support the suggestion
that the high absorption of lightweight aggregate may have the
beneficial effect of supplying curing water internally.” This was
confirmed by Campbell and Tobin [4] in their comprehensive
program which compared strengths of cores taken from field-
cured exposed slabs with test results obtained from laboratory
specimens cured strictly in accordance with ASTM C 31. Their
tests confirmed that availability of absorbed moisture in light-
weight aggregate produced a more forgiving concrete that was
less sensitive to poor field curing conditions. Addressing the
long-term service performance of lightweight concrete, Holm
[5] cited the improved integrity of the contact zone between
the lightweight aggregate and the matrix. The improved qual-
ity was attributed to internal curing, and better cement hydra-
tion and pozzolanic activity at the interface, and reduction in
stress concentrations resulting from elastic compatibility of the
concrete constituents.
The benefits of internal curing go far beyond any im-
provements in long-term strength gain, which from some com-
binations of materials may be minimal or nonexistent. The
principal contribution of internal curing results in the reduc-
tion of permeability that develops from a significant extension
in the time of curing. Powers [6] showed that extending the
time of curing increased the volume of cementitious products
formed which caused the capillaries to become segmented and
discontinuous.
It appears that in 1991, Philleo [7] was the first to recog-
nize the potential benefits to high performance normal-weight
concrete possible with the addition of lightweight aggregate
containing high volumes of absorbed moisture. Reduced sen-
sitivity to poor curing conditions in concretes containing an
adequate volume of prewet lightweight aggregate has also
been reported [8]. Since 1995 a large number of papers ad-
dressing the role of water entrainment’s influence on internal
curing and autogenous shrinkage have been published, of
which Bentz et al. is typical [9].
The benefits of internal curing are increasingly important
when supplementary cementitious materials (silica fume, fly
ash, metokaolin, calcined shales, clays and slates, as well as the
fines of lightweight aggregate) are included in the mixture. It
is well known that the pozzolanic reaction of finely divided
alumina-silicates with calcium hydroxide liberated as cement
hydrates is contingent upon the availability of moisture. Addi-
tionally, internal curing provided by absorbed water minimizes
the “plastic” (early) shrinkage due to rapid drying of concretes
exposed to unfavorable drying conditions [10].
Sampling and Field Adjustments
Changes in lightweight aggregate moisture content, grading, or
relative density, as well as usual job site variation in entrained
air, suggest frequent checks of the fresh concrete to facilitate
adjustments necessary for consistent concrete characteristics.
Standardized field tests for slump, ASTM C 143; fresh density,
ASTM C 138; and entrained-air content, ASTM C 173 are used
to verify conformance of field concretes with the project speci-
fication. Sampling should be conducted in accordance with
ASTM Practice Sampling Freshly Mixed Concrete (C 172).
ASTM Test Method for Density of Structural Lightweight Con-
crete (C 567) describes methods for calculating the in-service,
equilibrium density of structural lightweight concrete. When
variations in fresh density exceed  4 lb/ft3, an adjustment in
batch weights may be required to restore specified concrete
properties. To avoid adverse effects on durability, strength, and
workability, air content should not vary more than  1.5 % from
target values.
Properties of Lightweight Concrete
Comprehensive information detailing the properties of light-
weight concretes and lightweight aggregates has been pub-
lished by Shideler [11], Holm [12], Carlson [13], and Valore
[14]. The first two deal with structural-grade concretes, Carlson
reported on lightweight aggregate for concrete masonry units,
and Valore covered both structural and insulating concretes.
In most instances, test procedures for measuring properties of
lightweight concretes were the same as commonly used for
normal-weight concretes. In limited cases, different proce-
dures particularly suited to measure lightweight concrete char-
acteristics were developed.
Density
Although there are numerous structural applications for all
lightweight concretes (coarse and fine lightweight aggregate),
usual commercial practice in North America is to design light-
weight concretes where part or all of the fine aggregate used is
natural sand. Long-span bridges using concretes with three-way
blends (coarse and fine lightweight aggregates and small sup-
plemental natural sand volumes) have provided long-term dura-
bility and structural efficiency by increasing the density/strength
ratios [15]. Normal-weight sand replacement will typically in-
crease unit weight from about 80 to more than 160 kg/m3 (5 to
10 lb/ft3). Using increasing amounts of cement to obtain high
strengths above 35 MPa (5000 psi), concrete will increase equi-
librium density, ASTM C 567, from 32 to 96 kg/m3 (2 to 6 lb/ft3).
The fresh density of lightweight aggregate concretes is a
function of mixture proportions, air contents, water demand,
and the relative density and moisture content of the light-
weight aggregate. Decrease in density of exposed concrete is
due to moisture loss that, in turn, is a function of ambient con-
ditions and surface area/volume ratio of the concrete element.
Design professionals should specify a maximum fresh density
for lightweight concrete, as limits for acceptability should be
controlled at time of placement.
Unless otherwise specified, the dead loads used for design
should be based upon the calculated equilibrium density that,
for most conditions and structural members, may be assumed
to be reached after 90 days. Extensive tests reported in ACI 213,
Structural Lightweight Concrete, conducted during North
American durability studies, demonstrated that despite wide
initial variations of aggregate moisture content, equilibrium
density was found to be about 50 kg/m3 (3.1 lb/ft3) above oven-
dry density (Fig. 5). When weights and moisture contents of all
the constituents of the batch of concrete are known, an ap-
proximate calculated equilibrium density may be determined.
Specified Density Concrete
The use of specified density concrete is based on engineers’ de-
cisions to improve structural efficiency by optimizing concrete
 HOLM AND RIES ON LIGHTWEIGHT CONCRETE AND AGGREGATES 555

Specified density concrete has been used on bridges, marine

Fig. 5—Concrete density versus time of drying for struc-
tural lightweight concrete.
density. Specified density concrete is defined as concrete with
a range of density less than what is generally associated with
normal-weight concrete, 2320–2480 kg/m3 (145–155 lb/ft3),
and greater than the code-defined maximum density for light-
weight concrete, 1840 kg/m3 (115 lb/ft3). Specified density
concrete is achieved by replacing part of the ordinary normal-
weight aggregate (Relative Density 2.60) with either coarse or
fine lightweight aggregate (Relative Density generally  1.60).
structures, precast elements, and consumer products in North
America, Europe, and several other parts of the world [16].
The concept of specified density concrete is not new. For
more than 20 years precast concrete manufacturers have eval-
uated trade-offs between the concrete density and transporta-
tion costs. Shown in Table 3 are the physical properties of
concrete in which 25, 50, 75, and 100 % of the normal-weight
limestone coarse aggregate was replaced by an equal absolute
volume of lightweight aggregate [10]. This resulted in 5, 11, 15,
and 21 % reductions in density, respectively.
By adjusting the density of the concrete, precasters are
able to maximize the number of concrete elements on a truck
without exceeding highway load limits. This reduces the num-
ber of truck loads which lowers transportation and project
cost, as well as reducing the environmental consequences of
trucking products, especially into central cities. Opportunities
for increased trucking efficiency also apply when transporting
smaller concrete products (hollow core plank, wallboard, pre-
cast steps, and other consumer products). Specified density
concrete has the added benefit of enhanced cement hydration.
See section on “Internal Curing” for more detail.
Compressive Strength
While most structural lightweight aggregates are capable of
producing concretes with compressive strengths in excess of
35 MPa (5000 psi), a limited number of lightweight aggregates
can be used in concretes that develop cylinder strengths from
48 to 69 MPa (7000 to 10 000 psi) [17].
While compressive strengths of 21 to 35 MPa (3000 to 5000
psi) are common for cast-in-place lightweight concretes, higher
strengths are presently being specified for precast bridge mem-

TABLE 3—Physical Properties of Concrete Mixtures

Limestone Coarse Aggregate replaced by varying percentages of structural Lightweight Aggregate.

Concrete manufactured and tested at Prestressed Plant to optimize structural efficiency and reduce transportation costs.

Mixture Number 1 2 3 4 5 M
Coarse Aggregate Limestone .75S,.25L .5S 5L .25S,.75L LWA NONE
Target Equilibrium Density 2300 (143) 2160 (135) 2050 (128) 1920 (112) 1800 (112) 2000 (125)
kg/m3 (lb/ft3)

Physical Properties @ 18–24 h

Compressive Strength MPA (ksi) 24 (3.50) 26 (3.75) 29 (4.27) 28 (4.10) 26 (3.80) 34 (4.88)
Elastic Modulus (Test) GPa (ksi  103) 24 (3.42) 23 (3.30) 23 (3.27) 20 (2.97) 18 (2.67) 23 (3.38)
Elastic Modulus (Calc. ACI 318) GPA(ksi  103) 26 (3.70) 24 (3.49) 20 (2.89) 17 (2.42) 15 (2.17) 17 (2.48)
E (Test) / E (Calc. ACI 318) 1.08 1.06 0.61 0.81 0.81 0.73

Physical Properties @ 29 Days

Compressive Strength MPA (ksi) 39 (5.60) 41 (5.89) 41 (5.91) 42 (6.12) 42 (6.12) 47 (6.85)
Elastic Modulus (Test) GPa (ksi  103) 30 (4.28) 28 (4.09) 26 (3.81) 24 (3.25) 22 (3.25) 27 (3.96)
Elastic Modulus (Calc. ACI 318) GPA(ksi  103) 31 (4.49) 28 (4.10) 29 (4.17) 20 (2.92) 20 (2.92) 31 (4.50)
E (Test) / E (Calc. ACI 318) 1.05 1.00 1.09 0.89 0.9 1.14

Tensile Split Strength @ 29 Days MPa (psi) 4.0 (580) 4.2 (615) 3.7 (531) 3.4 (492) 3.4 (498) 3.5 (504)

Note: 1. All concrete mixtures contain 446 kg/m3 (752 pcy) cement, 708 kg/m3 (1190 pcy) Natural Sand.
2. All concrete mixtures, Air 3.5  0.5 %, Slump 100 mm (4 in.)
3. Mortar Mixture “M” contains 716 kg/m3 (1208 pcy) Cement, 1050 kg/m3 (1770 pcy) Natural Sand, Air 5.5 %, Slump 140 mm (5.5 in.)
4. All strength and modulus tests conducted on 152  304 mm (6 in.  12 in.) cylinders.
556 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
bers and offshore applications. Lightweight aggregate concrete
will demonstrate a strength “ceiling” where further additions of
cementitious materials will not significantly raise the maximum
attainable strength. Strength ceilings differ for each lightweight
aggregate source and are the result of pore size and distribution
as well as the strength characteristics of the vitreous material
surrounding the pores. The strength ceiling of a particular light-
weight aggregate may be increased by reduction of the top size
in a particular grading formulation.
Tensile Strength
Shear, torsion, development length, bond strengths, and
crack resistance are related to tensile strength, which is, in
turn, dependent upon tensile strength of the coarse aggregate
particle and the mortar and the degree to which the two
phases are securely bonded. Traditionally, tensile strength
has been defined as a function of compressive strength, but
this is known to be only a first approximation that does not
reflect aggregate particle strength, surface characteristics,
nor the concrete’s moisture content and distribution. The
splitting tensile strength, as determined by ASTM Standard
Test Method for Splitting Tensile Strength of Cylindrical Con-
crete Specimens (C 496), is used throughout North America
as a simple, practical design criterion that is known to be a
more reliable indicator of tensile-related properties than
beam flexural tests. Splitting tests are conducted by applying
diametrically opposite compressive line loads to a concrete
cylinder laid horizontally in a testing machine. A minimum
tensile splitting strength of 2.0 MPa (290 psi) is a requirement
for structural lightweight aggregates conforming to the re-
quirements of ASTM C 330. As tensile splitting results vary for
different combinations of materials, the specifier should con-
sult with the aggregate suppliers for laboratory-developed
splitting strength data. Tensile splitting strength test data
should be developed prior to the start of special projects
where development of early-age tensile-related forces occur,
as in handling precast or tilt-up members.
Tensile splitting strength tests on structural lightweight con-
crete specimens that are allowed to dry correlate better with the
behavior of concrete in actual structures. Moisture loss pro-
gressing slowly into the interior of concrete members will result
in the development of outer envelope tensile stresses that bal-
ance the compressive stresses in the still-moist interior zones.
ASTM C 496 requires a 7-day moist and 21-day laboratory air
drying at 23°C (73.4°F) and 50 % relative humidity prior to
conducting splitting tests. Structural lightweight concrete split-
ting-tensile strengths vary from approximately 75 to 100 % of
normal-weight concretes of equal compressive strength. Replac-
ing lightweight fine aggregate with normal-weight fine aggregate
will normally increase tensile strength.
Modulus of Elasticity
The modulus of elasticity of concrete is a function of the modu-
lus of each constituent (mortar, lightweight, and normal-weight
aggregates) and their relative mixture proportion. The modu-
lus of normal-weight concretes is higher because the moduli of
the natural aggregate particles are greater than those of light-
weight aggregate particles. For practical design conditions, the
modulus of elasticity of concretes with densities between 1400
to 2500 kg/m3 (90 to 155 lb/ft3) and within normal strength
ranges may be assumed to follow the ACI 318 formula
E  33wc1,5

fc E  0.04
w
3

c fc
where
E  the secant modulus in MPa (psi),
wc  the density in kg/m3 (lb/ft3), and
fc  the compressive strength in MPa (psi) of a 150 by 300
mm (6 by 12 in.) cylinder.
This or any other formula should be considered as only a
first approximation, as the modulus is significantly affected
(25 %) by binder characteristics, moisture, aggregate type,
and other variables. The formula generally overestimates the
modulus for high-strength lightweight concretes. When design
conditions require accurate elastic modulus data, laboratory
tests should be conducted on specific concretes proposed for
the project according to the procedures of ASTM Test Method
for Static Modulus of Elasticity and Poisson’s Ratio of Concrete
in Compression (C 469).
Shrinkage
As with ordinary concretes, shrinkage of structural lightweight
concretes is principally determined by
(a) shrinkage characteristics of the cement paste fraction,
(b) internal restraint provided by the aggregate fraction,
(c) the relative absolute volume fractions occupied by the
shrinkage medium (cement paste fraction) and the
restraining skeletal structure (aggregate fraction), and
(d) humidity and temperature environments.
Aggregate characteristics influence the quantity of cemen-
titious materials (the shrinking fraction) necessary to produce
a required strength at a given water content. Particle strength,
shape, and grading influence water demand and directly de-
termine the fractional volume and quality of the cement paste
necessary to meet specified strength levels. When structural
lightweight aggregate concretes are proportioned with cemen-
titious material quantities similar to that required for normal
aggregate concretes, the shrinkage of lightweight concrete is
generally, but not always, slightly greater than that of normal-
weight concrete due to the lower aggregate stiffness. The time
rate of shrinkage strain development in structural lightweight
concrete is slower, and the time required to reach a plateau
of equilibrium is longer when the as-batched, lightweight-
aggregate absorbed moisture is high [10].
Creep
Time-related increases in concrete strain due to sustained
stress can be measured according to the procedures of ASTM
Test Method for Creep of Concrete in Compression (C 512).
Creep and shrinkage characteristics of any concrete type are
principally influenced by water and cementitious materials
(paste volume fraction), aggregate characteristics, age at time
of loading, type of curing, and applied stress/strength ratio. As
creep and shrinkage strains will cause an increase in long-time
deflections, loss of prestress, a reduction in stress concentra-
tion, and changes in camber, it is essential for design engineers
to have an accurate assessment of these time-related charac-
teristics as a necessary design input. ACI 213 [10] demonstrates
wide envelopes of one-year specific creep values for all light-
weight, normally cured concretes. Test results for higher-
strength, steam-cured concretes with a blend of lightweight
and normal-weight aggregates have a range of values that nar-
rows significantly and closely envelopes the performance of
the normal-weight “reference” concrete. These values are prin-
cipally based upon the results of the comprehensive testing
program of Shideler [12]. Long-term investigations by Troxell
[18] on normal-weight concretes report similarly wide
 HOLM AND RIES ON LIGHTWEIGHT CONCRETE AND AGGREGATES
envelopes of results for differing natural aggregate types, so
comparisons with “reference” concretes should be based upon
data specific to the concretes considered.
Durability
Numerous accelerated freezing and thawing testing programs
conducted on structural lightweight concrete studying the in-
fluence of air-void system, cement content, aggregate moisture
content, specimen drying times, and testing environment have
arrived at similar conclusions: air-entrained lightweight con-
cretes proportioned with proper air-void systems provide good
durability results. Observations of the resistance to deteriora-
tion in the presence of deicing salts on mature bridges indicate
similar performance between structural lightweight and nor-
mal-weight concretes [19]. Several comprehensive investiga-
tions into the long-term weathering performance of bridge
decks [20] and marine structures [21] exposed for many years
to severe environments support the findings of laboratory in-
vestigations and demonstrate that properly proportioned and
placed lightweight concretes perform equal to or better than
normal-weight concretes.
Core samples taken from hulls of 70-year-old lightweight
concrete ships as well as 40-year-old lightweight concrete
bridges have demonstrated concretes with a high integrity
contact zone between aggregate/matrix with low levels of
microcracking [5]. This proven record of high resistance to
weathering and corrosion is due to physical and chemical
mechanisms that include: (a) a higher resistance to macro-
cracking; (b) superior aggregate/matrix adhesion; and (c) the
reduction of internal stresses due to elastic matching of coarse
aggregate and the cementitious matrix. Micro-cracking is miti-
gated by the high ultimate strain capacity provided when con-
cretes have a high strength/modulus ratio. The ratio at which
the disruptive dilation of concrete starts is higher for light-
weight concrete than for equal strength normal-weight con-
crete. Near-surface pores provided by the lightweight fine
aggregates have been shown to accommodate etringite [15].
Long-term pozzolanic action developed at the surface of
the pyroprocessed silica/alumina-rich lightweight aggregate
will combine with the calcium hydroxide liberated during ce-
ment hydration. This will reduce overall concrete permeability,
minimize leaching of soluble compounds, and further improve
the integrity of the contact zone.
It is widely recognized that while ASTM Test Method for
Resistance of Concrete to Rapid Freezing and Thawing (C 666)
provides a useful comparative testing procedure, there re-
mains an inadequate correlation between the results of this ac-
celerated laboratory test and the observed behavior of mature
concretes exposed to natural freezing and thawing. When light-
weight concrete is tested, ASTM C 330 “Standard Specification
for Lightweight Aggregates for Structural Concrete” requires
modification of the procedures of ASTM C 666 to provide 14
days of drying in laboratory air after 14 days of moist curing.
Durability of any concrete, both normal-weight and light-
weight, is significantly influenced by the resistance to macro
and micro-cracking. It is imperative that permeability and
strain capacity characteristics of the concrete be sufficient to
protect reinforcing steel from corrosion, which is clearly the
dominant form of structural deterioration observed in current
construction.
The matrix protective quality of insulating type concretes
proportioned for thermal resistance by using high volumes of
557
entrained air and low cement contents will be significantly
reduced. Very low density, non-structural concretes will not
provide adequate resistance to the intrusion of chlorides and
carbonation, etc. [21].
Field Tests
For more than 25 years, field exposure testing programs have
been conducted by the Canadian Department of Minerals, En-
ergy and Technology (CANMET) on various types of concretes
exposed to the extremely harsh marine environment at the
Treat Island Severe Weather Exposure Station maintained by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at Eastport, Maine. Concrete
specimens placed on a mid-tide wharf experience alternating
conditions of seawater immersion followed by cold air expo-
sure at low tide. In typical winters, the specimens experience
over 100 cycles of freezing and thawing. Starting in 1980,
five sets of specimens incorporating lightweight aggregate
have been placed at this site. Kondratova listed several web-
sites that could be used to examine the performance of these
specimens, and reported that the deterioration rate was similar
for the lightweight and normal-weight concretes. After more
than 25 years of exposure to a severe marine environment,
properly proportioned concretes of both types were providing
durable performance [22].
Contact Zone
The expression “contact zone” includes two distinctively dif-
ferent phenomena: (1) the mechanical adhesion of the cemen-
titious matrix to the surface of the aggregate, and (2) the
variation of physical and chemical characteristics of the
transition layer of the cementitious matrix close to the aggre-
gate particle. Collapse of the structural integrity of the con-
crete conglomerate may come from the failure of either the ag-
gregate or cementitious matrix, or from a breakdown in
the contact zone causing a separation of the still-intact phases.
The various mechanisms that act to maintain continuity, or
that cause separation, have not received the same attention as
has the air void system necessary to protect the matrix. Aggre-
gates are frequently dismissed as being inert fillers and, as a
result, they and the associated contact zone have not received
adequate attention.
In order that concrete performs satisfactorily in severe
exposure conditions, it is essential that a good bond develop
and be maintained between the aggregate and the enveloping
mortar matrix. A high incidence of interfacial cracking or ag-
gregate debonding will have a serious effect on durability if
these cracks fill with water and subsequently freeze. Deterio-
ration will result, with pieces of apparently sound mortar sep-
arating from the bottom of the aggregate, usually with some
of the mortar remaining firmly attached to the top side of the
aggregate. An equally serious consequence of microcracking
is the easy path provided for the ingress for aggressive agents
into the mass of the concrete, rendering ineffective the
protective layer of concrete over the reinforcing steel. The
morphology and distribution of chemical elements at the
transition layer in a number of mature structures that have
withstood severe exposure were examined and reported by
Bremner et al. [23].
The contact zone of lightweight aggregate concrete has
been demonstrated to be significantly superior to that of
normal-weight concretes that do not contain supplementary
cementitious meterial [19,24]. This profound improvement
in the quality, integrity, and microstructure stems from a
558 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
number of characteristics unique to lightweight concrete that
includes:
• The pozzolanic alumina/silicate surface of the fired
ceramic aggregate combines with CaOH2 liberated by
hydration of the portland cement.
• Reduced micro-cracking in the contact zone because of
the elastic similarity of the aggregate and the surrounding
cementitious matrix [25].
• Hygral equilibrium between two porous materials (light-
weight aggregate and porous cementitious matrix) as
opposed to the usual condition with normal-weight aggre-
gate, where bleed-water lenses form around essentially
nonabsorbent coarse natural aggregates. These lenses
have water-to-cementitious materials ratios significantly
higher than in the rest of the matrix. When supplementary
cementitious materials are added, the high-quality mi-
crostructure of the contact zone around lightweight
aggregate is moderately enhanced. However, when sup-
plementary cementitious materials are used in concretes
containing normal-weight aggregate, this zone of weak-
ness is profoundly improved.
While the reduction in compressive and tensile strength
due to poor contact zone is important, the significance of in-
creasing permeability is even greater. Increasing permeability
inevitably leads to penetration of aggressive agents that accel-
erate corrosion of embedded reinforcement. The permeability
of concrete is greater than the permeability of its constituents.
This increase in permeability results from interfacial flaws at
the aggregate surface linking up with micro-cracking in the
transition layer.
The phenomenon of bleed water collecting and being en-
trapped under coarse particles of lightweight aggregate is miti-
gated if not eliminated. This has been verified in practice by the
examination of the contact zone of lightweight concrete tensile
splitting cylinders, as well as by visual examination of sand-
blasted vertical surfaces of building structures. This observa-
tion should not be surprising because, with structural light-
weight concrete, the aggregate/matrix interface is a boundary
between two porous media, while with normal-weight concrete
there is an abrupt transition at the dense aggregate/porous ce-
mentitious matrix interface.
Implication of Contact Zone on Failure
Mechanisms
Exposed concrete must endure the superposition of dynamic
forces including variable live loads, rapid temperature
changes, moisture gradients, and dilation due to chemical
changes. These factors cause a predominantly tensile-related
failure. Yet, the uniaxial compressive strength is traditionally
considered the preeminent single index of quality, despite the
fact that inadequate concrete performance is seldom related to
this parameter. The simplicity and ease of compression testing
has diverted our focus from life-cycle performance and the
development of appropriate measurement techniques that
quantify durable concrete characteristics.
In general, weakest link mechanisms are undetected in
uniaxial compression tests due to concrete’s forgiving load-
sharing characteristics in compression, because of localized
yielding and the closure of temperature and volume-change
cracks. Weakest link mechanisms, however, are decisive in ten-
sile failures in both dynamic and durability exposure condi-
tions. In most concretes the limiting factor in the long-term
performance is the integrity of contact zone.
Additionally, a full comprehension has not been developed
regarding the accommodation mechanism by which the pores
closest to the aggregate/matrix interface provide an accessible
space for products that cause deleterious expansion. While
research has identified ettringite, alkali-silica gel, marine salts,
and corrosion products in these near-surface pores, it is still
not fully understood how these products impact service life.
Resistance to Alkali-Aggregate Deleterious
Expansion
ACI 201 “Guide to Durable Concrete” reports no documented in-
stance of in-service distress caused by alkali reactions with light-
weight aggregate [26]. No evidence of alkali-lightweight aggre-
gate distress was observed in tests conducted on samples from a
70-year-old marine structure and several lightweight concrete
bridge decks that were more than 30 years old [27]. The pyro-
processing of the aggregates tends to activate the particles’ sur-
faces such that they act as a source of silica to react with the al-
kalis from the cement at an early age to counteract any potential
long-term disruptive expansion. As maintained earlier, another
factor that enables lightweight aggregate to reduce disruptive ex-
pansion is the availability of space within the expanded aggre-
gate for reactive material to precipitate in a benign manner. Pre-
cipitation of alkali-rich material in the pores of an expanded
aggregate was observed in concrete made with a well-known re-
active normal-weight coarse aggregate in which some of the non-
reactive fine aggregates were replaced with lightweight fine ag-
gregates [28].
Though laboratory studies and field experience have indi-
cated no deleterious expansion resulting from the reaction be-
tween the alkalis in the cement and the lightweight aggregates,
the natural aggregate portion of a sand-lightweight concrete
mixture should be evaluated in accordance with applicable
ASTM standards.
Many lightweight concrete mixtures designed for an equi-
librium density in the range of 110 lb/ft3 (1760 kg/m3) and
above are produced using either natural sand or a naturally
occurring coarse aggregate. In either case, these natural ag-
gregates should be considered a potential source to develop
alkali-aggregate reaction until they have been demonstrated
by an appropriate ASTM test procedure or by having an
established service history to be of negligible effect.
Abrasion Resistance
Abrasion resistance of concrete depends on strength, hardness,
and toughness characteristics of the cement matrix and the ag-
gregates, as well as on the bond between these two phases.
Most lightweight aggregates suitable for structural concretes
are composed of solidified vitreous ceramic comparable to
quartz on the Mohs Scale of Hardness. Structural lightweight
concrete bridge decks that have been subjected to more than
100 million vehicle crossings, including truck traffic, show
wearing performance similar to that of normal-weight con-
cretes. Hoff [29] reported that specially developed testing
procedures that measured ice abrasion of concrete exposed to
arctic conditions demonstrated essentially similar perform-
ance for lightweight and normal-weight concretes.
Fire Resistance
When tested according to the procedures of ASTM Method for
Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials (E 119),
structural lightweight aggregate concrete slabs, walls, and
 HOLM AND RIES ON LIGHTWEIGHT CONCRETE AND AGGREGATES
beams have demonstrated greater fire endurance periods than
equivalent-thickness members made with normal-weight ag-
gregates (Fig. 6). Superior performance is due to a combina-
tion of lower thermal conductivity (lower temperature rise on
unexposed surfaces), lower coefficient of thermal expansion
(lower forces developed under restraint), and the inherent
thermal stability developed by aggregates that have been al-
ready exposed to temperatures greater than 1093°C (2000°F)
during pyroprocessing.
Specifications
Specifications for structural lightweight concrete usually
require minimum values for compressive and tensile splitting
strength, maximum limitations on slump, specified range
of air content, and a limitation on maximum fresh density.
The density of lightweight concrete depends primarily on
the relative density factor of the lightweight aggregates, and
it is also influenced to a lesser degree by cementitious
materials, water, air contents, and proportions of coarse-to-
fine aggregate.
Conclusion
Structural lightweight concrete is a unique construction
material that should be specified, designed, and constructed
in a manner that recognizes and takes advantage of its
unique physical and mechanical properties (ASTM C 330,
C 496, C 567).
Acknowledgments
The principal sources of information for this chapter include
the Guide for Structural Lightweight Aggregate Concrete (ACI
213) [14], ACI 318 Building Code Requirements for Rein-
forced Concrete [1], and the “State-of-the-Art Report on High-
Strength High-Durability, Structural Low Density Concrete
for Applications in Severe Marine Environments” [15].
Fig. 6—Fire endurance (heat transmission) of concrete
slabs as a function of thickness for naturally dried specimens
[10].
559
References
[1] “Standard Building Code for Reinforced Concrete,” ACI
Committee 318, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI, 2002.
[2] Klieger, P., “Early High Strength Concrete for Prestressing,”
Proceedings, World Conference on Prestressed Concrete, San
Francisco, CA., July 1957.
[3] Bloem, D.L., “Concrete Strength Measurement—Cores and
Cylinders,” ASTM Proceedings, ACI Journal, Vol. 65, April 1967.
[4] Campbell, R. H. and Tobin, R. E., “Core and Cylinder Strengths
of Natural and Lightweight Concrete,” ACI Journal, April 1967.
[5] Holm, T. A., “Performance of Structural Lightweight Concrete in
a Marine Environment,” Performance of Concrete in a Marine
Environment, ACI SP-65, American Concrete Institute, Interna-
tional Symposium, St. Andrews-By-The-Sea, Canada, Aug. 1980.
[6] Powers, T. C., Copeland, L. E., and Mann, H. M., “Capillarity
Continuity or Discontinuity in Cement Pastes,” J. PCA Research
and Development Lab, May 1959.
[7] Philleo, R., “Concrete Science and Reality,” Material Science of
Concrete II, J. P. Skalny and S. Mindess, Eds., American Ceramic
Society, Westerville, OH., 1991.
[8] Holm, T. A., “Moisture Dynamics in Lightweight Aggregate and
Concrete,” Bremner Symposium on High-Performance Light-
weight Concrete, Sixth International Conference on Durability
of Concrete, Thessaloniki, Greece 2003.
[9] Bentz, D. P. and Snyder, K. A., “Protected Paste Volume on Con-
crete-Extension to Internal Curing Using Saturated Lightweight
Fine Aggregate,” Cement and Concrete Research (1999).
[10] Guide for Structural Lightweight Aggregate Concrete, ACI
Committee 213, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI, 2003.
[11] Shideler, J. J., “Lightweight Aggregate Concrete for Structural
Use,” Proceedings, Journal American Concrete Institute, Vol.
54, Oct. 1957, pp. 298–328.
[12] Holm, T. A., “Structural Lightweight Concrete,” Handbook of
Structural Concrete, Chapter 7, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1983.
[13] Carlson, C. C., “Lightweight Aggregates for Masonry Units,”
Proceedings, Journal American Concrete Institute, Vol. 53, Nov.
1956, pp. 383–402.
[14] Valore, R. C., Jr., “Insulating Concretes,” Proceedings, Journal
American Concrete Institute, Vol. 53, Nov. 1956, pp. 509–532.
[15] Holm, T. A. and Bremner, T. W., “State-of-the-Art Report on
High-Strength, High-Durability, Structural Low Density
Concrete for Applications in Severe Marine Environments,” U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, ERDA, Vicksburg, VA. 2000.
[16] Holm, T. A. and Ries, J. P., “Specified Density Concrete—A Tran-
sition,” Second International Conference on Structural Light-
weight Aggregate Concrete, Kristiansand, Norway, June 2000.
[17] Holm, T. A., “Physical Properties of High Strength Lightweight
Aggregate Concretes,” Proceedings, Second International
Congress of Lightweight Concrete, London, April 1980.
[18] Troxell, G. E., Raphael, J. M., and Davis, R. E., “Long Time Creep
and Shrinkage Tests of Plain and Reinforced Concrete,” Proceed-
ings, Vol. 58, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 1958.
[19] Holm, T. A., Bremner, T. W., and Newman, J. B., “Lightweight
Aggregate Concrete Subject to Severe Weathering,” Concrete
International, June 1984.
[20] Walsh, R. J., “Restoring Salt Damaged Bridges,” Civil Engineer-
ing, May 1967.
[21] Holm, T. A., Bremner, T. W., and Vaysburd, A., “Carbonation of
Marine Structural Lightweight Concrete,” Second International
Conference on Performance of Concrete In A Marine Environ-
ment, St. Andrews By-The-Sea, Canada, ACI SP 109, August 1988.
[22] Kondratova, I.L. and Goldfarb, I., “How Information Technol-
ogy Can Help Sustainability and Aid in Combating Global
Warming,” Bremner Symposium on High-Performance Light-
weight Concrete, Sixth International Conference on Durability
of Concrete, Thessaloniki, Greece, 2003.
560 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
[23] Bremner, T. W., Holm, T. A., and DeSouza, H., “Aggregate
Interaction In Concrete Subject To Severe Exposure,” FIP-CPCI
International Symposium Concrete Structures in Arctic Regions,
Calgary, Canada, 1984.
[24] Khokrin, “The Durability of Lightweight Concrete Structural
Members,” Kuibyshev, Russia, 1973 (In Russian).
[25] Bremner, T. W. and Holm, T. A., “Elastic Compatibility and the
Behavior of Concrete,” Journal, American Concrete Institute,
March/April 1986.
[26] “Guide to Durable Concrete” ACI Committee 201.2R, American
Concrete Institute, Detroit MI 2001.
[27] Bremner, T. W., “Alkali-Aggregate Tests on Structural Light-
weight Aggregate Concrete,” unpublished private communica-
tion, Nov. 1991.
[28] Boyd, S., Bremner, T. W., and Holm, T. A., “Addition of Light-
weight Aggregate Reduces Expansion in Concrete Containing
Highly Reactive Normal-weight Aggregate,” Eleventh ICAAR
International Conference, Quebec, Canada, June 2000.
[29] Hoff, G. C., “High Strength Lightweight Aggregate Concrete
for Arctic Applications,” Proceedings, Symposium on the
Performance of Structural Lightweight Concrete, American
Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI, Nov. 1991.
47
Cellular Concrete
Fouad H. Fouad1
Preface
THE CHAPTER ON CELLULAR CONCRETE WAS FIRST
presented in ASTM STP 169B in 1978 and was authored by Pro-
fessor Leo M. Legatski [1]. In ASTM STP 169C in 1994, the
chapter was authored by his son Leo A. Legatski [2] who up-
dated various sections and stressed new applications of the ma-
terial. The author acknowledges both father and son for their
earlier contributions as their work provides the background
for this edition. In the interest of consistency, some of the fun-
damental aspects of the earlier publications are retained in this
chapter. The current edition updates the topics, introduces
new information on the material properties and applications
of cellular concrete, and includes up-to-date references.
Introduction
Cellular concrete is a low-density material having a homoge-
neous void or cell structure formed by the addition of a
prepared foam or by the generation of gas within the fresh
cementitious mixture. It is usually cast in densities ranging
from 320 to 1920 kg/m3 (20–120 lb/ft3). Density control is
achieved by adding a calculated amount of air as a preformed
foam to a cementitious slurry with or without the addition of
sand or other materials. The air cells created by the preformed
foam may account for up to 80 % of the total volume.
Reducing the mixture density by the addition of preformed
foam is accompanied by a reduction in strength properties and
thermal conductivity. Normally, it is possible to select a reduced
concrete density to satisfy strength requirements and provide
increased insulating value.
As a result of the reduced strength properties, typical appli-
cations for cellular concrete are usually concrete applications
that are required to resist modest loads over relatively small
spans. Examples of nonstructural cellular concrete applications
include: floor fills, sloping roof screeds, filling voids to support
slabs and roadways, and reducing lateral loads on wall structures.
The purpose of this chapter is to provide an overview of
the production, physical properties, and common applications
of cellular concrete.
Background
Cellular concrete is a lightweight concrete, consisting of a sys-
tem of macroscopic air cells uniformly distributed in either a
cement slurry or a cement grout (containing aggregate). The
cell size varies approximately from 0.10 to 1 mm (0.004–0.04
1
Professor and Chair, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL 35294.
561
in.). The air cells must be tough and sufficiently stable in order
to withstand the rigors of mixing and placing as the air cells are
separated, coated with cement paste, and the concrete is
pumped or otherwise transported to the point of placement.
In general, there are two basic methods for introducing
the air cells (bubbles) into the plastic mixture: through blend-
ing foam (or a foaming agent) in the mix or by generating a gas
in the fresh mix by a chemical reaction [3,4]. Hence, the terms
“foamed” and “gas concrete,” respectively, which are some-
times used in referring to the process used to generate the void
system. In the foaming process, a stable preformed foam is
added to the cementitious slurry during mixing in an ordinary
mixer. It is also possible to form air cells in the slurry by vig-
orous mixing of the slurry with a foaming additive in a high-
speed mixer. In the high-speed mixing method, the volume of
air cells produced depends on the amount and properties of
the foam concentrate, the mixing time, and the temperature of
the water and other materials. Consequently, batch density
control of this process is difficult at best.
The other method for forming air cells is through a chemi-
cal reaction, which generates gas in the slurry (mortar). The
bubbles maintain their shape through the setting stage and be-
come discrete air cells in the cementitious matrix. Typically,
small amounts of finely divided aluminum powder or alu-
minum paste are added to the mix, which react with the solu-
ble alkalis in the cement slurry liberating hydrogen gas and
forming bubbles. This method of producing air cells is best
suited for factory production in the manufacture of autoclaved
aerated concrete (AAC) structural elements. High-pressure
steam curing is employed in this case, which provides im-
proved strength and dimensional stability.
The American Concrete Institute (ACI) published three
reports of its Committee 523 on Cellular Concrete [5–7]. Two of
the reports address cast-in-place cellular concrete, and the third
report is devoted to precast cellular concrete. These reports ad-
dress cellular concretes of various densities and provide in
depth information on the properties, mix design, and use of the
material. Additional information on cellular concrete has also
been presented in special publications by ACI and the Portland
Cement Association [8,9]. This chapter does not address AAC,
which is factory-produced using a chemical reaction process for
air cell generation. It deals only with air cells produced using
preformed foam, which is the process most commonly used for
cast-in-place construction. Detailed technical information on
AAC is available in the published literature [10–15].
562 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
Classification of Cellular Concretes
Cellular concrete weighs substantially less than normal weight
concrete. It covers a broad spectrum of concretes ranging in
density from 320 to 1920 kg/m3 (20–120 lb/ft3). In densities not
exceeding 800 kg/m3 (50 lb/ft3), cellular concrete, often re-
ferred to as insulating concrete or low-density concrete, has
excellent insulation properties and is used primarily in
nonstructural applications for thermal and sound insulation,
roof decks, fill for slab-on-grade subbases, firewalls, and
underground thermal conduit linings. It is typically made of
neat cement mixtures with preformed foam, and the 28-day
compressive strength is generally between 0.7 and 7 MPa (100
and 1000 psi).
In densities ranging from 800 to 900 kg/m3 (50–120
3
lb/ft ), cellular concrete is considered in a semistructural
range, and applications vary according to density and
strength. Typically, sand or lightweight aggregates are added
to improve strength or impart special desired properties to the
mix. For this group, the 28-day compressive strength ranges
approximately from 3.4 to 17 MPa (500–2500 psi). Applica-
tions of the material range widely from nonstructural fill for
thermal and sound insulation of floors and roofs at the lower
densities to cast-in-place walls, floors, and roofs at the higher
densities.
Based on density range and the components of the
mixture, cellular concrete may be classified as follows:
Neat-Cement Cellular Concrete
Neat-cement cellular concrete consists of portland cement, wa-
ter, and preformed foam. It contains no aggregates. Neat-
cement cellular concrete is usually limited to the low-density
range with an upper limit on cast density of about 800 kg/m3
(50 lb/ft3). This class of cellular concrete is referred to as low-
density or insulating concrete. Substitution of pozzolanic
materials for a portion of the cement lowers the actual cement
content and permits lower densities of the neat-cement
mixtures, while reducing the heat of hydration.
Sanded Cellular Concrete
Sanded cellular concrete is cellular concrete that contains fine
aggregate (sand) in addition to cement, water, and preformed
foam. These concretes are usually produced in cast densities of
800–1920 kg/m3 (50–120 lb/ft3). The mixture properties are
primarily dependent on the cement content, the water-cement
ratio, and the specific characteristics of the sand.
Lightweight Aggregate Cellular Concrete
Lightweight aggregate cellular concrete is similar in density to
sanded cellular concrete but with low-density lightweight ag-
gregate (such as perlite or vermiculite) replacing all or part of
the sand. The lightweight aggregates may be of structural
grade in order to increase the strength-density ratio [16]. The
inclusion of such material is recommended if it is locally
available as its procurement from afar often results in a higher
cost of the final product.
Materials
In its basic form, cellular concrete is made by blending
preformed foam into a cement slurry, and it may or may not
contain aggregate materials. A brief description of the basic
ingredients as well as other materials that may be used in
cellular concrete is given herein.
Cement
Portland cement, portland blast furnace slag cement, or port-
land pozzolan cement conforming to the requirements of
ASTM Standard Specification for Portland Cement (C 150),
ASTM Standard Specification for Blended Hydraulic Cements
(C 595), or ASTM Standard Performance Specification for
Hydraulic Cement (C 1157) are used in cellular concrete.
Blended cements may result in slower rates of strength
development during the first 3 to 5 days. Higher rates of early
strength development may be achieved by using high-early-
strength portland cement (Type III).
Fine Aggregate
Natural or manufactured sand meeting the requirements of
ASTM Standard Specification for Concrete Aggregates (C 33),
ASTM Standard Specification for Aggregate for Masonry Mor-
tar (C 144), ASTM Standard Specification for Lightweight Ag-
gregates for Structural Concrete (C 330), or ASTM Standard
Specification for Lightweight Aggregates for Concrete Ma-
sonry Units (C 331) may be used in cellular concrete. Sand of
other gradation not conforming to these standards have also
been used in some cases, provided tests or service records have
shown that it produced cellular concrete of the desired quality.
Lightweight Coarse Aggregate
For cellular concrete incorporating lightweight coarse aggre-
gates, ASTM Standard Specification for Lightweight Aggregate
for Insulating Concrete (C 332) specifies two groups of light-
weight aggregates. The classification into two groups is based
on the expected concrete unit weight and thermal conductivity.
Group I aggregates, which are prepared by heat processing to
expand products such as perlite and vermiculite, are more
commonly used in insulating cellular concrete as they will pro-
duce concrete with lower unit weight and thermal conductivity
[17]. Group II aggregates, which are prepared by expanding,
calcining, or sintering various natural or artificial materials
such as slag, clay, shale, pumice, scoria, or tuff, are relatively
heavier in weight and may be used in higher density cellular
concrete where improved strength is desired.
Water
Water for mixing and curing cellular concrete should be
potable and free of deleterious amounts of oils, acids, alkalis,
salts, and organic materials that would adversely affect the set
time, strength, or performance of the concrete.
Preformed Foam
Preformed foam is produced by blending a foam concentrate,
water, and compressed air in predetermined proportions in a
foam generator. The liquid expands in volume up to about 30
times, resulting in preformed foam with density approximately
in the range of 32–56 kg/m3 (2.0–3.5 lb/ft3). Foam concentrates
are typically based on hydrolyzed protein or synthetic deter-
gents. The foam concentrate must have a chemical composi-
tion capable of producing stable air cells that remain intact
during handling (mixing, pumping, and placing) and until the
concrete hardens. ASTM Standard Method for Testing Foam-
ing Agents for Use in Producing Cellular Concrete Using Pre-
formed Foam (C 796) provides test procedures for evaluating
foam concentrates in a standard cellular concrete mix for den-
sity, water absorption, and compressive strength. Performance
specifications for evaluating foam concentrates in cellular con-
crete mixtures are given by ASTM Standard Specification for

Foaming Agents Used in Making Preformed Foam for Cellular
Concrete (C 869).
Chemical Admixtures
For cellular concrete with cast density of 1440 kg/m3 (90 lb/ft3)
or above, water reducing admixtures may be used to reduce
the water to cement ratio in the mix and, hence, increase the
compressive strength of the concrete. Accelerating admixtures
may be used if early strength development is required. Chemi-
cal admixtures should conform to ASTM Standard Specifica-
tion for Chemical Admixtures for Concrete (C 494) and should
be used in accordance with manufacturer recommendations.
Guidance for use of chemical admixtures is provided in this
volume chapter on Chemical Admixtures. Compatibility of the
chemical admixtures with the foaming agent or other ingredi-
ents in the mix should be established by trial batches.
Supplementary Cementitious Materials
Fly ash or natural pozzolans conforming to ASTM Specifica-
tion for Fly Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural Pozzolan for Use
as a Mineral Admixture in Portland Cement Concrete (C 618)
may be used in cellular concrete to the advantage. The supple-
mentary cementitious material may be added as a filler or par-
tial replacement for the portland cement. Substituting fly ash
for a portion of the cement usually has reasonable cost savings
without adversely affecting significant properties of the cellu-
lar concrete. Its pozzolonic properties improve flowability, in-
crease compressive strength, reduce the heat of hydration, and
reduce water permeability. Guidance for use of supplementary
cementitious materials is provided in this volume chapter on
Supplementary Cementitious Materials. Supplementary ce-
mentitious materials must be compatible with the foam
concentrate and other ingredients in the mix, which can be
established by trial test batches.
Fiber Reinforcement
Fiber reinforcement may be used in cellular concrete to help
control shrinkage cracking. Various fibers used include steel,
glass, polypropylene, polyester, nylon, or other special
composites. The fiber quantity is a compromise based on the re-
quired workability of the concrete, the fiber’s efficiency, and its
cost. The fiber reinforcement may also improve the energy ab-
sorption and spall resistance properties of the cellular concrete.
Research using monofilament polypropylene fibers in cellular
concrete mixtures, with densities 560–624 kg/m3 (35–39 lb/ft3),
demonstrated a ductile elasto-plastic load-deflection behavior
when tested to failure in bending, compression, tension, and
shear [18]. In this study, loading and unloading also remained
elasto-plastic over a wide range of deformation and crack width.
A volume of fiber equal to about 0.5 % of the absolute vol-
ume of cement is often the starting point for trial mixtures. The
upper limit depends upon the projected use of the concrete, its
required workability, and cost. The proposed fiber length
ranges from about 13 to 38 mm (0.50–1.5 in.). A lower fiber
length limit is based on the fiber’s ability to bond with the ce-
ment paste. The upper length limit depends on the increasing
difficulty of dispersing fibers in the mixture as the length is in-
creased. A length of 19 mm (0.75 in.) has been found to be very
efficient for cellular concrete.
Polymers
Polymers such as latexes and acrylics may be used as additives
in cellular concrete to improve certain strength characteristics
FOUAD ON CELLULAR CONCRETE 563
or reduce permeability and absorptivity. Guidance on the use of
polymers is provided in this volume chapter on Polymer-Modi-
fied Concrete and Mortar. Depending on its chemical structure,
latex can set up an additional matrix within the normal cement
structure and impart specialized properties to the material.
Mixture Proportioning
Density is a critical parameter in the mix proportioning of cel-
lular concrete as it is a direct function of the compressive
strength and thermal conductivity of the material. The first
step in mix proportioning is the selection of the wet density of
the cellular concrete, the cement content, and the water-ce-
ment ratio. The choice of these parameters is usually based on
the strength and thermal conductivity requirements. Slurry or
grout mixtures are proportioned using the absolute (solid) vol-
ume method. According to this approach, the sum of absolute
volumes of cement, water, and aggregate (if used) for a unit
volume of concrete (cubic meter or cubic yard) subtracted
from the unit volume gives the volume of air required per unit
volume of concrete [1,6,19].
Three foam gun calibration factors are necessary for mix
proportioning. These factors, which can be obtained from a
calibration test, are the foam/air volume ratio (usually about
1.05 to 1.07), the foam density (32–56 kg/m3 (2.0–3.5 lb/ft3)),
and the foam volume output per unit of time. It should be
pointed out that the weight of water calculated from the ce-
ment content and water-cement ratio should be reduced by the
weight of the foam volume (which is considered as water).
Slurry Mixtures
Slurry mixtures are low-density mixtures without aggregates.
Proportioning a slurry mixture involves selecting a density and
then selecting a water-cement ratio that is compatible for both
that density and the specific application. The water-cement ra-
tio can be within a reasonable range for a selected density.
If the water-cement ratio is too low, the cement will seek
water from the preformed foam resulting in a loss of volume
(yield) and an increase in density. Too high a water-cement ra-
tio results in excessive water bleeding and a lower compressive
strength concrete mixture.
Grout Mixtures
Grout mixtures are slurry mixtures with aggregates. Their pro-
portioning involves selecting a cement content and a water-
cement ratio for a specific density. The selection of these two
variables will result in a cellular concrete of a given strength
based on the characteristics of the ingredients (cement and ag-
gregate). If different properties such as higher strength are re-
quired, the density, cement content, and water-cement ratio
may be varied according to the designer’s experience. An ex-
ample of the proportioning of grout mixtures is given in ACI
523.3R [6].
Batching, Mixing, and Application Techniques
Accurate batching of ingredients is more critical with cellular
concrete mixtures than with regular concrete. Because a
significant portion of the material volume (25–80 %) is air,
the other materials must be batched accurately. For these
mixtures, the cement and sand (or other aggregate) are usually
weighed into the batch. The mixture water is metered while the
preformed foam is time injected into the mixture through a
calibrated nozzle.
564 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
The mixing technique should be compatible with the type
of mixture, its ingredients, the job requirements, and the
method of placement. Mixing should efficiently mix the ce-
ment and water and properly blend them with the other in-
gredients including the preformed foam. Paddle, high shear,
continuous, and rotary drum mixers may all be acceptable for
specific applications depending on the quality requirements of
the final product.
Cellular concrete mixtures are typically job-site produced
and placed. If ready-mix trucks are used for sanded mixtures
(floor-fill applications), the grout is delivered to the job site and
the preformed foam is added just prior to placement. This
maintains the quality and freshness of the material. The rotary
drum action of a ready-mix truck is acceptable for sanded
mixtures with densities greater than 800 kg/m3 (50 lb/ft3).
For low-density applications (roof deck and engineered
fill) with neat-cement slurries at densities less than 800 kg/m3
(50 lb/ft3), rotary drum mixing action is not ideal. Instead, pad-
dle type or shear mixers are common methods for both batch
and continuous mixing procedures. After the cement/water
slurry is produced in these mixers, the preformed foam is
added and blended prior to or during placement with a posi-
tive displacement pump. As the mixture is pumped, density is
measured at the point of placement for quality control. Mix ad-
justments can then be made to account for pumping distances
and other special application conditions.
Pumping is the most common method of placement, but
other methods can be used. Positive displacement pumps such
as Moyno or peristaltic pumps are used for low-density mix-
tures. Although piston pumps are efficient for grout mixtures
at densities greater than 1440 kg/m3 (90 lb/ft3), they do not ef-
ficiently pump low-density mixtures.
Casting techniques are different for each type of cellular
concrete application. The thinner floor-fill mixtures utilize a
rolling screed to provide a constant thickness. Since roof deck
applications are cast slope-to-drain, string lines provide guides
for casting and darby finishing the material by experienced
tradesmen. Screed rails may also be used. Finishing opera-
tions, in general, should be kept to a minimum; smoothing with
a darby or bullfloat is usually sufficient [20].
Geotechnical fill applications have the greatest variation
in casting techniques. Generally, these fills are several meters
(feet) thick so that they are cast in lifts of up to 1.0 m (3.3 ft)
thick based on the available area to be cast. The succeeding
lifts are cast on a daily basis until the final fill profile is
reached.
Physical Properties
Several studies investigated the physical and mechanical prop-
erties of cellular concrete cast at different densities and with or
without aggregates in the mix [1,18–21]. Because the density of
cellular concrete may be varied over a wide range, 320–1920
kg/m3 (20–120 lb/ft3), it is considered as an additional variable
that significantly impacts the physical properties and the mix
design of the material. The lower density cellular concrete has
lower thermal conductivity (higher insulation), accompanied
by lighter weight and reduced strength. As the density
increases, the thermal conductivity increases, but this is
compensated for by improvements in strength properties.
Nevertheless, the ability to control the density of the material
over a wide range suitable for various applications is the major
contribution of cellular concrete.
Density
When referring to the density of cellular concrete, confusion
may be avoided by stating the moisture condition of the mate-
rial at that specific density. Significant moisture conditions in-
clude as-cast density (wet density or plastic concrete density),
air-dry density (at a stated age and curing condition), and the
oven-dry density.
The as-cast or wet density is usually determined at the point
of placement in accordance with ASTM C 796. In determining
the wet density, the concrete should be consolidated by tapping
the sides of the container and not by rodding. The ratio of the
wet density to oven-dry density for the different cellular concrete
mixtures varies due to the different water content requirements.
The wet density of the cellular concrete is an important job-site
quality assurance tool to control uniformity of the mixtures.
The air-dry density of cellular concrete usually represents
the condition of the in-place material. The change in density
due to air drying is a function of temperature, duration of the
drying period, humidity, the wet density of the concrete, the
water-cement ratio, and the surface-area ratio of the element.
Although the relationship between air-dry density and wet den-
sity seems complicated, the air-dry density of cellular concrete
is usually about 80 kg/m3 (5 lb/ft3) less than its wet density. Cel-
lular concrete cast, cured, and air dried under job conditions
in low-humidity environments may have density losses ap-
proaching 160 kg/m3 (10 lb/ft3).
Oven-dry density is commonly used to relate the physical
properties of various types of cellular concretes, and for the de-
termination of the thermal conductivity by the guarded hot
plate method in accordance with ASTM Standard Test Method
for Steady-State Heat Flux Measurements and Thermal Trans-
mission Properties by Means of the Guarded-Hot-Plate Appara-
tus (C 177). For the latter purpose, the oven-dry density may be
calculated with sufficient accuracy from the mixture data by
assuming that the water required for hydration of the cement
is 20 % of the weight of the cement. The oven-dry density (D) is
calculated as follows:
D
[1.2 C  A ] kg/m3 or [(1.2 C  A )/27] lb/ft3
where
C
weight of cement, kg/m3 (lb/yd3) of concrete; and
A
weight of aggregate, kg/m3 (lb/yd3) of concrete.
Workability
Cellular concrete in the low-density range (less than 800 kg/m3
(50 lb/ft3)) is a flowable material with excellent workability. As
a result, it is handled as a liquid and poured or pumped into
place without the need for consolidation. It should be pointed
out that the slump test, which is used to measure the consistency
in normal weight concrete, is meaningless in the case of cellu-
lar concrete since the material is placed in fluid consistency.
Thermal Conductivity
The thermal conductivity (k) of a material is the time rate of
transfer of heat by conduction, through a unit thickness, across
a unit area for a unit difference of temperature. The units of k
are watts/meter-Kelvin or W/mK (BTU in./h ft2 °F). The ther-
mal conductivity of cellular concrete is primarily a function of
its oven-dry density and is measured by means of the Guarded
Hot Plate (ASTM C 177). Detailed studies were conducted to
evaluate the thermal properties of cellular concretes of various
 FOUAD ON CELLULAR CONCRETE 565

Fig. 1—Relationship between thermal conductivity and Fig. 2—Approximate relationships between density and
oven-dry density for cellular concretes over the entire den- compressive strength for different types ofcellular concretes
sity range [9,17]. [9].

low densities [22]. Figure 1 shows the relationship of thermal tapped with a rubber hammer while the mold is being filled.
conductivity to oven-dry density for cellular concretes over the Using a vibrating table to vibrate the molds lightly may also be
entire density range [9,17]. The thermal conductivity increases used in preparing the test specimens [6].
with increase in moisture content and density, with approxi-
mately 5 % increase in thermal conductivity for each percent Tensile Strength
increase in density due to free moisture. The tensile strength of cellular concrete bears a similar rela-
tionship to the compressive strength as with normal weight
Compressive Strength concrete. Tensile strength is typically 10–15 % of the compres-
The principal factors affecting the compressive strength of sive strength. Since low-density cellular concretes have very
cellular concrete include cast density, cement content, water- low tensile strengths, adding fiber to increase the tensile
cement ratio, aggregate type and amount, special admixtures, strength is beneficial and usually cost-effective for specific
and curing conditions. Figure 2 shows approximate relation- applications. The splitting tensile strength is determined in
ships between density and compressive strength for different accordance with ASTM Standard Test Method for Splitting
types of cellular concretes, and Fig. 3 shows the relationship Tensile Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens (C 496).
for sanded cellular concrete mixtures at different water-
cement ratios. Similar curves can be developed for different
cement factors, water-cement ratios, and various ingredients or
admixtures. It should be pointed out that the compressive
strength of cellular concrete depends on both the water-
cement ratio and the air-cement ratio. The compressive
strength can increase when the water-cement ratio increases,
as long as there is a more significant reduction in the air-
cement ratio [19,23,24]. The compressive strength of neat-
cement cellular concrete was predicted by Hoff [25]. Other
studies also attempted to develop relationships between the
strength and mix proportions of cellular concrete [26,27].
The compressive strength for cellular concrete having an
oven-dry density not exceeding 800 kg/m3 (50 lb/ft3) should be
determined in accordance with ASTM Standard Test Method
for Compressive Strength of Lightweight Insulating Concrete
(C 495). For oven-dry densities greater than 800 kg/m3 (50
lb/ft3), it is recommended to determine the compressive
strength in accordance with ASTM Standard Specification for
Lightweight Aggregates for Structural Concrete (C 330), with Fig. 3—Compressive strength versus density for sanded
the exception that the sides of the cylindrical mold shall be cellular concrete mixtures at different water-cement ratios [9].
566 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
Shear Strength
Very limited data are available on the shear strength of cellu-
lar concrete. Tests of cellular concrete beams with cast density
ranging from 800 to 1440 kg/m3 (90–120 lb/ft3) have indicated
that the shear strength of such mixes may be estimated using
the ACI Code requirement for lightweight concrete [1]. Direct
shear tests of cellular concrete reinforced with polypropylene
fiber were also reported [18].
Modulus of Elasticity
The modulus of elasticity (Ec) of cellular concrete is a function
of its density and compressive strength. It is reasonable that
cellular concrete has a lower modulus of elasticity than con-
crete of the same density, but made with lightweight aggregate,
because the cellular concrete has a lower compressive
strength.
In a laboratory study [1] of modulus of elasticity of cellu-
lar concretes whose wet density varied from 1280 to 1872
kg/m3 (80–117 lb/ft3), the following equation was selected to
represent best the test results
Ec
W1.5  (37.04) 
f
c (N/m2)
or
Ec
(W1.5)  (28.6) 
f
c (lb/in2)
where
W
(wet density  80) kg/m3 or (cast density  5)
lb/ft3, and
fc
28-day compressive strength, MPa (lb/in.2).
It was also reported [6,19] that the ACI 318 Code equation for
the modulus of elasticity was applicable for cellular concretes
ranging in density from 368 to 1872 kg/m3 (23–117 lb/ft3).
Water Absorption
Cellular concretes have considerably higher water absorption
values than normal weight concretes, primarily due to the
lower density of cellular concrete. The consequence of water
absorption is a higher density. The amount of water absorbed
by cellular concrete varies not only with the density of the ma-
terial but also with the quality of the mixture ingredients—
specifically, the cement, supplementary cementitious materials
(if used), and preformed foam concentrate. Some concentrates
do not produce a discrete cell structure within the cement ma-
trix. This may be related to the chemistry of the ingredients,
their dilution rate, their method of generating foam, or their
expansion pressure.
If a preformed foam is not able to withstand the rigors
of batching, mixing, and placing (usually by pumping), the
cell structures of the mixture will interconnect resulting in
channels for high water absorption. Lower quality concen-
trates require more mixture water that evaporates during
hardening and leaves more pore spaces. Supplementary
cementitious materials may decrease the amount of water
absorbed because their smaller particles fill available spaces
between cement particles.
Water absorption may be measured in three different
ways: 24-h immersion, long-term immersion (120 days), and by
tide cycle. In each case, the specimen is weighed prior to test-
ing. At each interval of testing, the sample is reweighed and
compared to the initial condition. The increase in density is the
water absorption and may be expressed as a percentage by vol-
ume or a percentage of the initial weight or density. Express-
ing water absorption as a percentage by volume more accu-
rately reflects the effect of sample size, density, and the surface
area to volume relationship.
Drying Shrinkage
The drying shrinkage of cellular concrete is not usually critical
when it is used in roof deck insulation and fill applications. It
should be considered, however, in structural applications. The
drying shrinkage of moist-cured cellular concrete may vary
from 0.1 to 0.6 %, depending on the composition of the mix-
ture and whether or not aggregates are used.
Fire Resistance
Cellular concrete is incombustible and has excellent fire re-
sistance properties as compared to normal weight or light-
weight aggregate concrete. Fire tests conducted on concrete
slabs made of different types of concretes demonstrated a su-
perior performance for low-density cellular concrete [28–30].
Highest fire endurance ratings were achieved at the lower den-
sities, and as the density increased, a decrease in the fire en-
durance resulted for each type of concrete. Fire tests were con-
ducted in a manner very similar to ASTM Standard Methods of
Fire Tests of Builiding Construction and Materials (E 119).
Freeze-Thaw Resistance
Cellular concrete is usually covered by roofing material such
as hot mopped asphalt or pitch, and therefore not exposed di-
rectly to the elements. Nevertheless, cellular concrete has good
freeze-thaw resistance because of its high air content and its
relatively high-cement content. Although its water absorption is
high, the rate of water penetration through cellular concrete is
low as the larger pores will not fill by suction. In the case of di-
rect exposure to severe freezing and thawing environments,
cellular concrete surfaces must be treated for protection.
Energy Absorption
Low-density cellular concretes possess excellent deformation re-
sistance properties because of their cellular structure and their
ability to absorb loads and crush in a controlled manner. The
absorbed energy is greater at lower densities that can withstand
more deformation before “bridging and locking” of the material
occurs. Zollo and Hays [18,31,32] studied the impact and energy
absorption capabilities of fiber-reinforced cellular concrete pan-
els. Their work showed that high energy rapid rates of loading
produced only localized damage, which was attributed in part to
the fibers and in part due to the low-density void structure of the
cellular concrete matrix. Also, panels subjected to high energy
impact using small caliber hand guns at close range showed that
the bullets were captured within the panel after penetrating to
approximately two-thirds of the depth.
Walkability
The ability of a low-density cellular concrete roof deck or floor
to sustain normal construction foot traffic without damage is
an important factor and often referred to as “walkability.” It
can be judged by examining the surface distress such as foot-
prints caused by normal foot traffic. Walkability improves with
increased density. If heavy construction traffic (such as wheel-

barrow, scaffolds, material storage, etc.) is expected, the sur-
face of the concrete should be protected by wooden boards or
other means.
Nailability and Sawability
Low-density cellular concrete can be sawn, and it holds nails. It
can be worked like wood. Nailing is important in the case of at-
taching roofing to the cellular concrete deck. Nailing within
seven days of concrete placement is desirable. In general, the
lower the density, the better the nailability and sawability of the
material [5,33].
Applications
Cellular concrete can be used in a wide variety of applications
[8,23,34]. The vast number of applications is due to the ability
to control the density of the material. Typical applications in-
clude: fills for thermal and sound insulation of floors, walls,
and roofs; cast-in-place walls, floors, and roofs; precast wall and
floor panels; and as a low-density engineered fill for use in a va-
riety of geotechnical applications. Specialized applications
such as protective structures for advanced military weapons,
fragmentation shields, blast attenuating walls, and tunnel lin-
ings were discussed in detail by Hoff [35,36]. The U.S. Depart-
ment of Energy reported on a new innovative void-filling tech-
nology using low-density cellular concrete [37]. The technology
entails filling the voids of nuclear vessels with a fluid low-den-
sity cellular concrete, which would support the walls of the ves-
sels and prevent them from collapsing, even if they degrade.
Only a few of the most commonly used applications are dis-
cussed in this chapter.
Floor Fills
Floor fill mixtures are job-site produced from a sand/cement
grout at 1600–1760 kg/m3 (100–110 lb/ft3) having a cement
content of 256–298 kg/m3 (564–658 lb/yd3). Preformed foam is
added to the sand/cement grout. This grout is pumped into
place over wood-frame construction that is typically wood
joists and a plywood subfloor. The floor fill is cast 3.8 cm (1.5
in.) thick, the dimension of a standard wood bottom plate. The
purpose of floor fill is to provide fire resistance and sound at-
tenuation characteristics to floor/ceiling systems.
Floor fill mixtures may also be cast on top of precast con-
crete units for leveling the camber of these members to pro-
vide a flatter floor. Floor fills are occasionally cast over corru-
gated steel decks 38–51 mm (1.5–2 in.) thick above the top of
the flutes. Fire ratings exist for many of these constructions.
Cellular concrete floor fills are very effective in floor re-
habilitation for the renovation of older buildings. It levels the
floors of these structures while minimizing added dead load.
For thick fills, lighter materials can occupy much of the vol-
ume and then be topped with the cellular concrete floor fill. In
floor rehabilitation, cellular concrete floor fills are cast over a
variety of floor substrates such as concrete, wood, terrazzo,
wood sleepers and cinder fill, tile, etc. Each application must
be analyzed on its individual requirements.
Roof Deck Fills
The largest single use of low-density cellular concrete is for in-
sulating roof deck fills. The roof deck system over which the in-
sulating cellular concrete is cast generally becomes a permanent
part of the structure. Roof deck applications for new construc-
tion are typically cast over galvanized steel decking (corrugated
or fluted) to provide improved fire ratings, additional seismic re-
FOUAD ON CELLULAR CONCRETE 567
sistance, thermal insulation, and a slope-to-drain roof deck. The
finished deck is then covered with a waterproofing membrane.
Substrates such as concrete (precast or cast-in-place) and wood
decking are also common for this application.
The typical mixture utilizes a predetermined quantity of
foam added to a cement/water slurry resulting in a density of
480–640 kg/m3 (30–40 lb/ft3). Expanded polystyrene insulation
board (EPS) is often included in a sandwich construction over
the structural deck. This involves filling the steel deck flutes or
otherwise casting the slurry on to the deck and laying the EPS
board in the slurry so that it is “cemented” or bonded to the
structural deck. It is then topped with the final cellular con-
crete roof deck fill resulting in a slope-to-drain surface ready
for the membrane roofing.
Cellular concrete is an excellent material for reroofing ap-
plications. If the existing roofing is not removed, the existing
structure must be checked for its ability to support additional
load. The sloping roof deck usually incorporates EPS board
sandwiched within the fill. If the existing roofing system is wet
or damaged, those portions must be replaced or repaired prior
to casting the cellular concrete. This solution provides positive
drainage for “ponded roof decks” and protects and preserves
the insulation system for future reroofing.
Standard roofing membranes are used over cellular con-
crete roof decks. These include built-up systems as well as sin-
gle-ply membranes such as ethylene propylene diene monomer
(EPDM), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polyisobutylene (PIB), and
modified bitumens. It is not the purpose of this chapter to
discuss these roofing membrane systems further.
Engineered Fills
Cellular concretes provide alternate solutions to standard geo-
technical procedures. In many cases, engineered fills can eco-
nomically replace common geotechnical solutions such as pil-
ing, removal and replacement of poor soils, surcharging, and
bridging over poor soils to name a few. In most applications
load balancing or weight credit techniques are combined
within the engineered fill solution. For example, to reduce the
load over poor soils, it is advantageous to remove part of the
existing soil, typically weighing 1920 kg/m3 (120 lb/ft3), and re-
place it with 480 kg/m3 (30 lb/ft3) cellular concrete. Thus, for
every unit of soil removed, four units of cellular concrete can
raise the elevation without additional load.
The excellent flow characteristics of cellular concrete and
the fact that it does not require the compaction required by
granular fills are major advantages in these applications. Each
application is unique and must be considered on its individual
merits. Common applications include roadway rehabilitation,
bridge approaches, fills behind retaining walls, load-reducing
fills over structures, and various pipeline and culvert applica-
tions [37].
Precast Elements
Precast cellular concrete elements may be produced from spe-
cially designed mixtures; however, they are not commonly
used due to the low strength and high drying shrinkage of
moist cured low-density cellular concrete. Autoclaved aerated
concrete (AAC) is more suitable for manufacturing precast low-
density blocks and steel-reinforced panels that have structural
properties. In AAC, autoclaving (which is steam curing under
pressure and high temperature) is employed to provide the ma-
terial with improved structural properties and dimensional
stability. Although this chapter does not address AAC, it is
568 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
worth noting that ASTM has been active since the early 1990s
in developing standards for this material, and currently two
ASTM subcommittees C 27.60 “Precast Autoclaved Aerated
Concrete” and C 15.10 “Autoclaved Aerated Concrete Masonry”
are active in producing standards for AAC. Currently published
standards are ASTM Standard Specification for Precast Auto-
claved Aerated Concrete (PAAC) Wall Construction Units (C
1386) and ASTM Standard Specification for Reinforced Auto-
claved Aerated Concrete Elements (C 1452).
Quality Control and Testing
Field quality control procedures for cellular concrete involve
measuring the wet density of the material at the point of place-
ment and comparing this density with the design wet density
of the mixture. Slight adjustments in the mixture may be nec-
essary to bring the wet density within the specified range. If
batching, mixing, and placing procedures are consistent, the
material should have only minor deviations in density.
The physical properties of cellular concrete are closely re-
lated to the mixture design parameters such as cement content,
water-cement ratio, and the quality of other ingredients such as
sand gradation, and the use of supplementary cementitious
materials. The physical properties of the mixture are repro-
ducible within acceptable limits.
The actual quality control procedure involves securing
cylindrical test specimens from the measured wet density at
the point of placement. After a few days, these samples are
moved from protection at the casting location to the laboratory
for subsequent curing and compressive strength testing. Com-
pressive strength and density are the primary indicators of mix-
ture quality. Properties such as permeability, freeze-thaw re-
sistance, and water absorption correspond to these measured
parameters—strength and density.
Summary
Cellular concrete has a variety of unique properties that
makes it suitable for a large number of specialized applica-
tions. The ability to introduce a large volume of macroscopic,
discrete air cells uniformly distributed throughout the matrix
is the key factor that provides cellular concrete with its dis-
tinctive properties. Whenever a lightweight, inert, insulative,
and cost-effective material is desired, it is possible that a spe-
cific density and mixture of cellular concrete could be de-
signed for the application.
Cellular concrete has many potential new applications. Al-
though it has been used in construction for over 50 years, new
materials and innovative mixture proportions will make it a vi-
able option for a broader range of applications. There are sig-
nificant opportunities for expanding existing applications, as
well as continuing research into new areas such as specialized
material performance properties.
References
[1] Legatski, L. M., “Chapter 48 — Cellular Concrete,” ASTM STP
169B, Significance of Tests and Properties of Concrete and
Concrete-Making Materials, ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 1978, pp. 836–851.
[2] Legatski, L. A., “Chapter 49 — Cellular Concrete,” ASTM STP
169C, Significance of Tests and Properties of Concrete and
Concrete-Making Materials, ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 1994, pp. 533–539.
[3] Neville, A. M., Properties of Concrete, 3rd ed., John Wiley and
Sons, New York, NY, 1994.
[4] Mindess, S., Young, J. F., and Darwin, D., Concrete, 2nd ed.,
Prentice Hall, Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2003.
[5] “Guide for Cast-in-Place Low-Density Concrete,” ACI Commit-
tee 523, ACI 523.1R-92, American Concrete Institute, 1992.
[6] “Guide for Cellular Concretes Above 50 pcf, and for Aggregate
Concretes Above 50 pcf with Compressive Strengths Less Than
2500 psi,” ACI 523.3R-93, ACI Committee 523, American
Concrete Institute, 1993.
[7] “Guide for Cast-in-Place Low-Density Concrete,” ACI Commit-
tee 523, ACI 523.1R-92, American Concrete Institute, 1992.
[8] Lightweight Concrete, ACI SP-29, D. P. Jenny and Albert Litvin,
Co. Eds., American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI, 1971.
[9] Special Types of Concrete, Report Number IS183.03, Portland
Cement Association, Skokie, IL, 2002.
[10] Fouad, F. H., “PAAC — A New Precast Product in the U.S.,”
Manufactured Concrete Magazine, Winter 1998.
[11] Autoclaved Aerated Concrete, Aroni, S., de Groot, G. J.,
Robinson, M. J., Svanholm, G., and Wittman, F. H., Eds., London,
E and FN Spon, 1993.
[12] Bave, G., “Regional Climatic Conditions, Building Physics and
Economics,” Autoclaved Aerated Concrete, Moisture and
Properties, Folker H. Wittman, Ed., The Netherlands: Elsevier
Scientific Publishing Company, 1983.
[13] Dubral, W., “On Production and Application of AAC
Worldwide,” Advances in Autoclaved Aerated Concrete, Folker
H. Wittman, Ed., The Netherlands: RILEM, 1992.
[14] Portland Cement Association, “Autoclaved Cellular Concrete—
the Building Material of the 21st Century,” Concrete
Technology Today, Vol. 12, No. 2, July 1991.
[15] Fouad, F. H. and Dembowski, J. G., “Autoclaved Aerated
Concrete: An Experimental Program For Establishing A New
Building Product In The U.S.A,” Conference Proceedings of the
Fifth Alexandria International Conference of Structural and
Geotechnical Engineering, Alexandria, Egypt, December 2003.
[16] “Guide for Structural Lightweight Aggregate Concrete,” (ACI
213R-87) (Reapproved 1999), ACI Committee 213, American
Concrete Institute, 1999.
[17] Steiger, R. W. and Hurd, M. K., “Lightweight Insulating
Concrete for Floors and Roof Decks,” Publication #C780411,
The Aberdeen Group, 1978.
[18] Zollo, R. F. and Hays, C. D., “Engineering Material Properties of
a Fiber Reinforced Cellular Concrete,” ACI Materials Journal,
Vol. 95, No. 5, September–October 1998, pp. 631–635.
[19] McCormick, F. C., “Rational Proportioning of Preformed Foam
Cellular Concrete,” ACI Journal, Vol. 64, No. 2, February 1967,
pp. 104–110.
[20] Benjamin, I. A., “Cast-in-place Low Density Concrete in Roof
Decks,” ACI SP-29, Lightweight Concrete, American Concrete
Institute, Detroit, MI, 1971, pp. 133–146.
[21] Reichard, T. W., “Mechanical Properties of Insulating
Concrete,” ACI SP-29, Lightweight Concrete, 1971, pp. 253–316.
[22] Valore, R. C., Jr., “Cellular Concretes,” ACI Journal, Proceedings,
Vol. 50, No. 9, May 1954, pp. 773–796; and No. 10, June 1954,
pp. 817–836.
[23] Nehdi, M., Khan, A., and Lo, K. Y., “Development of De-
formable Protective System for Underground Infrastructure Us-
ing Cellular Grouts,” ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 99, Septem-
ber–October 2002, pp. 490–498.
[24] Tam, C. T., Lim, T. Y., and Lee, S. L., “Relationship Between
Strength and Volumetric Composition of Moist Cured Cellular
Concrete,” Magazine of Concrete Research, Vol. 39, No. 138,
March 1987, pp. 12–18.
[25] Hoff, G. C., “Porosity-Strength Considerations for Cellular
Concrete,” Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 2, No. 1,
January 1972, pp. 91–100.
[26] Nehdi, M., Djebbar, Y., and Khan, A., “Neural Network Model
for Preformed-Foam Cellular Concrete,” ACI Materials Journal,
Vol. 98, September–October 2001, pp. 402–409.

[27] Narayanan, N. and Ramamurthy, K., “Prediction Relations for
Compressive Strength of Altered Concrete,” ACI Materials
Journal, Vol. 97, May–June 2000, pp. 367–373.
[28] “Fire Resistance of Architectural Precast Concrete,” PCI
Committee on Fire, Prepared by Armand H. Gustaferro,
Journal of the Prestressed Concrete Institute, Vol. 19, No. 5,
September–October 1974.
[29] Gustaferro, A. H., Abrams, M. S., and Litvin, A., “Fire
Resistance of Lightweight Insulating Concretes,” Research and
Development Bulletin No. RD004B, Portland Cement Associa-
tion, Skokie, IL, 1970.
[30] Gustaferro, A. H., Abrams, M. S., and Litvin, A., “Fire Resistance
of Lightweight Insulating Concretes,” Lightweight Concrete, SP-
29, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI, 1971, pp. 161–180.
[31] Hays, C. D. and Zollo, R. F., “Testing Applied to the Evaluation
of Damage to FRC and Other Material Systems Caused by Large
Missile Impact to Building Envelopes During Storm Events,” ACI
SP-155, Testing of Fiber Reinforced Concrete, American
Concrete Institute, 1995, pp. 217–232.
FOUAD ON CELLULAR CONCRETE 569
[32] Zollo, R. F. and Hays, C. D., “Habitat for Fiber Reinforced
Concrete,” Concrete International, Vol. 16, No. 6, June 1994,
pp. 23–26.
[33] Lewis, D. W., “Lightweight Concrete and Aggregates,” Signifi-
cance of Tests and Properties of Concrete and Concrete-Making
Materials, ASTM STP 169B, ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 1978, pp. 503–524.
[34] LaVallee, S., “Cellular Concrete to the Rescue,” Publication
#C99A039, The Aberdeen Group, 1999.
[35] Hoff, G. C., “New Applications for Low-Density Concretes,” ACI
SP-29, Lightweight Concrete, American Concrete Institute,
Detroit, MI, 1971, pp. 181–220.
[36] Hoff, G. C., “Low Density Concrete Backfills for Lined Tunnels,”
ACI SP 29, Lightweight Concrete, American Concrete Institute,
Detroit, MI, 1971, pp. 221–251.
[37] “Low-Density Cellular Concrete Void Filling,” DOE/EM-0458,
Innovative Technology Summary Report, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Office of
Science and Technology, August 1999.
48
Concrete for Radiation Shielding
Douglas E. Volkman1
Introduction
History and Responsibilities
SUBCOMMITTEE C09.41 IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ASTM
standards dealing with concrete for radiation shielding. This
concrete systems subcommittee is assigned the charter of es-
tablishing and maintaining the standards needed for regulation
of pertinent radiation shielding materials used in concrete. The
predecessor subcommittee, designated C09.02.08, was estab-
lished as a result of a joint symposium conducted by ASTM and
the American Nuclear Society in 1965. Results of three years of
study by this subcommittee led to the development of ASTM
standards as noted:
• Specification for Aggregates for Radiation-Shielding Con-
crete (C 637)
• Descriptive Nomenclature of Constituents of Aggregates
for Radiation-Shielding Concrete (C 638) [1]
Preplaced-aggregate concrete is a method used to make
very dense and uniformly consistent radiation barriers. Sub-
committee C09.41 is responsible for the preplaced-aggregate
concrete standards in addition to ASTM C 637 and ASTM C
638. The designation and titles for these standards are as
follows:
• Specification for Grout Fluidifier for Preplaced-Aggregate
Concrete (C 937)
• Practice for Proportioning of Grout Mixtures for
Preplaced-Aggregate Concrete (C 938)
• Test Method for Flow of Grout for Preplaced-Aggregate
Concrete (C 939)
• Test Method for Expansion and Bleeding of Freshly Mixed
Grouts for Preplaced-Aggregate Concrete in the Labora-
tory (C 940)
• Test Method for Water Retentivity of Grout Mixtures
for Preplaced-Aggregate Concrete in the Laboratory
(C 941)
• Test Method for Compressive Strength of Grouts for
Preplaced-Aggregate Concrete in the Laboratory (C 942)
• Practice for Making Test Cylinders and Prisms for Deter-
mining Strength and Density of Preplaced-Aggregate Con-
crete in the Laboratory (C 943)
• Test Method for Time of Setting of Grouts for Preplaced-
Aggregate Concrete in the Laboratory (C 953)
1
Technical Staff Member, University of California, Los Alamos National Laboratory, MS-K718, Los Alamos, NM 87545.
570
Radiation Shielding Primer
Beginning with the early days of the nuclear industry, concrete
has been used as a radiation shield because its mechanical
properties, chemical composition, and ease of construction
make it compatible for withstanding imposed service de-
mands. Concrete can even be enhanced as a shielding material
with the use of special additives and aggregates to provide spe-
cific attenuation characteristics. In order to establish a firm ba-
sis for using the materials mentioned in ASTM C 637 and
C 638, knowledge of radiation concepts is essential for design-
ers. Basic concepts, consisting of selective nuclear physics to-
gether with applicable material properties and interactions,
are developed. Building from this foundation of understand-
ing, the significance of the tests and specifications needed to
make concrete for radiation shielding is evident.
Pertinent Atomic Structure and Physics
All elements consist of unique configurations of atoms. To
maintain the electrical stability of atoms, a certain number of
positively charged particles, called protons, are balanced by an
equal number of negatively charged particles, called electrons.
In addition to protons and electrons, an atom has some num-
ber of neutrally charged particles, neutrons, associated with a
particular element. Fundamental to the structure of any par-
ticular element, atoms are uniquely configured with the same
number of protons for each element, but they may contain a
variable number of neutrons. Like elements with differing neu-
tron counts are called the isotopes of the element. The neu-
trons and protons are bound into a tight mass at the center of
the atom, called the nucleus. Essentially, the entire mass of an
element is concentrated in the nucleus of its atom. Electrons
are also bound to the atom, but they orbit the nucleus in a set
pattern of separate levels or shells. Electrons contribute virtu-
ally no mass to the atom of an element.
There are two important concepts to keep in mind with the
preceding model of the atom. First is the enormous volume of
empty space that is contained within the atom. As an example,
think of children playing on the beach. One is holding a large
plastic beach ball with both arms, while the other cradles a sin-
gle grain of sand in his palm. Now visualize the grain of sand
centered inside the beach ball. If the grain of sand is thought to
 VOLKMAN ON CONCRETE FOR RADIATION SHIELDING 571

TABLE 1—Number of Atoms in 4000 psi (27 580 kPa) Concrete

Element Unit Weight Proportions Grams per cm3 Atoms per gram Average Atoms per cm3

Si 1234.16 0.7322 2.14452E
22 1.57022E
22

Al 125.36 0.0744 2.23227E
22 1.66081E
21
Fe 59.46 0.0353 1.07852E
22 3.80718E
20
Ca 311.95 0.1851 1.50282E
22 2.78172E
21
Mg 23.65 0.014 2.47809E
22 3.46933E
20
S 7.09 0.0042 1.87837E
22 7.88916E
19
Na 35.09 0.0208 2.61986E
22 5.4493E
20
K 45.84 0.0272 1.54048E
22 4.1901E
20
Ti 5.36 0.0032 1.25828E
22 4.02649E
19
P 1.30 0.0008 1.94455E
22 1.55564E
19
H 15.84 0.0094 5.97579E
23 5.61724E
21
O 1846.50 1.0955 3.76452E
22 4.12403E
22

be of comparable size to the nucleus of an atom, then the plas-
tic covering of the beach ball can be thought to represent the
electron orbits of the atom. The second important understand-
ing regarding atoms is the enormous number of them con-
tained in matter. Table 1 provides a listing of elements and the
number of atoms per cubic centimeter for normal weight con-
crete used at Los Alamos National Laboratory.
Light elements, so called because their atoms are com-
posed of the fewest number of protons, have very stable nu-
clei. At the opposite end of the spectrum, heavy elements,
which contain large numbers of protons, are somewhat un-
stable. This is because heavy elements are composed of an
increasingly larger numbers of neutrons, compared to the
proton count in the nucleus. Subsequently, this high ratio of
neutrons to protons creates the potential for instability as
contrasted by the light elements. The structure of the nucleus
of heavy elements is so configured to afford sufficient volu-
metric separation of the individual protons to accommodate
the forces perpetuated by the positive charges of those parti-
cles. For a comparison of light and heavy elements, hydrogen
contains one proton and no neutrons, while uranium-235 con-
tains 92 protons and 143 neutrons [2]. Instability in the nu-
cleus of an atom, particularly large ones, necessitates particle
matter or energy, or both, to be released from the atom to
achieve a more stable configuration. This process of altering
atoms to achieve stability is called radioactivity. If the ra-
dioactive particles or energy have the ability to interact and
alter the structure of atoms of biological tissue, this is called
ionizing radiation. Only ionizing radiation needs shielding,
and the two major categories are as follows:
• Electromagnetic waves
• Nuclear particles [1]
Ionizing electromagnetic waves consist essentially of
X-rays and gamma rays. Gamma rays are similar to X-rays but
are usually thought to have higher energy levels (more cycles
per second). To understand the significance of ionizing elec-
tromagnetic waves, consider a sampling of the non-ionizing
electromagnetic spectrum:
• Electricity has a frequency of 60 cycles/s (Hz) and a wave-
length of 5000 km (3100 miles)
• AM radio waves have frequencies of 1 000 000 Hz and
wavelengths of 300 m (1000 ft)
• Microwaves have frequencies of 2 540 000 000 Hz and
wavelengths of 12 cm (5 in.)
In contrast, ionizing electromagnetic waves, such as X-rays,
have a frequency starting at around 1 000 000 000 000 000 Hz
and a wavelength of 100 nm [3]. Gamma rays are different from
X-rays because the source of X-rays is external to the nucleus,
while gamma rays are generated from the nucleus. At high en-
ergy levels, electromagnetic waves predominately display parti-
cle characteristics, rather than just wave-like phenomena. The
particle component of electromagnetic waves is called a pho-
ton, and this term is essentially interchangeable with x-rays and
gamma rays.
Nuclear particles, such as alpha, beta, and neutron, con-
stitute ionizing radiation too. Other nuclear particles exist, but
the three listed particles are representative of the usual type of
ionizing radiation requiring shielding [4].
Alpha particles consist of positively charged helium atoms.
During the decay of certain atoms, such as plutonium-239 into
the more stable state of uranium-235 [2], emission of pairs of
protons and neutrons (He

) occur. A stable, zero charge he-
lium atom consists of two protons, two neutrons, and two or-
bital electrons. During radioactive decay, the helium atomic
nucleus, without orbital electrons, is released. This type of ra-
dioactive emission defines alpha particles.
Beta particles consist primarily of negatively charged elec-
trons that are emitted from the nucleus of an atom. Sometimes
a beta particle is released as a short-lived positive electron
(positron), which quickly annihilates in the electric field of
matter. As an example of beta radiation, consider the decay of
phosphorous-32. A neutron in the atom decays into a proton
and an electron. A forced release of the electron from the nu-
cleus occurs, and the proton count of the atom increases by
one to 16. This spontaneous stabilization process transforms
the element into sulfur-32 [2].
Neutron particles are released during spontaneous or in-
duced fission. These particles are important in maintaining the
fission process by striking other potentially unstable atoms and
creating a chain of fission activity. Notable neutron sources for
instigating fission activity are beryllium and its alloys. These
materials are excellent participants to initiate chain reactions
because the low neutron binding energy of beryllium provides
a ready source of neutrons to encourage this process [5]. In
572 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
addition to fission, scientific accelerators produce beams of
neutron particles for a variety of experimentation purposes.
Radiation from these processes must be shielded to address
health, safety, and environment issues.
Generally, there are three types of neutron particles of in-
terest in radiation shielding. They are grouped according to the
level of kinetic energy associated with the particle. Slow neu-
trons are referred to as thermal neutrons and have associated
energy levels less than 0.5 electron volts (eV). Intermediate or
epithermal neutrons have kinetic energy in the vicinity of 5000
eV. Fast neutrons have kinetic energy levels exceeding 500 000
eV [6].
Physical and Biological Perspective
Any material of sufficient thickness can be used as shielding
against alpha, beta, neutron, and gamma radiation. Alpha and
beta particles are deflected and absorbed by interacting with
the electrical charges of the atoms comprising matter. In con-
trast, gamma rays are absorbed by the interaction with orbital
electrons of atoms. Increasing the mass of a shielding material
is the most effective method of increasing the probable inter-
action with orbital electrons. As with gamma rays, the electri-
cally charged particles of atoms do not affect neutrons.
Instead, these particles collide inelastically or elastically with
the nuclei of heavy or light atoms, respectively.
Shielding is required to protect people and the all-
encompassing environment from the effects of radiation. Both
nonpenetrating and penetrating radiation can ionize or break
the bonds of atoms in human body cells. However, nonpene-
trating radiation is only a biological threat if the particles are in-
troduced internally, while penetrating radiation constitutes a
biological threat from sources external to the being. Radiation
exposure effects on humans consist of radiation sickness,
cataracts, sterility, genetic mutations, coma, cancer, and death—
depending on the amount and length of time of the exposure.
Penetrating radiation consists of gamma rays and neutrons. This
type of radiation can penetrate the body and damage the atoms
of cells composing the various organs [4].
Radon gas is an example of naturally occurring non-
penetrating alpha and beta radiation [7]. Alpha particles can-
not penetrate human skin, but they are harmful if ingested.
Although beta particles can penetrate and damage human skin,
betas cannot penetrate body organs, unless ingested. Numer-
ous newspaper accounts describe radon contamination of
houses. This occurs because plumes of radon gas exist in-situ
in the ground. These deposits develop as by-products from the
decay of naturally occurring radioactive materials. Because of
its gaseous form, this type of radiation is easily inhaled into the
lungs where it will damage tissue. Although the floor of a house
is capable of shielding against radon radiation, penetrations
through the floor, such as for utilities, will allow the gas to mi-
grate into occupied space.
Shield Mechanics
Radiation shields are designed and constructed to capture all
primary and secondary radiation emitted by a source. Design
of shielding focuses on the radiation requirements for neu-
trons and photons. Recall a previous statement that atoms have
vast amounts of empty space within their confines. Conse-
quently, neutral radiation particles and energies will simply
pass through most atoms but eventually will make an impact.
Therefore, the mechanics of a shield can be viewed, funda-
mentally, as the probabilistic occurrence that a neutron or pho-
ton will interact with a sufficient number of atoms, which will
deflect, slow, and absorb the particles, without leakage of sec-
ondary radiation. Attenuation is best explained by following
the hypothetical path of a high energy neutron and photon
through a shield, although an actual shield will attenuate enor-
mous numbers of radioactive particles, not just one. The fol-
lowing descriptions highlight the shielding evolution for neu-
trons and photons.
Neutron Attenuation
A radiation source emits a fast neutron into its concrete shield.
Heavy materials, such as magnetite or steel, contain large nu-
clei from iron, which are big targets for emitted neutrons. Such
materials are often used in concrete shields to increase the
probability that the neutron will collide rapidly and multiple
times in its path through the shield. Simply stated, the chance
of hitting the big atom of a heavy element is much greater than
hitting a small atom of a light element. The fast neutron im-
pacts and bounces off the nucleus in a process called inelastic
scattering. The neutron particle remains an entity from this
type of collision, but photons are released from the interaction.
Energy loss occurs as a result of numerous interactions as the
deflected travel path slows the neutron.
Eventually, the neutron slows enough for the physics of
another attenuation mechanism to prevail. Intermediate en-
ergy neutrons have a propensity for retention in the nucleus of
atoms. Light elements, such as hydrogen, are particularly adept
at retention of neutrons in this energy range. However, the
neutron retention is not an absorption process because the
particle impacts the receptive nucleus with sufficient energy to
cause the release of another neutron from that nucleus. The
newly emitted neutron has significantly lower energy. Attenua-
tion by this type of interaction is called elastic scattering. An
abundance of hydrogen in a radiation shield increases the
probability that elastic scattering will occur quickly after neu-
trons attain intermediate energy levels.
Slow, low energy, thermal neutrons are absorbed by im-
pacting the nucleus of an atom. The neutron is retained in the
nucleus, and binding energy is released as secondary gamma
radiation. Now, though, the target atom has an increased neu-
tron count, making it an isotope of the element. The isotope
may be in an unstable configuration, causing it to quickly de-
cay into two different, more stable elements. Consequently, if
a radiation shield contains certain elements, such as boron,
that increase the probability of quick absorption, shield thick-
ness can be reduced.
Photon Attenuation
Photon attenuation is attained from different processes from
those described for neutron particles. Interaction with dense
materials is the key for optimum photon attenuation. In con-
crete, very heavy (dense) elements, such as contained in mag-
netite or steel, are most important for shielding purposes.
Dense elements consist of large atoms that have numerous
shells of orbital electrons. The physical size, number of orbital
electrons, and influence of the electrostatic field between the
charged particles significantly increase the probability that
photons will attenuate quicker with heavy elements. Three at-
tenuation mechanisms are important in stopping photons.
Pair production attenuates photons through the proximity
of the nucleus and the electrical (Coulomb) fields of the atom
 VOLKMAN ON CONCRETE FOR RADIATION SHIELDING
[2]. In this process, the photon enters the electrostatic influ-
ence of the atom and disintegrates into two electrons of oppo-
site charge. The positive electron, or positron, is anti-matter. It
annihilates quickly, forming low energy photons. The physics
of pair production is the predominant process of attenuation
for high-energy photons with an atom [8].
A scattering attenuation mechanism involves photon inter-
action with an orbital electron of an atom. This effect is called
Compton scattering. In this process, the impact between the pho-
ton and the orbital electron dislodges the electron from its shell
in the atom. The result of this interaction causes the photon to
deflect and to lose energy. This is the most significant attenuation
mechanism of medium energy gamma rays, which can be gen-
erated as secondary radiation from thermal neutron capture [8].
Absorption of low energy photons occurs through photo-
electric effect. As with Compton scattering, the photon inter-
acts with an orbital electron of an atom. In this process, the
energy of the photon is completely dissipated by first, breaking
the electron free of its atomic shell, and second, by imparting
all remaining energy to the expelled electron [2].
Terms for Shield Design Calculations
Of the numerous material properties and constants associated
with shield design, two fundamental terms are selected for dis-
cussion. Knowledge of these terms is important to enhance
communication exchanges between people in the concrete in-
dustry with clients or designers in the nuclear industry.
Scattering Cross Section
The scattering cross section is a function representing the
probability that a neutron or a photon will be scattered by in-
teracting with an atom of an element. Scattering cross sections
are an expression of the sum of the scattering attenuation
mechanisms inherent in and characteristic of a particular ele-
ment. The scattering cross sections of some typical elements
commonly found in concrete shields are listed as follows:
• Hydrogen, 99.0 barns
• Oxygen, 4.2 barns
• Boron, 4.0 barns
• Silicon, 1.7 barns
• Iron, 11.0 barns
• Barium, 8.0 barns [9]
An element, such as hydrogen, which has a large scatter-
ing cross section, is most beneficial when used as an elastic
scattering material. Large, heavy elements, such as iron, are
important for inelastic scattering of neutrons.
For gamma radiation, dense aggregates consisting of
heavy elements are the best concrete materials to scatter and
reduce the energy. Typically, steel, iron, and iron ores (such as
magnetite, barites, ilmenite, and hematite) are used as dense
aggregates in concrete for this purpose. The final density and
homogeneous nature of the concrete is more important than
the particular set of heavy aggregates used. For all practical
purposes, thickness of concrete shields is proportional to the
density of the mix [1].
Absorption Cross Section
The absorption cross section is the material property represent-
ing the probability that a neutron or photon will be absorbed
by interaction with an atom of an element. Absorption cross
sections are an expression of the sum of the absorption attenua-
573
tion mechanisms inherent in and characteristic of a particular
element. The absorption cross sections of some typical elements
commonly found in concrete shields are listed as follows:
• Hydrogen, 0.3 barns
• Oxygen, 0.0 barns
• Boron, 755.0 barns
• Silicon, 0.2 barns
• Iron, 2.5 barns
• Barium, 1.2 barns [9]
An elemental isotope, such as boron-10, has a very large
absorption cross section and releases low energy gamma rays
as secondary radiation. The properties of boron-10 are highly
valued as a shielding material.
For photons, absorption occurs through the interaction
with an orbital electron of a target atom. Dense materials con-
sisting of heavy elements are the best materials to control
gamma-ray energy. For concrete mixes, steel, iron, and iron
ores (such as magnetite, barytes, ilmenite, and hematite) are
used to increase mix density for shielding. The final mix den-
sity, rather than any particular heavy aggregate used, is the
most important aspect of gamma radiation shield design.
Concrete Materials
Normal-weight concrete consists of cement, water, sand, and
coarse aggregate. The addition of natural or manufactured
minerals, in the form of sand and coarse aggregate, can alter
the composition of normal-weight concrete into an efficient ra-
diation shielding material. This conglomeration of materials
results in a concrete mix consisting of both light and heavy ele-
ments as is required to achieve an effective radiation barrier.
Proper mixing and placement of the concrete is essential to
make the barrier as homogenous as possible.
Natural Minerals to Enhance
Shielding Attributes
Heavy, natural minerals used in concrete for radiation shield-
ing consist of magnetite (elemental composition Fe2O3  FeO
with a specific gravity ranging from 4.6 to 5.2 [10]), ilmenite
(FeO  TiO2), barite (BaSO4), hematite (Fe2O3) [11], and
witherite (BaCO3) [10]. These aggregates are substituted
for usual concrete aggregate to obtain a high-density concrete
matrix. Such a radiation barrier is effective at scattering
high-energy neutrons, as well as scattering and absorbing
photons.
Light, natural materials used in concrete for radiation
shielding consist of serpentine (3MgO  2SiO2  2H2O), goethite
(Fe2O3  H2O), limonite (Fe2O3  XH2O, also referred to as im-
pure goethite, with a specific gravity ranging from 3.5 to 4.5
[10]), as well as colemanite (2CaO  3B2O3  5H2O [11]). These
materials are known as hydrous aggregates. Their use in con-
crete enhances the hydrogen content of the shield. Hydrous
aggregates moderate neutrons through elastic scatter and also
absorb lower energy neutrons.
Caution must be exercised in working with some of these
special shielding minerals. For instance, serpentine contains
asbestos, a known carcinogen.
Manufactured Aggregates to Enhance
Shielding Attributes
Manufactured products used for gamma shielding typically
consist of ferrophosphorous (FeP or Fe2P or Fe3P), iron or
574 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE

TABLE 2—Aggregates Used in Shielding Concrete [1]

Natural Mineral Manufactured

Local sand/gravel Crushed aggregate

calcareous (2.5–2.7) a heavy slags (~5.0)
siliceous ferrophosphorous (5.8–6.3)
basaltic (2.7–3.1) ferrosilicon (6.5–7.0)
Hydrous ore Metallic iron products
bauxite (1.8–2.3) sheared bars (7.7–7.8)
[15–25 %] b steel punching
serpentine (2.4–2.6) iron or steel shot (7.5–7.6)
[10–13 %]
goethite (3.4–3.8)
limonite [8–12 %] c
Heavy ore Boron additives
barite (4.0–4.4) boron frit (2.4–2.6)
magnetite c ferroboron (5.0)
ilmenite (4.2–4.8) borated
diatomaceous
hematite (4.6–5.2) earth (
1.0)
witherite (4.3) boron carbide (2.5 to 2.6)
calcium boride 2.5
Boron additives
calcium
borates
borocalcite
colemanite (2.3–2.4)
gerstley (2.0)
borate

a
Specific gravity is shown in ().
b
Water of hydration is indicated in [].
c
Refer to chapter section on Concrete Materials

steel shot, and steel punchings [11]. Ferrophosphorous is a by- Densities

product from the production of phosphorous. Because of its Standard heavyweight concrete, using natural iron ore aggre-
poor attributes as a concrete aggregate, such as degradation, gate, can achieve densities up to 3850 kg/m3 (240 lb/ft3) [1].
caution is advised in using this material [10]. Barite, magnetite, and ilmenite are the traditional materials
Boron frit consists of the fritted product of silica (SiO2) used for this endeavor. Table 3 lists concrete densities attain-
with borax (Na2B4O7  10H2O) [11], as well as ferro boron. able using heavy aggregate in the mix. Manufactured iron and
Boron carbide (B4C) and calcium boride (CaB6, with a specific steel aggregates are used to achieve concrete densities greater
gravity of 2.5) are manufactured products that are efficient for than 4000 kg/m3 (250 lb/ft3) [1].
neutron absorption. Table 2 lists these aggregates along with
the density of each material.
Irradiation Effects
There are damaging effects to concrete used as radiation bar-
riers from the scattering and absorption processes. Irradiation
of concrete causes dissociation of water into its hydrogen and
TABLE 3—Densities of Shielding Concretes oxygen components. Compressive and rupture strengths both
Commonly Specified for Given Heavy Aggre- decrease with time due to radiation exposure and high tem-
gates [1] perature, although the effect is tolerable under normal reactor
conditions [12].
Type of Aggregate Density, lb/ft3 Density, kg/m3
Ontario Hydro Research Division researched the effects of
Barite 3450 to 3600 215 to 225
radiation exposure on concrete. A nuclear power plant, which
Magnetite 3500 to 3750 220 to 235 had been operating for over 20 years, was studied. Concrete
Ilmenite 3500 to 3850 220 to 240 core samples from the shielding of this plant were obtained and
Ferrophosphorus 4550 to 4800 285 to 300 tested for physical and thermal properties. The results from this
Barite and boron additive 3200 to 3450 200 to 215 testing were compared with the test results of samples from the
Magnetite and boron 3350 to 3600 210 to 225 original construction, as well as laboratory test specimens.
additive A summary of some of the findings of this research follows:
1. The average compressive strength of the 20-year-old heavy-
weight concrete in the reactor shield increased in the same
 VOLKMAN ON CONCRETE FOR RADIATION SHIELDING
progression from the radiation source through the shield.
The samples, taken closest to the radiation source, showed
compressive strengths 10 to 20 % less than the samples ex-
tracted on the farthest face from the radiation source.
2. The modulus of elasticity of the concrete shield also dis-
played variations (approximately 10 %) between samples
on the farthest face compared with samples closest to the
radiation source.
3. The thermal diffusivity, which helps explain the rate at
which a material undergoes temperature change, and
the thermal conductivity, which is a measure of heat trans-
fer through a material, were roughly 30 % less for the
20-year-old heavyweight concrete shield samples as com-
pared with the laboratory-tested heavyweight concrete
specimen [13].
Temperature Effects
Concrete used in a nuclear reactor to shield the core may lose
up to 50 % of its compressive strength when it is exposed to
temperatures of 430°C (800°F) for a long period of time. For
high temperature applications, concrete should be made with
heat-resistant aggregates to prevent excessive compressive
strength loss and to avoid dehydration. If shielding requires ag-
gregates high in fixed water, subjecting the concrete to lower
temperatures would be important. Limonite dehydrates above
200°C (400°F), while serpentine can withstand temperatures
up to 370°C (700°F) [1].
In general, nuclear and mechanical properties are affected
by both temperature gradients and changes in temperatures.
Research indicates the maximum temperature occurs in the
first 30 cm (12 in.) from the exposed face of concrete subjected
to a radiation flux. For concrete shields functioning at temper-
atures less than 105°C (220°F), free water will be present in the
concrete for 10 to 20 years. As a worst-case scenario, thermal
effects from radiation have caused as much as two-thirds of the
total original water content to be lost over the useful life of the
concrete shielding [14]. To prevent excessive water loss from
occurring as a result of high temperatures, it is common to in-
crease the water-cement ratio (w/c) of the concrete in the ini-
tial construction of the shield. Of course, higher w/c ratios
must be monitored so satisfactory performance for strength is
not sacrificed.
Placement and Verification Considerations
Normal-weight concrete, with no special aggregates or addi-
tives, is satisfactory to shield any nuclear radioactive source.
However, high-energy gamma rays and neutrons from a reac-
tor or accelerator may require concrete masses that are pro-
hibitive in size. Facility designs may impose space constraints
on the design of the shield. These types of constraints necessi-
tate the use of special shielding materials to increase effective-
ness. However, these special materials also increase the cost of
shields through both higher material costs and the expense
associated with construction. For instance, the mixing and
placing operations are more difficult because the very heavy
aggregates or the special fine aggregates make uniformity
harder to achieve when compared with the construction prac-
tice for normal concrete. Therefore, specifications for the ma-
terial components and the construction of the concrete should
be written specifically for each shielding job. The specification
writer should have knowledge of cost of the various materials
available for shielding and the difficulties involved in con-
575
structing the shield with these materials. The following are
comparative costs for general categories of concrete shields:
• High density, natural mineral, 3.0 times the cost of normal
concrete
• High density, manufactured aggregate, 4.0 to 9.0 times the
cost of normal concrete
• High hydrogen content, 1.3 times the cost of normal
concrete [15]
These values must be considered “Ball Park” values be-
cause material and labor costs fluctuate, competitiveness of
contractors varies, and other factors such as material availa-
bility may affect cost.
Shield verification practice for nuclear facilities should
follow good engineering practice and include documented
procedures. One such process, used at the Idaho National
Engineering Laboratory, was established to verify the integrity
of a concrete shield. It incorporates the use of a test radiation
source. The verification process starts with a visual inspection
of the shield. All shield penetrations and other deficiencies
need to be recorded in a log, so further testing with the test ra-
diation source can follow. The test radiation source should be
sufficiently large to emulate actual operating conditions of the
facility. Radiation flux through the shield is then measured,
recorded, and compared with calculated values. In this way
shielding deficiencies can be corrected during facility con-
struction without impacting construction schedules [16].
ASTM Standards
Cast-in-Place or Precast Concrete for
Radiation Shielding
Cast-in-place concrete for radiation shielding or precast con-
crete shield blocks should comply with normal-weight ASTM
concrete standards, as amended by ASTM C 637 for aggregates.
ASTM C 638 is useful as a supplement to ASTM C 637, because
it provides specific descriptions of special aggregates used in
concrete for radiation shielding. The following paragraphs
briefly summarize the two standards.
ASTM C 637
This standard is a specification of fine and coarse aggregates
specifically used in concrete for radiation shielding. Composi-
tion, specific gravity, grading, fixed water content, deleterious
substances, and abrasion resistance test requirements are
listed, as well as requirement exceptions for the various refer-
enced ASTM Standards. Natural and synthetic mineral aggre-
gates are covered by this specification.
A key provision of the specification is the requirement for
uniformity on specific gravity and fixed water content. There is
a 3 % limitation on the variation of bulk specific gravity of the
sample, while hydrous aggregate must not fall more than 5 %
below the minimum specified.
ASTM C 638
Descriptions of the various fine and coarse aggregates specifi-
cally used in concrete for radiation shielding are presented.
This standard is useful to obtain an understanding the specific
aggregate components used in concrete shielding. Specifically
covered are iron minerals and ores, barium minerals, fer-
rophosphorus, boron minerals, and boron frit glasses. The
nomenclature defers to ASTM C 294, Standard Descriptive
Nomenclature for Constituents of Concrete Aggregates for the
common components of concrete.
576 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
Preplaced-Aggregate Concrete for
Radiation Shielding
Preplaced-aggregate concrete has commercial applications be-
yond concrete for radiation shielding. Therefore, this topic is
covered in a separate chapter within this publication. For radi-
ation shielding usage, preplaced-aggregate concrete is used
when very heavy-weight concrete, greater than 4000 kg/m3 (250
lb/ft3) is required for shielding radiation, or when an especially
high level of uniformity of the mix is needed. [17]. Special forms
are utilized in which reinforcing steel and mix aggregates are
initially placed, then pressure grout fills the voids to make a ho-
mogeneous, dense concrete shield. The precise location of these
components and the stringent inspection requirements guar-
antee a shield of uniform matrix, unmatched by normal-weight
concrete placement techniques. The following ASTM standards
deal specifically with making preplaced concrete.
ASTM C 937
This is a specification for fluidifier used in grout to enable the
grout to maintain fluid characteristics while reducing water.
Fluidifier is used in preplaced-aggregate concrete where a very
dense concrete is required. This standard covers physical re-
quirements, composition, sampling, and test methods for the
fluidifier.
ASTM C 938
This practice describes the method of testing required to select
correct mix proportions for grout used in preplaced-aggregate
concrete. Materials, sampling, and procedures are covered.
ASTM C 939
This test method establishes the time of efflux for grout
through a standard flow cone in order to determine the fluid-
ity of the grout for preplaced-aggregate concrete. It may be per-
formed in the laboratory or the field. Calibration of apparatus
and procedures are presented.
ASTM C 940
This test determines the amount of expansion exhibited by
freshly mixed hydraulic-cement grout over a period of time.
Also, the amount of bleed water, or the free water that rises to
the top of grout, is determined. In general, minimization of ex-
pansion and bleeding characteristics of preplaced-aggregate
concrete improve shielding effectiveness.
ASTM C 941
This test method measures the property of freshly mixed
hydraulic-cement grout to retain mixing water. This is used to
qualify fluidifiers or to determine the effects of admixtures in
grout for preplaced-aggregate concrete.
ASTM C 942
This test method provides a measure of the compressive
strength of hydraulic-cement grout, which has expansive capa-
bility but hardens in conditions that tend to restrain expansion.
This test also measures the effect of the fluidifier on the
compressive strength of the grout for preplaced-aggregate
concrete. Temperature, humidity, sampling, preparation of
specimen, and procedure standards are covered.
ASTM C 943
This practice covers procedures for making standard test
cylinders and prisms for preplaced-aggregate concrete. It fol-
lows the process used in the field to construct preplaced-
aggregate concrete. The cylinders are used to determine com-
pressive strength, while the density is calculated from prism
measurements.
ASTM C 953
This test is essential to determine the setting time of grout, as
well as the acceptability of components of grout mixed to fluid
consistency for use in preplaced-aggregate concrete. Appara-
tus, sampling, and procedures are presented.
Conclusions
ASTM has been active in preparing and maintaining standards
for concrete used in radiation shielding. Subcommittee C09.41
and its predecessor C09.02.08 have been given the task to per-
form this service.
Ionizing radiation is a biological hazard requiring shield-
ing. Neutrons and photons are emitted radiation for which
shields are typically designed. Although neutron and photon
radiation attenuate differently, concrete is an excellent mate-
rial to capture both.
Normal-weight concrete provides good radiation shielding
characteristics, but altering the constituents of the mix can op-
timize the shielding properties. The use of iron, steel, or iron
ore for aggregates produces a heavyweight concrete that is
most suitable to shield electromagnetic radiation or to scatter
fast neutrons. The presence of hydrogen in a shield is impor-
tant to moderate neutrons. Hydrogen is abundant in concrete
because of mixing water. The amount of fixed water in con-
crete can be supplemented by the use of hydrous aggregates,
which contains high amounts of fixed water. A boron aggre-
gate additive can be mixed in the concrete to enhance absorp-
tion of thermal neutrons.
Concrete shields are constructed using standard cast-
in-place concrete techniques or by using preplaced-aggregate
construction methods. The preplaced-aggregate concrete is
normally used to ensure density and uniformity requirements
of a shield.
Acknowledgments and Disclaimer
Pioneers in the field of concrete for radiation shielding, Milos
Polivka, Harold Davis, Katherine Mather, John King, Alfonso
Wilson, and Dean Keller, made immense contributions to the
technical subject matter, enabling the development of this
chapter. Furthermore, technical resources provided by
Thomas Brown and Alice Slemmons, as well as the support
provided by my boss, David Padilla, and administrative staff,
Louella Kissane, are gratefully acknowledged.
The Los Alamos National Laboratory strongly supports ac-
ademic freedom and a researcher’s right to publish; therefore,
the Laboratory as an institution does not endorse the viewpoint
of a publication or guarantee its technical correctness. This
chapter is designated LA-UR-05-3520.
References
[1] Polivka, M. and Davis, H. S., 1978, “Radiation Effects and
Shielding,” Significance of Tests and Properties of Concrete and
Concrete-Making Materials, ASTM STP 169B, ASTM Interna-
tional, West Conshohocken, PA, 1978, pp. 420–434.
[2] Kaplan, M. F., 1989, Concrete Radiation Shielding, Longman Sci-
entific & Technical, Essex, England, pp. 8–28.
 VOLKMAN ON CONCRETE FOR RADIATION SHIELDING
[3] Moulder, J. E., 27 Feb. 2003 “Power Lines and Cancer FAQ 2),”
Electromagnetic Fields and Human Health, URL: http://www.
mcw.edu/gcrc/cop/powerlines-cancer-FAQ/toc.html, Medical
College of Wisconsin.
[4] HS Division of Los Alamos National Laboratory, Aug. 1991, Basic
Radiation Worker Training, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los
Alamos, NM.
[5] Jaeger, R. G., Ed., Engineering Compendium on Radiation
Shielding; Vol. II—Shielding Materials, Springer-Verlag, Berlin/
Heidelburg, 1975, p. 276.
[6] Volkman, D. E. and Bussolini, P. L., “Comparison of Fine Particle
Colemanite and Boron Frit in Concrete for Time-Strength Rela-
tionship,” Journal of Testing and Evaluation, Vol. 20, No. 1, Jan.
1992.
[7] Glen, H. M., “What is Nuclear Shielding?,” Civil Engineering, Amer-
ican Society of Civil Engineers, New York, Aug. 1951, pp. 31–33.
[8] Callan, E. J., “Concrete for Radiation Shielding,” Concrete for Ra-
diation Shielding, American Concrete Institute, Detroit,
1962, pp. 12–13.
[9] Jaeger, R. G., Ed., Engineering Compendium on Radiation
Shielding; Vol. II—Shielding Materials, Springer-Verlag,
Berlin/Heidelburg, 1975, p. 237.
577
[10] Kaplan, M. F., Concrete Radiation Shielding, Longman
Scientific & Technical, Essex, England, 1989, pp. 80–110.
[11] Jaeger, R. G., Ed., Engineering Compendium on Radiation
Shielding; Vol. II—Shielding Materials, Springer-Verlag,
Berlin/Heidelburg, 1975, pp. 87, 136–167.
[12] Jaeger, R. G., Ed., Engineering Compendium on Radiation
Shielding; Vol. II—Shielding Materials, Springer-Verlag,
Berlin/Heidelburg, 1975, p.116
[13] Mukherjee, P. K., “Properties of High-Density Concrete,” Jour-
nal of Testing and Evaluation, Vol. 20, No. 1, Jan. 1992.
[14] Jaeger, R. G., Ed., Engineering Compendium on Radiation
Shielding; Vol. II—Shielding Materials, Springer-Verlag,
Berlin/Heidelburg, 1975, p. 94
[15] Jaeger, R. G., Ed., Engineering Compendium on Radiation
Shielding; Vol. II—Shielding Materials, Springer-Verlag,
Berlin/Heidelburg, 1975, pp. 247–249.
[16] Oswald, A. J. and Shaffer, J. F., “Shield Verification Testing at
the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant-Fuel Processing Facility,”
Journal of Testing and Evaluation, Vol. 20, No. 1, Jan. 1992.
[17] Jaeger, R. G., Ed., Engineering Compendium on Radiation
Shielding; Vol. II—Shielding Materials, Springer-Verlag,
Berlin/Heidelburg, 1975, p.169.
49
Fiber-Reinforced Concrete
Peter C. Tatnall1
Preface
IN PREPARATION OF THIS CHAPTER, THE CONTENTS
of the 4th edition were drawn upon. The author acknowledges
the author of the 4th edition, Colin D. Johnston. The current edi-
tion will review and update the topics as addressed by the pre-
vious author, introduce new technology that has been devel-
oped, and include up-to-date references.
Introduction
Fiber-reinforced concrete (FRC) in the context of this chapter is
conventionally mixed concrete containing discontinuous fibers
that initially are randomly oriented in three dimensions in the
mixture, but may subsequently become partially aligned by vi-
bratory consolidation, surface finishing, or shotcreting and by
geometrical constraints at mold surfaces, formwork, or inter-
faces with existing concrete, rock, or subgrade. The standards
applicable specifically to it are under the jurisdiction of ASTM
Subcommittee C09.42 on Fiber-Reinforced Concrete, but many
of the standards of ASTM Committee C9 on Concrete and Ag-
gregates may apply to FRC with or without modification.
Thin-section, glass fiber-reinforced, cementitious mixtures
that generally do not contain coarse aggregate and are pre-
pared by the spray-up or other special processes are not dis-
cussed. They are under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee
C27 on Precast Concrete Products and ASTM Subcommittee
C27.40 on Glass Fiber Reinforced Concrete Made by the Spray-
Up Process. Also excluded are glass fiber-reinforced mortars
for surface-bonded masonry that are under the jurisdiction of
ASTM Committee C12 on Mortars for Unit Masonry and ASTM
Subcommittee C12.06 on Surface Bonding.
Nature of FRC
A brief explanation of the nature of FRC insofar as it differs
from concrete without fibers is necessary to understand the ra-
tionale governing development of tests and the significance of
the properties determined in the tests.
Whether the fibers are steel, polypropylene, nylon, glass,
carbon, or other materials yet to be evaluated, they act like very
long slender needlelike particles in freshly mixed FRC. During
mixing, they are subject to bending, impact, and abrasion by
the action of conventional mixers, and must resist both dam-
age caused by breakage that produces shortening and, in the
1
Principal, Performance Concrete Technologies, 3800 Bays Ferry Trail, Marietta, GA 30062.
578
case of multifilament strands, separation that causes greatly
increased specific surface. The high specific surface of fibers,
either monofilaments or multifilaments, and the needlelike
shape, tend to impart considerable cohesion to FRC mixtures.
This makes the reduction in workability associated with adding
fibers to concrete appear very severe when judged under the
static conditions of the standard slump test. However, many
FRC mixtures with low slump flow quite easily when vibrated,
so workability tests that employ vibration to produce dynamic
conditions are often more appropriate than the standard
slump test because placement in practice normally employs
vibration.
The workability-reducing effect of fibers depends largely
on fiber content and fiber aspect ratio. Aspect ratio is the ratio
of fiber length to diameter, or equivalent diameter for fibers of
noncircular cross section, and is defined for fiber monofila-
ments like steel in the ASTM Specification for Steel Fibers
for Fiber-Reinforced Concrete (A 820/A 820M). Fiber content is
defined most conveniently in practice in kilograms per cubic
meter (lb/yd3) of concrete, but fundamentally it is the volume
fraction of fibers regardless of the density of the fiber material
that influences the effect of fibers in concrete. Both fiber con-
tent and aspect ratio are often limited by workability consider-
ations, although the advent of high-range water reducers has
helped to address this problem.
Aspect ratio and fiber content also figure prominently in
determining property improvements in hardened FRC. Ideally,
the aspect ratio should be as small as possible to minimize loss
of workability and as large as possible to maximize the resist-
ance of fibers to pullout from the matrix and thus their rein-
forcing effectiveness. The fiber content should be as small as
possible to minimize loss of workability and as large as possi-
ble to maximize reinforcing effectiveness.
What is possible in terms of miscibility, placeability, and
property improvements, is therefore a compromise that varies
widely with the nature of the proposed application. More than
1 % fibers by volume of concrete, 78 kg/m3 of steel, 9.1 kg/m3
of polypropylene (132 lb/yd3, 15.3 lb/yd3, respectively), is un-
common in conventionally mixed FRC or in fiber-reinforced
shotcrete. Steel fibers are quite widely used in slabs-on-grade at
as little as 0.25 % by volume, and microsynthetic fibers in slabs-
on-grade at as little as 0.1 % by volume. Aspect ratios for steel
and macrosynthetic fibers are generally 40 to 80, and usually
less than 100. Aspect ratio is not easily determinable for mi-
crosynthetic multifilament or fibrillated fiber types such as

polypropylene. Nominal length is generally 15–50 mm, and
rarely more than 65 mm.
Innovations in fiber development that combine reductions
in fiber length or aspect ratio, thus minimizing the workability-
reducing effect, with improvements in the resistance of the fiber
to pullout from the matrix, thus maximizing reinforcing effec-
tiveness in the hardened state, have taken place over the years.
Compared with fibers produced in the early 1970s, straight
smooth monofilaments of uniform cross section are now quite
rare. Examples of innovative techniques adopted specifically to
optimize fiber performance in both the freshly mixed and hard-
ened states are surface texturing, surface deformation (similar
to deformed rebar), hooked or enlarged ends, crimping to a
wavy rather than a straight profile, partial splitting (fibrillation)
to produce multifilament strands with cross links that separate
into branched monofilaments during mixing, and bundling of
fibers with a water-reactive glue or paper prior to separation in
the mixer. More recently, fiber blends (hybrids) consisting of ei-
ther combinations of different materials such as steel and
polypropylene, or combinations of macro and microfibers of
the same material have been introduced, as well as macrosyn-
thetic fibers which mimic the size and shape of steel fibers.
Fiber size determines the number of fibers per kilogram
or pound of their batch weight and their number per cubic me-
tre or cubic yard of concrete. For example, in five commer-
cially available types of steel fibers, the number varied from
4000 to 100 000/kg (1800 to 45 000/lb) [1]. For fibrillated or
monofilament polypropylene or nylon fibers, the real number
dispersed as monofilaments in freshly mixed concrete is diffi-
cult to determine because it depends on how completely the
bundles separate during mixing and what is their average
cross-sectional size, but are estimated in the tens of millions.
Obviously, the greater the number of fibers per unit volume of
concrete, the lesser the average spacing between them and
possibly the lower the probability of zones of weakness due to
fiber deficiency arising from nonuniform distribution. How-
ever, the true influence of fiber size and number per unit
volume on the performance of hardened FRC is uncertain.
Perhaps the only point of fairly universal agreement regarding
fiber size is that the fiber length should be at least as large as
the nominal maximum aggregate size.
Readers interested in more details regarding the nature of
FRC and the range of FRCs possible with different amounts
and types of fibers, together with their proven and potential
applications, should consult appropriate references [2–4].
Freshly Mixed FRC
Sampling and Consolidating Test Specimens
Sampling FRC mixtures for testing should be in accordance
with the ASTM Practice for Sampling Freshly Mixed Concrete
(C 172). Other sampling requirements specific to FRC are iden-
tified in the ASTM Test Method for Time of Flow of Fiber-
Reinforced Concrete Through Inverted Slump Cone (C 995),
the ASTM Test Method for Flexural Toughness and First-Crack
Strength of Fiber-Reinforced Concrete (Using Beam with
Third-Point Loading) (C 1018), and in the ASTM Specification
for Fiber-Reinforced Concrete and Shotcrete (C 1116). Most
important is the requirement that prohibits wet-sieving to re-
move large aggregate because of possible adverse effects on
fiber content and uniformity of distribution.
For consolidation of test specimens, vibration should be
chosen for FRC mixtures when ASTM standards permit a
TATNALL ON FIBER-REINFORCED CONCRETE 579
choice between rodding and vibration. When ASTM standards
for conventional concrete do not provide for vibration or re-
quire rodding, external vibration is preferable for FRC when
disturbing the natural fiber distribution may affect the test re-
sult. For example, uniform fiber distribution is important in
beams prepared according to ASTM C 1018 or ASTM C 1399,
so external vibration is required rather than internal vibra-
tion or rodding that may disrupt the fiber distribution. In
contrast, disturbing the fiber distribution is much less impor-
tant in, for example, air content or density tests, so internal
vibration is acceptable.
Workability
Adding fibers to freshly mixed concrete significantly alters its
behavior in terms of the three widely recognized rheological
parameters that determine workability; namely, stability,
mobility, and compactability [5]. Fibers impart considerable
stability or cohesion to FRC mixtures that may cause them to
appear unworkable when judged only in terms of slump, which
is a measure primarily of stability under static conditions. How-
ever, when properly proportioned, FRC mixtures flow readily
under the dynamic conditions produced by the internal or
external vibrators normally used for placement in practice.
Accordingly, they are satisfactory from the view point of mo-
bility. Consolidation is accomplished quite easily under vibra-
tion, indicating satisfactory compactability.
One test that assesses the workability of FRC under vi-
bration is the ASTM Test Method for Time of Flow of Fiber-
Reinforced Concrete Through Inverted Slump Cone (C 995).
It determines the time required for a sample of FRC to exit
the narrow end of an inverted slump cone after an internal
vibrator is inserted (Fig. 1). It was first recommended on the
basis of using readily available equipment (that is, a slump
cone, internal vibrator, and unit weight bucket) to develop a
test more appropriate for FRC than the slump test because
the slump of FRC mixtures is lower than that of conventional
concrete mixtures with the same time of flow (Fig. 1) [6]. The
test works well with steel or other rigid fibers, demonstrating
the effects of fiber content and aspect ratio quite clearly (Fig.
2) [7]. Inverted cone (I.C.) flow times in the range of 8–30 s
are appropriate for placement and consolidation by vibration
[7]. Times more than 30 s mean that the FRC will be very dif-
ficult to place and consolidate fully. Some types of long
(greater than 50 mm) flexible fibers like polypropylene may
tend to wrap around the specified 25-mm-diameter internal
vibrator, thus nullifying the validity of the test result. For
some mixtures rendered extremely cohesive by a high fiber
content, the internal vibrator may simply create a central
hole in the sample with the outer portions retained indefi-
nitely in the cone, again nullifying the validity of the test re-
sult. Otherwise, the test is a good indicator of the mobility of
FRC mixtures under internal vibratory conditions representa-
tive of placement in practice.
Another test that assesses workability under vibration is
the British Standard Test for the Vebe Time of Freshly Mixed
Concrete, BS 1881, Part 2. It is just as effective for FRC as for
low-slump and no-slump concretes without fibers. It measures
primarily mobility, but slight consolidation may occur during
the test implying secondary assessment of compactability. It is
as effective as ASTM C 995 in demonstrating the effects of fiber
content and aspect ratio on the workability of FRC with steel
fibers (Fig. 2). It is probably better for FRC mixtures with
long synthetic fibers or mixtures that are very cohesive, since
580 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE

Fig. 1—Inverted slump cone test with relationships between inverted cone time and
slump for FRC and plain concrete [6].

the test end-point can nearly always be reached even though
the vibration time may be abnormally large. Vebe times in the
range of 3–10 s represent adequate workability for placement
by vibration [7].
Both the inverted slump cone and Vebe test results corre-
late closely, and the essentially linear relationship passing
through the origin suggests that both are measuring primarily
the same rheological characteristic; namely, the mobility or
flow of FRC under vibration (Fig. 3, left ) [7]. In contrast, the re-
lationship between inverted cone time and slump is quite non-
linear (Fig. 3, right).
Both the inverted cone and Vebe tests are inappropriate for
higher workability FRC mixtures because the test times become
too short (less than 3 s) to be determinable with reasonable pre-

Fig. 2—Effects of fiber content and aspect ratio on slump, V-B time, and inverted
cone time [7].

Fig. 3—Relationships between inverted cone time and slump or V-B time for FRC with steel fibers [7].
cision. For the inverted cone, times less than about 8 s may not
provide valid results because the FRC may flow freely through
the cone. Consequently, slump may be the most practical alter-
native for such mixtures that produce flowing concrete.
Air Content, Yield, and Unit Density
Air content is just as important for the durability of FRC as for
conventional concrete. The standard pressure meter, C 231,
and volumetric techniques, C 173/C 173M, are applicable with
the modification to require consolidation by vibration when
slump is less than about 75 mm (3 in.) as provided in C 231.
Vibration may also be desirable for high fiber content mixtures
when slump exceeds 75 mm (3 in.) if rodding becomes difficult
or produces visibly unsatisfactory consolidation. The potential
for excessive entrapment of air due to incomplete consolida-
tion is greater for FRC mixtures than for conventional con-
cretes, especially at high fiber contents, and only complete
consolidation will ensure accurate assessment of entrained air
content, yield, and unit weight in ASTM Test Method for Unit
Weight, Yield, and Air Content (Gravimetric) of Concrete (C
138/C 138M), ASTM Test Method for Air Content of Freshly
Mixed Concrete by the Volumetric Method (C 173/C 173M),
and ASTM Test Method for Air Content of Freshly Mixed Con-
crete by the Pressure Method (C 231).
Fiber Content
Verification of the fiber content in freshly mixed FRC and its
variation from uniformity throughout a truck load or mixer
batch prior to placement, or throughout the end product
after placement, is a concern in quality control. Proper sam-
pling in accordance with ASTM C 172 and C 1116 is essential.
When the in-place uniformity of fiber content is to be deter-
mined, a statistically based sampling plan may be appropriate
using the principles given in the ASTM Practice for Examina-
tion and Sampling of Hardened Concrete in Constructions
(C 823).
In North America, the development of standard tests to
reliably establish fiber content and its uniformity has not been
considered a high priority because of the trend toward
performance-based specifications. However, the practice of us-
ing relatively low fiber contents of steel fibers (0.25–0.38 % by
TATNALL ON FIBER-REINFORCED CONCRETE 581
volume, 20–30 kg/m3 or 33–50 lb/yd3) in industrial floors that
originated in Europe and is now common in North America
has made this issue more important, particularly when large
fibers are used and the resulting number of fibers per unit vol-
ume of concrete is small. The practice of using very small fiber
contents of synthetic fibers primarily to control plastic shrink-
age cracking in slabs-on-grade that is now quite common in
North America also highlights the issue, particularly when
fiber contents are as low as 0.1 % by volume, (about 1 kg/m3 or
1.6 lb/yd3 of polypropylene or nylon).
For freshly mixed FRC, washout appears to be the sim-
plest, most direct, and therefore potentially the most accurate
method of determining fiber content and its variation within a
load or placement unit of FRC. The Japan Society of Civil
Engineers standards for testing steel FRC include a Standard
Method of Test for Fiber Content of Steel Fiber Concrete,
JSCE-SF7, which employs a washout procedure using a con-
tainer not less than 6 L (0.2 ft3) in volume [8]. The fibers are
collected after washout using a magnet. They are then weighed
to determine the weight per unit volume of concrete. An alter-
native procedure that indirectly determines the fiber content
of a 100 by 200 mm (4 by 8 in.) cylindrical sample in a non-
magnetic (paper or plastic) mold employs an electromagnetic
induction coil that surrounds the mold. Fiber content is pro-
portional to the induced current, and the standard requires cali-
bration of the apparatus with data obtained using the washout
procedure, as shown in Fig. 4 [9]. This procedure is obviously
inapplicable for stainless or other alloyed steel fibers that are
not magnetic.
Other types of fiber may in principle be isolated by
washout and collected by appropriate means, such as floata-
tion in water in the case of polypropylene or other fibers that
float. However, there is remarkably little information on this
subject.
For routine quality control, it is arguable that if fiber in-
ventory and concrete production are carefully monitored tests
for determining fiber content are no more necessary than tests
for determining the water and cement contents of conven-
tional concrete. However, when uniformity of distribution is
the concern rather than just the average fiber content, such
tests become necessary.
582 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE

control. The techniques developed to date are too complex or

unreliable, or both, but may when appropriately verified have
value for investigative purposes, just as the methods for deter-
mining the water content and cement contents of conventional
hardened concrete have value for investigative purposes but
not for routine quality control.

Mechanical Properties (Static Loading)

The role of fibers in hardened FRC is primarily to promote crack
distribution and reduce crack widths. Prior to the start of visible
and continuous cracking, fibers at the concentrations that are
normal in FRC (less than 1 % by volume of concrete) have little
effect on mechanical behavior. However, microcracking does
occur as the FRC is loaded, and there are characteristic levels of
load and deformation at which the FRC eventually starts to ex-
hibit cracks that are significant in continuity, visibility, total
length, and width. At this stage, the microcracks have become
Fig. 4—Steel fiber contents of freshly mixed FRC by macrocracks, and acoustic emission measurements confirm that
electromagnetic and washout techniques [8,9]. the maximum acoustic event rate corresponds closely to these
characteristic levels of load and deformation [14]. The condition
is termed “first crack” and is clearly identifiable for direct ten-
sion and flexure by a sharp reduction in stiffness (Fig. 5). For
compression, where the behavior of both matrix and FRC is of-
Hardened FRC
ten quite curvilinear, first crack is not easily identifiable, but the
use of fibers only in zones of compressive stress is usually of less
Fiber Content and Orientation
interest than in flexure, tension, or shear.
Verification of fiber content and its uniformity in hardened
FRC is possible for some fibers. The electromagnetic technique
standardized in JSCE-SF7 [8] is applicable to 100 by 200-mm
Strengthening
Below first crack and the associated values of load and defor-
(4 by 8-in.) cylindrical samples of hardened FRC, either molded
mation, matrix strength contributes substantially to composite
specimens or cores, but is of course limited to the magnetic
FRC strength and stiffness. For FRC in tension and flexure, first-
types of steel fiber. Nevertheless, the results are reported to de-
crack strength is a more important and meaningful parameter
pend somewhat on fiber orientation [8,9] and on proximity of
than the ultimate strength based on maximum load because it
the surrounding coil to the ends of the specimen [9]. The elec-
corresponds to a specific serviceability condition, that is, the on-
tromagnetic technique can also be employed using a conven-
set of macrocracking. In contrast, the maximum load and any
tional covermeter placed on a specimen surface [10]. Precast
strength based upon it can correspond to widely different
concrete products are monitored in this way in Sweden; how-
serviceability conditions in terms of deflection and cracking,
ever, account must be taken of the thickness of the section and
depending on whether the FRC exhibits strain-hardening or
the orientation of the fibers [10].
strain-softening (Fig. 5).
Fiber orientation and uniformity of distribution have been
Increases in first-crack strength attributable to fibers are
examined using X-ray radiography to produce visual images of
quite small for both flexure and direct tension, even at high
the arrangement of steel fibers in a planar cross section of FRC
fiber contents well above the 1 % maximum normally possible
[11,12]. Although apparently only employed with steel fibers,
in practice. For example, for direct tension, strength increases
this technique is applicable in principle to any composite
are also modest, only about 25 % for 1.5 % steel fiber content
where the fiber and matrix densities are significantly different,
even when the fiber aspect ratio is as high as 100, which is only
as between bone and flesh in the human body. It can be useful
in relating crack development under load to local deficiencies
in fiber content or to fiber orientation predominantly parallel
to the crack [12].
X-ray fluorescence spectrometry widely used for elemental
analysis of materials has been applied to determining the fiber
content of zirconia-based glass fibers in glass fiber-reinforced
cement [13]. The measurement was based on detection of zir-
conia present in a known amount in the parent glass, but there
were calibration problems attributed to the matrix and varying
water contents in the samples. Interferences from other trace
elements such as strontium in the cement are also possible. Nev-
ertheless, it appears that fibers containing known amounts of
elements having distinct radiation intensity bands not charac-
teristic of anything in the matrix may in principle be detected
and quantified in concentration using this technique.
Clearly, there are no techniques for determining the fiber
content of hardened FRC that are conveniently practical and Fig. 5—Load-deflection schematics for matrix and typical
reliable enough to be employed on a routine basis for quality FRCs in flexure.

Fig. 6—Strengthening effect of steel fibers in mortar for
direct tension [15,16].
possible using a mortar matrix (Fig. 6) [15,16]. Generally, in-
creasing the fiber content or aspect ratio are not nearly as ef-
fective as measures to improve matrix strength, for example,
the addition of silica fume (Fig. 7) [17]. Clearly, the first-crack
strength of FRC in tension or flexure is governed primarily by
matrix parameters rather than fiber parameters at the fiber
contents possible in concrete in practice.
For compression, the relationship between strength and
fiber content is not statistically significant (Fig. 8), confirming
the widely held view that fibers have minimal effect on com-
pressive strength. They affect only the strain-softening phase of
FRC behavior after the maximum load has been reached
(Fig. 8) [18]. Again, matrix strength as determined by matrix
parameters (like water-cement ratio, the presence of silica
fume, etc.) is the primary factor governing FRC compressive
strength.
Toughening
As the load-carrying capability of the matrix becomes progres-
sively reduced by macro-cracking, the behavior of the FRC
composite after first crack becomes largely attributable to load
carried by the fibers. Depending on fiber type, amount, and as-
pect ratio, it can vary over a wide range in terms of the degree
of strain-hardening or strain-softening that follows first crack,
Fig. 7—First-crack flexural strengths of FRC and matrix for
concretes with silica fume and 0.5 % steel fibers [17].
TATNALL ON FIBER-REINFORCED CONCRETE 583
Fig. 8—Typical stress-strain curves for FRC with steel fibers
in compression [18].
and in terms of the strength retained over any selected interval
of deformation (Figs. 5 and 8).
Toughness, which is determined largely from the area
under the stress-strain or load-deformation curve after first
crack (Figs. 5 and 8), is the characteristic of FRC that most
clearly distinguishes it from concrete without fibers. Its im-
portance is more difficult to relate to engineering design and
practice than, for example, flexural or compressive strength,
which have long been accepted as the basis for selecting al-
lowable concrete stresses in design and material acceptance in
quality control. It is qualitatively demonstrable by comparing
the flexural failure patterns of beams with and without fibers
(Fig. 9). This manifestation of toughness or energy absorption
capability is relevant in some engineering applications, such as
anticipated earthquake exposure where preservation of struc-
tural integrity even with severe damage is the primary concern.
In many other applications where the serviceability conditions
are less severe and catastrophic structural damage is not
anticipated, performance up to a specified permissible level of
serviceability in terms of deformation or cracking may be
more relevant. In such cases, retained strength at this service-
ability level may be a more useful and acceptable design crite-
rion than toughness. Accordingly, most of the standard tests
evaluate the toughening effects of fibers up to specified defor-
Fig. 9—Toughness of FRC in flexure compared with
plain concrete.
584 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
mation or load limits rather than to complete failure of the
test specimen.
Standardized Tests for Strength and
Toughness of FRC
Flexural performance receives the most attention because of its
relevance to many FRC applications, as in ASTM C 1018, ASTM
C 1399, ASTM C 1550, and the Japan Society of Civil Engineers
Method of Test for Flexural Strength and Flexural Toughness
of Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete, JSCE-SF4 [8]. Performance
in compression and shear receives less attention, but Japanese
standards exist for FRC with steel fibers [8]. They are the
Method of Test for Compressive Strength and Compressive
Toughness of Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete, JSCE-SF5, and
the Method of Test for Shear Strength of Steel Fiber Rein-
forced Concrete, JSCE-SF6.
With regard to evaluation of strength, these standards dif-
fer considerably in that the test result may be expressed as the
strength at first crack, or at the maximum load, or as an aver-
age over a prescribed strain or deformation interval. In some
of them, the rationale for determining strength after first crack
is questionable because load is converted to stress assuming
the material behavior is linear elastic, notably in flexure when
the maximum load is not reached until well after first crack
(Fig. 5) and material behavior is no longer linear elastic.
With regard to toughness, the standards differ in that the
test result may be expressed either simply as the area under the
load-deformation or stress-strain curve or as a toughness factor
or toughness index derived from portions of the area under
these curves. The problem with tests that determine only the
area under these curves is that the result is specimen-specific,
that is highly dependent on specimen size, shape, and loading
configuration. Consequently, the test result fails to characterize
material behavior in a manner conceptually independent of
specimen and testing variables, unlike, for example, compres-
sive strength that has the same significance (but not necessar-
ily the same value) whether determined on a 100-mm (4 in.)
cube or a 150 by 300-mm (6 by 12-in.) cylinder.
In most existing standards for toughness testing, the choice
of test end-point in terms of deformation or deflection is quite
arbitrary and therefore unrelatable to anticipated serviceability
conditions. However, in principle, the test end-point may be
specified to reflect one or more specific aspects of serviceability.
In general, these may be stated qualitatively as somewhere be-
tween the two extremes of “very small deformation/deflection
and very fine cracks permissible” (for example, in bridge decks
with deicer exposure) or “very large deformation/deflection and
very wide cracks permissible” (for example, in earthquake load-
ing of a structure or in shotcretes for tunnel or rock slope ap-
plications where short-term structural integrity is of paramount
importance). Naturally, there is the option to quantify them by
specifying numerical limits on deflection or crack width, or
both, anywhere within these qualitative extremes.
In the Japanese standard for flexural testing, JSCE-SF4 [8],
the test end-point deflection,
tb (Fig. 10), is specified arbitrarily
as 1⁄150 of the span. Therefore, there is no possibility of selecting
the test end-point to reflect anticipated serviceability condi-
tions. The specimen size, shape, and span limits (only two
square cross-sectional sizes, 100 or 150 mm (4 and 6 in.), and
spans, 300 or 450 mm (12 or 18 in.), permitted, depending on
fiber length) restrict the span-to-depth ratio to 3.0. Since the for-
mula for determining first-crack deflection shows that it is pro-
portional to L2/D where L and D are the beam span and depth,
Fig. 10—Toughness in flexure, JSCE-SF4 [8].
respectively, it follows that the test end-point deflection repre-
sented by L /150 is a fixed multiple of the first-crack deflection
(approximately 50 depending on the modulus of elasticity and
flexural strength of the matrix) so long as the span-to-depth ra-
tio, L /D, is fixed at 3.0 [19]. If L /D changes, the multiple changes
in inverse proportion to it, and the area, Tb (Fig. 10), and pa-
rameters derived from it do not have the same meaning in
terms of end-point serviceability from one specimen shape to
another and from one span to another. Consequently, the stan-
dard is not adaptable in principle to circumstances where the
minimum standard thickness of 100 mm (4 in.) or an L/D of
3.0 are not possible for practical reasons, as in thin specimens
representative of shotcrete or bridge deck overlays, or thick
specimens sampled from thick FRC placements like pavements.
The main parameter derived from Tb, the equivalent flexural
strength
TbL
b  
tbbD 2
is subject to the same limitations. It represents an average load
(Tb/
tb) for the whole deflection interval, comprising the seg-
ments both before and after first crack, converted to a stress
using the linear elastic formula for flexural stress. While the
load retained at or near a test end-point selected on the basis
of serviceability may be useful for design, it is difficult to ra-
tionalize how the overall average load can be of direct use in
design. Moreover, converting it to a stress using a formula that
is clearly invalid after first crack is analytically questionable.
Clearly, both Tb and   are specimen-specific parameters that
cannot reflect FRC material behavior independent of specimen
size, shape, and span.
The corresponding standard for compression, JSCE-SF5
[8], is much the same in principle with Tc measured to a limit-
ing deformation,
tc, corresponding to a strain of 0.75 %
(Fig. 11). An equivalent compressive strength
4Tc
c  
d 2
tc
is derived as the average load divided by the cylinder cross-
sectional area to convert it to a stress. Again, it is difficult to
rationalize how the overall average rather than the strength
retained at or near the test end-point can be useful in design,
but the conversion of load to strength is simpler and more
justifiable than for flexure.
The standard for shear, JSCE-SF6 [8], provides for double
shear of a prismatic specimen (essentially the same as the beams
of JSCE-SF4) using an appropriate specified apparatus (Fig. 12).

Fig. 11—Toughness in compression, JSCE-SF5 [8].
Shear strength is determined simply as load divided by cross-sec-
tional area. No measure of toughness is established in this test.
In the ASTM C 1018 standard for flexural testing of FRC,
material performance is characterized in terms of three pa-
rameters or sets of parameters defined to ensure in principle
their independence of specimen size, shape, span-depth ratio,
and loading configuration [19–21]. They are therefore equally
adaptable to test specimens representing thin- or thick-section
FRC construction. The rationale for defining these parameters
provides for selection of the test end-point deflection to reflect
a wide range of anticipated serviceability conditions (Fig. 13).
It also ensures that each parameter has a readily understand-
able meaning and significance relative to an established refer-
ence level of material performance, elastic-plastic (Fig. 13), typi-
fied by mild steel in tension. This is a level of performance to
which practicing engineers can easily relate, and one that is
readily achievable in FRCs with amounts and types of fibers
that produce superior reinforcing effectiveness, for example,
80 kg/m3 (135 lb/yd3) of HE 60 fibers in Fig. 14.
The first parameter of importance is the first-crack flex-
ural strength (Fig. 13), which is analogous to the yield point for
steel. It represents the maximum stress that can be sustained
without serious macrocracking and is largely dependent on the
matrix, as previously discussed (Fig. 7).
The second important set of parameters are toughness in-
dices, I5, I10, I20, etc. (Fig. 13), derived as the area under the
curve up to the specified end-point deflection divided by the
area up to first crack. The index subscript, the corresponding
end-point deflection, and the index value are related in such a
way that index subscripts and actual values correspond for the
elastic-plastic reference level of material performance, that is,
Fig. 12—Shear strength test, JSCE-SF6 [8].
TATNALL ON FIBER-REINFORCED CONCRETE 585
Fig. 13—Flexural toughness indices, ASTM C 1018 [21].
In  n (Fig. 13). Index values more or less than the subscript
value indicate the average slope of the curve and degree of
strain-hardening or strain-softening behavior observed after
first crack (Fig. 14). Performance differences attributable to
fiber type (Fig. 14) or amount [1] are clearly identifiable, for ex-
ample, in Fig. 14 between the HE 60 fibers with approximately
elastic-plastic behavior (I5  4.9, I20  20.4) and the MS fibers
with marked strain-softening (I5  3.8, I20  8.1).
The third important set of parameters are residual
strength factors, R5,10, R10,20, etc., derived directly from tough-
ness indices. They represent the average strength retained over
a specified deflection interval expressed as a percentage of the
first-crack strength and are derived so that elastic-plastic or
yield-like material performance corresponds to residual
strength factors of 100 and fully brittle material performance
after first crack to a factor of 0. They are non-dimensional as
derived, but are readily converted to a retained load capability
using the first-crack strength and its corresponding specimen-
Fig. 14—Influence of steel fiber type on ASTM C 1018
toughness indices for 750 by 150 by 100-mm beams [1].
586 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE

Fig. 15—Influence of steel fiber type and amount on ASTM C 1018 residual strength factors [1].

specific load. Thus, they have the potential for use in design stipulated in JSCE-SF4. Yet, they can have quite different per-
where serviceability limits have been established, and their sig- formance characteristics that are clearly distinguished by all
nificance is probably more easily understood by practicing en- ASTM C 1018 toughness parameters, except perhaps I5, as
gineers than toughness indices. They are probably most useful shown in Fig. 16, where the end-point deflection is 1⁄300 of the
for characterizing FRCs that exhibit sudden strain-softening span instead of 1⁄150 of the span as specified in JSCE-SF4.
followed by essentially plastic behavior (Fig. 5), where succes- In 1997 ASTM C 1018 was updated to require closed-loop,
sive factors, R5,10, R10,30, etc., remain approximately constant servo-controlled testing machines. In this setup, testing non-
and performance differences by fiber type or amount are fibrous concrete can result in significant values of I5, and
clearly distinguishable; for example, in Fig. 15 (left) between perhaps I10. For this reason the test method is being modified
equal amounts of HE 60 and HE 30 fibers and between to mediate this abnormality, and users are cautioned to use the
30 kg/m3 and 80 kg/m3 (50 lb/yd3 and 135 lb/yd3) of the same I5 and I10 values with this fact in mind until the update is
fiber. For FRCs characterized by gradual strain-softening published.
(Fig. 5), residual strength factors decrease with increase in de- Because ASTM C 1018 is a fairly expensive setup, with few
flection (Fig. 15, right), and are probably only useful for design commercial laboratories able to conduct the method, ASTM C
when deflection serviceability limits are known. 1399 was developed to provide a simpler method to determine
ASTM C 1018 requires reporting of first-crack strength; the post-cracking load carrying capability of FRC. ASTM C
toughness indices, I5 and I10; and residual strength factor, R5,10
as a minimum, and reporting of I20 and R10,20 is optional.
Testing to larger deflections as appropriate to anticipated serv-
iceability conditions is also recommended, and an appendix
provides the rationale for establishing appropriate toughness
indices and residual strength factors.
In Sweden, task groups dealing with industrial floor design
and shotcrete tunnel linings have prepared recommendations
giving values of residual strength calculated as the product of
first-crack strength and residual strength factors determined as
in ASTM C 1018 but on different specimen sizes. In Belgium,
the design of FRC slabs based on residual strength factors is also
being discussed [22]. In Canada, the ASTM C 1018 toughness in-
dices have been used in design in many FRC shotcrete projects
[23]. In Japan, the design of FRC with steel fibers is recom-
mended on the basis of minima for conventional flexural
strength and the equivalent flexural strength,  b [8].
When comparing the ASTM C 1018 and JSCE-SF4 stan-
dards, it is important to recognize that, in principle and in ex-
perimental reality (Fig. 16), it is possible to have two different Fig. 16—Equal toughness based on JSCE-SF4 [8] but not in
FRCs with the same Tb and b at the end-point deflection terms of ASTM C 1018 parameters [21].

1399 utilizes testing equipment normally found in most com-
mercial laboratories. The method conditions the specimen by
pre-cracking the beam specimen in a controlled manner. Then
a load-deformation curve is generated by testing the condi-
tioned specimen. An average residual strength is determined
from this curve, with the end-point deformation fixed. Com-
parison of results using this test method with residual
strengths at the same net deflections from Test Method C 1018
have been reported to be an average of 6.4 % lower than Test
Method C 1018 test results [24].
A more recent development is ASTM Test Method C 1550,
which assesses the toughness of a thin panel in terms of energy
absorption. The method was developed initially to monitor
performance of thin fiber reinforced shotcrete linings in un-
derground support applications such as deep hard rock mine
support, but is applicable to all fiber reinforced concretes.
Since this test method utilizes a “structure,” the method pro-
vides for scaling of results whenever specimens do not comply
with the target thickness and diameter within given limits, and
thus the results are specimen-specific. Toughness in this test
method is defined at various central deflections providing post-
cracking flexural behavior assessment for differing servicea-
bility criteria. Results of testing with this method have been
used to specify FRC requirements and to monitor FRC com-
pliance with construction specifications, and to compare
various fiber-reinforced concretes during the mixture propor-
tioning process or in research and development work.
Mechanical Properties (Dynamic Loading)
Single-Cycle, High-Rate Loading
Uses of FRC that involve resistance to explosives or earthquake
loading, or impacts on pavements and bridges due to vehicles
or aircraft, may justify impact testing. Weighted pendulum rigs
based on modified Charpy impact testers and instrumented
drop-weight arrangements with fast-response load and defor-
mation-measuring equipment coupled to appropriate data-ac-
quisition systems have been used in research to evaluate flex-
ural impact performance [25–27]. However, the experimental
complexity and expense of the instrumentation needed to elim-
inate the influence of extraneous energy losses mitigates
against widespread acceptance and routine use of such tests in
quality control of FRC. Furthermore, comparison of areas un-
der the load-deflection curves for impact and slow flexure
shows that the slow (static) flexure test provides a conservative
estimate of toughness determined in the more complex and ex-
pensive instrumented impact test (Fig. 17) [3,19,25–27]. Impact
values can exceed static test values by as little as 20–70 % [25]
up to as much as several hundred percent [27], reflecting the
widely different strain rates actually imposed by a diversity of
impact testing rigs, each with its own equipment-specific strain
rate. Strain-rate sensitivity of data may also be affected by the
rate sensitivity of the fibers, which probably is greater for
polymers like polypropylene than for metals like steel. These
factors make it unlikely that a fully instrumented impact test
will be standardized for FRC in the near future.
Multiple-Cycle High-Rate Loading
A form of empirical impact drop-weight test is described in ACI
544.2R [6], in which impact is recorded simply as the number
of blows sustained by the specimen to first crack or failure.
Determination of the energy actually absorbed by the speci-
men exclusive of extraneous losses to the support system is not
TATNALL ON FIBER-REINFORCED CONCRETE 587
Fig. 17—Energy absorption or toughness compared for
impact and slow flexure [19,24].
possible. This test was proposed as a standard by the ASTM
Subcommittee on Fiber-Reinforced Concrete, but was not ac-
cepted for several reasons, including its empirical nature and
its reportedly very poor precision.
Uses of FRC in airport and highway pavements subjected
to high-frequency traffic loading may justify flexural fatigue
testing. Again, the complexity and expense of the equipment
and the time needed to conduct such tests mitigate against
widespread acceptance and routine use in quality control.
Flexural fatigue tests in FRC have shown some benefits attrib-
utable to fibers in terms of stress or strength that are to some
extent equipment-specific because of differences in testing
variables such as reversing/non-reversing stress, stress range,
cycling rate, etc. (Fig. 18) [6,28–30]. Incorporating toughness
measurements into the test has been attempted [31], but adds
further to its complexity. The combined influence of all these
factors makes it unlikely that fatigue testing will be standard-
ized for FRC in the near future.
Resistance to Cracking
Cracking can develop in FRC either directly due to application
of load, or as a result of loss of moisture and associated differ-
ential shrinkage of the exterior of the FRC against restraint
provided by the relatively more moist interior.
Cracking Under Restrained Shrinkage
Most investigations have employed a steel ring or cylindrical
core around which the FRC is cast and against which it subse-
quently undergoes drying shrinkage [32–34]. Drying may take
place through all three exposed surfaces or may be restricted
to the outer one by applying sealant to the others. In all cases,
the number, width, location, and spacing of cracks are moni-
tored as drying progresses. Free (unrestrained) shrinkage
measurements on companion prisms tested according ASTM
Test Method for Length Change of Hardened Hydraulic Ce-
ment Mortar and Concrete (C 157/C 157M) are also possible.
Typical results show that fibers have much more effect on
crack development in the ring test than on free shrinkage (Fig.
19) [32]. Both effects increase with increase in fiber content
and aspect ratio (Fig. 19) [32,35]. Since the detection and meas-
urement of very fine cracks depends on the means of detection
and magnification available, the development of refinements
588 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE

Fig. 18—Flexural fatigue performance of FRC with steel fibers relative to first-crack strength and in terms of actual
stress [29].

incorporating laser holography for detection and high-power
microscopes for crack width measurement have facilitated
more comprehensive and reliable testing [34]. This has helped
to quantify the influence of fiber parameters and fiber proper-
ties such as modulus of elasticity, E, and frictional bond
strength, f , on cracking (Fig. 20).
In principle, the ring test can also be used to monitor the
plastic shrinkage and associated cracking that sometimes oc-
cur within a few hours of placement under adverse conditions
of temperature, humidity, and wind speed causing high surface
evaporation. Claims by manufacturers that fibers, particularly
small volumes of polypropylene or nylon fibers, are effective in
preventing this problem are questionable, and there is a need
for some form of standard test to confirm such claims [36]. In
addition to the ring test, alternatives that require further study
are slabs restrained at the edges or fitted with a centrally
placed cylindrical insert [37,38]. A standard to assess the
plastic shrinkage potential of restrained FRC slabs is being de-
veloped by the ASTM Subcommittee for Fiber-Reinforced
Concrete. It compares the area of cracking, determined as the
product of crack length times width, for fiber-reinforced and
unreinforced concrete slabs. It involves fan-forced air flow
over the surface of newly molded slabs under controlled con-
ditions of temperature and humidity sufficiently severe to
induce plastic shrinkage cracking. Recent results obtained with
this method using fibrillated polypropylene fibers of 13-, 19-,
and 51-mm (0.5-, 0.75-, and 2-in.) lengths in amounts of 0.05,
0.1, and 0.2 % by volume indicate that plastic shrinkage crack-
ing can be reduced from 20 to 90 %, but was not entirely elim-
inated under the conditions of the test (water-cement ratio 
0.48, relative humidity  40 %, and temperature  35°C
(95°F)) [39]. The best results were achieved using 0.2 % of 19-
and 51-mm (0.75- and 2-in.) fibers.
Cracking Under Load
Crack widths and spacings between cracks can be measured
quite easily with appropriate visual magnification of the
cracked surface; for example, on the tension face of a test
specimen loaded in slow flexure. Monitoring crack develop-
ment in this way makes it possible to quantify the ability of
fibers to control cracking in concrete, the third benefit im-
parted by them in addition to strengthening and toughening. It
also allows serviceability in terms of crack development to be
related to the end-point deflection selected in toughness tests,

Fig. 19—Free shrinkage and crack development under restrained shrinkage

in ring test for matrix and FRC with steel fibers [31].

Fig. 20—Crack development compared for 19-mm poly-
propylene and 25-mm steel fibers in ring test [33].
such as ASTM C 1018 and ASTM C 1550. However, monitoring
crack development is not part of the standards, and no com-
prehensive and conclusive data on the effects of fiber content
or type on crack development have yet been obtained, al-
though it seems reasonable to expect such effects from the ex-
ample shown in Fig. 21 [21].
Durability
No durability tests have been standardized specifically for FRC.
The durability of the matrix is assured if it meets the relevant
ASTM standards for conventional concrete subjected to freez-
ing and thawing, salt scaling, sulfate resistance, and aggregate
reactivity tests. Fiber-specific problems can arise in uncracked
FRC if the fibers are chemically incompatible with cement
paste or admixtures, and fiber compatibility tests for fibers that
may be suspect are being considered by the responsible ASTM
subcommittee. In cracked FRC, the fibers may deteriorate in
certain exposure environments.
The fibers commonly used in FRC, carbon-steel and
polypropylene, pose no problem in uncracked FRC, but, in
cracked FRC, steel fibers may rust if exposed to moisture and
air and polypropylene fibers may deteriorate if exposed to suf-
ficient ultraviolet radiation. Alloyed steels address the rusting
problem, and stabilizing additives may inhibit any ultraviolet
attack for polypropylene. As new fibers emerge, there is a need
Fig. 21—Crack development in the ASTM C 1018 flexure
test for two types of steel fiber [21].
TATNALL ON FIBER-REINFORCED CONCRETE 589
for vigilance and appropriate tests to avoid possible fiber-
specific durability problems, such as those that are now well
known for glass fibers and many natural cellulose-based fibers
and those that remain to be fully investigated for aramid,
polyester, nylon, and acrylic fibers [2,3,40]. In the absence of
an established satisfactory performance record, ASTM C 1116
requires credible evidence that unfamiliar fiber types will not
react adversely with the cementitious matrix or any chemical
or mineral admixtures it contains. The ASTM Subcommittee
on Fiber-Reinforced Concrete is developing a specification for
polymer fibers for use in concrete that will address most of
these concerns.
Conclusion
Inconsistent and confusing performance tests in existence di-
minishes the confidence that potential users of FRC have in
this material. The poor reliability of data produced using some
of the existing test methods often leads to contradictory out-
comes. The arbitrary nature of some performance parameters
also obscures the significance of the data. The result is wide-
spread skepticism in the construction industry about perform-
ance of FRC that is in sharp contrast to the unquestioning
confidence placed in reinforcing bars and tendons [41].
As new fiber types or modifications of existing types may
be proposed for use in FRC hindsight suggests that compati-
bility of fibers with the moist alkaline environment of cement
paste and tests to confirm it should be a high priority. The fibers
of the future must be engineered to minimize mixing and place-
ment difficulties, maximize short-term property improvements,
and ensure that these improvements are sustained over the long
term. Much remains to be done in developing standard test
methods to assess performance of fibers and FRC relevant to
design, and then to develop performance-based specifications
for FRC to meet all of these objectives.
References
[1] Johnston, C. D. and Skarendahl, A., “Comparative Performance
Evaluation of Steel Fibre-Reinforced Concretes According to
ASTM C 1018 Shows Importance of Fibre Parameters,” Materials
and Structures (RILEM), Vol. 25, No. 148, May 1992, pp. 191–200.
[2] Committee Report on Fiber Reinforced Concrete, ACI 544.1R-96,
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1996.
[3] Johnston, C. D., “Fibre-Reinforced Cements and Concretes,”
Advances in Concrete Technology, V.3, International Centre for
Sustainable Development of Cement and Concrete [ICON], V. M.
Malhotra, Ed., Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, 2001,
pp. 111–134.
[4] Balaguru, P. and Shah, S. P., Fiber Reinforced Cement Compos-
ites, McGraw-Hill, 1992, 530 pp.
[5] Behavior of Fresh Concrete During Vibration (ACI 309.1R),
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1998.
[6] Measurement of Properties of Fiber Reinforced Concrete
(ACI 544.2R), American Concrete Institute, 1999.
[7] Johnston, C. D., “Measures of the Workability of Steel Fiber
Reinforced Concrete and Their Precision,” Cement, Concrete,
and Aggregates, Vol. 6, No. 2, 1984, pp. 74–83.
[8] “Recommendation for Design and Construction of Steel Fiber
Reinforced Concrete,” Concrete Library International, Japan
Society of Civil Engineers, No. 3, 1984, pp. 41–69.
[9] Uomoto, T. and Kobayashi, K., “Measurement of Fiber Content
of Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete by Electro-Magnetic
Method,” SP-81, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI, 1984,
pp. 233–246.
590 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
[10] Malmberg, B. and Skarendahl, A., “Determination of Fibre
Content, Distribution and Orientation in Steel Fibre Concrete
by Electromagnetic Technique,” Proceedings, RILEM Sympo-
sium on Testing and Test Methods of Fibre Cement Composites,
Construction Press Ltd., 1978, pp. 289–295.
[11] Kasperkiewicz, J., Malmberg, B., and Skarendahl, A., “Determi-
nation of Fibre Content, Distribution and Orientation in Steel
Fibre Concrete by X-ray Technique,” Proceedings, RILEM
Symposium on Testing and Test Methods of Fibre Cement
Composites, Construction Press Ltd., 1978, pp. 297–305.
[12] Stroeven, P. and Shah, S. P., “Use of Radiography-Image Analy-
sis for Steel Fibre Reinforced Concrete,” Proceedings, RILEM
Symposium on Testing and Test Methods of Fibre Cement
Composites, Construction Press Ltd., 1978, pp. 275–288.
[13] Ashley, D. G., “Measurement of Glass Content in Fibre Cement
Composites by X-ray Fluorescence Analysis,” Proceedings, RILEM
Symposium on Testing and Test Methods of Fibre Cement
Composites, Construction Press Ltd., 1978, pp. 265–274.
[14] Mobasher, B., Stang, H., and Shah, S. P., “Microcracking in Fiber
Reinforced Concrete,” Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 20,
1990, pp. 665–676.
[15] Johnston, C. D. and Coleman, R. A., “Strength and Deformation
of Steel Fiber Reinforced Mortar in Uniaxial Tension,” Fiber
Reinforced Concrete, SP-44, American Concrete Institute,
Detroit, MI, 1974, pp. 177–193.
[16] Johnston, C. D., “Properties of Steel Fibre Reinforced Mortar
and Concrete,” Fibrous Concrete, Concrete International, C180,
Concrete Society (UK), Construction Press Ltd., 1980, pp. 29–47.
[17] Johnston, C. D. and Gray, R. J., “Flexural Toughness and First-
Crack Strength of Fibre Reinforced Concrete Using ASTM C
1018,” Proceedings, Symposium on Developments in Fibre
Reinforced Cement and Concrete, RILEM Committee 49-TFR,
1986, Paper 5.1.
[18] Shah, S. P. et al., “Complete Stress-Strain Curves for Steel Fibre
Reinforced Concrete in Uniaxial Tension and Compression,”
Proceedings, RILEM Symposium on Testing and Test Methods of
Fibre Cement Composites, Construction Press Ltd., 1978,
pp. 399–408.
[19] Johnston, C. D., “Toughness of Steel Fiber Concrete,” Steel
Fiber Concrete, US-Sweden Joint Seminar, Elsevier Science
Publishing Co., New York, 1986, pp. 333–360.
[20] Johnston, C. D., “Definition and Measurement of Flexural
Toughness Parameters for Fiber Reinforced Concrete,” Cement,
Concrete, and Aggregates, Vol. 4, No. 2, 1982, pp. 53–60.
[21] Johnston, C. D., “Methods of Evaluating the Performance of
Fiber-Reinforced Concrete,” Symposium Proceedings, Vol. 211,
Materials Research Society, Pittsburgh, 1991, pp. 15–24.
[22] Moens, J. and Nemegeer, D. E., “Designing Fiber Reinforced
Concrete Based on Toughness Characteristics,” Concrete
International, Vol. 13, No. 11, Nov. 1991, pp. 38–43.
[23] Morgan, D. R., “Steel Fiber Reinforced Shotcrete for Support of
Underground Openings in Canada,” Concrete International,
Vol. 13, No. 11, Nov. 1991, pp. 56–64.
[24] Banthia, N. and Dubey, A., “Measurement of Flexural Tough-
ness of Fiber Reinforced Concrete Using a Novel Technique,
Part I: Assessment and Calibration,” ACI Materials Journal, Vol.
96, No. 6, Nov.–Dec. 1999, pp. 651–656.
[25] Hibbert, A. P. and Hannant, D. J., “Impact Resistance of Fibre
Concrete,” Report SR 654, U.K. Transport and Road Research
Laboratory, 1981, p. 25.
[26] Gopalaratnam, V. S. and Shah, S. P., “Properties of Steel Fiber
Reinforced Concrete Subject to Impact Loading,” Journal,
American Concrete Institute; Proceedings, Vol. 83, No. 1,
Jan.-Feb. 1986, pp. 117–126.
[27] Banthia, N., Mindess, S., and Bentur, A., “Impact Behavior of
Concrete Beams,” Materials and Structures, RILEM, Vol. 20, No.
118, July–Aug. 1987, pp. 293–302.
[28] Batson, G. B. et al., “Flexural Fatigue Strength of Steel Fibre Re-
inforced Concrete Beams,” Journal, American Concrete
Institute; Proceedings, Vol. 69, No. 11, Nov. 1972, pp. 673–677.
[29] Nagabhushanam, M., Ramakrishman, V., and Vondran, G.,
“Fatigue of Fibrillated Polypropylene Fiber Reinforced Con-
cretes,” International Symposium on Recent Development in
Concrete Fiber Composites, Transportation Research Record
1226, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 1989,
pp. 36–47.
[30] Johnston, C. D. and Zemp, R. W., “Flexural Fatigue Behavior of
Steel Fiber-Reinforced Concrete–Influence of Fiber Content,
Aspect Ratio, and Type,” ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 88, No. 4,
July–Aug. 1991, pp. 374–383.
[31] Otter, D. E. and Naaman, A. E., “Properties of Steel Fiber Rein-
forced Concrete Under Cyclic Loading,” ACI Materials Journal,
Vol. 85, No. 4, July–Aug. 1988, pp. 254–261.
[32] Malmberg, B. and Skarendahl, A., “Method of Studying the
Cracking of Fibre Concrete Under Restrained Shrinkage,”
Proceedings, RILEM Symposium on Testing and Test Methods
of Fibre Cement Composites, Construction Press Ltd., 1978,
pp. 173–179.
[33] Swamy, R. N. and Stavrides, H., “Influence of Fiber Reinforce-
ment on Restrained Shrinkage and Cracking,” Journal, Ameri-
can Concrete Institute; Proceedings, Vol. 76, No. 3, March 1979,
pp. 443–460.
[34] Grzybowski, M. and Shah, S. P., “Shrinkage Cracking of Fiber
Reinforced Concrete,” ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 87, No. 2,
March–April 1990, pp. 138–148.
[35] Chern, J. and Young, C., “Study of Factors Influencing Drying
Shrinkage of Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete,” ACI Materials
Journal, Vol. 87, No. 2, March–April 1990, pp. 123–129.
[36] Schupack, M. and Stanley, W. R., “Seven Case Studies of
Synthetic Fiber Reinforced Slabs,” Concrete International, Vol.
14, No. 2, Feb. 1992, pp. 50–56.
[37] Kraai, P. O., “Proposed Test to Determine the Cracking Poten-
tial Due to Drying Shrinkage of Concrete,” Concrete Construc-
tion, Vol. 30, No. 9, Sept. 1985, pp. 775–778.
[38] Padron, I. and Zollo, R. F., “Effect of Synthetic Fibers on Volume
Stability and Cracking of Portland Cement Concrete and
Mortar,” ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 87, No. 4, July–Aug. 1990,
pp. 327–332.
[39] Berke, N. S. and Dallaire, M. P., “The Effect of Low Addition
Rates of Polypropylene Fibers on Plastic Shrinkage Cracking and
Mechanical Properties,” SP-142, American Concrete Institute,
Detroit, MI, 1992, 1994, pp. 19–42.
[40] Wang, Y., Backer, S., and Li, V. C., “An Experimental Study of
Synthetic Fiber Reinforced Cementitious Composites,” Journal
of Materials Science, Vol. 22, 1987, pp. 4281–4291.
[41] Bernard, E. S., “Challenges for Fibre Reinforced Concrete,”
Proceedings, ICON-1, Whistler, Canada, June 21–22, 2001,
pp. 134–141.
50
Preplaced Aggregate Concrete
Edward P. Holub1
Preface
THIS CHAPTER ON PREPLACED AGGREGATE (PA)
concrete is basically the information from the previous edi-
tions of ASTM 169. The original chapter was written by B. A.
Lamberton. While there have been some improvements in the
chemical composition and performance of the grout fluidi-
fiers, the basic method and testing of PA concrete has not
significantly changed since this chapter was last updated by
Raymond E. Davis, Jr. in ASTM 169C.
Introduction
The term “preplaced aggregate” (PA) concrete refers to a method
of making concrete that involves placing coarse aggregate in a
confined space and later injecting a fluid grout into the voids. The
technique has been used since 1937 and is generally credited to
Lee Turzillo and Louis Wertz [1]. In 1943 Wertz was granted a U.S.
Patent for the method of filling cavities using (PA) concrete [2].
PA concrete is an alternative to blending the fine and
coarse aggregate, cement, and water and placing the mixture
in a form. In the case of PA concrete the coarse gap-graded
aggregate is preplaced in the form and a structural grout is
injected into the coarse aggregate mass in such a way as to fill
void spaces where it hardens to form dense homogeneous
concrete. The drying shrinkage of PA concrete is about 50 %
less than that of conventionally placed concrete with similar
material proportions [3]. This is due apparently to the point-
to-point contact of coarse aggregate particles. Because of
this low shrinkage characteristic, it was first used as a method
of repairing concrete and masonry structures, particularly
railroad bridge piers and tunnel linings [4,5]. The method is
now widely accepted for other specialized applications such as
placement of mass concrete under water, in heavily reinforced
structures, and for high density biological shielding [6–8].
While the two-step placement procedure would increase
costs over that of conventional methods in a great majority of
routine concrete work, it has the advantage of permitting
placement of coarse aggregate, representing roughly 60 % of
the total concrete volume, in a timed sequence independent of
mixing and placing cementitious constituents. The coarse ag-
gregate fraction can be preplaced either very rapidly with bulk
handling equipment or slowly and carefully by hand labor,
depending on the application, followed by grout injection at a
1
Chemist, Research and Development, EPH Solutions, Charlotte, NC.
591
time convenient to the overall construction schedule. The
method is particularly applicable to placement of concrete in
structures containing a profusion of inserted fixtures [9].
Materials
The slurry containing a mixture of portland cement, sand,
admixtures, and water that is injected into the coarse aggregate
mass is referred to as “grout.” Actually a highly fluid structural
mortar, it bears no resemblance to the low-strength, generally
high water/cement (w/c) ratio grouts that are pressure injected
into soil or rock formations to increase strength or reduce
permeability. Grout used in PA concrete work is a structural
material. Injected into coarse aggregate, it produces concrete
comparable in strength and other physical characteristics to
that mixed and placed by conventional methods. Several manu-
facturers of fluid grouts that meet the ASTM C1107 Specifica-
tion for Packaged Dry, Hydraulic-Cement Grout (Nonshrink)
claim that their product can be used as the slurry. The same
working stresses used in conventional concrete design are
applicable to PA concrete.
Cementing Materials
Cementing materials suitable for use in conventionally placed
concrete may be used with equal confidence for placement by
the PA concrete method. It is customary practice to substitute
pozzolanic quality fly ash for part of the portland cement. Sub-
stitution in the range of 15 to 35 % by weight of portland cement
is common. In addition to the beneficial properties normally im-
parted by any pozzolan to portland cement concrete, such as
lower heat generation, reduced permeability, and improved
resistance to chemical attack, fly ash is particularly beneficial in
the PA concrete process in that it improves pumpability and
retards initial set. Fly ash should meet the Class F requirements
of the ASTM C618 Specification for Fly Ash and Raw or Calcined
Natural Pozzolan for Use as a Mineral Admixture in Concrete.
Fly ash is often omitted when concrete is to be used for
high density biological shielding. Since the specific gravity of
this material is appreciably less than that of cement, partial
replacement of cement with fly ash causes a slight reduction in
unit weight of the concrete. Fly ash is also less effective than
cement in chemically fixing water and so is undesirable in
shielding subject to high neutron flux which is more effectively
attenuated by hydrogen atoms.
592 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
Fine Aggregate
Fine aggregate, properly graded, is essential to successful
execution of the work. Oversize material will cause obstruction
of the void channels in the coarse aggregate mass. Excess fines
will increase water requirement and so reduce compressive
strength and increase drying shrinkage. Gap-graded fine
aggregate may cause excessive bleeding. A typical grada-
tion appears in Table 2, Grading 1 of ASTM C637 Specification
for Aggregates for Radiation-Shielding Concrete. Although
described in this specification in connection with high-density
aggregate for biological shielding, the grading is equally
suitable for use with normal-density aggregates. Either natural
or manufactured sand may be used, although the former is
usually preferable from the standpoint of pumpability. As
indicated in Table 2, Grading 2 of ASTM C 637, somewhat finer
grading is required where high-density sand is used or where
coarse aggregate grading is finer than normal.
Coarse Aggregate
Coarse aggregate grading is far less critical than is fine aggregate
grading. The only absolute requirements are that it be (a) free of
surface dust that would prevent bond of grout to the aggregate
particles, (b) sufficiently saturated that it will not absorb water
from the grout and so cause premature thickening, and (c) of
such a grading that grout will flow readily by gravity alone
through the void system. The particles should be of such tough-
ness and hardness that they do not fracture or degrade during
transport and placement into the forms. Extra caution must be
exercised during placement to avoid degrading friable aggregate.
Normal aggregate grading limits for most structural
applications are shown in Table 2, Grading 1 of ASTM C 637.
Aggregate graded within these limits will exhibit a void content
in the range of 43 to 48 %. In the absence of very closely spaced
reinforcing or restricted form configuration, it is common
practice to scalp coarse aggregate on a 20-mm (3/4-in.) wash
screen. A trommel-type screen is generally more effective
than a deck screen in washing the aggregate particles to the
required surface cleanliness.
A wide variety of high-density aggregate, both fine and
coarse as described in ASTM C 637, have been placed by the
PA concrete method, which is particularly well-suited for
construction of high-density biological shielding. The advan-
tage of the method for this type of work is two-fold. The heavy
particles of mineral ore or steel punchings or a blend of these
coarse aggregates are placed in the form with no possibility of
segregation such as may occur when coarse aggregate and
grout is combined in a plastic mass and placed by conventional
methods. Second, the method is well-suited to concrete
placement around multiple embedments, closely spaced rein-
forcing, and within the tight confines of complex formwork
characteristic of most shielding installations.
Grout Fluidifier
Grout fluidifier is required on all PA concrete work to pro-
mote fluidity of the grout mixture and, most importantly, to
cause expansion of the grout prior to initial set in an amount
sufficient to more than offset setting shrinkage of the grout
that would otherwise take place beneath coarse aggregate
particles. Grout fluidifier is customarily used as a commer-
cially preblended material conforming to ASTM C937 Speci-
fication for Grout Fluidifier for Preplaced-Aggregate Con-
crete. It contains a water-reducing agent, a suspending agent,
aluminum powder, and a chemical buffer to assure properly
timed reaction of the aluminum powder with the alkalies of
the cement. This reaction results in the formation of hydro-
gen gas to expand the fluid grout, usually in the range of
5 to 8 %. This gas-forming reaction should be so timed that,
at 21°C (70°F), it is approximately 50 % complete in 1 h and
95 % complete in 3 h. At a slow expansion rate, bleeding
tends to increase. If the expansion time is more rapid, grout
mixing and pumping time are shortened unnecessarily.
Since the expansive characteristic of the grout is dependent
on the alkali content of the cement, it may be depressed when the
standard grout fluidifier formulation is used with low alkali ce-
ments. Performance of grout fluidifier in combination with job
cement should be determined, therefore, and the product custom
formulated by the manufacturer if necessary when use of cement
with an alkali content less than 0.40 is anticipated. The release of
hydrogen bubbles and the expansive reaction have an effect sim-
ilar to that of an air-entraining agent with respect to freeze-thaw
durability. An air-entraining agent or air-entrained cement
should not be used routinely in the PA concrete process. How-
ever, where freeze-thaw conditions are severe and a specific min-
imum air content is required, an air content determination
should be made using grout fluidifier and job cement and an air-
entraining agent incorporated in the grout mix if required.
Grout Mix Proportions
Grout mix proportions may be selected in accordance with ASTM
C938 Practice for Proportioning Grout Mixtures for Preplaced-
Aggregate Concrete. For typical structural applications, propor-
tions are normally in the range of 2:1:3 to 4:1:5 by weight in which
the ratio represents, respectively, the weights of cement, fly ash,
and sand. The ratio of water to cementing materials (cement plus
fly ash) is in the range of 0.43 to 0.47. Grout fluidifier is added in
an amount equal to 1 % by weight of the cementing materials.
For mass concrete applications, the ratio of cementing materials
to sand may be reduced to as low as 1:2. Further decrease in this
ratio is usually precluded by pumpability limitations.
Specifications
Specifications for PA concrete placement vary widely in detail
depending on job complexity. For routine structural repair
of concrete or masonry, performance-type specifications
normally are employed, requiring only that a minimum stipu-
lated compressive strength be exhibited by test cylinders and
that good construction practice be followed in accordance with
such accepted publications as ACI Standard 304 [10]. For
difficult projects such as large heavily reinforced structures or
biological shielding, specifications may be entirely of the
prescription type, setting forth not only compressive strength
requirements but aggregate composition and grading, grout
insert spacing, grout surface monitoring procedures, place-
ment temperature, and in-place density.
High-Density Aggregates
High-density aggregates typically used in PA concrete con-
struction are described in the ASTM C638 Descriptive Nomen-
clature of Constituents of Aggregates for Radiation-Shielding
Concrete and typical specifications for these aggregates are
presented in ASTM C 637. All aggregates described in ASTM C
638 are suitable for placement by the PA concrete method,
although particular care should be exercised with the softer
natural minerals such as barite, geothite, and limonite. Fer-
rophosphorous varies widely in hardness and some of it may
 HOLUB ON PREPLACED AGGREGATE CONCRETE
be so soft and friable as to be unsuitable for placement by the
PA concrete method. All of these materials are obviously far
more expensive than normal density aggregate and purchase
specifications for these materials should be written with par-
ticular care. They should not only call for specific gravity limi-
tations but also carefully describe sampling procedure with
respect to quantity represented by each sample, frequency of
sampling, and the location where tests are to be performed.
Aggregates should always be tested prior to shipment, with
conformance sampling and testing performed at the job site. If
the aggregate is relatively friable and breakage during transit
is high, consideration should be given to reclaiming undersize
material and incorporating it in concrete to be placed by
conventional methods.
Where blended aggregates are to be used, such as a combi-
nation of iron ore and steel punchings, the two materials must
be inspected separately and the final blend again inspected for
particle size gradation and homogeneity of the blend. Aggre-
gates may be blended continuously by streaming through me-
tering gates onto a belt ahead of a washing screen that com-
pletes the blending process, or they may be batch blended by a
few rotations in a concrete mixer followed by washing and
screening. Although the latter method may appear to be some-
what more accurate, in practice either type of blending opera-
tion causes some size degradation of the more friable of the two
aggregate fractions, and allowance must be made for a loss of
some of this friable material in the blending operation.
All high-density aggregate should be weighed before place-
ment and sampled frequently to determine unit density and
void content. Based on these determinations, calculations can
be made to determine required grout density. Where watertight
steel forms are used, void content of the entire coarse aggregate
mass may be determined in-place by metering water into and
out of the aggregate-filled forms. Using careful testing and sam-
pling procedures, it is possible to specify in-place density of
concrete placed by the PA concrete method as close as
1 %,
although a tolerance of
2 % is a more common limitation.
Temperatures
Temperatures at the time of grout injection are often of great
importance where minimum thermal shrinkage is an impor-
tant consideration. The aggregate may be precooled in the
form by flooding it with chilled water or covering the coarse
aggregate with flaked ice and allowing the ice to melt and drip
down through the aggregate mass. Using this technique, in
combination with precooling the grout ingredients and using
ice in the mixing water, permits placement temperatures to be
achieved within the range of 5
3°C (40
5°F).
Grout Surface Monitoring
Grout surface monitoring is of particular importance in
ensuring complete penetration of all voids within the coarse
aggregate mass and complete contact with embedments and
penetrations. For routine repair work and for many structural
concrete applications, location of grout surface can be deter-
mined with sufficient accuracy by simply observing grout or
moisture seepage through the forms or through insert or
inspection holes drilled in the side of the forms. Slotted sound-
ing wells may also be used, particularly for deep mass concrete
placements, in which a float on the end of a line is dropped
into the sounding well and the depth to the grout surface physi-
cally measured. Using such methods, location of the grout
surface can be determined with an accuracy of about
300
593
mm (
12 in.). For critical applications, location and frequency
of sounding wells may be specified, as well as location and
spacing of grout insert pipes and vent pipes. The Time Domain
Reflectometer provides a more accurate means of determining
grout surface location in a nonflooded aggregate mass. Short
voltage pulses are transmitted on electrically calibrated detec-
tor wires located within the aggregate mass and the pulse
reflections assembled and displayed on an oscilloscope. Grout
or water around the sensor wires alters the impedance
permitting an experienced operator to locate the grout surface
with an accuracy of about
80 mm (
3 in.) [10].
Fluid Grout Characteristics
Fluid grout characteristics are always routinely tested during
any placement by the PA concrete method. Measurements of
grout viscosity or flow, measuring the time in seconds for dis-
charge of 1725 cm3 of grout through a 12.7-mm (1/2-in.) orifice
in accordance with ASTM C939 Test Method for Flow of Grout
for Preplaced-Aggregate Concrete (Flow Cone Method) should
be made routinely at about 2-h intervals. This test is analogous
to the slump test for conventionally placed concrete. Typical
consistencies range from 21 to 30 s with the upper end of the
range suitable for use with plus 20 mm (3/4 in.) coarse aggregate
and the lower end of the range required for plus 12 mm (1/2 in.)
coarse aggregate. Specifications usually require grout consis-
tency to be controlled within a range of
2 of a stipulated value.
The test for expansion in accordance with ASTM C 940
Test Method for Expansion and Bleeding of Freshly Mixed
Grouts for Preplaced-Aggregate Concrete in the Laboratory is
performed less frequently, often no more than once a day. This
test requires only observation of total grout expansion 3 h after
mixing. The utility and significance of the test procedure is
greatly enhanced if observations are made of both total grout
expansion and accumulated bleed water at four 15-min inter-
vals following mixing and at 30-min intervals thereafter until
all expansion has ceased. Although with normal cement and at
normal temperature, expansion is virtually complete at 3 h,
expansion may continue as long as 4 h at lower temperatures
and with some low alkali cements.
Following the procedures of ASTM C 940, approximately
800 cm3 of fresh grout are placed in a 1000-cm3 graduate. The
observer should then note and report not only the total volume
of the specimen, including grout and accumulated bleed water,
at the aforementioned intervals, but the total volume of grout
and the total volume of bleed water. Expansion, expressed in
percent, is calculated as total volume minus initial volume
divided by initial volume. Bleeding, expressed in percent, is
reported as the volume of bleed water (total volume minus
grout volume) divided by initial volume.
Water retentivity of freshly mixed grouts should be
determined in accordance with ASTM C 941 Test Method for
Water Retentivity of Grout Mixtures for Preplaced-Aggregate
Concrete in the Laboratory. Grout bleeding, grout expansion,
and grout consistency are all strongly influenced by the effec-
tiveness of mixing equipment and procedures. Before any
adjustment is made to the mix design, adequacy of the mixing
procedure should be evaluated carefully.
Compressive Strength
Compressive strength of hardened grouts should be deter-
mined in accordance with ASTM C 942 Test Method for
Compressive Strength of Grouts for Preplaced-Aggregate
Concrete in the Laboratory.
594 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
Time of Setting
Time of setting of grouts should be determined in accordance
with ASTM C 953 Test Method for Time of Setting of Grouts for
Preplaced-Aggregate Concrete in the Laboratory.
Density
Density of hardened concrete is normally determined by cast-
ing test cylinders in accordance with ASTM C 943 Practice for
Making Test Cylinders and Prisms for Determining Strength
and Density of Preplaced-Aggregate Concrete in the Labora-
tory. From these test cylinders, 100 by 100 by 150-mm (4 by 4
by 6-in.) prisms, on which final acceptance tests are performed,
are cut. Density determinations on the standard 150 by 300-
mm (6 by 12-in.) test cylinder will result in an erroneously low
figure. This procedure is particularly important in counter-
weight construction where excessive density may be as objec-
tionable as deficient density.
Hardened Concrete
Hardened concrete placed by the PA method is evaluated by
the same methods employed with conventionally placed con-
crete. However, two notes of caution are in order. In
accordance with good practice, cores extracted from conven-
tionally placed concrete should be of a diameter equal to at
least four times that of the maximum coarse aggregate parti-
cle size. This limitation on minimum core diameter is even
more important with PA concrete by reason of the fact that
there is a higher percentage of large aggregate particles with
a correspondingly greater possibility that these particles will
be torn loose from the grout matrix. Secondly, nondestructive
testing procedures such as the Schmidt hammer and the
Windsor probe should be used and interpreted with particu-
lar caution. Because of the fact that densely packed large
coarse aggregate particles are in close proximity to the
formed surface, covered only with a thin layer of structural
mortar, such tests may show a substantial variation in
strength between what is essentially a test on an aggregate
particle and another test, fractions of an inch away, per-
formed on the structural mortar. Discrepancies in test results
might be expected, for example, on attempting to determine
28-day strength on concrete placed by the PA method using
very dense aggregate and grout with a relatively high per-
centage of fly ash replacement of the cement.
Closure
The PA concrete process is an internationally accepted method
of concrete placement appropriate to certain specialized con-
struction problems. Test methods for evaluating the properties
of the fresh grout and coarse aggregate fractions employed in
this method are well established.
References
[1] “Guide for the Use of Preplaced Aggregate Concrete for Struc-
tural and Mass Concrete Applications,” ACI Committee 304,
1997.
[2] Wertz, L. S., “Process for Filling Cavities,” Patent No. 2,313,110,
9 March 1943.
[3] Concrete Manual, 8th Edition, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Den-
ver, CO 1981, Chapter 8.
[4] Davis, R. E., “Prepakt Method of Concrete Repair,” Journal,
American Concrete Institute; Proceedings, Vol. 57, No. 2, Aug.
1960, pp. 155–172.
[5] Keats, B. D., “The Maintenance and Reconstruction of Concrete
Tunnel Linings with Treated Mortar and Special Concrete,”
Journal, American Concrete Institute; Proceedings, Vol. 43, No.
7, March 1947, pp. 813–826.
[6] Davis, R. E., Jr. and Haltenhoff, C. E., “Mackinac Bridge Pier Con-
struction,” Journal, American Concrete Institute; Proceedings,
Vol. 28, No. 6, Dec. 1956, pp. 581–595.
[7] Klein, A. M. and Crockett, J. A. J., “Design and Construction of
a Fully Vibration-Controlled Forging Hammer Foundation,”
Journal, American Concrete Institute; Proceedings, Vol. 24, No.
5, Jan. 1953, pp. 421–444.
[8] Davis, S., “High-Density Concrete for Shielding Atomic Energy
Plants,” Journal, American Concrete Institute; Proceedings, Vol.
29, No. 11, May 1958, pp. 965–977.
[9] Tirpak, E. G., “Report on Design and Placement Techniques of
Barytes Concrete for Reactor Biological Shielding,” Report No.
1739, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, May
1954.
[10] “Preplaced Aggregate Concrete for Structural and Mass
Concrete,” ACI Committee 304, Journal, American Concrete
Institute; Proceedings, Vol. 66, No. 10, Oct. 1969, pp. 785–797.
Bibliography
Akatsuka, Y. and Moriguchi, H., “Strengths of Prepacked Concrete
and Reinforced Concrete Beams,” Journal, American Concrete
Institute; Proceedings, Vol. 64, No. 4, April 1967, pp. 204–212.
Davis, H. S., “How to Choose and Place Mixes for High Density
Concrete,” Nucleonics, June 1955, pp. 60–65.
Davis, R. E., Jansen, E. C., and Neelands, W. T., “Restoration of Barker
Dam,” Journal, American Concrete Institute; Proceedings, Vol.
44, No. 8, April 1948, pp. 633–667.
Davis, R. E., Jr., Johnson, G. D., and Wendell, G. E., “Kemano
Penstock Tunnel Liner Backfilled with Prepacked Concrete,”
Journal, American Concrete Institute; Proceedings, Vol. 52, No.
3, Nov. 1955, pp. 287–308.
Downs, L. V., “Floating Caisson Facilitates Repair of Grand Coulee
Spillway Bucket,” Civil Engineering, April 1950, pp. 35–39.
King, J. C., “Special Concretes and Mortars,” Handbook of Heavy
Construction, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1971, pp. 22–1 to
22–17.
Lamberton, B. A., “Placing Concrete in Deep Mines,” Civil Engineer-
ing, 1956, pp. 37–39.
Mass, G. R. and Meier, J. G., “Investigation and Repair of Hoist Dam,”
Concrete International, Vol. 2, 1980, p. 49.
Olds, F. C., “QA Put to Work on the PCRV,” Power Engineering,
March 1970, pp. 45–48.
Steinman, D. B., Miracle Bridge at Mackinac, Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI, 1957, pp. 93–103.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, MS, “REMR Technical Note
CS-MR-9.4-Specialized Repair Technique:; Preplaced-Aggregate
Concrete,” 1992.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Concrete Manual, 8th ed., 1975, pp.
446–449.
51
Roller-Compacted Concrete (RCC)
Wayne S. Adaska1
Preface
THE ORIGINAL CHAPTER ON ROLLER-COMPACTED
concrete was authored by Kenneth L. Saucier with the U.S.
Army Engineer Waterway Experiment Station and first ap-
peared in the previous edition of ASTM STP 169C in 1994.
Much of the content of the original work was drawn on in
preparing the current edition. The most significant changes
are in the sections on mixture proportioning, durability, con-
struction, and quality control.
Definition
The American Concrete Institute (ACI) in Cement and Concrete
Terminology (ACI 116R-99) defines roller-compacted concrete
(RCC) as, “concrete compacted by roller compaction; concrete
that, in its unhardened state, will support a roller while being
compacted” [1]. RCC can further be defined as a stiff, extremely
dry concrete that has the consistency of damp gravel. It is typi-
cally mixed using high-capacity continuous mixing or batching
equipment, delivered with trucks or conveyors, and spread, in
the case of mass concrete such as dams, with one or more bull-
dozers. For paving applications, RCC is spread with heavy-duty
asphalt type pavers. Large vibratory rollers are used to exter-
nally consolidate or compact the roller-compacted concrete.
Properties of fully compacted, hardened RCC are similar to
those of conventionally placed concrete. However, the low-water
content and absence of entrained air in most RCC affects some
physical properties such as shrinkage and freeze-thaw durability.
Introduction
RCC may be considered for applications where no-slump con-
crete can be transported, placed, and compacted using earth-
and rock-fill construction equipment or, in the case of pave-
ments, asphalt laydown equipment. Ideal RCC projects will
involve large placement areas with few interferences or dis-
continuities or restrictions on placement rate. Application of
RCC is often considered when it is economically competitive
with other construction methods. The two major applications
for RCC are for mass concrete such as dams and heavy-duty
pavement applications including intermodal yards, port facili-
ties, warehouse and other industrial parking and storage areas.
Other applications include overtopping protection for earth fill
dams, buttressing of existing concrete dams, grade control
1
Director, Public Works, Portland Cement Association, 5420 Old Orchard Rd., Skokie, IL 60077.
595
structures in riverbeds, low permeable liners, and a variety of
pavement applications.
Dams
RCC developed as a result of efforts to design and build con-
crete dams that could be constructed rapidly and economi-
cally. At the Rapid Construction of Concrete Dams Conference
in 1970, Raphael [2] presented a paper in which he extrapo-
lated from soil-cement applications the concept of placement
and compaction of an embankment with cement-enriched
granular bank or pit-run material using high-capacity earth-
moving and compaction equipment. He noted that the increase
in shear strength of cement-stabilized material would result in
a significant reduction of the cross section when compared
with a typical embankment dam and that use of continuous
placement methods, similar to those used in earth dams, would
generate savings in time and money as compared with tradi-
tional concrete gravity dam construction.
In 1972, Cannon [3] presented results of tests on a lean
concrete using 75-mm maximum size aggregates transported
by truck, spread by a front-end loader, and compacted by a vi-
bratory roller at a Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) project.
The U.S. Corps of Engineers (USCE) soon thereafter con-
structed RCC field test sections at Jackson, Mississippi [4] and
Lost Creek Dam in Oregon [5] in 1972 and 1973.
The 52-m-high Willow Creek Dam confirmed the economy
and rapid construction possible with RCC. The structure con-
tained 330 000 m3 of RCC and was placed in less than five
months. The in-place RCC cost averaged about $26 per m3
when considering all the different mixes used [6]. The U.S. Bu-
reau of Reclamation’s (USBR) 90-m high Upper Stillwater
Dam, completed in 1987, contains 1.12 million m3 of RCC
placed within horizontally slip-formed, air-entrained concrete
facing elements [7].
Worldwide, there are more than 280 RCC dams in 39 coun-
tries. Forty-seven of these dams are greater than 90-m high and
located predominantly in Japan and China. The United States
has 37 RCC dams with the highest being Olivenhain Dam in San
Diego, CA. Completed in 2003; the dam is 97-m high and con-
tains 1070 m3 of RCC. Worldwide the highest RCC dam is Miel
I in Columbia at 188 m. [8]. Figure 1 shows construction of the
40-m high C. E. Siegrist Dam in Lebanon, PA.
In addition to new dams, RCC has also been used exten-
sively in the rehabilitation of existing dams. Applications
include increasing spillway capacity for earth fill dams, grade
596 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
Fig. 1—Construction of C. E. Siegrist Dam, PA. Note use of conveyors to place roller-
compacted concrete (photo courtesy of Gannett Fleming).
control structures in rivers, and seismic reinforcement for
existing concrete dams. The Tennessee Valley Authority in
1980 was the first to use RCC as overtopping protection to
rehabilitate Ocoee Dam No. 2. Since then, RCC has been used
in more than 200 dam rehabilitation projects. Information on
designing RCC for spillways and overtopping protection
applications can be found in Ref 9.
Pavement
The use of RCC for pavements evolved from the use of soil ce-
ment and cement-treated base (CTB) material. Although equip-
ment for batching, mixing, and transporting roller-compacted
concrete is similar to CTB, RCC is designed to have the strength
of conventional concrete. RCC has considerably more cementi-
tious material than CTB, and differs from most soil cement in
that it contains a well-graded coarse and fine aggregate. To en-
hance surface texture, the maximum size aggregate is limited to
16–19 mm. In addition, most RCC pavement projects are placed
with heavy-duty asphalt type pavers. According to the Seattle of-
fice of the U.S. Corps of Engineers (USACE), the first use of RCC
pavement in North America was a runway at Yakima, WA, con-
structed in 1942 [10]. The USACE at Vicksburg, Mississippi in-
stalled the first known RCC test pavement in the United States
in 1975. This 4-m by 80-m service road proved the feasibility of
RCC for use in pavement construction [11]. The first use of RCC
pavement in Canada was built in 1976 at a log-sort yard at Cay-
cuse, British Columbia. The project included 16 350 m2 of 0.35-
m-thick RCC pavement placed in a two-lift operation on a
crushed-rock base. The yard size was doubled in 1979 with a sec-
ond RCC application. When inspected in 1984, these pavements
were in excellent condition [12].
In 1984 the Corps of Engineers constructed the first sig-
nificant RCC pavement in the United States at Fort Hood, Texas.
This was a large parking area for tanks and other tracked vehi-
cles surrounding a maintenance shop. The 15 000 m2 area of
0.25-m pavement was placed in one lift and achieved a flexural
strength of 5.5 MPa. [12]. In general, RCC has been used for
heavy-duty pavements such as tank hardstands, log handling
yards, intermodal yards, freight depots, and other special ap-
plications. However, in the past ten years RCC has also been
proven to be a cost-effective pavement for many conventional
pavement applications including warehouse facilities, indus-
trial access roads, large commercial parking areas, intersection
replacements, roadway inlays, and residential streets.
Two of the largest paving projects to date have been for
the auto industry. The Saturn automobile plant in Tennessee
was completed in 1989. Approximately 500 000 m2 of a 180-
mm-thick pavement was placed for parking areas and access
roads [13]. Approximately 830 000 m2 of 175-mm-thick pave-
ment was placed in 2003 for the Honda manufacturing facility
in Alabama. According to the contractor on this project, RCC
typically costs between $19 and $24 per m2 [14].
Advantages
The primary advantage of RCC over conventional construction
is in the speed of construction and cost savings. Construction
cost histories of RCC and conventional concrete show that the
unit cost per cubic meter of RCC is considerably less than
conventionally placed concrete. Approximate costs of RCC
pavement range from 20–30 % less than conventionally placed
concrete [12,15,16]. The difference in percentage savings usu-
ally depends on complexity of placement and on total quantities
of concrete placed. Savings associated with RCC are primarily
due to reduced cement content, forming, placement, and com-
paction costs, as well as reduced construction times. To achieve
the highest measure of cost effectiveness and achieve a high-
quality product similar to what is expected of conventional
 ADASKA ON ROLLER-COMPACTED CONCRETE
concrete structures, the following design and construction ob-
jectives are desired: (1) RCC should be placed as quickly as prac-
tical after mixing; (2) operations should include as few laborers
as possible; (3) design should avoid, as much as possible, multi-
ple mixtures and other construction or forming requirements
that tend to interfere with production; and (4) the design should
not require complex construction procedures.
Typically, RCC needs no forms or finishing. In the case of
pavements, there are no dowels, tie rods, or steel reinforcement.
To minimize the treatment of cold joints, rapid placement is
desired. In pavements, that may mean the use of two paving
machines working in tandem. With dams and other mass
placement projects, the contractor will typically run two 10-h
shifts per day, six days a week. At Olivenhain Dam, a record
placement rate of 224 800 m3 per month was achieved [17].
High production rates make dam construction in one season
readily achievable for even large structures. When compared to
embankment or conventional concrete dams, construction time
for large projects can be reduced by one to two years. Other
benefits from rapid construction include reduced administra-
tion costs, reduced risk of flooding, and earlier operation of the
facility. Basically, RCC construction offers economic advan-
tages in all aspects of construction that are related to time.
Materials
Cementitious Materials
RCC can be made with any of the basic types of hydraulic ce-
ment or a combination of hydraulic cement and pozzolan. Se-
lection of materials for chemical resistance to sulfate attack,
potential alkali reactivity, and resistance to abrasion with cer-
tain aggregates should follow procedures used for conven-
tional concrete construction.
The strength of RCC is primarily dependent on the quality
and gradation of the aggregate, degree of compaction, and the
proportions of cement, pozzolan, and water. The type of ce-
mentitious material has a significant effect on the rate of hy-
dration and the rate of strength development and, therefore,
significantly affects strengths at early ages.
Cement
RCC can be made using any of the basic types of portland ce-
ment given in ASTM Specification for Portland Cement (C 150)
or blends of these with ground granulated blast-furnace slag as
specified in ASTM Specification for Ground Granulated Blast-
Furnace Slag for Use in Concrete and Mortar (C 989). To mini-
mize thermal cracking in mass applications, portland cements
with lower heat-generation characteristics than Type I are of-
ten specified. They include Type II (moderate heat), Type IP
(portland-pozzolan cement), and Type IS (portland blast-
furnace slag cement). Type IV (low-heat) cement is not gener-
ally available in the United States. Before specifying a low-heat
type cement, the engineer should determine its availability in
the project area. Also the strength development for these
lower-heat cements is usually slower than for Type I.
Pozzolans
The selection of a pozzolan suitable for RCC should be based on
its conformance with ASTM Specification for Fly Ash and Raw
or Calcined Natural Pozzolan for Use as a Mineral Admixture in
Portland Cement Concrete (C 618). Class F and Class N poz-
zolans are usually preferred especially for dams, since they nor-
mally contribute less heat of hydration than Class C and have
597
greater sulfate resistance. They also help reduce expansion due
to alkali-silica reactivity (ASR). For Class C pozzolans, more at-
tention may be needed with regard to set time, sulfate resistance,
ASR and free lime content. Use of pozzolans in RCC mixtures
may serve one or more of the following purposes: (1) as a par-
tial replacement for portland cement to reduce heat generation;
(2) to reduce cost; and (3) as a mineral filler to provide supple-
mental fines for mixture workability and paste volume. The use
of pozzolan will depend on required material performance as
well as on its cost and availability at each project [18].
Aggregates
As with conventional concrete, aggregates for RCC should be
evaluated for quality and grading. Aggregate for RCC should
meet the same standards for quality and grading as required for
conventional concrete construction. However, aggregates that
do not meet the normal standards or requirements for conven-
tional concrete have also been successfully used in RCC dam
construction [19]. Changes from the grading or quality require-
ments of ASTM Specification for Concrete Aggregates (C 33)
should be supported by laboratory or field test results that show
that the concrete produced from the proposed materials fulfills
the requirements of the project as is provided for in ASTM C 33.
Early RCC mass concrete dam projects in the United States
used a 75-mm nominal maximum size of aggregate (NMSA);
however, a 50-mm NMSA, preferably crushed coarse aggregate,
is less prone to segregation and is becoming more widely used.
Although larger sizes have been successfully used in Japan and
at Tarbela Dam in Pakistan, the use of larger aggregate greatly
increases the probability of segregation during transporting and
spreading, and seldom significantly reduces the cost [15].
Maximum size aggregate for other applications include
overtopping protection for embankment dams, which fre-
quently use a NMSA of 25 mm, since lifts are typically thinner
than for mass concrete placement [18]. For RCC pavement
projects a NMSA of 16–19 mm is typically specified. In addition
to minimizing the chance for segregation during handling and
placement, a smaller NMSA provides a relatively smooth
pavement surface texture.
Grading
The grading limits of individual coarse aggregate size fractions
should comply with those used in conventional concrete. Indi-
vidual size groups are normally combined to produce gradings
approaching those given in Table 1. Fine aggregate gradings
TABLE 1—Ideal Coarse Aggregate Grading [15]
Cumulative Percent Passing
Sieve Size (mm) 4.75–75 mm 4.75–50 mm 4.75–19.0 mm
75 100
63 88
50 76 100
37.5 61 81
25.0 44 58
19.0 33 44 100
12.5 21 28 63
9.5 14 18 41
4.75 ... ... ...
598 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE

workability of RCC beyond the typical 45 min to 1 h specified

TABLE 2—Fine Aggregate Grading Limits on most projects. The extended workability is especially bene-
Cumulative Percent Cumulative Percent
ficial during warmer weather, during RCC startup activities,
Sieve Size Passing [15] Passing [ASTM C 33] longer haul distances, and for placement of thick lifts. It is also
beneficial in maintaining lift surfaces in an unhardened state
9.5 mm 100 100 until the next layer or adjacent layer of RCC is placed, thereby
4.75 mm 95–100 95–100 creating a better bond. By improving the workability, RCC can
2.36 mm 75–95 80–100 be more easily mixed in conventional central plant drum mix-
1.18 mm 55–80 5–85 ers and transit truck mixers. Required dosages of water-reduc-
600
m 35–60 2–60 ing and retarding admixtures are normally several times as
300
m 24–40 5–30 much as recommended for conventionally placed concrete.
150
m 12–28 0–10
75
m 6–18 ...
Fineness modulus 2.10–2.75 ...
Air-Entraining Admixtures
Air-entrainment of RCC has had only limited application to date.
Most of the problem comes from the difficulty of entraining a
good air-void system in such a low-paste, dry concrete. Research
has indicated that air-entrainment may be limited to the more
are also specified as shown in Table 2. Approximate fine workable mixes with Vebe consistency times less than about 35
aggregate contents, expressed as a percentage of the total s [30,35]. Also, ASTM Test Method for Air Content of Freshly
aggregate volume, for mass RCC are given in Table 3. Typical Mixed Concrete by the Volumetric Method (C 173) and Test
gradation range for RCC pavements is shown in Table 4. Method for Air Content of Freshly Mixed Concrete by the Pres-
Some designers, however, have used locally available road sure Method (C 231) determine total air content and do not dif-
base material with grading requirements similar to that con- ferentiate between entrained and entrapped air voids. The en-
tained in ASTM D 2940. However, the grading band for road trapped air content in RCC mixtures will vary depending on the
base material can be quite open resulting in possible gap grad- compactive effort applied in consolidating the material.
ing and segregation. Where close control of grading of the Minimizing frost damage in RCC has been achieved by
coarse aggregate and RCC production are desired, size separa- proportioning mixtures with sufficient low-water-cementitious
tions should follow normal concrete practice, as recom- material ratios (w/c) so that the permeability of the paste is
mended in ACI 304R. low. Once concrete has dried through self-desiccation, it is dif-
The required amount of material passing the 75
m may ficult to again become critically saturated by outside moisture.
be greater for RCC than acceptable for conventional concrete. The use of proper compaction techniques that lower the en-
The larger percentage of fines is used to fill voids and con- trapped air-void content, increase strength, and lower the per-
tribute to compactibility. The additional fines are usually made meability of the concrete should also improve the pavement’s
up of naturally occurring non-plastic silt and fine sand, manu- frost resistance [10].
factured fines, or extra pozzolan. Depending on the volume of
cementitious material and the NMSA, the required total minus Mixture Proportioning
75-
m fines may be as much as 10 % of the total aggregate vol-
ume, with most mixtures using approximately 3–8 % [18]. As with conventional concrete construction, the primary con-
siderations for mixture proportioning are durability, strength,
workability, and, in the case of RCC, compactibility. Another im-
Admixtures
portant consideration for mass RCC is the minimization of heat
rise due to the chemical reactions of the cementitious ingredi-
Water-Reducing and Retarding Admixtures
ents. Again, as with conventional mass concrete, factors such as
The use of a water-reducing and retarding admixture or a re-
use of (1) the largest nominal maximum-size of aggregate; (2)
tarding admixture as specified in the ASTM Specification for
minimum amount of cementitious material; (3) pozzolans or
Chemical Admixtures for Concrete (C 494) may be considered
for any RCC placement. Water-reducing and retarding admix-
tures have proven beneficial for improving and extending the

TABLE 4—Typical Combined Aggregate

Grading Limits for RCC Pavement Mixture [20]
TABLE 3—Approximate Ratio of Fine to Total
Aggregate Volume [15] Sieve Size Cumulative Percent Passing

Nominal Maximum Size Fine Aggregate Ratio, 19.0 mm 83–100

and Type of Coarse Percent of Total 12.5 mm 72–93
Aggregate Aggregate Volume 9.5 mm 66–85
4.75 mm 51–69
75 mm, crushed 29–36 2.36 mm 38–56
75 mm, rounded 27–34 1.18 mm 28–46
37.5 mm, crushed 39–47 600
m 18–36
37.5 mm, rounded 35–45 300
m 11–27
19.0 mm, crushed 48–59 150
m 6–18
19.0 mm, rounded 41–45 75
m 2–8
 ADASKA ON ROLLER-COMPACTED CONCRETE 599

blended cements; and (4) cooling procedures for the materials
are evaluated on a job-specific basis.
A number of mixture-proportioning methods have been
successfully used for RCC structures throughout the world,
making it difficult to generalize any one procedure as being
standard. Most mixture-proportioning methods are variations
of two general approaches: (1) a w/cm approach with the mix-
ture determined by solid volume; and (2) a cemented-aggregate
approach with the mixture determined by either solid volume
or moisture-density relationship. ACI 207.5R discusses four
predominant mixture-proportioning methods:
Corps of Engineers Method—This proportioning method is
based on w/cm and strength relationship. The method calcu-
lates mixture quantities from solid volume determinations, as
used in proportioning most conventional concrete. The ap-
proximate water demand is based on nominal maximum size
aggregate and desired modified Vebe time. A recommended
fine aggregate as a percentage of the total aggregate volume is
based on the nominal maximum size and nature of the course
aggregate. Once the volume of each ingredient is calculated, a
comparison of the mortar content to recommended values
maybe made to check the proportions.
High Paste Method—This method results in mixtures that
generally contain high proportions of cementitious materials,
high pozzolan contents, clean and normally graded aggregates
and high workability. The optimum water, fine aggregate, and
coarse aggregate ratios are determined by trial batches Vebe con-
sistencies are typically determined in accordance with ASTM Test
Method for Determining the Consistency and Density of Roller-
Compacted Concrete (C 1170). The major advantage of the high
paste method is to provide excellent lift-joint bond strength and
low joint permeability by providing sufficient cementitious paste
in the mixture to enhance performance at the lift joints.
Roller-Compacted Dam Method—The roller-compacted
dam (RCD) method is used primarily in Japan. The method is
similar to proportioning conventional concrete in accordance
with ACI 211.1 except that it incorporates the use of a consis-
tency meter. The procedure consists of determining relation-
ships between the consistency, termed VC value, and the water
content, sand-aggregate ratio, unit weight of mortar, and com-
pressive strength. Because of the consistency test equipment
requirements and differences in the nature of RCD design and
construction, this method is not widely used in proportioning
RCC mixtures outside of Japan.
Maximum Density Method—This method is a geotechnical
approach similar to that used for selecting soil-cement and ce-
ment stabilized base mixtures. Proportioning by this approach
is also covered in Appendix 4 of ACI 211.3. Instead of deter-
mining the water content by Vebe time or visual performance,
the desired water content is determined by moisture-density re-
lationship of compacted specimens, using ASTM Test Method
for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Mod-
ified Effort (D 1557).
Another method for proportioning nonair-entrained RCCP
mixtures is referred to as the optimal paste volume method. The
premise behind the method is that workability and strength re-
quirements are treated in two independent steps. The method
is based on the assumption that an optimal RCC should have
just enough paste to completely fill the interstices remaining
when the granular skeleton has reached its maximum density
under compaction.
The procedure includes three major steps. The first step is
to select an aggregate grading that contains a minimum vol-
ume of voids for a given compaction energy. The next step is
to adjust the paste volume to obtain the required workability.
The final step involves the selection of the w/cm ratio and the
proportions of cement and pozzolanic materials to produce a
paste with enough binding capacity to satisfy the strength re-
quirements [21,22].
All of the methods include the preparation of trial mix-
tures to confirm that the workability, compactibility and engi-
neering properties are suitable for the particular project. This
is usually confirmed in a test section using the placing meth-
ods and equipment that are planned for use on the job. If the
laboratory-proportioned mixture proves unsuitable for con-
struction, the mixture is adjusted accordingly. Although mix-
ture proportions are project-specific, Table 5 provides typical
values for estimating RCC trial mixture proportions.

TABLE 5—Typical Values for Estimating RCC Trial Mixture Proportions [15]
Nominal Maximum Size of Aggregatea

19.0 mm 50 mm 75 mm
Contents Average Range Average Range Average Range

Water contentb, kg/m3

a) Vebe 30 sec 150 133–181 122 107–140 107 85–128
b) Vebe 30 sec 134 110–154 119 104–125 100 97–112
Sand content, % of total aggregate volume
a) crushed aggregate 55 49–59 43 32–49 34 29–35
b) rounded aggregate 43 38–45 41 35–45 31 27–34
Mortar content, % by volume
a) crushed aggregate 70 63–73 55 43–67 45 39–50
b) rounded aggregate 55 53–57 51 47–59 43 39–48
Paste: mortar ratio, Vp/Vm, by volume 0.41 0.27–0.55 0.41 0.31–0.56 0.44 0.33–0.59
Entrapped air content on 37.5-mm 1.5 0.1–4.2 1.1 0.2–4.1 1.1 0.5–3.3
fraction, %

a
Quantities for use in estimating water, sand, mortar, and entrapped air content for trial RCC mixture proportioning studies.
b
Lower range of values should be used for natural rounded aggregates and mixtures with low cementitious material or aggregate fines content.
600 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
Properties of Hardened RCC
The significant material properties of hardened RCC include
compressive strength, tensile and shear strength, elastic modu-
lus, tensile strain capacity, Poisson’s ratio, volume change
(thermal, drying, and autogenous), thermal coefficient of ex-
pansion, specific heat, creep, permeability, and durability. The
hardened properties of RCC and conventional concrete are
quite similar and differences are primarily due to differences
in mixture proportions, aggregate grading, and voids content.
A wide range of RCC mixtures can be proportioned, just as
there is a wide range of mixtures for conventionally placed
concrete. It is difficult to quantify typical values in either case.
In general, RCC will have lower cement, paste, and water con-
tents and may contain nonplastic fines to fill aggregate voids.
Aggregate quality, grading, and physical properties have a ma-
jor influence on the physical properties of RCC.
Compressive Strength
Compressive strength tests are conducted in the design phase
to determine mixture proportion requirements, and to opti-
mize combinations of cementitious materials, water and ag-
gregate. The percentage of pozzolan has a significant influence
on the strength development of RCC especially at early ages.
The compressive strength of RCC is determined by several
factors including the water to cementitious materials ratio,
quality and grading of aggregate, degree of compaction, and
curing. Degree of compaction has a significant influence on
compressive strength. Because of its dry consistency, com-
paction (consolidation) of RCC requires more effort than con-
ventional concrete. Without full compaction, increased voids
will occur within the matrix of the concrete resulting in
decreased strength. Delays in compaction may also result in a
decrease in compressive strength. Finally, consideration must
be given to the fact that most specifications accept 96–98 % of
maximum density. As a result, compressive strengths of RCC
compacted at less than maximum density will be reduced.
Volume Change
The two significant changes in volume experienced with RCC
are due to drying shrinkage (primarily in pavements) and ther-
mal expansion and contraction in mass concrete. Volume
change associated with drying shrinkage is normally less than
that in comparable conventional concrete mixtures due to the
lower water content. This lower shrinkage has resulted in less
cracking and revised design considerations for RCC pavements
[23]. With respect to thermal considerations, heat rise that
causes expansion of a massive concrete structure is due almost
entirely to the chemical reactions of the cementitious material.
Therefore, the use of lesser amounts of cementitious material
in mass RCC construction lowers the potential for thermal
cracking. For large dams a common practice is to install con-
traction joints in the individual lifts of the freshly placed RCC.
Permeability
The permeability of RCC is largely dependent on voids in the
compacted mass, together with porosity of the mortar matrix,
and therefore is almost totally controlled by mixture propor-
tioning, placement method, and degree of compaction. Hard-
ened RCC permeability is comparable to conventional concrete,
although one researcher has indicated the permeability of RCC
to be greater than conventional concrete [24]. Typical values for
mass RCC range from 0.15 to 15  109 cm/s [18]. For higher
cementitous mixtures such as those for RCC pavements, the per-
meability tends to be lower.
Durability
Abrasion/Erosion Resistance
Compressive strength and aggregate size, grading, and quality
primarily govern abrasion/erosion resistance. Erosion tests in
test flumes have indicated the excellent erosion resistance for
RCC [25]. ASTM Test Method for Abrasion Resistance of Con-
crete (Underwater Method) (C 1138) has been used to evaluate
the performance of RCC for use as streambank protection. Re-
search has indicated that the abrasion resistance of RCC in-
creased with increasing strength and maximum aggregate size.
In fact, some studies indicated that aggregates contributed
more to abrasion resistance than cement content [26].
Observations of various projects from heavy-duty pave-
ments such as log sort yards to RCC spillways have also indi-
cated excellent resistance to abrasion/erosion. However, ACI
207 on Roller Compacted Mass Concrete recommends that for
overflow spillways of RCC dams subjected to frequent use, the
RCC should generally be lined with high-quality concrete to
prevent abrasion/erosion damage [18].
Freezing and Thawing
Because of its dry consistency, it has not been practical to
entrain air in RCC mixtures. Laboratory specimens of nonair-
entrained RCC tested according to ASTM Test Method for
Resistance of Concrete to Rapid Freezing and Thawing (C 666),
Procedure A (in water) and large blocks of mass RCC material
exposed to natural weathering of Treat Island, Maine [18], have
typically performed very poorly. Nevertheless, there are nu-
merous examples of good performance of nonair-entrained
RCC in the field [12,18,27–29]. In Piggott’s study [29] a total of
34 RCC pavement projects in the United States and Canada
were visually inspected. The projects ranged in age from 3–20
years. The study concluded that except for some surface wear
(fines were removed up to a depth 2 mm), the performance of
the RCC was very good. The coarse aggregate at the surface
remained firmly embedded in the RCC matrix. The study also
noted that surface wear typically occurred within the first 2–3
years of service and then stabilized.
Similar to other no-slump, nonair-entrained concrete
products such as concrete pavers and precast concrete pipe,
RCC derives its durability from its high strength and low per-
meability. Acceptance criteria for durability tests of concrete
pavers according to ASTM Specification for Solid Interlocking
Concrete Paving Units (C 936) and ASTM Test Method of Sam-
pling and Testing Brick and Structural Clay Tile (C 67) rely on
a combination of minimum compressive strength and mois-
ture absorption. ASTM C 666, which has been used to evaluate
the freeze/thaw durability of RCC, is a much harsher test that
relies heavily on the presence of air-entrainment for accept-
ability. Acceptance of RCC according to C 666 criteria usually
results in mixtures of very high strength not typical or eco-
nomically viable for most RCC paving projects.
With regard to air entrainment in RCC, laboratory and
field applications have shown an air-entraining admixture can
effectively be used to provide good freeze/thaw durability, even
when subjected to ASTM C 666 testing [18,30,31]. The difficulty
comes in trying to incorporate the tiny air-entrained bubbles
uniformly throughout the no-slump RCC mixture. Attempts
to entrain air are most effective in RCC mixtures with a Vebe
 ADASKA ON ROLLER-COMPACTED CONCRETE
consistency time less than about 35 s using clean, ASTM graded
fine aggregate.
Construction
A major benefit of RCC is the cost savings that result from op-
timizing material selection and the speed of construction. The
entire process of batching, mixing, transporting, placing,
spreading, compacting, and curing is accomplished as rapidly
as possible. There are no forms, reinforcing steel, or finishing.
Placement and compaction of the very dry mixture is typically
done using equipment and techniques similar to those used for
earthwork placement, in the case of mass concrete, and asphalt
placement, in the case of RCC pavement. As a result, large
quantities of concrete can be placed rapidly with minimum la-
bor and equipment.
Batching and Mixing
The batching and mixing plant requirements for a project to
be constructed using RCC are essentially the same as for a
project built with conventional concrete [15]. The production,
stockpiling, and reclamation of aggregate from the stockpiles
are done in the same way and with the same equipment as
for conventional concrete. RCC can be produced in any type
of plant that will provide uniform mixing of the cementitious
materials, aggregates, and water. Often the size of the project
and plant availability will dictate which type of mixing
method to use.
Horizontal Shaft Mixers—Whether single or dual shaft,
portable or permanent, continuous flow (such as a pugmill) or
batch, horizontal shaft mixers provide the most intense and
fastest mixing action of any mixing plants. Many pugmills are
equipped with transfer or gob hoppers to temporarily store the
mixed RCC between truck loadings so that the least amount of
plant stoppages is required. Due to the speed and quantity of
material mixed, horizontal shaft mixers are the preferred mix-
ing method especially for large projects.
Tilt Drum Mixers—The most common central mixing plant
for conventional concrete are tilt drum mixers. These mixers
are generally available locally and can be used effectively to
produce RCC. Because of its dry consistency, RCC batch quan-
tities are typically less than the drum capacity and mixing
times are increased.
Transit Mixers—While transit or truck mixers are the most
widely available and are capable of producing a quality RCC,
difficulties in getting uniform mixing and discharging the dry
consistency mixture generally make this type of mixing
method unsuitable except for small projects. The recent use of
water-reducing and retarding admixtures to improve workabil-
ity has allowed greater use of transit mixers.
Transporting
The most common methods for transporting RCC from the mix-
ing plant to the placement area are dump trucks, conveyors, or
a combination of both. Dump trucks are the most common
form of transportation. Depending on weather conditions,
protective covers should be provided to minimize moisture loss.
In confined areas where dump trucks may be difficult to
maneuver, conveyors, front-end loaders, or backhoes may be
required to supply RCC to the placement area. Conveyor
systems are typically used on large dam projects and where
there is a concern that truck hauling may contaminate the
previously placed RCC layer.
601
Special care must be taken during transportation and
placement to avoid segregation. Mounding of the RCC during
loading and unloading operations should be avoided. Con-
veyor systems must be designed to minimize segregation at
transfer points. RCC mixtures with a 75 mm NMSA have a
greater tendency to segregate when they are dumped unto a
hard surface, but with care and proper procedures, these mix-
tures have been hauled, dumped and remixed successfully. De-
sign of wetter consistency mixes tends to reduce segregation.
Placement
Tracked dozers are the fastest, most cost-effective method for
spreading RCC. Dozers are the preferred method of placement
for dams and other nonpavement applications. Typical lift
thickness range from a minimum of 0.15 m (compacted thick-
ness), to over 1 m although no general production in the United
States has exceeded 0.6 m. The design of dams where lift thick-
ness greater than 0.3 m have been used has been based on the
realization that the spreading of the RCC with heavy dozers not
only remixes and redistributes the concrete to overcome segre-
gation but also provides compaction. These procedures have
been established and proven by large-scale, well-controlled test
section construction and testing, as well as in full-scale produc-
tion of RCC for dams in Japan and at Elk Creek Dam [15].
Placement of RCC pavements is typically accomplished by
the use of heavy-duty asphalt type paving machines. Conven-
tional asphalt pavers have been used; however, they are only
equipped with vibrating screeds. As a result, almost all the com-
paction has to be provided by the vibratory rollers. Heavy-duty
asphalt pavers are equipped with tamping and vibrating screeds,
which allows for much higher initial compaction from the paver
resulting in less compacted effort required from the vibratory
rollers. Conventional pavers provide 80–90 % of modified Proc-
tor density, whereas heavy-duty pavers have achieved up to 95 %.
Continuous operation of the paver is critical to achieving
a smooth surface without bumps. Trucks delivering RCC to the
paver must be scheduled to provide a continuous supply of
concrete, but spaced so that they will not be delayed at the
paving machine and thus permit the mixed concrete to dry out
and loss workability. The use of a transfer device is also rec-
ommended whenever practical to eliminate starting and stop-
ping (Fig. 2).
Compaction
One of the most important steps in RCC construction is
compaction. RCC is usually compacted with self-propelled
vibratory steel drum rollers. Rubber-tire rollers have also used
successfully especially as a final pass to remove surface cracks
and tears and provide a smooth tight surface. In tight areas
such as adjacent to forms, large power tamper jumping jacks
are most suitable.
Compaction of RCC should be accomplished as soon as
possible after it is spread, especially in hot weather. Typically,
compaction should be completed within 15 min of spreading
and 45 min from the time of initial mixing. Substantial reduc-
tion in strength can be expected if RCC is compacted when it
is more than 30–45 min old and the mix temperature is above
21°C. These times can be increased for RCC mixtures with
extended set times due to pozzolans, admixtures, or cooler
temperatures [18].
Each RCC mixture will have its own characteristic behav-
ior for compaction depending on temperature, humidity, wind,
plasticity of the aggregate fines, overall grading, and the
602 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
Fig. 2—RCC being placed with heavy-duty paver. Intermediate transfer device used
to maintain a constant flow of material to the paver.
NMSA. Typically, four to six passes of a dual-drum 10-ton vi-
bratory roller will achieve the desired density of at least 98 %
for RCC lifts in the range of 150–300 mm. Over compaction or
excessive rolling should be avoided, since it may reduce the
density of the upper portion of the lift.
Curing
Because of the relatively low-water content of RCC, moist cur-
ing has been used for most projects. Water cure may be ap-
plied by water trucks equipped with fine mist spray nozzles,
sprinkling systems or complete submersion. Use of open-ended
hoses or coarse sprays that may erode the paste and fine ag-
gregates from the surface should not be used.
Other methods of curing include plastic sheeting, burlap
and membrane-forming curing compounds. A white pigment-
curing compound conforming to ASTM Specification for Liq-
uid Membrane-Forming Compounds for Curing Concrete (C
309) has become popular for RCC pavement projects. Because
of the more open textured surface with RCC compared to con-
ventional concrete, curing compounds are typically applied at
higher application rates then for conventional concrete. The
application must ensure a uniform void-free membrane exists
across the entire RCC pavement surface.
Quality Control
For most RCC projects it is essential to have a quality control
program that addresses the activities, procedures, and respon-
sibilities for the specific project. The quality control program
is typically the joint responsibility of the contractor, engineer,
owner, or owner’s representative. The extent of the inspection
and testing program will depend on the nature and size of the
project. It may be as simple as visual observations or as elabo-
rate as constructing a test section and having an on-site testing
lab. A thorough discussion of quality control procedures is pre-
sented in references 10, 15, 18, and 32.
Preconstruction inspection and testing typically include
sampling and testing the quality of the raw materials; verifying
that the type and size of the mixing plant, transportation,
placing and compaction equipment meets the project require-
ments; and inspecting and calibrating the production and
testing equipment to ensure proper operation.
Constructing a test section is also part of the precon-
struction quality control program. The test section provides
for evaluation of the mix design and allows the contractor to
develop and demonstrate the proposed techniques for mix-
ing, transporting, placing, compacting, jointing, and curing
the RCC during production operations. The test section
should be constructed sufficiently early in the contract to al-
low the contractor time to adjust the size of his batching, mix-
ing, or transporting system; to modify placing, spreading, and
compaction techniques; and to change any other operation
that is considered essential to the success of the job.
During construction a number of quality control proce-
dures are typically specified. Among them are regular plant
calibrations, gradation tests, moisture tests, consistency and
density tests, and fabrication and testing of beams and cylinders.
Visual inspection for signs of segregation during placement,
surface cracking or consistency changes may be indicators of
construction deficiencies that need to be corrected. Another
important element of inspection is to monitor the time within
the various stages of construction. Most specifications require
that the RCC mixture be compacted within 45–60 min of mixing
and about the same time limit is used to ensure adequate bond-
ing for placement of multiple lifts or adjacent paving lanes.
Consistency and Compactability
The Vebe or similar apparatus is used to measure the consis-
tency or workability of many RCC mass concrete mixtures;
however, it is usually not applicable for the drier RCC pave-
ment mixtures. A modified Vebe test, conducted according to
Method A of ASTM Test Methods for Consistency and Density
of Roller-Compacted Concrete Using a Vibrating Table (C
 ADASKA ON ROLLER-COMPACTED CONCRETE
Fig. 3—Determining Vebe time according to ASTM C
1170. Note ring of mortar along side of container.
1170) is used to determine consistency and compactibility of
the freshly mixed RCC. The Vebe test measures the time re-
quired for a ring of mortar to appear around the periphery of
the surcharge plate (Fig. 3). This test is suitable for RCC mixes
with a Vebe time between 10 and 60 s. The test can be used for
overall assessment of the RCC workability, but is generally not
suitable for control of the uniformity of the mix during pro-
duction and placement.
The modified Proctor compaction test, ASTM D 1557, is a
well-established test for soils that can also be applicable with
RCC. The test is used to determine the relationship between the
moisture content and dry density of a material for a specific
compactive effort, and results in the establishment of a maxi-
mum dry density at optimum moisture content. This test
method is more applicable for the drier RCC mixtures typically
used for pavement applications.
In-Place Density
One of the most important quality control parameters to
monitor is compacted density. Density measurements are
taken during placing of RCC using a nuclear density gage. The
in-place density in the field is compared with the theoretical
maximum density or maximum density achieved from a test
section or in the laboratory to determine the degree of com-
paction To ensure the accuracy of the nuclear gages being
used, a test block is made during the early stages of the project
and kept available for calibration purposes. Specifications
generally require the in-place density of the RCC to achieve a
minimum of 95–98 % of maximum wet density.
Preparation of Test Cylinders
The primary objective of cylinder preparation is to duplicate
the compaction (consolidation) effort and consequently the
in-place density of the RCC after compaction in the field.
603
Cylindrical test specimens for determination of compressive
strength of RCC cannot be fabricated using the standard pro-
cedures used for conventional concrete. As a result, several
alternative methods have been developed for RCC and are
being used successfully, including (1) Vebe method, ASTM
Practice for Making Roller-Compacted Concrete in Cylinder
Molds Using a Vibrating Table (C 1176), (2) vibrating hammer
method, ASTM Practice for Molding Roller-Compacted
Concrete in Cylinder Molds Using a Vibrating Hammer (C
1435), (3) modified Proctor method, ASTM D 1557, (4) pneu-
matic tamper method, and (5) gyratory compaction method
[33]. Each of these methods has advantages and disadvan-
tages. The vibrating hammer (C 1435) and pneumatic tamper
work for a wide range of RCC mixture consistencies. The
Vebe test is used for wetter mixtures generally with Vebe
times of 35 s or less [34]. Both the modified Proctor (ASTM D
1557) and gyratory compaction method are used for the drier
RCC mixtures.
Closure
Over the past 30 years, roller-compacted concrete has advanced
significantly as a viable construction technique. Primary appli-
cations are for dams, spillways, overtopping protection, and
pavements. The main advantage of RCC over conventional
construction is in the speed of construction and cost savings.
Performance of RCC has been very good even under freeze-
thaw conditions. Additional research and development is
needed to: (1) improve surface texture, skid resistance, and joint
construction methods in pavements; (2) establish standardized
joint design spacing; (3) establish standardize mixture design
methods; (4) develop representative freeze-thaw durability
test procedures; (5) determine methods for air-entrainment,
(6) improve mixing efficiency using conventional concrete
mixing equipment; and (7) expand the use of admixtures
including retarders and water reducers to extend working time
and enhance performance.
References
[1] “Cement and Concrete Terminology,” ACI 116R-99, Manual of
Concrete Practice, Part 1, American Concrete Institute, Farm-
ington Hills, MI, 1999.
[2] Raphael, J. M., “The Optimum Gravity Dam,” Rapid Construc-
tion of Concrete Dams, American Society of Civil Engineers,
New York, NY, 1971, pp. 221–247.
[3] Cannon, R. W., “Concrete Dam Construction Using Earth Com-
paction Methods,” Economical Construction of Concrete Dams,
American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, 1972, pp.
143–152.
[4] Tynes, W. O., “Feasibility Study of No-Slump Concrete for Mass
Concrete Construction,” Miscellaneous Paper No. C-73-10, U.S.
Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS,
Oct. 1973.
[5] Hall, D. J. and Houghton, D. L., “Roller Compacted Concrete
Studies at Lost Creek Dam,” U.S. Army Engineer District, Port-
land, OR, June 1974.
[6] Schrader, E. and McKinnon, R., “Construction of Willow Creek
Dam,” Concrete International: Design and Construction, Vol. 6,
No. 5, May 1984, pp. 38–45.
[7] Oliverson, J. E. and Richardson, A. T., “Upper Stillwater Dam—
Design and Construction Concepts,” Concrete International:
Design and Construction, Vol. 6, No. 5, May 1984, pp. 20–28.
[8] “2003 World Atlas & Industry Guide,” The International Journal
on Hydropower & Dams, Sutton, Surrey, UK, 2003.
604 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
[9] “Design Manual for RCC Spillways and Overtopping Protec-
tion,” EB218, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IL, 2002.
[10] “State-of-the-Art Report on Roller-Compacted Concrete Pave-
ments,” ACI 325.10R-95, Manual of Concrete Practice, Part 1,
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1995.
[11] Burns, C. D., “Compaction Study of Zero-Slump Concrete,” Mis-
cellaneous Paper No. S-76-16, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, Aug. 1978.
[12] Keifer, O., Jr., “Paving with Roller Compacted Concrete,”
Concrete Construction, March 1986, pp. 287–297.
[13] Munn, W. D., “Roller Compacted Concrete Paves Factory
Roads,” Highway and Heavy Construction, Cahners Publishing,
New York, NY, Sept. 1989.
[14] Hampton, T., “High Performance Pavement: RCC Roll-Out in Al-
abama,” Engineering News-Record, New York, NY, July 7, 2003,
p. 37.
[15] “Roller Compacted Concrete,” Engineer Manual No. 1110-2-
2006, U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers,
Washington, DC, 15 Jan. 2000.
[16] Mindess, S., Young, F. J., and Darwin, D., Concrete, Prentice
Hall, 2nd ed., Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2002.
[17] Rosta, P. A., “At Olivenhain, 318-ft-tal RCC Impoundment is
Ready to Fill,” Engineering News-Record, New York, NY, Aug.
4, 2003.
[18] “Roller Compacted Mass Concrete,” ACI 207.5R-99, Manual of
Concrete Practice, Part 1, American Concrete Institute, Farm-
ington Hills, MI, 1999.
[19] Gaekel, L., and Schrader, E. K., “RCC Mixes and Properties Using
Poor Quality Materials—Concepcion Dam,” Roller Compacted
Concrete III, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY,
1992.
[20] “Standard Practice for Selecting Proportions for Roller-
Compacted Concrete (RCC) Pavement Mixtures Using Soil-
Compaction Concepts”, CRD-C 161-92, U.S. Department of
the Army, Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC, September
1992.
[21] Gagne, R. “Proportioning for Non Air-Entrained RCCP,” Con-
crete International, American Concrete Institute, Farmington
Hills, MI, May 1999.
[22] Marchand, J., et al. “Mixture Proportioning of Roller Com-
pacted Concrete—A Review,” Advances in Concrete Technol-
ogy, 3rd CANMET/ACI International Conference, SP-171, V. M.
Malhotra, Ed., American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
MI., Auckland, New Zealand, 1997, pp. 457–486.
[23] Rollings, R. S., “Design of Roller Compacted Concrete Pave-
ments,” Roller Compacted Concrete II, Conference Proceedings,
American Society of Civil Engineers, San Diego, CA, March 1988,
pp. 454–466.
[24] Banthia, N., et al., “Permeability of Roller Compacted
Concrete,” Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, American
Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY, Feb. 1992, pp. 27–40.
[25] Saucier, K. L., “No-Slump Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) for
Use in Mass Concrete Construction,” Technical Report SL-84-17,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS, Oct. 1984.
[26] “Erosion and Abrasion Resistance of Soil-Cement and Roller-
Compacted Concrete,” RD126, Portland Cement Association,
Skokie, IL, 2002.
[27] Ragan, S. A., “Evaluation of the Frost Resistance of Roller-
Compacted Concrete Pavements,” Miscellaneous Paper SL-86-
16, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment,
Vicksburg, MS, Oct. 1986.
[28] Waddell, J. J. and Dobrowolski, J. A., “Special Concretes and
Techniques,” Concrete Construction Handbook, 3rd ed.,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1993, p. 30.12.
[29] Piggott, R. W., “Roller Compacted Concrete Pavements—A
Study of Long Term Performance,” RP366, Portland Cement
Association, Skokie, IL, 1999.
[30] Dolen, T. P., “Freezing and Thawing Durability of Roller-
Compacted Concrete,” Durability of Concrete, 2nd
CANMET/ACI International Conference, SP-126, V. M. Malhotra,
Ed., American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI,
Auckland, New Zealand, 1997, pp. 101–114.
[31] Marchand, J., et al. “Freeze-Thaw Durability and Deicer Salt Re-
sistance of Roller Compacted Concrete Pavements,” Symposium
on Performance of Concrete, SP-122, American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1990.
[32] “Roller-Compacted Concrete Quality Control Manual,” EB215,
Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IL, 2000.
[33] Amer, N., Delatte, N., and Storey, C., “Using Gyratory
Compaction to Investigate Density and Mechanical Properties
of Roller-Compacted Concrete,” Concrete 2003, Transportation
Research Board 1834, Washington, DC, 2003.
[34] “Roller-Compacted Concrete Density—Principles and Practices,”
IS541, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IL, 2004.
[35] Cannon, R., “Air-Entrained Roller Compacted Concrete,”
Concrete International, American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, May 1993.
52
Polymer-Modified Concrete and Mortar
D. Gerry Walters1
Preface
THIS CHAPTER ON POLYMER MODIFIED CONCRETE
and Mortar is a revision of the original chapter in ASTM STP
169C by Kuhlmann and O’Brien. In January 1987, a Task Group
was formed in Subcommittee C09.03.18 (C09.25) due to the
need identified for standards development in the area of Poly-
mer Modified Cementitious materials. This Task Group started
the process, and then in June of 1989 this activity was organized
under a new subcommittee, C09.03.19 (C09.44). Membership in
this subcommittee numbers about 50. Committee C09.44 issued
Latex and Powder Polymer Modifiers for Hydraulic Cement
Concrete and Mortar (C 1438) and Test Methods for Polymer-
Modified Mortar and Concrete (C 1439) in 1999. These polymer
modifiers mainly contribute to adhesion, water resistance, re-
duced permeability, and increased durability. Polymer modi-
fiers are used in a variety of applications, such as patching com-
pounds, stucco, ceramic tile thin sets and grouts, and bridge
deck overlays. The first ASTM sponsored Symposium on Poly-
mer Modified Concrete and Mortar was held in Louisville in
June of 1992 with the papers being published in STP 1176 [1].
The current edition reviewed and updated the topics of the pre-
vious authors introduced new technology that has been
developed and included up to date references.
Introduction
Latex is a dispersion of small organic polymer particles in wa-
ter. When latex is used as an additive to portland cement mixes,
the resultant mixture is called polymer-modified mortar or con-
crete. The polymer particles in a latex are spheres and typically
between 0.05–0.50
m in diameter. (A cubic centimeter of
a latex containing 50 % polymer solids of 0.20
m-diameter
particles would contain approximately 10  1012 particles.)
Surfactants are added to the latex formulation in the manufac-
turing process (emulsion polymerization) to prevent coagula-
tion of the particles from the mechanical stress of the process,
as well as premature chemical reactions with the portland ce-
ment. These surfactants also function as water reducers, thus
contributing to the improved properties that the latex adds to
the mortar and concrete. However, it is the nature of these
surfactants to foam when agitated. It is therefore necessary to
incorporate an antifoam agent in the latex prior to use in order
to control the air content of the portland cement mix.
1
Consultant, Pine Knoll Shores, NC 28512-6524.
605
Latex was originally produced from the sap of the rubber
tree and, prior to World War II, this “natural” latex from South-
east Asia was the raw material that established the rubber
industry. The war stimulated research into synthetic latex
processes resulting in the production of latex by the emulsion
process. This original process used a styrene-butadiene (SB)
polymer, and the product therefore became known as styrene-
butadiene rubber (SBR), a designation that has frequently been
used incorrectly today when referring to all latexes, no matter
what polymer is dispersed.
One of the first widespread uses for latex-modified port-
land cement was as mortar for bridge deck overlays. In 1957,
12.7-mm ( 12⁄ -in.) thick mortar modified with SB latex was in-
stalled as an experimental coating on a bridge deck in Cheboy-
gan, Michigan, to determine if this would provide a long-lasting
wearing surface. Since then, thousands of bridges have been
overlaid with latex-modified mixes, initially with 20-mm ( 34⁄ -in.)
mortar, and now with 38-mm (112⁄ -in.) concrete, all of them
relying on the adhesion properties of the latex to permanently
bond the overlay to the deck concrete [2].
Acrylic polymers have also been used widely for more
than 30 years to increase the strength properties and durabil-
ity of mortar in thin sections [3]. Latex-modified mortars are
used in a variety of functional and decorative coating applica-
tions such as ceramic tile thinsets and grouts, water-resistant
coatings for basement masonry walls, overlayments, and self-
leveling flooring applications. These latex-modified mortars
are also used in many applications where aesthetics are im-
portant. Acrylic latexes display resistance to ultraviolet radia-
tion so they resist yellowing and chalking.
Latex Types
Although there are many types and formulations of latexes
manufactured, only those formulated specifically for use in port-
land cement are suitable in mortar and concrete applications.
Descriptions of the formulations and manufacturing processes
are available in the literature [4–6]. The latexes most commonly
used are copolymers of styrene-butadiene (SB), acrylates (PAE),
styrene-acrylate (SA), polyvinyl acetate (PVA), and vinyl acetate-
ethylene (VAE). Typical properties of these latexes are given in
Table 1. As the names indicate, these latexes are composed of or-
ganic polymers that are combinations of various monomers,
that is, styrene, acrylate, butadiene, vinyl acetate, etc.
606 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE

TABLE 1—Typical Physical Properties of Latexes

Latex Type Acronym % Solids Viscosity, Hz MFFTa, °C pH

Styrene-butadiene SB 47 20–50 5–15 9–11

Acrylic copolymers PAE 47 20–100 10–12 9–10
Styrene-acrylic copolymers SA 48 75–5000 10–18 6–9
Polyvinyl acetate PVA 55 1000–2500 15–30 4–5
Vinyl acetate-ethylene VAE 55 500–2500 10–15 5–6

a
Minimum film forming temperature.

Styrene-butadiene is the most commonly used latex for Isenburg et al. [10] proposed the following hypothesis for
concrete overlays on bridge decks and is the only latex that the mechanism of latex reinforcement of portland cement:
has been evaluated for overlays by the Federal Highway • Latex provides equal workability at significantly lower wa-
Administration [7]. The other latexes, plus SB, are used in ter/cement ratios.
mortar applications, such as patching, floor leveling, tile grout, • Latex particles coat the cement grains and aggregate form-
and stucco. ing a continuous polymer matrix throughout the structure.
Advancements in processing technology allow producers • Microcracks form to relieve shrinkage strain due to drying
to now convert some latexes into a dry, powder form, reducing at less than 80–100 % relative humidity.
shipping cost and simplifying the mixing process [8,9]. As a • Microcrack propagations are restrained and held together
powder, the product is used by mixing with water and the other by the polymer network.
dry ingredients (cement and fine aggregate). These powders Laboratory studies have been conducted that confirm
have typically been made from polyvinyl acetate and were only most of the features of Vanderhoff’s mechanism [10].
applicable to areas where there would be no exposure to mois- Proper film formation of the latex is required to retard
ture. Recently, however, powders from other polymers have water loss. This film ensures an adequate supply of water to
been produced that allow the use to be extended to applications allow hydration of the cement as well as the development of
where moisture is present. In all cases, manufacturers’ recom- adhesion and impermeability properties. This film formation
mendations should be followed to assure proper application of is governed by the latexes’ minimum film formation tempera-
these products. ture (MFFT), the temperature below which the polymer
spheres will not coalesce to form a film. The MFFT of latexes
Mechanism of Latex Modification used in cement will vary with latex composition but typically
ranges between 4–10°C (40–50°F). Application temperature,
The mechanism of latex modification of portland cement in- therefore, should be maintained above the MFFT so that film
volves two processes: the hydration of the cement and the coa- formation can occur. This is typically 24 h for thin sections,
lescence of the latex. The chemistry and reaction processes of 13 mm ( 12⁄ in.) thick, and three to seven days for thicker
cement hydration occur the same as in conventional mortar sections.
and concrete. However, while this is taking place, water is be-
ing consumed and removed from the latex, concentrating the
latex particles and bringing them closer together. With continual
water removal, both by cement hydration and evaporation,
the latex particles eventually coalesce into a film that is inter-
woven throughout the hydrated cement particles, coating these
particles and the aggregate surfaces with a semi-continuous
plastic film. This coalescence results in partially filled void
spaces (Fig. 1), as well as adhesion between the aggregate and
cement hydrates.
The success of this process is dependent on several factors:
• physical properties of the latex, that is, particle size and
quality of dispersion;
• composition of the latex, that is, chemical and physical
structure of the polymer; and
• environment, that is, time and temperature of application.
A compact configuration of the latex particles is a neces-
sary stage in the process of film formation, and this occurs only
if the particles are dispersed sufficiently to allow them to eas-
ily move past each other in the water phase. With a poor dis-
persion, in which the particles are flocculated, the particles will
not become closely packed but will form intermittent voids,
and thus a poor quality (spongy) film. Figure 2 is a schematic Fig. 1—Electron microphotograph of latex-modified
of the proper film formation process. concrete (11 600).
 WALTERS ON POLYMER-MODIFIED CONCRETE AND MORTAR
Fig. 2—Process of latex film formation.
Formulating with Latexes
The level of latex modification is usually measured as the
weight ratio of polymer solids to cement. The level of latex se-
lected is dependent on the level of performance required. Most
performance properties plateau between 15–20 % solids. The
10–20 % level represents the range for optimum, cost effective
performance.
Some other formulation considerations that are important
are the type and amount of antifoam added, water content,
aggregate/cement ratio, and the particular choice of aggregate.
When latex-modified mortar and concrete are mixed, air
is entrained within the mix due to the surfactants in the latex.
The amount of air generated can be controlled by the inclu-
sion of an antifoam in the latex. The requirements of the end
use determine how much air is required and therefore how
much antifoam to use. The latex producers can make recom-
mendations for the proper antifoam to be used with their
product. And since the cement and aggregate can affect the
air content, a trial mix should also be made with all of the
recommended ingredients. The kind of air that is entrained in
latex-modified mixes has been shown to be small, discrete
bubbles [11].
607
The amount of water used in the mix should be kept to the
minimum required to obtain the desired workability. The wa-
ter level of a latex-modified mix should be lower than a
corresponding unmodified mix at equal workability.
The choice of the cement, fine aggregate, and stone used
in the appropriate mix is based on the requirements of the
application.
Materials
Cement
For most applications, ASTM Specification for Portland Ce-
ment (C 150) Type I or II portland cement is suitable with la-
tex-modified mixes, or, where a faster setting time is required,
Type III cement can be utilized. Calcium suloaluminate and
dicalcium silicate cements can be used to obtain the fastest
setting times [12]. ASTM Specification for Expansive Cement
(C 845), Type K cement has been used to reduce shrinkage
cracking in overlays [13]. Although most brands of portland
cement are compatible with the latexes used in mortar and
concrete, there are a few that will entrain excessive air. For this
reason, it is advisable that the cement be evaluated prior to the
work for compatibility with the particular latex being used.
608 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE

Fine Aggregate
Most fine aggregates that are suitable for mortar or concrete are TABLE 3—Sprayable Formulation for an
suitable for latex-modified mixes. Cleanliness is particularly Acrylic Latex Cementitious Metal Primer
important, since fine contaminants such as dirt or clay can
Materials Parts, by weight
increase the demand for water in the mix and adversely affect
workability. Good gradation is important since there is little Silica flour 120 200
excess water available in these mixes for workability. This is par- Portland cement Type I 100
ticularly true for concrete sand, where a large amount of fines Acrylic latex (48 % solids) 62.5
can require excessive amounts of water to achieve slump, Defoamer 0.3
and thus degrade the properties of the cured concrete. Fine ag- Water 90
gregate should conform to ASTM Specification for Concrete Formulation Constants
Aggregates (C 33). Trial mixes should be done to confirm the Solids content, % 72.7
suitability of the fine aggregate to produce quality concrete. Weight, kg/L (lb/gal) 1.8 (15.2)
Polymer solids/cement 0.30
Coarse Aggregate Filler/cement 2
The choice of coarse aggregate for polymer-modified concrete
should be based on concrete practices and comply with ASTM
Specification for Concrete Aggregates (C 33). The coarse ag-
gregate should be clean, non-reactive, and sized for the thick- It is important to know the solids content of each particu-
ness of the application, that is, maximum size should be no lar latex product before designing the mix. From this, the
greater than one-third the thickness. amount of latex required can be determined, based on a speci-
fied latex solids-cement ratio. The next step would be to select
Water
an appropriate water-cement ratio. (Because most latex for-
Water should be clean, potable, and meet the minimum chlo-
mulations function as water reducers, a water-cement ratio of
ride requirements of the application.
less than 0.40 is common.) From this, the amount of additional
Admixtures water required can be calculated, keeping in mind that the wa-
No admixtures should be used in conjunction with a latex mix, ter in the latex is included in the total water calculation.
without prior knowledge and approval of the latex manufac- Portland cement is used with fine aggregate at a range of
turer. In self-leveling, polymer-modified concrete mixtures, a ratios, from 1:1 to 1:4, depending on the end use. The specific
high-range water-reducing admixture can be used. quantity used will depend on the strength required, with
higher cement contents generally providing an increase in
Polymer Modifiers strength, but also a tendency for more shrinkage. Of course, an
There are two types of polymer modifiers covered in ASTM increase in cement will also increase the total amount of latex
Specification for Latex and Powder Modifiers for Hydraulic in the mixture if the latex-cement ratio is constant.
Cement Concrete (C 1438). One type is for use in areas not ex- A range of mixture proportions are possible for mortar,
posed to moisture and the other for general use. Polymer modi- depending not only on the application being considered, but
fier is tested in accordance with ASTM Test Methods for Poly- also on the latex being used. Table 2 gives a representative mix-
mer-Modified Mortar and Concrete (C 1439). ture proportion for mortar to be used to repair concrete. Table
3 gives a formulation for a metal coating.
Mixture Proportions
Concrete
Mortar Mixture proportion procedures for latex-modified concrete
Mortar incorporating latex modification consists of portland are usually based on a latex solids/cement ratio of 0.15, and
cement, fine aggregate, latex, and water. The selection of the a maximum water-cement ratio of 0.40. Most latex-modified
aggregate size will depend on the thickness of the application, concrete mixture proportions have followed conventional
just as in non-modified mortar, that is, maximum size should concrete criteria for quality and used a cement factor of 300
be no greater than one-half the thickness of the application. kg/m3 (658 lbs/yd3), although deviations from this can be ac-
commodated. Table 4 gives a typical concrete mixture that is
used for overlays.
TABLE 2—Representative Mixture Propor-
tions for Latex-Modified Mortar Suitable for
Concrete Patching TABLE 4—Representative Mixture Propor-
tions for Latex-Modified Concrete for an Overlay
Parts, by weight
Material Quantity
Portland cement 1.00
Portland cement 300 kg (658 lb)
Fine aggregate 3.50
Fine aggregate 785 kg (1725 lb)
Latex (48 % solids) 0.31
Coarse aggregate 520 kg (1150 lb)
Water, approximately 0.24
Latex (48 % solids) 93 L (24.5 gal)
Formulation constants: latex solids/cement  0.15; Water 72 L, max (19 gal)
water/cement  0.40

NOTE—This mix provides a latex solids/cement of 0.15 and a water/cement of 0.37.

 WALTERS ON POLYMER-MODIFIED CONCRETE AND MORTAR
Properties
The addition of latexes to portland cement mixes generally im-
proves the final product in two ways: (1) by reducing the
amount of water required in the freshly mixed concrete and (2)
by providing dispersed polymer in the matrix of the hardened
state. Combined, these result in the following improved prop-
erties: bond strength, flexural strength, freeze/thaw durability,
and a reduction in permeability. The degree of improvement
of any particular property varies somewhat with the particular
latex used. Complete and detailed information on these latexes
can be found in Ref 14.
Freshly Mixed Properties
The water-reducing property of the latexes is evidenced by good
workability at a low water-cement ratio. Mortar with a flow of
120 cm and concrete with a slump of 15–20 cm (6–8 in.) is
typical for mixes made with a water-cement ratio of 0.37.
The air content of the mixes can vary widely, depending
on the requirements of the end use. For some thin-layer appli-
cations, air contents above 10 % are desired to improve trowel-
ability. For mortar and concrete repair work, air contents in
the range of 4–6 % are desired. All of these can be achieved by
the proper selection of the amount of latex and antifoam used.
The setting time of latex-modified mixes is controlled pri-
marily by the reaction of portland cement with water and is
similar to that of unmodified mixtures (see Fig. 3) [15,16].
There are some differences, however, due to the influence of
each particular polymer type. The available working time for
finishing, however, can be considerably shorter than unmodi-
fied mixes due to evaporation of water from the surface of
the mix. This evaporation causes the formation of a film, or
Fig. 3—Setting time of latex-modified concrete.
609
crust, on the concrete or mortar surface that can tear if over-
finished. Producers usually recommend that trial mixes be
made to evaluate the characteristics of the components of
each particular mix to ensure that the mix fully meets the
customer’s requirements.
Hardened Properties
Air Void System
Air voids in latex-modified concrete do not always conform to
the size criteria established for conventional concrete [11,17].
The same void spacing factor required for resistance to freezing
and thawing in conventional concrete is not necessary in latex-
modified concrete containing 10–20 % polymer solids/cement,
since the latex polymer tends to seal the matrix and limit the
amount of water permeating the concrete. The voids are, how-
ever, all spherical, and tend to decrease in diameter as the total
air content increases.
Bond
The adhesion property of latex-modified mixes has been
demonstrated both in the laboratory and in the field. A study
of SB latex-modified mortar indicated that its bond to the
concrete surface is chemical in nature, thus creating a some-
what homogeneous combination of the two materials [10].
Bond tests of this mortar have demonstrated that ultimate
failure should be in the parent concrete, that is, the bond
strength of a modified mortar to a properly cleaned concrete
surface usually exceeds the tensile strength of the substrate
concrete [18]. Bond studies of other latexes have also been
reported. In a five-year out-door exposure study, where sam-
ples experienced over 70 freeze/thaw cycles and 130 cm (50
in.) of rain per year, shear bond values of acrylic modified
610 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
Fig. 4—Effect of weathering on adhesion of acrylic-modified mortar.
mortar more than doubled those of the unmodified control
(Fig. 4) [3]. Additionally, when the bonds were tested, the la-
tex-modified samples failed cohesively, whereas the controls
failed at the bond line. In adhesion tests of samples cured
normally in air, Nihon University reported that mortars modi-
fied with SB, PAE, and EVA latexes exceeded the bond
strength of the unmodified control by factors ranging from 2
to 3 [15]. In this study, samples were also submerged in wa-
ter before testing. All showed a decrease in strength, although
the modified mortars always exceeded the control. Another
laboratory study compared the bond strengths of five differ-
ent latexes [19]. The results, shown in Fig. 5, indicate that SB
and VAE had the highest values and that all but the PVA
failed in the parent (substrate) material. The PVA failed at the
bond line at a strength of 1.28 MPa (185 psi). Adhesion per-
formance in the field was reported in a study of 20-year old
bridge deck overlays, two of which had SB latex mortar over-
lays [20]. Cores were tested for overlay adhesion and resulted
in failure of the base concrete. The bond properties of con-
crete modified with SB latex have been reported frequently
since this material has been used extensively for thin-bonded
overlays on concrete bridge and parking garage decks
[21–24]. Values of 2.07–2.76 MPa (300–400 psi) at 28 days’
cure for direct tensile bond strength are typical, with failure
occurring in the substrate if surface preparation is proper.
Freeze-Thaw and Scaling Resistance
The durability of concrete modified with SB latex has been
demonstrated by superior resistance to freezing and thawing,
and wearability. The low permeability to water results in im-
proved resistance to freezing and thawing as measured by
ASTM Test Method for Resistance of Concrete to Rapid Freez-
ing and Thawing (C 666) and ASTM Test Method for Scaling
Resistance of Concrete Surfaces Exposed to Deicing Chemi-
cals (C 672) [3,7]. The concrete sometimes fails C 666 be-
cause it does not have the proper air void system [13]. This is
not considered a problem, as 30 years of field experience has
not shown any freeze-thaw deterioration. Wear resistance, as
evidenced by the thousands of bridge decks in service, was
documented by the Oregon Department of Transportation
[25]. Their study of the wear characteristics of latex-modified
concrete bridge deck overlays indicated a life expectancy of
23–45 years for a lane having an average daily traffic of over
20 000 vehicles.
Permeability
The pore-sealing effect of latex in a concrete mix results in a
major reduction of its permeability to both gases and liquids.
For instance, carbonation studies have shown that inclusion of
latexes in concrete significantly reduces the carbonation depth
of the concrete (Fig. 6) [26]. Chloride permeability is another
property that has been measured frequently on latex-modified
concrete, primarily on SB-modified concrete, since this is of
major interest for bridge and parking deck applications
[3,16,27]. Figure 7 gives the results of a study of SB-modified
compared to conventional concretes, using the ASTM Test
Method for Electrical Indication of Concrete’s Ability to Re-
sist Chloride Ion Penetration (C 1202) [28]. Figure 8 shows
 WALTERS ON POLYMER-MODIFIED CONCRETE AND MORTAR 611

Fig. 5—Bond strength of latex-modified mortars.

Fig. 6—Carbonation resistance of latex-modified concretes.

612 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE

Fig. 7—Permeability of concretes versus cure time.

Fig. 8—Chloride ion resistance of latex-modified concrete.

 WALTERS ON POLYMER-MODIFIED CONCRETE AND MORTAR
Fig. 9—Effect of latex content on strain capacity of mortar.
chloride penetration from a ponding study of PAE-modified
concrete [3]. In all cases, the resistance to permeability per-
formance of latex-modified concrete is evident.
Strain Capacity
The ability to absorb movement (strain capacity) is an impor-
tant feature of latex-modified mixes. Figure 9 clearly indicates
that the strain capacity of mortar that is modified with an acry-
late copolymer increases as latex content increases [13].
Applications
Portland cement mixes containing latex are typically used
where the following properties are desired: adhesion, dura-
bility, low permeability, weatherability, and flexibility.
As with conventional portland cement systems, the choice
of whether to use mortar or concrete is based on the thickness
of the application—for thin layers, 20 mm ( 34⁄ in.) or less, mortar
is used, and for cross sections greater than 20 mm ( 34⁄ in.) con-
crete is appropriate.
Mortar
Because of its adhesion characteristics, latex-modified mortar
has no minimum thickness requirement. Mortar coatings, as
thin as featheredge, are possible as long as the appropriate fine
aggregate is selected and an adequate amount of latex is used.
A wide variety of applications have been developed since the
material was introduced in the 1950s. These include:
• concrete repair for parking garage floors, bridge decks,
swimming pools, and industrial floors; and
• functional coatings for water-resistant basement coatings,
decorative spray coatings for exterior walls, skid-resistant
coatings for pavement and ship decks, adhesives and base
coats for exterior insulation finish systems, and mainte-
nance coatings for metal.
613
Skid-Resistant Coatings
A unique concrete pavement application, taking advantage of
the adhesion properties of latex, utilized a slurry of SB latex,
portland cement, and a fine blast furnace slag to restore skid
resistance to pavement that had been worn smooth by traffic
[29,30]. The slurry was broomed and screeded onto the blasted
concrete surface and cured for one day under burlap and
polyethylene film.
Thin coatings of acrylic and SB-modified cement mortars
are applied to decks of ships in order to provide a skid-resistant
and protective surface to the steel substrate. The adhesion of
the latex-modified mortars make them especially suitable for
this use.
Decorative Coatings
Cement-based coatings have been formulated with an acrylic
latex for application over a variety of substrates in order to im-
prove appearance as well as performance. Wood, concrete, and
steel are some surfaces that are typically coated. Because of the
adhesion of the latex, coatings can be relatively thin, approxi-
mately 3 mm ( 18⁄ in.), and still provide weather resistance and
long-term performance.
Adhesives and Base Coats for Exterior
Insulation Finish Systems
Exterior insulation finish systems (EIFS) are applications for
usually acrylic latex-modified cement mortar. In this applica-
tion, an insulating material such as expanded polystyrene foam
is attached to the outside surfaces of walls of buildings. The in-
sulating foam is typically attached to the substrate with an acry-
late latex-modified cement mortar. The insulating foam is then
covered with a polymer-modified cementitious layer rein-
forced with a fiberglass scrim. This reinforcement provides the
foam with structural integrity as well as protection from mois-
ture and sunlight.
614 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
Water-Resistant Basement Coatings
Portland cement coatings have been formulated with acrylic
latex to be used on concrete block basement walls. Applied to
the outside of the wall, these coatings provide resistance to
water penetration. A laboratory procedure, based on Federal
Specification TT-P-1411, has been used to test the water-resist-
ant properties of these coatings [3].
Latex-Modified Cement Maintenance Paint
Latexes have been used to formulate two-component cemen-
titious primers that provide low-cost protection of metal
substrates. The water-based cementitious mortars are low odor
and non-flammable and afford a number of benefits:
• Corrosion and water resistance.
• Flash and early rust resistance.
• Protection of rusty as well as clean metal surfaces.
• Capability of curing in damp enclosed areas.
• Adhesion to ferrous metal surfaces.
• Flexibility.
• Weatherability.
• Solvent-free composition.
• Ambient cure.
Cementitious metal primers modified with latex can be ap-
plied by brush, roll, and airless spray. Thick films, 0.50–0.75 mm
(20–30 mils), can be easily applied without sag as these primers
are high in solids. Two-component systems are commonly used
in the maintenance and marine industries. A polymer-modified
cementitious coating can be prepared by blending the dry in-
gredient (filler/cement) in one container and mixing it with the
liquid (latex/defoamer/water) in another. A power mixer typi-
cally can be used for mixing the two components together.
Latex-modified mortar in thin coatings adheres to a metal
surface, demonstrating good adhesion and flexibility. Im-
provement in properties is observed as the polymer level is in-
creased. For this application, 30 % latex solids has demon-
strated corrosion resistance as evaluated in a salt spray cabinet
(Method of Salt Spray (Fog) Testing (ASTM 117–90)) as well as
by several years’ exposure at an Atlantic Sea coast test facility.
Ceramic Tile Thinsets and Grouts
Latex-modifiers are used to formulate thin-set adhesives and
grouts that meet the ANSI Specification for Latex Portland Ce-
ment Mortar A118.4 and A118.6 for thinsets and grouts, respec-
tively. Latexes and powder polymers provide high adhesion, im-
proved water resistance, flexibility, and impact strength.
Shotcrete
Latex-modified shotcrete has been used for vertical and over-
head concrete repair, but only to a limited degree due to the
lack of trained contractors.
Concrete
The majority of concrete applications incorporating a latex
modifier have been bridge and parking garage deck overlays.
The SB latex has been used for this application for over 20
years [20]. Thousands of bridges and hundreds of parking
garages in the United States have been protected with this type
of overlay during this time.
Other applications for this modified concrete are struc-
tural restoration and concrete pavement repair. The restora-
tion of Soldier Field [21], a 58-year-old concrete stadium in
downtown Chicago, occurred in 1981. The existing concrete
tread-and-risers were used as the form for pouring new rein-
forced concrete containing SB latex. This new modified con-
crete was 75 mm (3 in.) thick on the horizontal tread, and 150
mm (6 in.) against the vertical surface. One of the unique fea-
tures of this application was that the 3000 m3 (4000 yd3) of
concrete were placed by a pump.
On concrete pavement, polymer-modified concrete has
been used to repair deterioration at the centerline of 56 km (35
miles) of interstate highways in Pennsylvania [31]. A 50-cm (20-
in.) wide strip, 25 mm (1 in.) deep, was removed by a scarifier
and replaced with concrete containing SB latex. The construc-
tion techniques were similar to those of an overlay; that is, the
old surface was blast cleaned, the paste was scrubbed in to as-
sure bond, and it was cured for one day under wet burlap and
polyethylene. Because of the adhesion properties of the modi-
fied concrete, this thin section is well bonded and serves as an
expedient repair.
Equipment Considerations
Most equipment and tools used for conventional mortar and
concrete have been used successfully with latex-modified sys-
tems. This includes pumps, buggies, trowels, and screeds, to
name a few. Whatever equipment is being used, it is important
to minimize the time that the surface of the freshly mixed ma-
terial is exposed to the atmosphere so that crusting does not oc-
cur. This would be of more concern, for instance, if a buggy
were used rather than a pump to transport latex-modified
concrete. Whereas no drying would occur while the modified
material is in the pump hose, the buggy might have to be cov-
ered to prevent drying if the transport time were long.
Because latex-modified mortars and concretes bond so
well, a major concern with any equipment that is used with
these systems is cleaning. It is important, therefore, that
equipment be cleaned thoroughly with water immediately af-
ter use and before drying occurs.
Limitations
For exterior applications, or where exposure to moisture is pos-
sible, PVA latex should not be used. For outdoor applications
where color is important, such as stucco that uses white port-
land cement, the SB is not the preferred choice due to a dis-
coloration from the effect of sunlight on the butadiene. Those
latexes/polymers not containing butadiene, that is, SA, PAE,
and VAE, are recommended.
As with conventional portland cement, these materials
should be used with caution during extreme weather condi-
tions, that is, between 4–30°C (40–85°F). During conditions of
rapid drying, these latex-modified systems are more sensitive
than conventional mortars and concrete with low water con-
tents because of the film-forming characteristics of the latex.
Rapid drying causes a skin (or crust) to form on the surface if
it is allowed to dry, making the finishing operation difficult.
Care should be exercised when ambient conditions, that is, rela-
tive humidity, wind, and temperature, create an environment
for rapid evaporation of water.
Since latex-modified mortars and concretes require air
drying to achieve their optimum properties, these systems are
not suitable for underwater applications unless sufficient cure
time is allowed for latex coalescence. Typically, 28 days is rec-
ommended. This cure time can be monitored by samples cured
under identical conditions at the field installation and tested
periodically until the design properties are achieved.
 WALTERS ON POLYMER-MODIFIED CONCRETE AND MORTAR
Specifications, Guides, and Reports
An ACI specification for using SB latex-modified concrete over-
lays has been published [32]. The American Concrete Institute
has also published guides and reports [33–35]. As stated ear-
lier, ASTM Specification for Latex and Powder Polymer Modi-
fiers for Hydraulic Cement Concrete and Mortar (C 1438) was
published in 1999.
References
[1] Polymer-Modified Hydraulic Cement Mixtures, ASTM STP 1176,
L. A. Kuhlmann and D. G. Walters, Eds., ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA, 1993.
[2] Kuhlmann, L. A., “Performance History of Latex-Modified
Concrete Overlays,” Applications of Polymer Concrete, SP-69,
American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI, 1981, pp. 123–144.
[3] Lavelle, J. A., “Acrylic Latex-Modified Portland Cement,” ACI
Materials Journal, Jan.–Feb. 1988.
[4] Thompson, S. J., The S/B Latex Story, Pendell Publishing Co.,
Midland, MI, 1989.
[5] Walters, D. G., “What Are Latexes?” Concrete International,
Vol. 9, No. 12, Dec. 1987.
[6] Dennis, R., “Latex in the Construction Industry,” Chemistry & In-
dustry, 5 Aug. 1985.
[7] Clear, K. C. and Chollar, B., “Styrene-Butadiene Latex Modi-
fiers for Bridge Deck Overlay Concrete,” Report No. FHWA-
RD-78–35, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC,
1978.
[8] Walters, D. G., “Vinyl Acetate-Ethylene Copolymer Redis-
persible Powder Hydraulic Cement Admixtures,” presented at
American Concrete Institute, Fall Convention, Philadelphia,
1990.
[9] Tsai, M. C., Burch, M., and Lavelle, J., “Solid Grade Acrylic
Cement Modifiers,” Polymer-Modified Hydraulic Cement
Mixtures, ASTM STP 1176, L. A. Kuhlmann and D. G. Walters,
Eds., ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 1993.
[10] Isenburg, J. E., Rapp, D. E., Sutton, E. J., and Vanderhoff, J. W.,
“Microstructure and Strength of the Bond Between Concrete
and Styrene-Butadiene Latex-Modified Mortar,” Highway Re-
search Record 370, 1971, pp. 75–90.
[11] Kuhlmann, L. A. and Foor, N. C., “Chloride Permeability versus
Air Content of Latex Modified Concrete,” Cement, Concrete
and Aggregates, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1984, pp. 11–16.
[12] Sprinkel, M., “Very-Early Strength Latex-Modified Concrete
Overlay,” Transportation Research Board, TRR 1669, Washing-
ton DC, 1999.
[13] Sprinkel, M., “Latex-Modified Concrete Overlay Containing
Type K Cement,” Virginia Transportation Council, Char-
lottesville, VA, April 2005.
[14] Polymer-Modified Concrete (ACI 548.3R), ACI Manual of
Concrete Practice, Part VI, American Concrete Institute, Farm-
ington Hills, MI.
[15] Ohama, Y., “Polymer-Modified Mortars and Concretes,”
Concrete Admixtures Handbook, V. S. Ramachandran, Ed.,
Noyes Publication, Park Ridge, NJ, 1984, pp. 337–429.
[16] Smutzer, R. K. and Hockett, R. B., “Latex Modified Portland Ce-
ment Concrete—A Laboratory Investigation of Plastic and
Hardened Properties of Concrete Mixtures Containing Three
Formulations Used in Bridge Deck Overlays,” Indiana State
Highway Commission, Indianapolis, IN, Feb. 1981.
615
[17] Marusin, S. L. “Microstructure, Pore Characteristics and Chlo-
ride Ion Penetration in Conventional Concrete and Concrete
Containing Polymers,” SP-99, American Concrete Institute, De-
troit, MI, 1987, pp. 135–150.
[18] Kuhlmann, L. A., “A Test Method for Measuring the Bond
Strength of Latex Modified Concrete and Mortar,” ACI Materi-
als Journal, Vol. 87, No. 4, July-Aug. 1990, pp. 387–394.
[19] Walters, D. G., “A Comparison of Latex-Modified Portland Ce-
ment Mortars,” ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 83, No. 4, July–Aug.
1990, pp. 597–605.
[20] Sprinkel, M. J., “Twenty-Year Performance of Latex-Modified
Concrete Overlays,” Transportation Research Board, Washing-
ton, DC, 1992.
[21] Pfeifer, D. W., “Utilization of Latex-Modified Concrete for
Restoration of Seats in Soldier Field for Chicago Park Dis-
trict,” Wiss, Janney, Elstner and Assoc., Inc., Chicago, Sept. 1978.
[22] Knab, L. I. and Spring, C. B., “Evaluation of Test Methods for
Measuring the Bond Strength of Portland Cement Based Repair
Materials to Concrete,” Cement, Concrete, and Aggregates,
Vol. 11, No. 1, 1989, pp. 3–14.
[23] Knab, L. I., Spring, C. B., Lane, O. J., and Sprinkel, M. M.,
“Preliminary Minimum Strength Levels for Portland Cement
and Latex Modified Concrete Repair Materials for Concrete
Pavement Overlays Using Direct Shear, Uniaxial Tension, and
Slant Shear Bond Test Methods,” National Institute of Stan-
dards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, 1989.
[24] Sprinkel, M., “Overview of Latex Modified Concrete Overlays,”
Virginia Highway & Transportation Research Council, Char-
lottesville, VA, July 1984.
[25] Howard, J. D., “Marquam Bridge Repair, Latex Modified
Concrete Overlay and Joint Replacement,” Transportation Re-
search Board, Washington, DC, 25 Jan. 1988.
[26] Ohama, Y. and Miyake, T., “Accelerated Carbonation of
Polymer-Modified Concrete,” Transactions, Vol. 2, Japan Con-
crete Institute, 1980.
[27] Clear, K. C., “Time-to-Corrosion of Reinforcing Steel in Concrete
Slabs, Volume 3: Performance After 830 Daily Salting Applica-
tions,” Report No. FHWA-RD-76–70, Federal Highway Adminis-
tration, Washington, DC, 1976.
[28] Whiting, D. and Kuhlmann, L. A., “Curing and Chloride Perme-
ability,” Concrete International, April 1987.
[29] Scholer, C. F., “Thin Applied Surfacing for Improving Skid Resis-
tance of Concrete Pavement,” Report No. FHWA/RD/ JHRP-
80/16, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, 1980.
[30] Sprinkel, M. and Milliron, M., “Restoring Skid Resistance to
Concrete Pavements and Bridge Decks Using a Latex-Modified
Portland Cement Slag Slurry,” Transportation Research Board,
Washington, DC, Jan. 1991.
[31] “LMC Specified for Centerline Repairs,” Roads & Bridges, April
1990, pp. 48–49.
[32] Standard Specification for Latex-Modified Concrete (LMC)
Overlays (ACI 548.4), ACI Manual of Concrete Practice, Part VI,
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI.
[33] Guide for Use of Polymers In Concrete (ACI 548.1R), ACI Manual
of Concrete Practice, Part VI, American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI.
[34] Guide for Polymer Concrete Overlays (ACI 548.5R), Manual of
Concrete Practice, Part VI, American Concrete, Farmington Hills,
MI.
[35] Polymer Concrete–Structural Applications: State-of-the-Art Re-
port (ACI 548.6R), Manual of Concrete Practice, Part VI, Ameri-
can Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI.
53
Shotcrete*
John H. Pye1
Preface
THIS CHAPTER, AUTHORED BY I. LEON GLASSGOLD,
was originally published in STP 169C [1]. In the preparation of
this chapter, the contents of the 4th edition were drawn upon.
The current edition will review and update topics as addressed
by the previous author, introduce new technology and current
industry practice, and include up-to-date references and a
bibliography.
Although shotcrete has been a viable and important ele-
ment in concrete construction for more than 90 years, it has
become universally accepted only in the last 30 years or so. Its
versatility and its applicability to a large variety of singular uses
provide economical alternatives and complements to conven-
tional concrete construction.
Currently, the design and selection of shotcrete as a mate-
rial, structural system, or component are more likely to be
based on empirical and heuristic methods than on codified de-
sign or rigorous analytical or numerical design approaches.
Confirmation of the performance of shotcrete, albeit generally
subjective, has in turn led to greater interest and acceptance of
shotcrete and to a general recognition of its capabilities, limi-
tations, and unique characteristics as a construction process.
Nevertheless, it has become apparent in recent years that there
is a need for continuous improvement and assurance of the
quality of shotcrete installations, facilitated by the develop-
ment and application of appropriate standards.
In the United States, responsibility for creating and main-
taining standards for concrete and its associated technologies,
including shotcrete, has been shared by the American Concrete
Institute (ACI) and ASTM. In a memorandum of understanding
in 1936, ASTM agreed to address material specifications and
test methods, and ACI agreed to cover concrete design and con-
struction practice. ACI has been publishing articles and reports
on shotcrete since 1911 and standards on shotcrete practice
since 1951. In addition, the ACI documents have been refer-
encing ASTM standards for material specifications and test
methods. As early as 1920, Professor M. O. Fuller of Lehigh Uni-
versity performed experimental tests on gunite (shotcrete) slabs
using ASTM specifications C 9–17 for cement [2], which were
replaced by ASTM Specification for Portland Cement (C 150).
* The views expressed by the author do not imply a position on the part of the U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board (NWTRB) concerning the potential appli-
cation of shotcrete at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Yucca Mountain Project.
1
Senior Professional Staff, U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, Arlington, VA 22201.
616
Moreover, until 1988, the primary ASTM standards used for
shotcrete construction were based on practices for concrete.
Since 1988, subcommittees of ASTM Committee C09 have
published ten standards covering shotcrete. Both the number
of standards and the rate at which they were generated needed
to adequately cover current technology and the industry’s need
for new standards. In 1990, ASTM Committee C09 decided to
concentrate its efforts through a subcommittee on shotcrete,
C09.46. The scope and mission of subcommittee C09.46 was
stated in January 2000: “To develop and maintain standards
for Shotcrete.” Subcommittee C09.46 is adapting existing
shotcrete standards or developing new ASTM standards, as
described later in this chapter in the section on ASTM and shot-
crete. A recent review of U.S. shotcrete standards includes a
summary of the various organizations currently developing
standards and recommendations for the shotcrete industry [3].
Introduction
Shotcrete Defined
The term “shotcrete” was coined by the American Railway En-
gineering Association (AREA) around 1930 to provide a single,
generic term that encompassed the many proprietary dry-mix
processes, designated as Gunite, Blastcrete, Blocrete, Jetcrete,
Guncrete, Spraycrete, Nucrete, etc. [4]. ACI initially used the
term “pneumatically placed mortar” to describe the dry-mix
process in its Recommended Practice for the Application of
Mortar by Pneumatic Pressure (ACI 805–51). However, in the
interest of clarification and consistency, the term “shotcrete”
was used in the text of this first ACI recommended practice [5].
This standardized the use of the term in the United States,
Canada, and all countries basing their shotcrete technology on
ACI documents. In contrast, in Europe and elsewhere, the term
“sprayed concrete” is more commonly used.
The shotcrete process is a unique construction method us-
ing compressed air to pneumatically project mortar or con-
crete against a surface at high velocity. Shotcrete currently is
defined in ASTM Terminology Relating to Concrete and
Concrete Aggregates (C 125) as “a mortar or concrete that is
projected pneumatically at high velocity onto a surface.” It is
similarly defined in Guide to Shotcrete (ACI 506–95) [6]. The

term encompasses two distinct processes: dry-mixture and wet-
mixture shotcrete. ASTM C 125 defines these different
processes as follows: “dry-mixture shotcrete, n-shotcrete in
which most of the mixing water is added at the nozzle”; and
“wet-shotcrete, n-shotcrete in which most of the ingredients, in-
cluding water, are mixed prior to introduction into the delivery
hose.” A more comprehensive description of each process, the
plastic and hardened physical properties of the in-place shot-
crete, the range and variety of applications, and associated at-
tributes can be found in Guide to Shotcrete [6] and other ACI
506 committee documents.
Early References
In 1911, ACI, then known as the National Association of Ce-
ment Users (NACU), published what may have been the earli-
est article on Gunite, a proprietary dry-mix process [7]. An ar-
ticle published in Cement World magazine in 1916 described
what would later be called the wet-mix process [8]. However,
the wet-mix process did not become a fully accepted technol-
ogy until the early 1950s, when the True Gun, a dual-tank
pneumatic device, was introduced. Shortly thereafter, various
types of concrete pumps were adapted to the wet-mix shot-
crete process and resulted in the acceptance of the wet-mix
process as a viable and economical method for many shot-
crete applications.
Shotcrete Properties
Shotcrete differs from concrete in manufacture, method of
placement, and physical properties, although the final hard-
ened product has in many respects performance characteris-
tics similar to those of concrete. Methods and techniques of
shotcrete manufacture and placement are important factors in
the shotcrete process and can influence its performance char-
acteristics and properties. Therefore, recognizing and taking
into account the effects of shotcrete placement when sampling
and testing shotcrete are important. Historically, the emphasis
on shotcrete performance was placed primarily on such phys-
ical properties and characteristics as compressive, tensile, and
flexural strength in addition to bond, permeability, shrinkage,
density, and uniformity. Early tests for establishing the com-
pressive strength, bond, and density were carried out by
Professor M. O. Fuller. A subsequent series of tests were per-
formed by the University of California and attributed the prop-
erties to pneumatic placement. Additional data followed from
studies at the University of Toronto, the U.S. Bureau of Stan-
dards, the Department of the Navy, and many others before
1939 [9]. The results typically showed that shotcrete compared
favorably with concrete.
Early concerns about the durability of shotcrete, reported
in the literature [10], were subsequently dispelled, on the basis
of evaluation of test results [10–18]. The addition of silica fume
in both wet- and dry-mix shotcrete has improved significantly
both the strength and the durability of shotcrete [10]. Current
evidence consistently demonstrates that good-quality shotcrete,
composed of sound materials and properly applied, can pro-
duce a very durable material.
ACI and Shotcrete
As previously indicated, ACI has been reporting on shotcrete al-
most from its inception in 1911, under the auspices of concrete
technology. In 1942, ACI formed Committee 805 on Pneumati-
PYE ON SHOTCRETE 617
cally Placed Mortar which was retired after completion of the
practice (ACI 805–51). In 1957, ACI Committee 506 (ACI 506)
was reactivated to revise and update the aforementioned rec-
ommended practice for shotcreting. Since that time, ACI 506
has sponsored many ACI symposia and seminars in addition
to producing a number of reports and standards including
one well-known and popular document, a special publication,
Shotcreting, SP-14 [19], which contains many papers describ-
ing the state of the art of shotcrete in the early 1960s. ACI 506
also produced the 1966 Standard Recommended Practice for
Shotcreting (ACI 506–66) [20]; the 1977 Specification for Ma-
terials, Proportioning and Application of Shotcrete (ACI
506.2–77) [21]; the 1982 Guide to the Certification of Shotcrete
Nozzlemen (506.3R-82) [22]; and the 1984 State of the Art Re-
port on Fiber Reinforced Shotcrete (ACI 506.2–77) [23]. Guide
to Shotcrete (ACI 506R-85) [6], published in 1985, replaced the
out-of-date Standard Recommended Practice for Shotcreting
(ACI 506–66) [19]. Currently nozzleman certification is under
the auspices of ACI committee C 660 as outlined in the ACI
publication CP-60.
ASTM and Shotcrete
ASTM Committee C09 has produced ten shotcrete standards
since 1988 [24]. Chemical Admixtures Subcommittee C 09.23
published two shotcrete standards in 1989, ASTM Practice for
Preparing and Testing Specimens from Shotcrete Test Panels
(C 1140) and ASTM Specification for Admixtures for Shotcrete
(C 1141). In 1984, Subcommittee C09.42 published ASTM Test
Method for Flexural Toughness and First-Crack Strength of
Fiber-Reinforced Concrete (Using Beam with Third–Point
Loading) (C1018), which addressed the toughness of thin con-
crete overlays or shotcrete linings. In July of 1989, the Fiber-
Reinforced Concrete Subcommittee C09.42 published ASTM
Specification of Fiber-Reinforced Concrete and Shotcrete (C
1116). In June 1989, ASTM Test Method for Time of Setting of
Shotcrete Mixtures by Penetration Resistance (C 1117) was
published and was subsequently withdrawn in December of
2002. Still earlier, in November 1988, ASTM published ASTM
Test Method for Time of Setting of Portland-Cement Pastes
Containing Accelerating Admixtures for Shotcrete by Use of
Gillmore Needles (C 1102). This standard was discontinued in
January of 2002 and was replaced by Test Method for The
Laboratory Determination of the Time of Setting of Hydraulic-
Cement Mortars Containing Additives for Shotcrete by Use of
Gillmore Needles (C 1398). In February 1998, Subcommittee
C0.46 published ASTM Practice for Sampling for Shotcrete (C
1385). In 1999, Subcommittee C09.46 published ASTM Speci-
fication for Materials for Shotcrete (C 1436) and in 2000 ASTM
Specification for Packaged, Pre-blended, Dry, Combined Mate-
rials for Use in Wet or Dry Shotcrete Application (C 1480). In
2003, Fiber-Reinforced Concrete Subcommittee C09.42 pub-
lished ASTM Test Method for Flexural Toughness of Fiber Re-
inforced Concrete (Using Centrally Loaded Round Panel) (C
1550). Most recently, Subcommittee C0.46 published ASTM
Test Method for Obtaining and Testing Drilled Cores of Shot-
crete (C 1604/C 1604M).
When shotcrete is used to provide structural support it is
often combined with other reinforcing elements. In addition to
concrete standards, ACI 506 references ASTM standards for re-
inforcing bars, welded wire fabric, and prestressed wire [6].
This group of standards comes under the jurisdiction of ASTM
Committee A1 on Ferrous Metals and cannot be revised or
618 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
rewritten for shotcrete use by a subcommittee of Committee
C09. These standards should be reviewed carefully for suit-
ability before being specified by a project.
Refractory Shotcrete
Refractory shotcrete differs from conventional shotcrete in
several ways. The primary difference is that refractory shot-
crete may be exposed to service temperatures of up to 3400°F
(1870°C). The physical properties, such as compressive
strength, modulus of rupture, thermal conductivity, thermal
expansion, and density, vary with temperature [25]. Because of
the effects of thermal gradients that result from firing the re-
fractory shotcrete, these properties may vary throughout the
refractory lining section. The design of the refractory shotcrete
lining must account for such factors as thermal cycling, ther-
mal shock, chemical attack, abrasion, and erosion. To counter
these service conditions, refractory shotcrete uses a wide range
of materials. Typically, the 24-h strength of refractory shotcrete
is similar to the 28-day strength. Rapid setting of most refrac-
tory shotcrete dictates the need for both special application
and finishing procedures.
Standards for refractory shotcrete are produced by
ASTM Committee C8 on Refractories. Subcommittee C08.09
on Monolithic Refractories describes refractory shotcrete as
“cold nozzle-mix gunning” and has produced ASTM Practice
for Preparing Refractory Concrete Specimens by Cold Gun-
ning (C 903). In addition, Subcommittee C08.08 on Basic Re-
fractories has also produced ASTM Practice for Preparing
Test Specimens from Basic Refractory Gunning Products by
Pressing (C 973). An article on the application of prepackaged
refractory castables indicates that these two standards are in-
adequate and several new and coherent standards are needed
for refractory shotcrete using a common set of terminology
and nomenclature [26].
Fiber-Reinforced Shotcrete
Fiber-reinforced shotcrete using steel fibers was first reported
in 1971 in experimental work performed at Battelle Memorial
Institute under the direction of D. R. Lankhard [27]. The process
and application of fiber-reinforced shotcrete are described in
the committee report on fiber-reinforced shotcrete (ACI 506.1R-
98) [28]. The report further states that fiber-reinforced shot-
crete and conventional or plain shotcrete are essentially the
same, the principal difference being the material used and as-
sociated properties. In 1998, the report [28] further indicated
that design information related to fiber-reinforced shotcrete
was limited. Research and application of fiber-reinforced shot-
crete over the last two decades have led to a significant increase
in the number, type, and materials used as fiber reinforcement.
The technology has grown to include steel, natural materials,
and synthetic materials, such as polypropylene fibers [29,30].
Aside from conventional shotcrete applications, current fiber-
reinforced shotcrete applications include tunnel- and mine-
opening support, remediation of concrete structures, and slope
stabilization [31–35].
The design of fiber-reinforced shotcrete is alternatively
based on common usage, trial and error, empirical observa-
tion, rigorous calculation (numerical models), and compara-
tive experimental simulation [33–35]. Typically, the term
“design” refers to the process of determining the thickness
and the amount of reinforcement. The aim in design is to en-
sure that flexural, shearing, and torsional demands on the
fiber-reinforced shotcrete, for both static and dynamic load-
ing, are satisfied by thickness, reinforcement, and material
strength. These aspects may not be considered specifically in
terms of a systematic design but may be arrived at as a result
of trial and error or empirical observational methods and
supplemental testing [35].
Papworth [32] makes an important observation on the
basis of laboratory and large-scale testing that fiber type, ma-
terials, and shotcrete process have a considerable effect on
the performance of fiber-reinforced shotcrete. Thus, there is
a need to establish the performance of new fibers, types of
fiber, additives, batching, and application methods. In the
case of tunnel- and mine-opening support, the design of fiber-
reinforced shotcrete linings can be summarized as follows:
• Shotcrete process imposes constraints on the fiber-
reinforced shotcrete (FRS) system. There are practical lim-
its imposed on the fiber type and fiber content used
because of the application process of shotcrete, i.e., wet-
process or dry-process shotcrete.
• Performance of FRS is strongly influenced by specific
fiber type(s) and fiber performance.
• FRS systems also are largely dependent on the stiffness of
the matrix (cementitious materials) and fiber content.
• The fiber losses typically incurred during the application
of the FRS are 20 % for wet-mixture and up to 40 % for
dry-mixture shotcrete. These losses need to be considered
and compensated for.
• Where crack widths are limited to 1–5 mm, steel and syn-
thetic, fiber-reinforced shotcrete provides significant
40–80 mm deformations.
• Early strength and stiffness can be important in ground
support applications.
• There is potentially significant uncertainty in determining
the ductility requirements due to tunnel displacements.
• Laboratory-based tests (e.g., standard beams) may not
always provide realistic representative data on loading de-
formation.
• As a minimum, FRS performance criteria should be based
on load, displacement, and energy considerations.
Although standards for shotcrete are developed by ASTM
Subcommittee C09.46, Subcommittee C09.42 has developed
standards for fiber-reinforced concrete and shotcrete, includ-
ing ASTM Specification for Fiber-reinforced Concrete and
Shotcrete (C 1116) and ASTM Test Method for Flexural
Toughness of Fiber Reinforced Concrete (Using Centrally
Loaded Round Panel) (C 1550). The need for additional stan-
dards for fiber-reinforced shotcrete has been recognized, and
both subcommittees are expected to participate in their
development.
History of Shotcrete
Early Developments
The shotcrete process had its origins around 1911 with the
invention of the cement gun, a device that provided the mecha-
nism for projecting cement mortar and plaster onto a surface
[36–42]. Around 1908, Carl E. Akeley [36] began his experi-
ments on sprayed cement mortar which culminated in the
issuance of U.S. patents in February and May 1911. He even-
tually sold his patent rights to the Cement Gun Company, which
immediately set about improving and promoting the viability
of Gunite as a construction process through considerable

experimentation and research. The post-World War II period
saw a significant upsurge in the use of shotcrete and the intro-
duction of new types of delivery equipment and improved
methods of shotcrete application.
Shotcrete Applications
Early engineering literature between 1911 and 1918 describes
a wide range of shotcrete applications that includes exterior
applications over wood frames; fireproofing of steel structural
members; rock surfacing and stabilization; repair of concrete
bridges, dams, and sea walls; rust-preventative linings for large
steel water pipelines; coating of brick, block, stone, pile, and
wood structures; partition walls; boat building; relining of
reservoirs, canals, and aqueducts; tunnel linings and relinings;
abrasive-resistant linings; refractory linings in the manufacture
of steel; coke ovens and furnaces; coal bunkers; and, in general,
a replacement for hand-placed mortars and cement plaster.
The majority of the Gunite applications developed in the first
ten years of its existence are still in use today [36–40]. ACI clas-
sifies shotcrete as conventional, refractory, or special [6]. Con-
ventional shotcrete is applied in a range of thicknesses for
structural and nonstructural applications; linings and coatings;
concrete, masonry, and steel repair; and strengthening and re-
inforcing of all types of structures.
Shotcrete Systems
Shotcrete Equipment
The term shotcrete encompasses two distinct processes, specifi-
cally dry-mixture and wet-mixture shotcrete. A comprehensive
description of each process, the constitutive materials, the plas-
tic and hardened physical properties of in-place shotcrete, the
range and variety of applications, associated attributes, and pri-
mary and ancillary equipment can be found in the Guide to
Shotcrete [6] and other ACI 506 documents. The description
and operating characteristics of equipment for dry-mixture and
wet-mixture shotcrete equipment are generally understood and
readily available in both commercial and technical literature
[6]. Producing high-quality shotcrete that will consistently
achieve specified design or performance requirements requires
that batching and mixing conform to ASTM Specification for
Concrete Made by Volumetric Batching and Continuous Mixing
(C 685/C 685M). Dry-mixture shotcrete is usually proportioned
and mixed in the field by using portable proportioning and mix-
ing equipment, or, alternatively, both wet- and dry-mixture shot-
crete materials may be delivered to the job site by truck from a
ready-mix plant conforming to ASTM Specification for Ready-
Mixed Concrete (C 94/C 94M).
In some cases, because of logistical, material-handling
constraints or lack of available bulk materials, blended prepack-
aged materials conforming to ASTM Specification for Pack-
aged, Pre-Blended, Dry, Combined Materials for Use in Wet or
Dry Shotcrete Application (C 1480) and ASTM Specification for
Fiber-Reinforced Concrete and Shotcrete (C 1116) may be used.
Shotcrete Nozzles
The water ring in the body of the nozzle is used in the dry-
mixture shotcrete process to introduce water and liquid ad-
mixtures to the mix when used. In contrast, in the wet-mix-
ture shotcrete process, the nozzle is used primarily for
introducing compressed air at the nozzle to increase the ve-
locity of the ejected material and for introducing liquid quick-
set accelerators to the shotcrete. Nozzle manipulation systems
PYE ON SHOTCRETE 619
and equipment in wide use today include remote-controlled
and semiautomatic nozzle booms that are operated in condi-
tions where manual shotcrete application is difficult or is pre-
vented by concerns for personnel safety.
Materials
When Gunite appeared in 1911, the basic materials used in the
process were portland cement and well-graded fine concrete
sand, with the occasional addition of lime. The constituent ma-
terials currently used in shotcrete are in some respects the same
but they currently include some additions and refinements.
Specifically, lime is typically not used, while fly-ash and silica
fume are in common use. The constitutive materials currently
used in shotcrete are prescribed in ASTM Specification for Ma-
terials for Shotcrete (C 1436). The following is a discussion of
the component materials typically used to produce shotcrete.
Binders
The primary binder used in shotcrete has been portland cement
that conforms to ASTM Specification for Portland Cement (C
150). Blended hydraulic cements conforming to ASTM Specifi-
cation for Blended Hydraulic Cements (C 595) or ASTM Per-
formance Specification for Hydraulic Cements (C 1157) may be
used. Also, portland cement may be blended with supplemental
cementitious materials. For some refractory applications, port-
land cement can be used, but the predominant binders are cal-
cium aluminate cements with varying purities and alumina con-
tents. There are no ASTM specifications for calcium aluminate
cement; information on a variety of refractory cements can be
found in ACI 547R, Refractory Concrete, SP-57 [41].
Supplementary Cementitious Materials
Supplementary cementitious materials such as fly ashes, natu-
ral pozzolans, slag, or silica fume may be used in shotcrete. Fly
ashes and natural pozzolans should conform to ASTM Specifi-
cation for Fly Ash and Raw and Calcined Natural Pozzolans for
Use in Cement (C 618). Slag should conform to ASTM Specifi-
cation for Ground Granulated Blast-Furnace Slag for Use in
Concrete (C 989). Silica fume should conform to ASTM Speci-
fication for Silica Fume for Use in Hydraulic Cement Concrete
and Mortar (C 1240). Typical shotcrete applications that utilize
these supplemental cementitious materials are described in the
Guide to Shotcrete (ACI 506–95) [6].
Aggregates
Aggregates used to produce shotcrete are typically required to
conform to ASTM Specification for Materials for Shotcrete (C
1436). Shotcrete also may be made from normal, light, or
heavyweight aggregates, depending on the application. Nor-
mal-weight aggregates should conform to the ASTM Specifica-
tion for Concrete Aggregates (C 33). Lightweight aggregates
should conform to ASTM Specification for Lightweight Aggre-
gates for Structural Concrete (C 330). Heavyweight aggregates
should conform to ASTM Specification for Aggregates for
Radiation-Shielding Concrete (C 637). Combined grading
limits for shotcrete aggregates should comply with grading #1
or #2 identified in Table 1 in ASTM Specification for Materials
for Shotcrete (C 1436). Guidance in the selection of grading #1
or #2 is provided in the Guide to Shotcrete (ACI 506–95) [6].
Water
Water used for mixing and curing shotcrete in both wet and
dry processes should be potable—that is, free from substances
620 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
that could be injurious to shotcrete. Mixing water should not
increase the chloride ion content of the shotcrete. If it does, the
total chloride ion content of the water, cement, aggregates, and
admixtures should not exceed the values outlined in Table
4.5.4 of Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete
(ACI 318–99) [42].
Admixtures
Admixtures for both wet-mixture and dry-mixture shotcrete
should meet the requirements of ASTM C 1141. Quick-setting
accelerators (quicksets) that induce both early initial and final
set in dry- and wet-mix shotcrete are commonly used to apply
relatively thick overhead layers of material to tunnel linings
and for similar applications. Presently, ASTM C 1398 does not
specifically define the time of set for a portland cement mor-
tar containing and accelerating admixture. Because some of
the quickset accelerators cause significant reductions in ulti-
mate shotcrete strength, decreased freeze-thaw resistance, and
possible reduction in other durability properties, they should
be evaluated using samples of accelerated shotcrete under the
provisions of ASTM C 1140. Air-entraining admixtures are not
typically used in the dry-mix shotcrete process; however, in wet-
mix shotcrete, they should meet the requirements of ASTM
Specification for Air-Entraining Admixtures for Concrete (C
260). General guidance in the application of chemical and min-
eral admixtures in wet-mixture and dry-mixture shotcrete can
be found in the Guide to Shotcrete (ACI 506–95) [6].
Polymers
Polymers, such as latexes and acrylics, have been used as addi-
tives to produce a polymer-modified shotcrete. These materials
are reported to increase flexural and tensile strengths in addi-
tion to reducing permeability and absorption. Currently, ASTM
Specification for Admixtures for Shotcrete (C 1141) references
the ASTM Specification for Latex and Powder Polymer Modi-
fiers for Hydraulic Cement Concrete and Mortars (C 1438). It
should be noted that latex-modified shotcretes are highly sus-
ceptible to plastic-shrinkage-induced cracking.
Reinforcing
Reinforcing bars used in shotcrete should conform to ASTM
Specification for Deformed and Plain Billet-Steel Bars for Con-
crete Reinforcement (A 615), ASTM Specification for Rail-Steel
Deformed and Plain Bars for Concrete Reinforcement (A 616),
ASTM Specification for Axle-Steel Deformed and Plain Bars for
Concrete Reinforcement (A 617), ASTM Specification for Low-
Alloy Steel Deformed Bars for Concrete Reinforcement (A
706), or ASTM Specification for Zinc-Coated (Galvanized) Bars
for Concrete Reinforcement (A 767). Welded wire fabric for
shotcrete should conform to ASTM Specification for Steel
Welded Wire, Fabric, Plain, for Concrete Reinforcement (A
185) or ASTM Specification for Welded Deformed Steel Wire
Fabric for Concrete Reinforcement (A 497) and may be un-
coated or coated with zinc or epoxy. When fibers of any type
are used, they should conform to the requirement of ASTM
Specification of Fiber-Reinforced Concrete and Shotcrete (C
1116). An ASTM standard for anchors used in shotcrete has not
yet been developed.
Miscellaneous
Bonding agents usually are not required or typically recom-
mended in normal shotcrete applications. However, if epoxies
are used as bonding agents, they should comply with ASTM
Specification for Epoxy-Resin-Base Bonding Systems for Con-
crete (C 881/C 881M). Bonding compounds not properly
applied or allowed to harden before shotcrete application
potentially can act as bond-breakers resulting in sagging,
sloughing, and fall-out of shotcrete. Curing materials for shot-
crete should conform to ASTM Specification for Sheet Materi-
als for Curing Concrete (C 171) and ASTM Specification for
Liquid Membrane-Forming Compounds for Curing Concrete
(C 309). If shotcrete is applied in multiple layers, curing com-
pounds are not recommended and should not be used, so that
effective bonding between subsequent layers of shotcrete can
be effectively achieved.
Proportioning Shotcrete Mixtures
Prescriptive Versus Performance Specifications
Although the application of shotcrete is very much technology
based, it also is a specialized area of activity for most owners
and their engineers, who may not use shotcrete extensively.
Within the industry, many shotcreting firms have considerable
experience. Those in the best position to maintain expertise are
those that regularly perform the work. Many have specialized
knowledge and equipment and experienced and skilled per-
sonnel. Shotcrete specifications should not be so limited or
stringent that well-qualified contractors will be prevented from
using their innovations and special experience. Specifications
should be well thought out and directed to the requirements of
the project. They can be prescriptive or performance based,
but they must clearly define the intent of the work.
Because the final product depends on strict control of the
contractor’s operations, prescriptive specifications must be de-
tailed, thorough, and technically correct in every respect. The
efforts needed for administration and inspection of work per-
formed under prescriptive requirements typically are much
greater than those for work that is based on performance
specifications.
Performance specifications require only that a stated result
be achieved, leaving the means and methods to the contractor.
This encourages contractors to use their greatest ability to
achieve the required benefit. All responsibility is assigned to the
contractor, which makes administration much easier and
greatly reduces the required inspection and testing efforts. This
approach requires a clear statement of the required improve-
ments and must designate the means to be used for verification,
including, where appropriate, testing of shotcrete. The debate
over prescriptive versus performance-based specifications,
however, is expected to continue for some time [6].
Selection and Proportioning of Shotcrete
Materials
The selection and proportioning of shotcrete mixtures depends
on many factors, including the choice of shotcrete process,
type of delivery equipment, performance-related requirements,
location and environmental considerations, project size, and
thickness and volume of shotcrete to be placed in a given
time frame. An analysis of a project considering these factors
will usually determine which of the two processes, wet- or dry-
mixture shotcrete, is most feasible and what type of specifica-
tion, performance or prescriptive, is most appropriate. Perfor-
mance specifications usually are preferred because they allow
the contractor, with some limits, the choice of materials, pro-
portions, equipment, and methods for achieving the desired re-
sult. Prescriptive specifications are more detailed, can impose

restrictions, and may constrain the construction approach to a
significant extent to prevent the potential for confusing or con-
flicting requirements.
Typical performance requirements may include but are
not limited to the following:
1. Cement-binder type
2. Maximum water/cementitious material ratio
3. Aggregate grading
4. Compressive strength (minimum at specified age)
5. Bond strength
6. Density or absorption
7. Air content (wet-mixture only)
8. Chloride ion content
9. Use of admixtures (Initial/final setting time)
In most applications, the requirements (1–3) may be
necessary, the inclusion of the remainder depending on the
project-specific shotcrete application. In addition, under spe-
cial circumstances, the toughness may be specified, as de-
scribed in the ASTM Test Method for Flexural Toughness and
First-Crack Strength of Fiber-Reinforced Concrete (Using
Beam with Third-Point Loading) (C 1018). The designer may
also want to prescribe the shotcrete process, type of batching,
mixing, and shotcrete placing equipment.
Typical prescriptive requirements may include but are not
limited to the following:
1. Cement type and amount
2. Aggregate source, type, and grading
3. Permitted admixtures and dosage
4. Supplemental cementitious materials, type and content
5. Mixture proportions or limitations
6. Slump (wet mixture only)
7. Air content (wet mixture only)
8. Water-cement ratio (wet mixture only)
9. Chloride ion content
10. Initial and final setting times
11. Compressive strength (minimum)
Proportioning: General
The basic approach to proportioning shotcrete mixes is consis-
tent with normal concrete practice, especially for the wet-mix-
ture process. However, the shotcrete process can create
conditions that require some adjustments in approach. The
rebound of larger aggregate particles during shotcrete applica-
tion usually results in changed in-place physical properties, in-
cluding higher cement factors, lower coarse-to-fine aggregate
ratios, lower water-cement ratios, and a higher specific surface
for the aggregate remaining in place. These factors must be con-
sidered because of the increased potential for shrinkage and the
development of fine surface cracks in the shotcrete. The most
practical means of confirming the potential performance of a
mixture design is preconstruction or field-testing as outlined in
Section 6.4 of the ACI Guide to Shotcrete [6]. This approach ef-
fectively captures not only the contribution of the constituent
materials but also the equipment and the performance capa-
bility of the nozzlemen, thus providing an indication of the
performance of the total shotcrete system and process. As
previously implied, when properties other than strength, such
as durability, are determined to be key performance require-
ments, the shotcrete mixture can be adjusted to include silica
fume and fly ash.
Proportioning of Wet-Mixture Shotcrete
Proportioning for wet-mixture shotcrete follows the proce-
dures of ACI 211.1–91 [43] and ACI 211.2–98 [44]. However,
PYE ON SHOTCRETE 621
the maximum allowable size of the coarse aggregate depends
on the material hose size, and the quantity of coarse aggregate
used decreases as the size of the aggregate increases. In many
wet-mix applications, the sand-aggregate ratio may be as high
as 65–75 %. Meeting the air-content requirements of the hard-
ened shotcrete can be a problem because entrained air is lost
through the pump and significant amounts of air are lost on
exit from the nozzle. If 4 % air entrainment is required in the
shotcrete, somewhere between 8 and 10 % may be required at
the pump hopper. Maintaining optimal slump is an important
factor in wet-mix shotcrete, 50–75 mm (2–3 in.) or less nor-
mally being required for consistently uniform placement.
Higher slumps in the 100–150 mm (4–6 in.) range often are
used with accelerated shotcrete. The use of water-reducers is
usually beneficial in helping to achieve the specified properties
of wet-mixture shotcrete.
Proportioning of Dry-Mixture Shotcrete
In current practice proportioning for dry-mixture shotcrete
usually is less complicated because most mixture designs use
very little coarse aggregate, the maximum aggregate size being
between 6 mm (1/4 in.) and 9 mm (3/8in.). ASTM Specification
for Concrete Aggregates (C 33) contains fine aggregate that can
be adapted readily to dry-mixture shotcrete application with
minor changes [6]. In most performance specifications, the key
design requirement is a compressive strength with a default 28-
day strength of 34.5 MPa (5000 psi). Preconstruction testing to
confirm the mixture proportions is a suitable alternative if
there is a lack of previous data. Generally, preconstruction test-
ing is most appropriate for medium-to-large projects, in which
the related testing costs are a small proportion of the overall
project budget. It should be emphasized that preconstruction
testing may not be necessary on small projects—especially if the
performance of the shotcrete mix has been demonstrated on
previous similar projects.
Batching and Mixing
General
A considerable quantity of shotcrete that is batched and
mixed at project sites is produced using mobile equipment,
and stockpiled materials are used as required in the ASTM
Specification for Materials for Shotcrete (C 1436). Alterna-
tively, when there are limited lay-down areas, or access or
logistical constraints at a project site, bagged preblended ma-
terials manufactured according to the requirements in ASTM
Specification for Packaged, Pre-blended, Dry, Combined Ma-
terials for use in Wet or Dry Shotcrete Application (C 1480)
are frequently used. Confirmation of the quality and consis-
tency of shotcrete materials used in these products is
achieved by sampling as required in the ASTM Practice for
Sampling for Shotcrete (C 1385). These packages contain the
cement, aggregates, dry admixtures, and other additives. They
usually are available in sealed bags of 22.7–45.4 kg (50–100
lb), in bulk bags of 454–1820 kg (1000–4000 lb), or in other
large containers. The individual constituents of the shotcrete
mixture should meet ASTM and ACI requirements for shot-
crete materials. For proper dry-mixture shotcrete application,
the contents of the prepackaged materials should be effec-
tively predampened to facilitate uniform and consistent mix-
ing immediately before field application.
Another traditional source of shotcrete at project sites is
that batched at a central ready-mix concrete plant and delivered
622 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
by ready-mix trucks. Ready-mixed shotcrete can be delivered to
the project site as wet-mixture or dry-mixture shotcrete. Time
limits on delivery and discharge usually are imposed to prevent
significant prehydration losses. If significant prehydration
losses are expected, provisions can be made to retard the shot-
crete mixture using admixtures meeting the requirements of
ASTM Specification for Admixtures for Shotcrete (C 1141).
Batching
Batching of shotcrete materials typically is by weight or volume.
Batching by weight is generally the preferred method. On-site
mixers use volumetric or manual batching; ready-mix plants use
weight batching for cement and aggregates and volumetric
batching for water and admixtures. Pozzolans usually are in-
troduced by weight but occasionally by volume, depending on
the capabilities of the plant. In the dry-mix process, water is
added at the nozzle by the nozzleman at a rate that depends on
the appearance of the shotcrete. On projects using volumetric
batching, sand bulking and variability in moisture content are
potential sources of error in batch proportions. The moisture
content and bulk density of the sand should therefore be con-
firmed when these problems are encountered.
Specifications for weight batching are found in ASTM
Specification for Ready Mix Concrete (C 94/C 94M) and for
volumetric batching in ASTM C 685/C 685M. For producing
fiber-reinforced shotcrete, additional information on the
required batching tolerances can be found in ASTM C 1116.
As previously indicated, batch mixture proportions can be
achieved manually by using cement in 42.6-kg (94-lb) bags and
weight-calibrated containers for aggregates and pozzolans. For
dry-mixture shotcrete, standard or quickset accelerators can be
added in nonliquid (dry) form during mixing or at the nozzle
in liquid form. In the wet-mix process, all admixtures are added
during mixing except for conventional accelerators and quick-
setting accelerators, which are added at the nozzle in liquid
form.
Mixing
Currently, ASTM has only one specification that is applicable
to batching and mixing of dry-mixture shotcrete, ASTM C
685/C 685M. However, the Guide to Shotcrete (ACI 506R-95)
[6] provides excellent supplementary information on good
mixing practice. Uniform and consistent mixing is essential for
producing high quality dry-mixture shotcrete and for minimiz-
ing the occurrence of sand pockets and laminations in the ap-
plied material. For wet-mixture shotcrete, mixing requirements
should conform to either ASTM C 685/C 685M or ASTM C 94/C
94M depending on the mode of mixing. Additional information
on mixing pumped concretes is available in ACI 304.2R-96 [45].
Again, uniform production and consistency in batching and
application are essential in the production of high-quality
shotcrete.
Miscellaneous
Curing of in-place shotcrete requires the same attention as for
concrete to fully develop the strength and durability of the
shotcrete. Because shotcrete typically is applied in relatively
thin sections ranging from 50 to 150 mm (2 to 6 in.), using cur-
ing procedures as specified in ACI 506.2 is important. Ponding
or continuous sprinkling provide the best curing conditions,
but if these procedures are not practical, curing compounds
that comply with ASTM C 309 or sheet materials meeting the
requirements of ASTM C 171 can be used. As previously indi-
cated, in order to ensure that bonding is effectively achieved
where multiple layers of shotcrete are applied, curing com-
pound should not be used between the applied layers.
Quality Assurance and Testing
Quality Assurance
A project quality assurance program normally should be com-
mensurate with the size and complexity of the shotcrete project.
On small projects, quality assurance will typically be minimal.
On medium-to-large or complex projects, the quality assurance
program would be expected to be much more comprehensive
and would include such elements as preconstruction testing,
prototype tests or mock-ups, prequalification of shotcrete mate-
rials, and certification of the nozzlemen—essentially covering all
aspects important to the performance of the shotcrete system.
Preconstruction testing as described in the Specification for
Shotcrete (ACI 506.2–95) [46] uses the ASTM Standard Practice
for Preparing and Testing Specimens from Shotcrete Test Pan-
els (C 1140) and ASTM Test Method for Obtaining and Testing
Drilled Cores and Sawed Beams of Concrete (C 42/C 42M) for
strength determination. Core specimens are typically provided
for acceptance testing and construction control and for assess-
ing the condition, quality, and uniformity of the shotcrete in ac-
cordance with the ASTM Standard Practice for Examination and
Sampling of Hardened Concrete in Constructions (C 823).
Extraction of core samples should be based on a sampling
plan that indicates the number of samples and their locations.
Specimens obtained for this purpose also can be used to verify
the thickness of shotcrete and aid in the visual assessment of
shotcrete quality, workmanship, defects, shotcrete-to-substrate
bond, and the envelopment of any reinforcement used in the
shotcrete. Evaluation of shotcrete properties is discussed in
ACI Guide for the Evaluation of Shotcrete 506.4R-94 [47].
Acceptance criteria for shotcrete core strengths usually is
established by the specifier of tests.
Testing
Subcommittee C09.46 has adapted ASTM Test Method for Ob-
taining and Testing Drilled Cores and Sawed Beams of Con-
crete (C 42/C 42M) and developed ASTM Test Method for
Obtaining and Testing Drilled Cores of Shotcrete (C 1604/C
1604M) to account for the differences between concrete and
shotcrete that have been previously discussed. As with con-
crete, compressive strength is considered a good general indi-
cator of the quality of hardened in-place shotcrete. However,
depending on the type of structure or application, flexural
strength, toughness in addition to bond, permeability, shrink-
age, density, absorption, and uniformity also may be important
performance parameters. Sampling and testing of hardened
shotcrete during construction or on a post-construction basis
should be based on a minimum but sufficient number of rep-
resentative samples. The tests used in a project quality assur-
ance program should provide data and information that, when
evaluated and assessed, directly relate to the performance of
the shotcrete material or structure and satisfy the purpose
of the sampling and evaluation plan.
Nondestructive testing (NDT) methods, typically devel-
oped for evaluating concrete structures [48], can be used in
evaluating shotcrete. NDT devices and methods such as impact
hammers, ASTM Test Method for Rebound Number of Hard-
ened Concrete (C 805); probes, ASTM Test Method for Pene-
tration Resistance of Hardened Concrete (C 803/C 803M);
ultrasonic and pulse velocity methods, ASTM Test Method for

Pulse Velocity Through Concrete (C 597); and, where applica-
ble, pullout devices, ASTM Test Method for Pullout Strength of
Hardened Concrete (C 900), can be used to determine the uni-
formity of the in-place shotcrete as described in Guide for the
Evaluation of Shotcrete ACI 506.4R-94 [47]. Testing require-
ments for the plastic state of shotcrete are, in general, similar
to those established for ordinary portland cement concrete.
Differences between concrete and shotcrete can again arise
from the type of application and shotcrete process. Methods
for placing ordinary concrete utilize procedures that place con-
crete in its final position at close to zero velocity with slump
varying between 0 and 200 mm (0 and 8 in.). Wet-mixture shot-
crete may have a slump at the pump hopper that varies
between 38 and 75 mm (112⁄ and 3 in.), with the in-place mate-
rial adhering and not sagging or sloughing. Properly placed
dry-mixture shotcrete normally has zero in-place slump with-
out subsidence. Current ASTM specifications and test methods
are used to qualify the individual materials used in the shot-
crete process, except for admixtures, for which ASTM C 1141
replaces ASTM Specification for Chemical Admixtures for
Concrete (C 494/C 494M).
Most of the current ASTM test methods, specifications, and
recommended practices for concrete and concrete-related ma-
terials include four general divisions of concrete technology:
materials, manufacture, plastic-state properties, and hardened-
state properties. Except for ASTM C 1116, ASTM C 1140, ASTM
C 1141, ASTM C 1398, ASTM C 1436, ASTM C 1480, and ASTM
C 1550, concrete standards have been adapted in an attempt to
account for the processes and practice of shotcrete application.
Summary
Shotcrete has a long and established history as an effective and
important tool for a wide range of applications in construction.
The use of shotcrete continues to increase, a result largely based
on the recognition that as a material, structural system, or com-
ponent, shotcrete generally has met the expectations of project
owners, designers, inspectors, and contractors. In addition, de-
velopments in shotcrete technology have resulted in significant
improvements in reliability and consistency that have in turn
resulted in efficient, effective, and economical construction.
Therefore, it is essential that a comprehensive set of stan-
dards for shotcrete be developed to address the current state
of shotcrete technology and the testing needs of the shotcrete
industry. Such standards will make a significant contribution
to the means and methods for the systematic evaluation of
shotcrete that will in turn enable industry to confirm the qual-
ity and performance of shotcrete. The goal of shotcrete stan-
dards development, however, should be achieved in a way that
does not impose unnecessary economic burdens on contrac-
tors or owners. The cost benefits associated with applying new
shotcrete standards for quality assurance or performance con-
firmation must be seen as relevant and useful by both owners
and contractors. Specific areas that currently need to be ad-
dressed in terms of standards development are in the plastic
and hardened state of shotcrete. These areas represent the
biggest challenge in developing new or adapted standards.
Those who develop these standards must clearly recognize the
shotcrete process, current technology, and the broad range
and types of shotcrete application.
Sampling and testing standards are needed to facilitate the
shotcrete industry’s efforts to evaluate the performance of
shotcrete, specifically with regard to the acceptance or rejection
PYE ON SHOTCRETE 623
of shotcrete. This approach should be based on the use of ap-
propriate sampling and testing methods that implicitly account
for the performance of shotcrete as a material, structural ele-
ment, or component. As emphasized previously, sampling and
testing methods must account for both spatial and temporal
variability in a way that is representative of the shotcrete struc-
ture as a whole. Test parameters should directly relate to key
performance or design parameters that constitute the basis for
accepting or rejecting both plastic and hardened shotcrete, as
indicated in the ASTM Practice for Examination and Sampling
of Hardened Concrete in Constructions (C 823).
An approach that could be used for this purpose would be
to adapt the guidelines identified in ASTM Standard Practice
for Examination and Sampling of Hardened Concrete in Struc-
tures (C 823) for shotcrete structures, with sampling and test-
ing on conventional statistics and appropriate geostatistical
sampling methods [49].
The current shotcrete subcommittee, C09.46, will continue
to review Committee C09 standards and determine which of
them are applicable to current shotcrete practice. Where
changes are appropriate, Subcommittee C09.46 will continue
to develop new standards for shotcrete or to adapt existing
concrete standards for shotcrete if necessary.
References
[1] Glassgold, I. L., “Shotcrete,” Chapter 55 in Significance of Tests
and Properties of Concrete and Concrete–Making Materials,
ASTM STP 169C, P. L. Klieger and J. F. Lamond, Eds., ASTM In-
ternational, West Conshohocken, PA, 1994.
[2] Fuller, M. O. and Durham, G. E., “Report Showing Results of
Tests Made on Gunite Slabs,” Cement Gun Co., Inc. Allentown,
PA, 1926.
[3] Tatnall, P. C., “U.S. Shotcrete Standards Update.” Shotcrete
Magazine, Summer 2004.
[4] Lorman, W. R., Engineering Properties of Shotcrete, SP-14A,
American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI, 1968.
[5] Recommended Practice for the Application of Mortar by Pneu-
matic Pressure (ACI 805–51), ACI Committee 805, American Con-
crete Institute, Detroit, MI, 1951.
[6] Guide to Shotcrete (ACI 506R-95), ACI Committee 506, Ameri-
can Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI, 1995.
[7] Prentiss, G. L., “The Use of Compressed Air in Handling Mortars
and Concrete,” National Association of Cement Users, 1911, pp.
504–521.
[8] Springer, J. L., “Compressed Air and Live Steam for Placing Con-
crete,” Cement World, August 1916, pp. 13–20.
[9] Yoggi, G. D., “The History of Shotcrete,” Shotcrete Magazine,
Part I, Fall 2000; Part II, Spring 2001; and Part III, Winter 2002.
[10] Glassgold, I. L., “Shotcrete Durability: An Evaluation,” Concrete
International, Vol. 11, No. 8, 1989, pp. 78–85.
[11] Litvin, A. and Shideler, J. J., “Laboratory Study of Shotcrete,”
Shotcreting, SP-14, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI,
1966, pp. 165–184.
[12] Reading, T. J., “Durability of Shotcrete,” Concrete Interna-
tional, Vol. 3, No. 1, 1981, pp. 27–33.
[13] Morgan, D. R., “Freeze Thaw Durability of Shotcrete,” Concrete
International, Vol. 11, No. 8, 1989, pp. 86–93.
[14] Parker, H. W., Fernandez-Delgado, G., and Lorig, L. J., “Field-
Oriented Investigation of Conventional and Experimental
Shotcrete for Tunnels,” Report No. FRA-OR&D 76–06, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Washington, DC, August 1975.
[15] Seegebrecht, G. W., Litvin, A., and Gebler, S. H., “Durability of
Dry-Mix Shotcrete,” Concrete International, Vol. 11, No. 10,
1989, pp. 47–50.
624 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
[16] Gebler, S. H., “Durability of Dry-Mix Shotcrete Containing
Regulated-Set Cement,” Concrete International, Vol. 11, No. 10,
1989, pp. 56–58.
[17] Glassgold, I. L., Shotcrete in the United States: A Brief History,
SP-128, Vol. 1, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI, pp.
289–305.
[18] Gebler, S. H., Litvin, A. W. J, and Schutz, R., “Durability of Dry-
Mix Shotcrete Containing Rapid Set Accelerators,” ACI Materi-
als Journal, Vol. 89, No. 3, May–June 1992, pp. 259–262.
[19] Shotcreting, SP-14, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI,
1986.
[20] Recommended Practice for Shotcreting (ACI 506–66), ACI Com-
mittee 506, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI, 1966,
(withdrawn as an ACI standard in 1983).
[21] Specification for Materials, Proportioning and Application of
Shotcrete (ACI 506.2–77), ACI Committee 506, American Con-
crete Institute, Detroit, MI, 1977.
[22] Guide to the Certification of Shotcrete Nozzlemen (ACI 506.3R-
91), ACI Committee 506, American Concrete Institute, Detroit,
MI, 1984.
[23] State of the Art on Fiber Reinforced Shotcrete (ACI 506.1R-84),
ACI Committee 506, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI,
1984.
[24] Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 4.01 and 4.02, ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2004.
[25] Glassgold, I. L., “Refractory Shotcrete – Current State-of-the-
Art,” Shotcrete Magazine, Summer 2002.
[26] Fisher, R., “Installation Properties of Gunning Mixes,” presented
at the 28th Annual Symposium on Refractories, American Ce-
ramic Society, St. Louis, MO, 27 March 1992 (unpublished).
[27] Lankard D. R. “Field Experiences with Steel Fiber-Reinforced
Concrete,” presented at American Ceramic Society Meeting,
Chicago, Apr. 26, 1971.
[28] Report on Fiber-Reinforced Shotcrete (ACI 506.1R-98), ACI Com-
mittee 506, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI, 1984.
[29] Morgan, D. R. and Heere, R., “Evolution of Fiber Reinforced
Shotcrete,” Shotcrete Magazine, May 2000.
[30] Banthia, N., “Research in Fiber-Reinforced Shotcrete: Bringing
Science to an Art,” Shotcrete Magazine, May 2000.
[31] Ripley, R. D., Rapp, P. A., and Morgan, D. R., “Shotcrete Design,
Construction and Quality Assurance for the Stave Falls Tunnel,”
Canadian Tunneling Magazine, 1998. pp. 141–156.
[32] Papworth, P., “Design Guidelines for Use of Fiber-Reinforced
Shotcrete in Ground Support. Shotcrete,” Shotcrete Magazine,
Spring 2002.
[33] Kirsten, H. A. D. and Labrum, P. R., “The Equivalence of Fibre
and Mesh Reinforcement in Shotcrete Used for Tunnel-support
Systems,” Journal of The South African Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy, Vol. 90, No. 7, July 1990.
[34] Kirsten, H. A. D., “Design Criteria for Shotcrete as a Support
Membrane,” Steffen Robertson & Kirsten Inc., P.O. Box 55291,
Northlands, 2116 Gauteng, South Africa, 1997.
[35] Kirsten, H. A. D., “The Combined Q/NATM System – The Design
and Specification of Primary Tunnel Support,” South African
Tunnelling — First Quarter 1983.
[36] Teichert, P., “Carl Akeley — A Tribute to the Founder of Shot-
crete,” Shotcrete Magazine, Summer 2002.
[37] Rodriguez, L., “Samuel W. Traylor, The Cement Gun and
the Process of Innovation,” M.A. thesis, Lehigh University, Beth-
lehem, PA, 1989.
[38] Jordan, W. A., “The Cement Gun,” Journal, American Society
of Engineering Contractors, Paper No. 33, December 1911, pp.
407–434.
[39] Weber, C., “The Cement Gun, and It’s Work,” Journal, Western
Society of Engineers, Vol. XIX, No. 3, March 1914, pp. 272–315.
[40] Collier, B. C., “The Cement Gun, It’s Application and Uses,” Bul-
letin 22, The Cement Gun Co., Inc., Allentown, PA, Dec. 1918.
[41] Refractory Concrete, SP-57, American Concrete Institute, De-
troit, MI, 1978.
[42] Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete Structures
(ACI 318–99), American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI, 1978.
[43] Standard Practice for Selecting Proportions for Normal, Heavy-
weight, and Mass Concrete (ACI 211.1–91), American Concrete
Institute Detroit, MI, 1991.
[44] Standard Practice for Selecting Proportions for Structural Light-
weight Concrete (ACI 211.2–98), American Concrete Institute,
Detroit, MI, 1991.
[45] Placing Concrete by Pumping Methods (ACI 304.2R-96), Ameri-
can Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI, 1996.
[46] Specification for Shotcrete (ACI 506.2–95), American Concrete
Institute, Detroit, MI, 1995.
[47] Guide for the Evaluation of Shotcrete (ACI 506.4R-94), ACI Com-
mittee 506, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI, 1994.
[48] Malhotra, V. M. and Carino, N. J., Handbook on Nondestructive
Testing of Concrete, Second Edition, ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA.
[49] Clark, I., “Practical Geostatistics,” Elsevier Applied Science, Lon-
don and New York.
Bibliography
American Concrete Institute, “Application and Use of Shotcrete,”
American Compilation No. 6, Detroit, MI, 1981.
American Concrete Institute, Refractory Concrete: State-of-the-Art
Report (ACI 547–79), ACI Committee 547, Detroit, MI, 1979.
American Concrete Institute/American Society of Civil Engineers,
Shotcrete for Ground Support, SP-54, Detroit, MI, 1976.
American Concrete Institute/American Society for Civil Engineers,
Use of Shotcrete for Underground Structural Support, SP-43, De-
troit, 1973.
Engineering Foundation, Shotcrete for Underground Support III,
New York, 1978.
Engineering Foundation, Shotcrete for Underground Support IV,
New York.
EFNARC European Specification for Sprayed Concrete, 1996.
Heere, R. and Morgan, D. R., “Specification of Shotcrete Toughness,”
Shotcrete Magazine, Fall 2003.
Kovári, K., “History of Sprayed Concrete Lining Method — Part I:
Milestones up to the 1960s,” Tunnelling and Underground Space
Technology 18 (2003) 57–69, part II - 18 (2003) 71–83, Pergamon
Press.
Litvin, A. and Shideler, J. J., Structural Applications of Pumped and
Sprayed Concrete, Bulletin No. D 72, Development Department,
Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IL, 1964.
Mahar, J. W., Parker, H. W., and Wuellner, W. W., “Shotcrete Practice
in Underground Construction,” Report No. UILU-ENGf-75–2018,
University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, August 1975.
Morgan, D. R., Heere, R., and Chan, C., “Comparative Evaluation of
System of Ductility of Mesh and Fibre Reinforced Shotcretes,”
Presented at the Engineering Foundation, New York, sponsored
Conference on Shotcrete for Underground Support VIII Campos
do Jordao, Brazil, April 11–15, 1999.
Vandewalle, M. A., “The Use of Steel Fibre Reinforced Shotcrete
for the Support of Mine Openings,” The Journal of The
South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, May/June
1998.
Ryan, T. F., Gunite, A Handbook for Engineers, Cement and Concrete
Association, London, UK, 1973.
Ward, W. H. and Hills, D. L., Sprayed Concrete: Tunnel Support Re-
quirements and the Dry-Mix Process, Building Research Station,
Watford, UK, 1977.
Sprayed Concrete, Properties, Design and Application, Simon Austin
and Peter Robins, Eds., Whittles Publishing.
54
Organic Materials for Bonding, Patching,
and Sealing Concrete
Raymond J. Schutz1
Preface
IN PREPARATION OF THIS CHAPTER, THE CONTENTS
of the 4th edition were drawn upon. The current edition will
review and update the topics as addressed by the previous
authors, introduce new technology, and include up to date
references.
The chapter was expanded to include a new standard test
method to determine the bond and tensile strength properties
of overlays, patches, and adhesives in the field or laboratory.
Introduction
Concrete is one of the most durable materials of construction.
However, because concrete is inherently porous and alkaline,
it can be attacked both physically and chemically by certain
injurious solutions including acids, salts, and water.
Attack of concrete by water or injurious solutions is espe-
cially severe where the concrete is exposed to alternate cycles
of wetting and drying or freezing and thawing, or both.
Since such attack can only occur in a wet environment,
coatings quite often are applied to concrete to prevent ingress
of the solution. There is no frost damage to concrete if it is dry
[1], and all chemical attack requires the presence of water [2].
Absorption and subsequent chemical or physical attack
can also be reduced by polymer impregnation [3] or by
inclusion of the polymer in the plastic-concrete mixture in
the form of a latex or unreacted premixed epoxy resin and cur-
ing agent [4].
Epoxy resins have been used to bond overlays and patches
and to bond a variety of materials, such as wood, masonry,
metal, and plastics, to concrete.
Organic materials that have been used for sealing of
concrete include epoxy resins, silicones, bitumens, linseed oil,
oil-based paints, acrylics, urethanes, polyvinyls, styrene buta-
dienes, chlorinated rubber, polyesters, and vinylesters.
Bonding and Patching Materials
Organic materials in common use for bonding and patching of
concrete fall into three general groups: (1) bonding admix-
tures, (2) adhesives, and (3) resinous mortars.
1
Construction Materials Consultant, Marion, NC 28752.
625
Admixtures
Admixtures that are used to improve the adhesion of plastic
mortar or concrete to hardened concrete are classified by the
American Concrete Institute (ACI) as bonding admixtures.
Mortars and concrete prepared with these materials are
classified by ASTM as polymer modified mortar and concrete
and are covered in detail in Chapter 52.
Latex Adhesives
ASTM Specification for Latex Agents for Bonding Fresh to
Hardened Concrete (C 1059) provides for the classification of
latex bonding agents according to use: Type I (redispersable) for
use in interior work not subject to immersion in water or high
humidity, and Type II (non-redispersable) for use in areas sub-
ject to high humidity or immersion in water, also suitable for
use in other areas.
Type I latices are generally based on polyvinyl acetate, and
Type II latices are generally based on styrene butadiene or
acrylic polymers.
There are two test methods available for determining the
bond strength of latex systems used as adhesives: ASTM C 1042
Test Method for Bond Strength of Latex Systems Used with Con-
crete by Slant Shear and ASTM C 1404 Bond Strength of Adhesive
Systems Used with Concrete as Measured by Direct Tension.
ASTM Specification Latex Agents for Bonding Fresh to
Hardened Concrete (C 1059) requires a minimum bond
strength as tested by C 1042 of 2.8 MPa (400 psi) when tested
dry for Type I systems and 8.6 I/1Pa (1250 psi) for Type II sys-
tems after immersion.
There is no ASTM adhesive specification associated with C
1404. This test method is usually used only to determine the
bond strength of polymer modified mortar or concrete.
Type I systems are applied neatly either by brush, spray,
or roller. The fresh mortar or concrete can be applied at any
time after application of the Type I latex. Since Type I sys-
tems are redispersable, the latex may be allowed to dry be-
fore application of the fresh mortar or concrete.
Type II latices are mixed with cement or cement and
sand and are applied as a slurry or grout. Since Type II lat-
ices are non-redispersable, application of the fresh mortar or
concrete must be accomplished before the slurry dries. The
importance of slurry application of Type II systems is illus-
trated in Fig. 1 [5]. When applied neatly, the systems do not
626 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
Fig. 1—Example of bond strengths obtained using Type II latices applied as a slurry and neat ASTM
test method C 1042.
meet the requirements of C 1059. When applied as a slurry,
they exceed the minimum requirements.
Epoxy Resins as Adhesive, Patching, and
Overlaying Materials
Epoxy resins are the most widely used organic systems for
bonding, patching, and overlaying concrete. Suitable systems
are available for use as adhesives (for bonding new plastic mor-
tar or concrete to existing hardened concrete) and also as
binders (for the manufacture of resinous mortar and concrete
patches or overlays). For these purposes, low molecular-weight
liquid epoxy resins of the bisphenol A type (reaction products
of the bisphenol A and epichlorohydrin) are generally used.
These resins are mixed with a curing agent immediately prior
to use. These curing agents are generally of the chemical
groups, such as amines, polyamines, or polyamides.
The epoxy resins cure by cross-linking; therefore, curing
shrinkage is much less with these than with the polyester or
vinylester systems that cure by polymerization. The cured-resin
systems will have tensile strengths between 10 and 20 times
that of good concrete and will be resistant to alkalies, mild
acids, solvents, and oils.
ASTM Specification for Epoxy-Resin-Base Bonding Sys-
tems for Crete (C 881) classifies epoxy resin systems by type,
class, grade, and color.
Seven types are described by this specification according
to their proposed use:
1. Type I — For use in non-load-bearing applications for bond-
ing hardened concrete to hardened concrete and other
materials, and as a binder in epoxy mortars or epoxy con-
cretes.
2. Type II — For use in non-load-bearing applications for
bonding freshly mixed concrete to hardened concrete.
3. Type III — For use in bonding skid-resistant materials to
hardened concrete, and as a binder in epoxy mortars or
epoxy concretes used on traffic-bearing surfaces or sur-
faces subject to thermal or mechanical movements.
4. Type IV — For use in load-bearing applications for bonding
hardened concrete to hardened concrete and other mate-
rials and as a binder for epoxy mortars and concretes.
5. Type V — For use in load-bearing applications for bonding
freshly mixed concrete to hardened concrete.
6. Type VI — For bonding and sealing segmental precast ele-
ments with internal tendons and for span-by-span erection
when temporary post tensioning is applied.
 SCHUTZ ON ORGANIC MATERIALS FOR CONCRETE
7. Type VII — For use as a non-stress-carrying sealer for seg-
mental precast elements when temporary post tensioning
is not applied as in span-by-span erection.
Three grades of systems are defined according to their
flow characteristics and are distinguished by the viscosity and
consistency requirements:
Grade 1 — low viscosity,
Grade 2 — medium viscosity,
Grade 3 — non-sagging consistency.
Classes A, B, and C are defined for Types 1 through 5, and
Classes D, E, and F are defined for Types 6 and 7, according to
the range of temperatures for which they are suitable.
1. Class A — For use below 4.5°C (40°F), the lowest allowable
temperature to be defined by the manufacturer of the
product.
2. Class B — For use between 4.5 and 15.5°C (40 and 60°F).
3. Class C — For use above 15.5°C (60°F), the highest allow-
able temperature to be defined by the manufacturer of the
product.
4. Class D — For use between 4.5 and 18.0°C (40 and 65°F).
5. Class E — For use between 15.5 and 26.5°C (60 and 80°F).
6. Class F — For use between 24.0 and 32.0°C (75 and 90°F).
The temperature in question is usually that of the surface
of the hardened concrete to which the bonding system is to be
applied. This temperature may be considerably different from
that of the air or the applied material. Where unusual curing
rates are desired, it is possible to use a class of bonding agent
at a temperature other than that for which it is normally in-
tended. For example, a Class A system will cure rapidly at room
temperature.
Two ASTM test methods are available to determine the
suitability of epoxy resins for use with concrete:
1. ASTM Test Method for Bond Strength of Epoxy-Resin Sys-
tems Used with Concrete (C 882) is a test method that de-
termines the bond strength by using the epoxy system to
bond together two equal sections of a 76.2 by 152A-rom (3

6 in.) portland-cement mortar cylinder, each section of
which has a diagonally cast bonding area at a 30° angle
from vertical. After suitable curing of the bonding agent,
the test is performed by determining the compressive
strength of the composite cylinder.
2. ASTM Test Method for Thermal Compatibility Between
Concrete and an Epoxy-Resin Overlay (C 884). Although
developed for epoxy-resin systems, this test method may
be used to determine the thermal compatibility of any
resinous mortar and concrete. In this test method, a layer
of epoxy-sand mortar is applied to a slab of cured and
dried concrete. After the epoxy has cured, the sample is
subjected to five cycles of temperature change between
25°C (77°F) and 21.1°C (6°F). Crack lines between
the crete and the epoxy mortar constitute failure of the
test.
Epoxy-resin systems conforming to ASTM C 881 Types I, II,
IV, and V have relatively high elastic moduli, since a structural
bond is required in most adhesive applications. In the thin glue
lines usually used, the differences in linear coefficient of
expansion between the epoxy resin and the concrete is incon-
sequential because the total tensile strength of the thin glue
line (1 mm or less) is less than the tensile strength of the
concrete. In thin glue lines, creep of the epoxy resin is not a
problem because the effective modulus of elasticity as a mate-
rial in a thin glue line will be extremely high [6].
627
For applications as an adhesive, the epoxy resin should
contain no solvent, since solvent may be entrapped during cure
and cause both a rubbery cure and later shrinkage of the
adhesive. The epoxy-resin systems may be applied by brush,
roller, or spray to properly prepared concrete surfaces. Where
reinforcing steel is exposed, the steel should be cleaned of rust,
oil, and foreign material and coated with the epoxy-resin
adhesive to prevent further corrosion.
ACI 503.1, Standard Specification for Bonding Hardened
Concrete, Steel, Wood, Brick and Other Materials to Hardened
Concrete with a Multi-Component Epoxy Adhesive, and ACI
503.2, Standard Specification for Bonding Plastic Concrete to
Hardened Concrete with a Multi-Component Epoxy Adhesive,
cover bonding techniques in detail [7].
Epoxy-resin systems are used quite commonly as the sole
binder for concrete patches and overlays. Since such patches
and overlays are generally thick, a resin with a low modulus of
elasticity, such as those conforming to ASTM C 881, Type III,
must be used.
If high-modulus binders are used, the difference in ther-
mal coefficient of expansion between the thick resin mortar
and the base concrete will result in failure of the overlay or
patch by shearing of the concrete adjacent to the resinous mor-
tar or concrete. When applied in layers 40-mm (112⁄ -in.) or
greater in thickness, it is desirable to include coarse aggregate
in the system, both for reasons of economy and thermal com-
patibility. Figure 2 illustrates the effect of aggregate loading on
linear coefficient of expansion of epoxy-mortar systems [7].
The use of epoxy resins as a binder for mortars is covered
by ACI 503.4, Standard Specification for Repairing Concrete
with Epoxy Mortars [3].
Thin resinous mortars (also referred to as skid-resistant
surfacings or resinous overlays) may be economically pro-
duced by applying the resin by roller, squeegee, or spray to a
horizontal concrete surface and broadcasting fine aggregate in
excess onto the uncured resin. After cure, the excess aggregate
may be swept off and recovered.
Several applications may be applied if desired. This
method eliminates the need for mortar mixers, troweling, and
transporting of resinous mortars. These thin overlays have
been used for sealing bridge decks and other flatwork for over
20 years and have a good service record.
ACI 503.3, Standard Specification for Producing a Skid-
Resistant Surface on Concrete by the Use of a Multi-Compo-
nent Epoxy System, details this method [7].
Some epoxy-resin systems are water sensitive before cure.
Therefore, they can only be used under dry conditions. Sys-
tems conforming to ASTM C 881 are able to cure under humid
conditions and bond to damp surfaces.
Where large cavities are to be repaired by use of an epoxy-
resin concrete, the most economical method is to prepack ag-
gregates into the void and then inject the epoxy resin as a grout
from the bottom of the void. This approach displaces air or dis-
places water in the event the repair is made under water.
Proportioning epoxy-resin mortar or concrete follows the
same guidelines as proportioning portland-cement concrete
mixtures. However, since the resin systems are sticky and vis-
cous, the sand/aggregate ratio is usually the reverse of that
used for portland-cement concrete.
The total of voids in the system should be less than 12 % by
volume. Voids in excess of 12 % will result in a permeable mass
with resultant poor chemical and freeze/thaw resistance. When
628 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
Fig. 2—Effect of sand aggregate-binder ratio on the thermal coefficient of expansion of an epoxy system.
using forms for epoxy-resin mortar or concrete, the forms
should be coated with polyethylene rather than oil. Oil may be
absorbed into the resin, impairing the cure of the system.
ACI Committee 503 has issued a guide covering the use of
epoxy resin in concrete construction [7]. This report should be
studied by those planning to use these materials. It stresses the
necessity for preparing the concrete surface to be treated be-
fore application of the resin system. Three surface conditions
must be met if an application is to be successful: (1) the surface
must be strong and sound, (2) the surface must be clean (i.e.,
free of oil, grease, or other contaminants such as residues of
curing compounds, waxes, or polishes that may have been ap-
plied to the surface of the concrete), and (3) water vapor must
not be expelled from the concrete (out-gassing) during appli-
cation and curing of the system.
It is often desirable to use resins other than epoxies for mor-
tars and overlays. Acrylic, polyester, and vinylester resins have
been used successfully. The choice may be dictated by economy,
viscosity, cure rate, and specific chemical resistance [8].
The thermal coefficient of expansion of these resins is
similar to that of the epoxy resins, and it is recommended
that a compatibility test, such as ASTM C 884, be performed
prior to use.
In general, the vinylester and the polyester resins have bet-
ter acid resistance than the epoxies, but, when used for chemi-
cal protection, each system should be evaluated or pretested
for resistance to that particular chemical exposure and tem-
perature.
Epoxy resins have been used extensively for pressure
grouting cracks to restore the structural integrity of a concrete
member [7]. For gravity-flow sealing of cracks in concrete
decks, the high molecular-weight methacrylate resins are ap-
propriate because of their low viscosity. These resins are avail-
able with viscosities lower than 25 cps, whereas the lowest vis-
cosity epoxy resins will be in the range of 100 to 400 cps [9,10].
A test method which has been in use with many variations
for over 25 years has now been standardized and published:
ASTM C 1583–04, Tensile Strength of Concrete Surfaces and
the Bond Strength or Tensile Strength of Concrete Repair and
Overlay Materials by Direct Tension (Pull-off Method).
This test method is suitable for both field and laboratory
use to determine: the near-surface tensile strength of the
concrete surface, the bond strength of a repair or overlay, or
the tensile strength of a repair material or overlay or the ad-
hesive used.
The test specimen is formed by drilling a 50 mm (2.0 in.)
core into the surface of the substrate and leaving the core at-
tached to the concrete. A steel disk is bonded to the top surface
of the test specimen, and a tensile load is applied to the disk.
The tensile or bond strength and mode of failure are reported.
The modes of failure possible are shown in Fig. 3.
Bituminous Coatings
Bituminous materials include both asphaltic and coal-tar-based
materials.
There is considerable difference between asphalts and
coal tars. Asphalts are resistant to many mildly corrosive ma-
terials but are attacked readily by solvents, oils, and gasoline.
Further, unless they are specially formulated, asphaltic coat-
ings may be permeable to water. Asphaltic coatings generally
are used to protect foundations, basements, and similar struc-
tures from water.
Coal-tar coatings possess a high degree of water resistance
and should be considered wherever continuous immersion is
encountered. Coal-tar coatings have a tendency to crack and
craze when exposed to ultraviolet light or high temperature.
The most common use for coal-tar coatings is the protection of
underground pipelines. When formulated with epoxy-resin sys-
tems, excellent long-term performance has been recorded [9].
 SCHUTZ ON ORGANIC MATERIALS FOR CONCRETE
Fig. 3—Schematic of failure modes.
Bituminous coatings may be used with reinforcing fabric
and tape to increase their resistance to impact on back-filling
and handling. Such reinforcing also increases their thickness
as well as their impermeability and service life.
Synthetic-Resin Coatings
Synthetic-resin coatings other than latex-based coatings that
are successfully used for sealing concrete are generally applied
as solvent solutions and include: coumaroneindene, styrene-
acrylic, chlorinated rubber, chlorosulfonated polyethylene,
polyurethane, neoprene, and epoxy resins.
The most commonly used coatings in this group are chlo-
rinated-rubber, styrene-acrylate, polyurethane, and epoxy-
resin-based. For protection for interior use, where aggressive
solutions such as mild concentrations of inorganic acids and
low concentrations of organic acids and caustics are encoun-
tered, epoxy-resin-based coatings have proven very successful.
These may be either polyamine, polyamide, amine-adduct, or
acrylic-amine systems [11]. They may be applied as solvent so-
lution, water-based, or 100 % solids systems.
Because these epoxy-resin systems will tend to chalk and
yellow, they are not suitable as exterior architectural coatings.
The acrylic-amine epoxy-resin systems exhibit better resistance
to ultraviolet radiation. However, they are not quite as chemi-
cally resistant as the epoxy-resin systems.
The polyurethane-based coatings exhibit extremely good
scuff and abrasion resistance and form the basis for many coat-
ings for concrete floors. They are often used in conjunction
with an epoxy-resin-based prime coat.
The aromatic polyurethanes exhibit good chemical resist-
ance but tend to yellow on outdoor exposure. The aliphatic
polyurethanes have excellent ultraviolet resistance and are the
choice for protection of exterior concrete.
Sealing and Curing Compounds
Compounds conforming to ASTM Specification C 1315 Liquid
Membrane-Forming Compounds Having Special Properties for
Curing and Sealing Concrete can be applied to fresh concrete
629
as a curing compound and will perform as a sealer or may be
applied to hardened concrete as a sealer. Chapter 43 covers the
use of these compounds as curing mediums. These compounds
are the most widely used sealers. They are usually based on chlo-
rinated rubber, styrene acrylate, and styrene-butadiene. They do
not harden or dust proof the concrete as such but do provide a
protective resinous coating, which will resist the abrasion and
dusting caused by foot and wheel traffic.
Although C 1315 is a performance specification, a mini-
mum of 25 % vehicle solids is specified in order to provide a
dry film thickness of 0.025 mm (1 mil) at the specified cover-
age rate. This thickness is considered a minimum to achieve
the desired characteristics.
The specification covers two types, Type I (clear or translu-
cent) and Type II (white pigmented). There are three classes
based on their resistance to yellowing or darkening on expo-
sure to UV radiation: Class A (essentially non-yellowing), Class
B (moderate color change), and Class C (no restriction on color
change, for use where color changes are acceptable).
These materials are often used to prevent dusting of con-
crete, which can affect the adhesion of covering materials such
as ceramic tile or vinyl tiles and floor coverings. Tests are in-
cluded in the specification for bond of commercial adhesives.
Tests are also included for resistance to acids and alkalies.
These coatings, when subject to forklift or other vehicular
traffic, may exhibit the phenomenon of “rubber-burn,” that is,
permanent markings or stains from rubber tires. All organic
coatings may exhibit this phenomenon to some degree. The
two-component polyurethane or epoxy-resin-based coatings
have better resistance to rubber-burn than single-component
coatings. They may, however, also exhibit staining, depending
on the composition of the tires.
Latex Coatings
Latex coatings are relatively insensitive to dampness and al-
kalinity and have become the most widely used coatings for
architectural interior and exterior concrete surfaces. Two
types of latices in common use are acrylic and polyvinyl
630 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
acetate latices. While both are suitable for interior concrete
coatings, the acrylic gives the best results in exterior exposure
due to its superior ultraviolet resistance. Since these latices
are water borne, surface dampness is not a problem. When
heavily filled or pigmented, they form permeable coatings,
and the presence of vapor pressure does not result in failure.
Sealers
Materials commonly termed “sealers” or “penetrating sealers”
are used to reduce the water absorption and chloride ion pene-
tration of concrete. Most of these materials do not change the
appearance of the concrete significantly. Sealers do not actually
seal the concrete but reduce water inflow. Penetration is also
minimal, 3 mm (1/8 in.) being reported as a general maximum
[12]. Many act as effective chloride ion shields.
Silanes
Many materials are marketed for this application. The alkoxysi-
lanes, oligomeric alkoxysilanes, and the polysiloxy silanes do
not form films but react within the concrete pores to form a hy-
drophobic layer. As a class, these materials have shown good
performance in laboratory tests and field applications and form
effective chloride shields [13]. The sealers based on urethanes,
epoxies, and acrylics form semipermeable films.
One extensive test program [12] indicated that an alklyl-
alkoxy silane, a methyl methacrylate, an amine-cured epoxy, a
moisture-cured polyurethane, and a linseed oil-based sealer
performed well in simulated exposure tests.
Other tests [10] indicate that the performance of these seal-
ers is highly dependent on the characteristics of the concrete
treated. These tests also indicate that although there are trends
in the performance of a generic type, being of a particular
generic type does not ensure the effectiveness of a sealer. There-
fore, it is recommended that pretesting should be carried out
with the candidate sealers and the concrete in question. Such a
test method is described by Marusin [13]. The test consists of de-
termining the depth of sealer penetration and weight gain and
chloride ion profile after 21 days of ponding with a salt solution.
References
[1] Woods, H., “Durability of Concrete Construction,” ACI Mono-
graph 4, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI, 1968, p.
15.
[2] Kleinlogel, A., Influences on Concrete, Frederick Ungar Publish-
ing Company, New York, 1950, p. 10.
[3] “Concrete-Polymer Materials,” Third Topical Report, Bureau of
Reclamation, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Denver, CO,
Jan. 1971.
[4] Nawy, E. G., Sauer, J. A., and Sun, P. F., “Polymer Cement Con-
crete,” Journal, American Concrete Institute, Nov. 1975.
[5] Author’s laboratory data.
[6] Schutz, R. J., “Epoxy Adhesive in Prestressed and Precast Bridge
Construction,” Journal, American Concrete Institute, Title No.
73-14, March 1976, pp. 155–159.
[7] Manual of Concrete Practice, Part 5, American Concrete Insti-
tute, Detroit, MI, pp. 503R, 503.1–503.4.
[8] Sprinkel, M., “Rapid Concrete Bridge Deck Protection, Repair
and Rehabilitation,” SHRP-5–344, National Research Council,
Washington, DC, 1993.
[9] “High Molecular Weight Methyacrylate Concrete Crack Bon-
der,” Technology Transfer, Demonstration Project No. 51, -
Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, April 1988,
p. 2.
[10] Special Provision for Gravity Fill Polymer Crack Sealing,” Vir-
ginia Department of Transportation, Richmond, VA, 1995.
[11] Roberts, A. D., “Organic Coatings: Properties, Selection, and
Use,” Building Science Series 7, U.S. Department of Commerce,
Washington, DC, Feb. 1968, p. 56.
[12] Aitken, C. T. and Litvan, G. G., “Laboratory Investigation
of Concrete Sealers,” Concrete International, Nov. 1989,
pp. 37–42.
[13] “Sealers for Portland Cement Concrete Highway Facilities,”
NCHRP Synthesis 209, NCHRP, Washington, DC, 1994.
[14] “Concrete Sealers for Protection of Bridge Structures,” National
Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 244, Trans-
portation Research Board, Washington, DC, Dec. 1981,
pp. 9–10.
[15] Marusin, S. L., “Evaluating Sealers,” Concrete International,
Nov. 1989, pp. 79–81.
55
Packaged, Dry, Cementitious Mixtures
Dennison Fiala1
Preface
PACKAGED, DRY, COMBINED MATERIALS FOR MOR-
tar and Concrete was covered in the three previous editions of
ASTM special technical publications, ASTM STP 169A, ASTM
STP 169B, and ASTM STP 169C. Professor A. W. Brust, the
Department of Civil Engineering, Washington University, St.
Louis, Missouri, was the original author of this chapter for STP
169A. A. C. Carter, Manager of Quality Assurance, Texas Indus-
tries, Inc., Arlington, Texas, updated the chapter in ASTM STP
169B, and Owen Brown, Consultant, Savannah, GA updated
the chapter for ASTM STP 169C.
Early History
In 1935 packaged concrete mixes first appeared on the market
and were soon an ever-growing industry covering a variety of
packaged cement based products both for the homeowner and
the contractor. Concrete mix was the first product produced
and today represents the largest selling product.
The first producers of packaged, dry, combined materials
for mortar and concrete either introduced the ingredients sep-
arately into the package or mixed them in small increments
and placed them in the package. Processes used weigh or vol-
ume measurements, or a combination of both to proportion
the ingredients of the mix.
Today, high-capacity production lines control proportions.
Automated process lines help keep uniformity and quality at a
high level of control. Some production lines are able to pro-
duce up to 40 bags/s.
The first publication of ASTM tentative specification for
packaged, dry, combined materials for mortar and concrete,
ASTM C 387, was for information only and was published in
the ASTM Bulletin in April 1955. The tentative specification
was accepted by the Administrative Committee on Standards in
1956. The compressive strength minimums for mortar for unit
masonry and for normal-strength concrete were the same as
those required by the current ASTM C 387. Compressive
strength minimums for concrete mortar (sand topping mix)
and other concretes were slightly lower than for the same
mixes today (see Table 1 from ASTM C 387-99)
Initially, package sizes were generally larger than de-
manded by the market today. Products were available from
hardware stores, building supply yards, lumber yards, and
1
Consultant, Wexford, PA.
631
from the producing locations. These locations were accus-
tomed to handling 42.6 kg (94 lb) bags of portland cement.
Hazardous Considerations
ASTM addresses the hazards of a standard or method with a
generic caveat. Packagers provide their industrial customers
with a detailed hazardous warning covering the ingredients in
the product. This is accomplished with a Material Safety Data
Sheet (MSDS) that must comply with Federal Regulation
29 CFR 1910.1200.
Portland cement is known to produce a high pH when
in contact or mixed with water. The Occupational Health
and Safety Administration (OSHA) and the American Con-
ference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH)
have both listed it as a hazardous material with specific per-
missible exposure limits listed for workers in contact with this
material.
Portland cement is classified as a nuisance dust, and ex-
posure can affect the skin, eyes, and mucous membranes. The
MSDS for products containing portland cement must address
these issues, classify them by acute and chronic exposure, and
provide other information including, but not limited to, emer-
gency first aid procedures, fire and explosion hazard data,
precautions for safe handling and use, control measures, and
disposal of spills.
Silica sand was concluded to be, in 1987, a potential car-
cinogen by The International Agency for Research on Cancer
(LARC). The MSDS for products containing silica sand there-
fore contain a hazardous statement warning not only of the
danger of the inhalation of dust from silica sand and its effect
in respiratory disease, including silicosis, pneumoconiosis, and
pulmonary fibrosis, but now must also warn of the possibility
of cancer.
Warning statements are required on the MSDS and other
areas including package wording as well as accompanying data
sheets.
Current Specifications
The Products
Although the packaged industry began with mortar and con-
crete, the list of specifications covering packaged materials
continues to grow. The most important step in standardization
632 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
TABLE 1—C 387 Physical Requirements
Water
Kind of Material Retention
Concrete
High-Early Strength
Normal Strength
Normal Weight
Lightweight
using normal wt. sandA
Lightweight
High Strength Mortar
Mortar for Unit Masonry
Type M
Type S
Type N
A
Lightweight concrete using normal weight sand may contain some portion of lightweight fines
of these materials is the requirement that the ingredients used
to produce the packaged materials, such as the cements,
aggregates, admixtures, etc., must conform with the applicable
ASTM standard for that ingredient.
Furthermore, standardized ASTM tests are required to ver-
ify the performance of the packaged materials so that the
homeowner is afforded the same protection of performance as
the contractor or highway engineer who also may use prepack-
aged products.
ASTM C 387 Packaged, Dry, Combined Materials
for Mortar and Concrete
The specification currently covers four types of concrete—
incorporating both normal-weight and lightweight aggregates
and four types of mortar. The required compressive strength of
normal strength concrete is the same regardless of whether
lightweight aggregates are used. High early-strength concrete is
included in the specification, as are a high-strength mortar and
three kinds of mortar for unit masonry. The identification of the
mortars for unit masonry are the same as those found in ASTM
Specification for Mortar for Unit Masonry (C 270) that is under
the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee C 12 and specifies the same
performance levels for the Types N, S, and M mortars as ASTM
C 270.
The ingredients used for producing these mortars and con-
cretes must comply with the applicable ASTM specification for
ingredient compliance. Since it is essential that all ingredients be
dry before packaging, a section on aggregate preparation limits
the moisture content of dried aggregates to 0.1 % by weight.
Each package must produce at least the minimum physical re-
quirements required for that product. Sampling and testing pro-
cedures require that standard ASTM methods be utilized.
Packaging and marking include requirements that specify
the proper product identification, yield, and amount of water
recommended for mixing. Container construction require-
ments are established to ensure adequate protection against
breakage and water absorption by the ingredients in the pack-
age. The rejection of products is addressed and may be made
by the user for several reasons.
Min. Compressive Strength
3 days 7 days 28 days
– 17.0 (2480) 24.0 (3840)
– 17.0 (2470) 24.0 (3480)
–
17.0 (2470) 24.0 (3480)
– 17.0 (2470) 24.0 (3480)
– 20.0 (2900) 35.0 (5075)
75 17.0 (2470)
75 12.0 (1740)
75 5.0 ( 725)
For many years, package sizes were specified, and prod-
ucts had to be produced in certain sizes. This is not the case
now, as products can be produced in any size package.
Recently, the governing subcommittee decided to revise
two paragraphs on mixing mortar to comply with the property
values of C 270.
ASTM C 928 Packaged, Dry, Rapid Hardening
Cementitious Materials for Concrete
This specification was first issued in 1980, in response to State
Highway Departments’ requests to standardize the perform-
ance of concrete repair materials being offered in the market-
place. The responsibility for developing this specification was
presented to Subcommittee C09.03.17 because the materials
would be packaged for distribution.
The principle requirement is a 3-h compressive strength
test. Testing cubes for 3-h strength was first addressed in this
specification.
The allowable length increase after 28 days in water is
0.15 %, and the allowable decrease in length or shrinkage in air
after 28 days is
0.15 %. These length change requirements are
based upon an initial length measurement at 3 h age.
Generally, the requirements of this specification are simi-
lar to those in C 387. As modern products have ever-faster set-
ting times and early strength requirements, the specification
has kept pace since it was issued.
Ingredients used in producing these repair materials
are not referenced to ASTM specifications, since many of the ce-
ments used for these products are not currently addressed
in ASTM documents. This specification therefore uses per-
formance criteria to accept compliance rather than address the
constituents of the product by prescription. Testing to verify
performance and compliance to the specifications are methods
of testing that are ASTM standards, which have been examined
and approved by the consensus process. Packaging and mark-
ing instructions are part of the specification, and reasons for re-
jection of products are clearly defined.
In a recent attempt to have the specification invoked by
State Highway Departments, a bond strength requirement
 FIALA ON PACKAGED, DRY, CEMENTITIOUS MIXTURES 633

TABLE 2—ASTM C 928-99 Performance Requirements

Compressive Strength, minimum, psi (MPa) 3h 1 day 7 days 28 days

Rapid hardening 500 2000 4000 b

(3.4) (13.8) (27.6)
Very rapid hardening 1000 3000 4000 b
(6.9) (20.7) (27.6)
Length change, maximum
Allowable increase, after 28 days in water, 0.15
based on length at 3 h, %
Allowable decrease, after 28 days in air,
0.15
based on length at 3 h, %

Consistency of concrete and mortar: Concrete slump min, Flow of

in. (mm) mortar min, %

Rapid hardening, consistency at 15 min after addition of the mixing liquid 3 (76) 100
Very rapid hardening, consistency at 5 min after addition of the mixing liquid 3 (76) 100
Scaling resistance to deicing chemicals after 25 cycles:
Concrete specimens, max visual rating 2.5
Mortar specimens, max 1.0 lb/ft2 (5.0 kg/m2) of scaled materialc

a
It is recognized that the characteristics and qualities of hardened repair material other than those mentioned in Table 3 might need consideration when certain kinds of
concrete repairs are to be made. For the more severe use and exposures that require a higher level of performance, the user is advised to consult with individuals skilled in
dealing with such matters.
b
The strength at 28 days shall be not less than the strength at seven days.
c
A 10-in. (254-mm) square spalled to an average depth of 1⁄8 in. (3.17 mm) for 100 % of its surface would have about 2.0 lb/ft2 (10 kg/m2) of scaled material.

was added to the specification. It incorporates a minimum
requirement for bond strength when tested in accordance with
ASTM Test Method for Bond Strength of Epoxy-Resin Systems
Used with Concrete (C 882). Both rapid hardening and very
rapid hardening materials for concrete repair must exhibit a
minimum bond strength of 6.8 MPa (1000 psi) at one day and
10.2 MPa (1500 psi) at seven days when tested by this method.
This is another example of the continuing review and
improvement of ASTM specifications by the subcommittee and
committee structure.
ASTM C 1107 Packaged, Dry, Hydraulic–Cement
Grout (Nonshrink)
This specification was first issued in 1989 and was subse-
quently adopted by the Corps of Engineers under CRD-C
621-89a. The specification currently covers three grades of
nonshrink grout, as follows:
• Grade A pre-hardening volume-adjusting,
• Grade B post-hardening volume-adjusting, and
• Grade C combination volume-adjusting.
Performance of the grout in the early volume change
(C 827) or height change (C 1090) tests classifies the grout by
grade.
In addition to the requirement that the various grades of
nonshrink grout must comply with specific minimum and
maximum height changes, all grades are required to attain
minimum compressive strengths at specified ages.
The minimum physical requirements include compressive
strength limits. Nonshrink grouts may be placed at differing
consistencies but are required to meet the same minimum per-
formance criteria. This also applies to temperature of place-
ment and maximum working time.
The specification is somewhat cumbersome as compres-
sive strengths, early volume change (C 827), and hardened
grout height change must be run on several grout preparations:
1. Freshly mixed grout using highest water/solids ratio (sug-
gested by manufacturer)
@ Minimum temperature (specified by manufacturer)
2. Grout retained in mixer for maximum working time
(supplied by manufacturer)
@ Minimum temperature (specified by manufacturer)
3. Freshly mixed grout using highest water/solids ratio
(suggested by manufacturer)
@ Maximum temperature (specified by manufacturer)
4. Grout retained in mixer for maximum working time
(supplied by manufacturer)
@ Maximum temperature (specified by manufacturer)
The governing subcommittee has had several proposals
over the years for simplifying the specification, but none have
been approved. This effort is still underway.
Use of the Products
By Whom
One of the major decisions for the original production of
mortar and concrete in packaged units was the desire on the
part of the manufacturers to provide these materials in
smaller quantities to the do-it-yourself (DIY), homeowner
market.
Prior to the availability of packaged mixes, the home-
owner would have to buy a minimum of one 42.6-kg (94-lb) bag
of cement, and enough bulk sand or sand and gravel for his
project. This was not a very convenient method for those who
lived in city or urban areas. Ready-mixed concrete then, as
634 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
TABLE 3—ASTM C 1107-99 (Table I Performance Requirements)
Compressive Strength,
minimum
1 daya
3 day
7 day
28 day
Prehardening
Volume
Controlled Type
Early-age height change
Maximum % at final set
Minimum % at final set
Height change of moist
cured hardened grout
at 1, 3, 14, and 28 Days
Maximum, %
Minimum, %
a
When required, the purchaser must so specify in the purchase contract.
b
NA  not available.
today, served those who purchased a minimum of one or more
cubic meters (cubic yards).
Today the DIY market is served with a variety of package
sizes of mortar and concrete from
4.5- to 40.8-kg (10- to 90-
lb) bags. The sizing of packages permits the family to purchase
and carry mortar and concrete home for those DIY projects.
Although the DIY market was the primary purpose for the
packaging of mortar and concrete, other user purposes have
been served. State highway departments are the largest users
of ASTM C 928 rapid and very rapid hardening concrete repair
materials. These packaged mortars and concretes are particu-
larly effective in highway repair work where small patches can
be made and highways reopened in a matter of a few hours.
Various service companies, such as telephone, natural gas,
water, and others, are finding that packaged mortars and con-
crete are convenient for their repair jobs as they install their
much-needed utilities in homes and industry.
Contractors, both small and large, are also learning that
the packaged materials are essential to their use in both repair
and construction. This is particularly true in the larger metro-
politan areas, where space limitations make it more difficult to
deposit bulk materials for job-mixed concretes and mortars.
Environmental considerations and disposal of excess or waste
materials add to the contractor’s problem and lead him toward
the prepackaged concept.
Applications
The applications for prepackaged materials are many, and the
list continues to grow. Both DIY homeowners and contractors
are constructing slabs on grade for such uses as driveways,
sidewalks, and patios and are using the concretes covered by
ASTM C 387. Prepackaged concrete also finds uses in the re-
pair of existing concrete. Concrete mix is also used for other
construction and repair needs.
psi (MPa)
1000 (6.9)
2500 (17.2)
3500 (24.1)
5000 (34.5)
Grade Classification
A B C
Post-Hardening Combination
Volume Volume
Controlled Type Controlled Type
4.0 NAb 4.0
0.0 NA 0.0
NA 0.3 0.3
0.0 0.0 0.0
High-strength mortar or sand mix (sand topping) is used
where thin layers (less than 50.8 mm (2 in.)) are required. Sand
mix is frequently employed for overlays of deteriorated slabs.
These applications require the use of a bonding media to en-
sure that the new topping will not separate from the base slab.
In many cases, the overlay may be as thin as 6.35 mm (1⁄4 in.) or
even less. High-strength mortar also serves as a mortar to lay
brick, especially when the brick is to serve as a walkway, patio
surface, or driveway.
Mortar for unit masonry is used for the typical laying of
brick and block for various DIY projects, such as the construc-
tion of parting walls, retaining walls, and barbecue pits. While
most prepackaged mortar for unit masonry is not used on ma-
jor construction sites, small contractors do use the product for
small building projects. Prepackaged mortar for unit masonry
is applicable for tuckpointing, where mortar deterioration is
evident on existing brick and block buildings.
Rapid hardening and very rapid hardening repair products,
covered by ASTM C 928, have their largest application with the
highway engineer, where the urgency to patch and reopen high-
ways quickly justifies the use of these more costly materials. The
potential for accidents resulting from closed highway lanes is
sufficient to make the additional cost of materials trivial.
Because many of these repair products have demon-
strated their capabilities in highway repair, they are becoming
increasingly popular for use in other concrete repair projects
with contractors. These include floors of garages, warehouses,
and manufacturing plants needing fast repair in areas that are
quickly reusable for vehicular traffic.
Nonshrink grout covered by ASTM C 1107 is the least
likely of the prepackaged products to find application by the
homeowner or do-it-yourselfer. Contractors will set building
columns and heavy machinery by using material that meets
ASTM C 1107 in its many consistencies. Its uses are established
 FIALA ON PACKAGED, DRY, CEMENTITIOUS MIXTURES
by the need to ensure positive and complete contact by a
supporting member.
Availability
The concrete and mortars covered by ASTM C 387 are avail-
able in most, if not all, retail home centers, lumberyards, and
hardware stores. These products together with the repair prod-
ucts covered by ASTM C 928 and the nonshrink grouts covered
by ASTM C 1107 can be found in most construction supply
houses. Most producers of these products do not offer the
products or sell from their manufacturing facilities. Arrange-
ments may be made with construction supply houses to make
deliveries of full truckload quantities directly to large con-
struction projects.
Quality Control
The term quality control has many meanings. For the producer,
quality control is the maintenance of the performance of a prod-
uct that begins with the raw materials used to produce that prod-
uct. All manufacturers maintain some form of quality control
program in order to ensure that the product they make meets
the requirements of the user. The producer is interested in main-
taining a uniform production, since this makes his process run
more efficiently. Therefore, the uniformity of the raw materials
he uses is vital to his efficiency.
For the user, quality control provides the assurance that
the product meets the applicable specification. In addition, the
user also hopes that uniformity of performance is maintained
by the producer.
Both producer and user have the same goals that can only
be realized through adequate specifications of the materials
used to produce the end product.
Materials
The cementitious components, with few exceptions, are listed
within the specifications covered in this chapter by reference
to existing ASTM documents. These components are essen-
tially cements covered either by ASTM Specification for Port-
land Cement (C 150) or ASTM Specification for Blended
Hydraulic Cements (C 595), or ASTM C 1157 Performance
Specification for Hydraulic Cement. Mortars for unit ma-
sonry produced in accordance with ASTM C 387 utilize ma-
sonry cements under ASTM Specification for Masonry
Cement (C 91) as well as Portland-lime varieties proportioned
in accordance with ASTM C 270 where the hydrated lime
meets ASTM Specification for Hydrated Lime for Masonry
Purposes (C 207) requirements.
The cementitious components permitted in the production
of products to meet ASTM C 387 are required to meet existing
ASTM specifications. This results from the fact that these spec-
ifications are basically prescription specifications. This is not
the case with ASTM C 928 and C 1107, prepackaged mortars,
where the specifications are written to performance criteria.
The proprietary components used in ASTM C 928 and
C 1107 are not covered by ASTM specifications. In many
instances, the cementitious components represent special
formulations or combination of ingredients that have limited -
potential in the area of mortars and concrete and therefore
have not been considered for coverage by ASTM specifications.
Aggregate quality is specified in ASTM C 387 by reference
to ASTM Specification for Concrete Aggregates (C 33) and
ASTM Specification for Aggregate for Masonry Mortar (C 144).
These specifications provide for grading and for other aggre-
635
gate qualities. Aggregates for ASTM C 887, C 928, and C 1107
are not specifically referenced but are left to the discretion of
the manufacturer through the use of performance criteria.
The dryness of aggregates is covered in ASTM C 387 under
the section, Preparation of Aggregates. In this section, aggre-
gates shall have a moisture content of less than 0.1 % by weight.
There are no similar provisions in the other specifications.
Packaging
At one time, package sizes were part of the ASTM specifications,
but currently they are not. The construction requirements of
packages are included in the specifications, in order to ensure
that the ingredients have a reasonable useful life. This is fre-
quently referred to as the “shelf life” of the material. Container
construction is specified in terms of water-vapor transmission
of the package, determined in accordance with ASTM Test
Methods for Water Vapor Transmission of Materials (E 96).
Physical Requirements
Each of the prepackaged mortar and concrete specifications
has a table of physical requirements. These tables have been in-
cluded in this chapter for reference. In general, the physical re-
quirements involve strength minimums to be met at various test
ages. Other characteristics are included and vary by product.
Significance of Specifications
Specifications are written because of a need to standardize the
performance of products between what the manufacturer
visualizes and what the user demands. For this reason, it is
frequently difficult to develop a specification with a minimum
of options.
The prepackaged mortar and concrete specifications con-
tain a list of physical requirements, usually with minimum val-
ues. There are no other limits to which the manufacturer must
adhere. Occasionally, the producer is required to produce a
mortar or concrete to some higher guaranteed performance.
Rejection of Product
Prepackaged mortar and concrete specifications incorporate
provisions for the user to reject the product failing to meet re-
quirements of the specification.
The most obvious reason for product rejection is that the
product fails to meet some or all of the physical requirements
of the specification.
In addition, the user also may reject a shipment if the
package weights vary from the printed weight by more than a
specified amount, or if the average weight of a given number
of packages is less than that printed on the bag. All broken
packages also may be rejected.
Standards for Producer and Consumer
The entire standardization process in ASTM ensures that the
development of specifications is unbiased and, therefore, the
standards for prepackaged mortars and concrete provide pro-
tection for both producer and consumer.
Future Needs of Prepackaged Product
Specifications
Concrete Products
There are many additional prepackaged concrete products
available on the market that should be applicants for coverage
by ASTM specifications.
636 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
Fast-setting concrete mix provides both the DIY and con-
tractor user with a prepackaged concrete with fast-setting
characteristics. This type of concrete permits rapid utilization
of the finished slab or footer and is particularly adaptable for
that weekend project or for the small-contractor one-day
project.
A fiber-reinforced concrete mix aids the homeowner in
producing a finished slab with a minimum of drying shrinkage
cracks. Because of the general tendency for the homeowner to
use too much water in placing his concrete, this product will
help the average user produce a better crack-resistant slab.
Mortar Products
There are many prepackaged mortar products that are de-
signed to provide specific performance characteristics for the
user that are being considered by ASTM.
Rapid Concrete Mortar
This specification effort has been underway for some time and
is currently before C9.
Shotcrete
Prepackaged shotcrete, frequently called Gunite when the ma-
terial is to be dry-applied, has been available to users for many
years. Both fiber and non-fiber reinforced, modified and un-
modified, mixes have been offered to meet specific project re-
quirements. These materials generally utilize fine aggregate
conforming to ASTM C 33 and can utilize coarse aggregate
meeting the same specification, if desired.
Shotcrete materials are frequently used in underground
coal mines to cover and reinforce the ribs and roof to prevent
sloughing. They also are employed in major tunnel projects as
temporary support during construction of tunnel linings. Shot-
crete is also a reinforcing technique used to repair deteriorated
poured-in-place concrete structures. Subcommittee C09.03.20
on Shotcrete is preparing a specification for this class of ma-
terials. It is anticipated that a prepackaged version, under the
jurisdiction of Subcommittee C09.03.17, will follow.
Self-Leveling Flooring Materials
A new class of floor resurfacing products has emerged from
Europe for use in both the construction and reconstruction
markets. These products need no troweling or secondary place-
ment operations. Many of these materials are pumped in-place
and self-level much as the spreading of water. These products
are offered in normal or fast-setting varieties, depending on the
need to place the finished floor in service
A specification effort is presently underway in Subcom-
mittee C 09.43.
Acknowledgments
The author wishes to acknowledge the work of the original
author of this chapter in ASTM STP 169A, A. W. Brust, Depart-
ment of Civil Engineering, Washington University, St. Louis,
Missouri; and the work of the subsequent authors of this
chapter, A. C. Carter, Manager of Quality Assurance, Texas
Industries, Inc., Arlington, Texas; and Owen Brown, Consul-
tant, Savannah, GA.
56
Self-Consolidating Concrete (SCC)
Joseph A. Daczko1 and Martin Vachon2
Preface
SELF-CONSOLIDATING CONCRETE (SCC) IS BEING
discussed in this technical publication for the first time. Being
a relatively new material, the industry as well as the scientific
community is still learning. Therefore, this document presents
a condensed state-of-the-art description that, in time, will need
further updating.
Definition
First named High Performance Concrete (HPC) in Japan in the
late 80s, the name changed to Self-Compacting Concrete [1] to
avoid confusion with the more widely accepted definition of
HPC, which is concrete based on the use of low water/cemen-
titious ratio leading to higher strength and durability. Since
then, this terminology has been accepted worldwide. However,
in the United States, in 2002 a proposal was made to adapt the
terminology to make it compatible with ACI terminology. The
ACI 116R-90 “Cement and Concrete Terminology” document
states that the concrete reaches its final compactness through
the operation of consolidation and not compaction. Therefore,
in 2002 a new ASTM terminology was adopted: Self-Consoli-
dating Concrete. In this document, the acronym SCC will be
used indifferently of the terminology.
Various definitions have been used in recent years to de-
scribe SCC [2]. Most of them share the following common
points:
• SCC is fluid enough to fill the forms without internal/ex-
ternal energy;
• SCC remains homogeneous during and after placement;
• SCC is able to flow through dense reinforcement, if needed.
However, the ASTM Subcommittee C09.47 on SCC as well
as the American Concrete Institute (ACI) has yet to agree on a
common definition.
History
In 1983, Professor Okamura from the University of Tokyo
started to investigate the growing durability problems related
to concrete structures in Japan. One of his finding was that a
major cause of the poor durability performance of these struc-
tures was the improper consolidation of the fresh concrete
due to unskilled labor on the jobsite. In 1986 he proposed the
1
Product Line Manager, Degussa Admixtures Inc.
2
Essroc Concrete Technologies, Inc., 8282 Middlebranch Road, P.O. Box 234, Middlebranch, OH 44652.
637
concept of a high durability concrete requiring no consolida-
tion to achieve full compaction—SCC was born. In the follow-
ing years, the concept was refined to permit the use of local
raw materials, and guidelines for the use of SCC were pub-
lished in Japanese. It should be noted that concrete requiring
no consolidation energy was used previously in the late 70s
and 80s, either to increase placing rate or to allow placing in
hard-to-reach or highly reinforced sections [3].
Okamura and his team presented the first publication on
SCC in 1989 at the Second East-Asia and Pacific Conference on
Structural Engineering and Construction (EASEC-2) [4]. Then
various publications were presented in the first half of the 90s,
which attracted researchers from other countries. As a result,
Sweden, the Netherlands, Korea, Thailand, and Canada started
their own investigations in the mid-90s in an effort to evaluate
the potential benefits SCC can bring to the industry [5–9]. Rec-
ommendations and guidelines for the use of SCC were devel-
oped through cooperative work in Europe by the late 90s
[10–12].
Large construction companies as well as Precast/Pre-
stressed Concrete Products companies also started to take a
serious look at this technology, not for its increased durability
potential, but mainly for logistic reasons. The early results es-
tablished that SCC could be poured in a shorter time and re-
quired less post-demolding operations than normal concrete.
By the end of the year 2000, the use of Self-Consolidating
Concrete (SCC) started to spread throughout the United States.
The Precast/Prestressed industry quickly realized the benefits of
this technology. The acceleration of the pouring process cou-
pled with the reduction of labor was an obvious motivation for
the producers of structural concrete elements. The architec-
tural segment of the industry also saw the aesthetic advantage
in using a concrete that easily flows even through restricted ar-
eas of the form without vibration, reducing the risks of surface
defaults and homogeneity.
The Precast industry is driving the SCC technology imple-
mentation in the USA. The Precast/Prestressed Concrete Insti-
tute (PCI) has been very active in 2002 with the creation of a
Fast Team whose task was to draw recommendations on the use
of SCC in Precast/Prestressed operations by early 2003 [13].
The Ready-Mix Concrete industry is also experimenting
with SCC. According to a recent National Ready-Mix Concrete
Association (NRMCA) survey, 22 out of 23 respondents indi-
cated they were either testing or occasionally producing SCC.
638 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE

Fig. 3—Bridge.

ever, because the raw material cost to produce SCC is higher

than for normal concrete, the successful use of SCC for a given
Fig. 1—Akashi-Kaikyo Bridge. application is mainly driven by the cost per unit. Therefore, it
is difficult to establish precise trends as each plant has differ-
ent constraints; e.g., SCC can be advantageous for the produc-
The applications are multiple, ranging from structural columns
tion of beams in Plant A but not in Plant B.
and walls to floors, tilt-up, and architectural panels. However,
It can still be anticipated that, in the future, concrete ele-
the estimated 2003 SCC production is still under 100 000 m3.
ments or buildings will be designed considering SCC from the
start with shapes, textures, and structures that would be im-
Applications possible to achieve with normal concrete.
SCC was first used in 1991 for the construction of bridge tow-
ers in Japan [14]. However, the first large-scale project using
Advantages
SCC has been the Akashi-Kaikyo Bridge, completed in 1998
As previously mentioned, the obvious advantage of SCC comes
(Fig. 1).
from its ease of placement resulting in shorter pouring time.
Over 290 000 m3 of SCC was used for the construction of
This advantage alone can justify its use for many applications.
the anchorages of the bridge. The concrete was mixed on-site
But there are other advantages.
and pumped into the forms through a pipe system. It is esti-
mated that the construction time was shortened by 20 %, from
Surface Quality
2.5 to 2 years because of the use of SCC. A second application,
SCC’s high deformability allows for a better-molded surface
in 1998, was for the construction of the walls of a natural gas
quality (Fig. 6). If placed adequately (see section on place-
tank for the Osaka Gas Company where approximately 12 000
ment), SCC elements have very few bug holes. Moreover, when
m3 of SCC was used. Again, the construction period was short-
leakages occur in the forms under vibration, the concrete will
ened from 22 to 18 months while reducing the number of
lose enough paste locally to change its surface quality (Fig. 6.
workers from 150 to 50. However, the use of SCC in Japan is
dotted line).
still marginal with less than 1 % of penetration in both Ready
As a result, architectural precast concrete producers can
Mixed Concrete (RMC) and Precast/Prestressed [15].
significantly reduce the time allocated for patching surface de-
In Europe, SCC is mainly used in Precast/Prestressed op-
fects after demolding the elements. For architects it also opens
erations. The applications are various and cover most of the
new dimensions for shape and textures.
wet-cast industry. In the U.S., SCC is mainly used in precast for
structural (Figs. 2 and 3), architectural elements (Fig. 4), and
Environmental Benefits
utilities (Fig. 5).
The use of SCC can have a significant impact on the working en-
SCC can replace conventional plastic concrete in almost
vironment [17]. These are the recommended standards from
any Precast/Prestressed application. It has even been reported
the Netherlands. Table 1 summarizes the various benefits.
used where the SCC had to maintain a 30 % slope [16]. How-

Fig. 2—Double T. Fig. 4—Architectural panels.

 DACZKO AND VACHON ON SELF-CONSOLIDATING CONCRETE
Fig. 5—Jail cell.
A safer and more comfortable working environment can
also attract better skilled labor and reduce employee turnover.
Other advantages can also be expected from SCC from an
engineering standpoint. These benefits will be reviewed in the
Hardened Properties section.
Materials
SCC can be produced with any materials used for the produc-
tion of conventional concrete. However, specific raw material
characteristics can help achieve better performances. The raw
material selection is an important part of the mix design process
for SCC, since it will significantly influence the stability as well
as the cost of the mix, which are two key elements in the suc-
cessful use of SCC.
Cementitious Materials
Hydraulic cement meeting the requirements of ASTM Specifi-
cation for Hydraulic Portland Cement (C150), Specification for
Hydraulic Blended Cements (C 595), or Performance Specifi-
cation for Hydraulic Cements (C 1157) can be used. Engineer-
ing and durability concerns must be considered when specify-
ing cement type. Supplementary cementitious materials such
as ground granulated slag, fly ash, or silica fume can also be
beneficial to increase the stability of the mix and/or reduce its
cost. The quest for a well-graded combination of cementitious
Fig. 6—Surface quality-normal concrete (left) and SCC (right).
639
materials can help reduce the paste content requirement and,
therefore, make the SCC mix more cost efficient. Where the
use of ground limestone is permitted, it can help produce
highly stable and flowable mixes with a reduced impact on
cost. However, the addition of ground limestone may result in
increased drying shrinkage values and should be considered
during the mixture design and qualification process.
Aggregates
The aggregate should be selected based on their shape, size,
and complementarities. Rounded or cubical shaped coarse ag-
gregates are easier to use than angular aggregates as they fa-
cilitate flow. There is no limit to the maximum aggregate size.
However, the larger the aggregates, the higher will be the re-
quirements in viscosity in order to keep the mix homogeneous
as it flows through obstacles.
Natural as well as manufactured sand can be used for
SCC. Unlike for conventional concrete, a high proportion of
fine particles (passing #200 sieve), as long as they are not dele-
terious, can be beneficial, as it can increase the stability of the
mix and reduce the need for additional cementitious materials.
Aggregates meeting ASTM C 33 requirements are appropriate
for producing SCC.
Admixtures
SCC can be produced with the same admixtures used for nor-
mal concrete. Chemical admixtures meeting the requirements
of ASTM Specification for Chemical Admixtures in Concrete (C
494) and air-entraining admixtures meeting the requirements
of ASTM Specification for Air-Entraining Admixtures for Con-
crete (C 260) may be used. To achieve the high fluidity it is rec-
ommended to use a High Range Water Reducer (HRWR). Var-
ious HRWR will have different effects on the mix stability and,
consequently, trials should be made to select the right one for
the set of materials available at the plant. The usual air en-
training admixtures can also be used to generate the adequate
air-void system. When needed, a Viscosity Modifying Admix-
ture (VMA) can also be used to improve the stability of an SCC
mixture by increasing its viscosity. Other admixtures such as
set accelerators, retarders, corrosion inhibitors, and shrinkage
reducing admixtures, just to name a few, can be used with SCC.
640 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
TABLE 1—Benefits of SCC
(Recommended Standards from the Netherlands)
Normal Concrete
Noise Protection 93 dB
Vibrations 0.75 to 4 m/s2
Quartzite dust Not measured
Dust 3–4 mg/m3
Savings due to elimination of
vibration
Mix Proportioning
Various concepts exist for the design of SCC. However, the
goal is always to achieve an adequate level of fluidity, sta-
bility, and passing ability for the application at the lowest
cost. This balance is not easy to achieve and guidance from
an experienced SCC technologist may be required. ACI is re-
sponsible for mixture proportioning and ACI 211 is develop-
ing guidelines.
This section will briefly cover the basic elements of SCC
mix design. As for any concrete, the expected performances
should first be established (fresh and hardened concrete prop-
erties). Then, there are four steps to consider in the mix design
methodology:
Step 1: Designing the Paste
The paste is the driving force of strength development and dura-
bility. It is important then to take great care when designing it.
The paste design involves the determination of the w/c and sup-
plementary cementitious materials replacement ratio and
should be based on structural and durability needs. SCC obeys
the same relationship as regular concrete with respect to
strength and durability and should, therefore, be designed us-
ing the ACI and PCI guidelines or project specifications. These
documents will guide you in the right selection of cement type,
supplementary cementitious materials, and water/cementitious
ratio.
Step 2: Paste Content Optimization
The paste content selection is a critical part of the mix propor-
tioning process. The paste is the phase that provides the plas-
ticity/flowability to the concrete. The optimum paste volume
selection is a complex process. The concrete starts to behave as
Fig. 7—Paste content optimization.
SCC Recommended Limits

80 dB Protective measure
required if  80 dB
0 m/s2 Protective measure
required if  0.25 m/s2
0.01 mg/m3 Max 0.075 mg/m3
0.2 mg/m3 Industry goal is
1 mg/m3
Energy Consumption:  10 %
Forms cost:  20 %
Maintenance Cost:  10 %
Illness time:  10 %
a plastic material when all the voids between the aggregates
are filled (Fig. 7).
A minimum volume of paste (filling paste) is then required.
Because of the high level of fluidity required to achieve full com-
paction without external energy, SCC requires additional paste
volume. This complementary paste volume (fluidity paste) re-
duces the aggregates interaction as the concrete flows by in-
creasing the distance between the aggregates. The greater the
distance between the aggregates, the higher will be the SCC flu-
idity. ACI Committee Self-Consolidating Concrete is preparing
a report that includes placement guidance. However, another
factor comes into play to influence the concrete fluidity: the
paste fluidity. For a given paste volume, the higher the paste flu-
idity, the higher the concrete fluidity will be. However, as the
paste fluidity is increased by the addition of superplasticizer, its
ability to keep the aggregate in suspension (yield stress) de-
creases. Consequently, concrete fluidity is managed through a
well-balanced combination of dry aggregate combination void
volume, fluidity paste volume, and paste fluidity level.
Step 3: Aggregate Proportioning
As seen in Step 2, aggregate proportioning will have a direct ef-
fect on the filling paste need and, indirectly, on the SCC raw
material cost. It is then important to optimize the aggregates
proportioning towards the highest possible packing density.
For a given set of aggregates, the highest packing density is usu-
ally obtained with a high fraction of the largest coarse aggre-
gate. However, when flowing through reinforcement, the
largest aggregates often have a tendency to restrain SCC flow
by blocking gaps between rebars (Fig. 8).
Consequently, aggregates proportioning should be made
in order to reach the right balance between packing density
and flowing ability through reinforcement.
 DACZKO AND VACHON ON SELF-CONSOLIDATING CONCRETE
Fig. 8—Aggregate blocking.
Step 4: Admixtures Dosage Adjustments
As with any other type of concrete, the dosage in admixtures re-
quired to obtain the desired level fluidity, air content, retarda-
tion, or acceleration will have to be optimized experimentally.
The reason is that every cement reacts differently with a given
set of admixtures. Therefore, it is almost impossible to antici-
pate the admixture dosages without running test batches.
Batching and Mixing
Concrete batching and mixing systems should meet the same re-
quirements as those for producing conventional concrete. The
amount of free water in a SCC mixture significantly influences
the concrete’s performance [18]. Therefore, excellent control of
aggregate moistures is critical during batching operations.
Some guidelines require that in-line aggregate moisture probes
be able to detect changes in moisture content of 0.5 % [12].
A specific batching sequence of materials may be neces-
sary based on the mixture proportions, materials, and admix-
tures being used. This sequence should be established during
the mixture qualification stage [12,19].
Some SCC mixtures may require longer mixing time to
produce a homogenous mixture [20]. However, SCC has been
mixed in precast plants using only a 60-s mixing time. The op-
timum mixing time for an SCC mixture will be influenced by
the plastic viscosity of the mixture. A higher viscosity mixture
will require longer mixing times than a lower viscosity mixture
to reach a steady state in fluidity.
Transporting
Traditional concrete transporting equipment, including agita-
tor trucks, buckets, etc., is used with SCC. Some equipment,
such as buckets, may require attention to reduce or eliminate
TABLE 2—Relative Comparison of Placement Techniques and Energy Delivered [23]
Placement Technique Discharge Rate
Truck Discharge High
Pumping Medium/High
Conveyor Medium
Buggy Medium
Crane and Bucket High
Auger (Tuckerbilt) Discharge Medium
Drop Tube High
641
any tendency for leaking. With mixing trucks special attention
should be paid to load size if the terrain is hilly due to the fluid
nature of SCC and a tendency to spill [21].
If transport is made with nonagitating equipment, special
care should be taken to ensure that the SCC mixture being
used is stable. This is particularly important if the concrete is
to be delivered across an area that will cause jostling and,
therefore, impart energy into the concrete. In the absence of
agitation the mixture, if not designed properly, may have a ten-
dency to segregate [22].
The workability retention of the mixture being used
should be evaluated to correspond with the maximum haul
time possible for the project under consideration.
SCC can be discharged and placed much faster than con-
ventional concrete; therefore, precise coordination between
delivery and placement is critical. This should be discussed and
a delivery/placement plan be agreed upon prior to the start of
the job.
Placement
SCC can be placed by most methods used for conventional
concrete. If the SCC is to be pumped an appropriately stable
mixture is critical to ensure that the paste is not forced past
the aggregate resulting in blocked pump lines. Depending
upon the viscosity of the SCC mixture being used, pumping
pressures may be higher or lower than conventional concrete.
The energy imparted to the concrete during placement should
be considered during the mixture development stage. Table 2
shows the relative energy imparted to the concrete depending
upon the placement equipment/technique used [23]. Each
placement technique is given a relative rating in four cate-
gories:
• Discharge Rate—The volume of concrete being discharged
over a set time frame.
• Discharge Type—Is the energy being supplied during place-
ment intermittent or continuous?
• Single Discharge Volume—How much concrete will be
placed prior to the first stop in placement?
• Relative Energy Delivered—This is the overall rating deter-
mined as a combination of all of the three aforementioned
categories.
All of the four categories, except for discharge type, are
given a relative rating of high, medium, or low. Discharge type
is either continuous or discontinuous. The relative ratings as-
sume constant drop heights, etc., which would also certainly
affect the amount of energy delivered to the concrete.
Single Discharge *Relative Energy
Discharge Type Volume Delivered
Continuous High High
Continuous Medium High/Medium
Continuous High High
Discontinuous Low Low
Discontinuous Low Low/Medium
Continuous Medium Medium
Discontinuous High High
642 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
If a discontinuous placement technique is used, a mixture
that retains its fluidity should be developed to eliminate any
chance for pour lines or cold joints. The use of SCC can permit
greater design flexibility in concrete elements. If elements are
intricate in design or if the formwork has multiple corners, a
SCC mixture with a moderate viscosity and relatively higher
level of fluidity will be necessary.
The Japanese Society of Civil Engineers (JSCE) has
suggested a maximum flowing distance of 15 m or less to elimi-
nate the potential for separation of the paste from the aggre-
gates during placement. In addition, the JSCE has suggested a
maximum dropping height of 5 m to ensure homogeneity of
the in-place concrete [24]. Other examples have been cited in
North America where SCC has been successfully placed with
free-fall dropping heights greater than 5 m [25].
The method of placement has been shown to influence the
surface finish of pieces cast with SCC [21]. Uncontrolled place-
ment can lead to entrapped air voids that can migrate to the
formed surfaces. During placement, the discharging concrete
should be flowing in the same direction as the concrete in the
form. The rate of placement should be such that any entrapped
voids are provided the opportunity to escape.
With lower viscosity SCC mixtures some bleeding of the
mixture through gaps in formwork is possible. The majority of
the time the gaps are small enough so that they become plugged
very quickly with mortar and no problems are experienced. SCC
mixtures can be developed to overcome this issue.
Some studies have shown that the pressure on formwork
of SCC mixtures may be less than that of vibrated concrete and
less than full hydrostatic pressure, but it is influenced by many
variables including the type of SCC mixture as well as the cast-
ing technique and placement rate [26–28]. Further research is
underway in this area to investigate the influence of the con-
crete’s rheology on form pressures. If mixtures are pumped
from the bottom up (usually for aesthetic reasons), the pres-
sure on the bottom of the form will never be reduced due to
fresh concrete continuously being introduced into the bottom
of the form [27].
Excessive form oil can be pushed ahead of the flowing
concrete and cause staining of the elements. Therefore, the
Fig. 9—Slump flow test.
coating of form oil should conform to the minimum required
or as recommended by the manufacturer.
Finishing and Curing
All typical techniques for finishing concrete can be employed
with SCC. The timing of the finishing procedures becomes criti-
cal. Depending upon the fluidity retention characteristics of the
mixture, the surface may not hold a broomed or roughened sur-
face immediately after placement and some time delay may be
necessary. In addition, because the volume of SCC that can be
placed is greater than that of conventional concrete, a larger
surface area of concrete will need to be finished at a single time.
Therefore, an adequate number of finishers should be dedi-
cated to any job using SCC in flatwork.
Some SCC mixtures will have a significantly reduced ten-
dency to bleed; therefore, appropriate measures should be
taken to eliminate the possibility of plastic shrinkage cracking.
The measures required are those similar to when one is using
silica fume concrete.
With the mixture proportions used in SCC and a new gen-
eration of polycarboxylate high range water reducers, it has
been found that in some precast operations steam curing can
be significantly reduced or eliminated [29].
Hardened Properties
SCC is produced using the same materials used to produce
conventional concrete. Therefore, the hardened properties of
SCC follow the same general rules as conventional concrete.
Some SCC mixtures are produced using an elevated content
of cementitious materials as well as an increased sand-to-total-
aggregate ratio (s/a). These adjustments to a mixture may re-
sult in a relative increase in drying shrinkage and compres-
sive creep and a decrease in the modulus of elasticity (MOE).
However, It should be noted that SCC mixtures could be de-
veloped to produce acceptable shrinkage, creep, and MOE
values [30].
SCC mixtures can be produced to provide good durability
properties. Improved durability (due to absence of vibration)
 DACZKO AND VACHON ON SELF-CONSOLIDATING CONCRETE 643

Fig. 10—U-Box and L-Box filling apparatus.

was one of the major reasons for the initial development of Monitoring the time it takes for the concrete to reach a
SCC. When developing a mixture, it should be noted that the slump flow of 500 mm can also be done as an evaluation of
mixture stability will influence the air-void system. If a mixture SCC viscosity.
is unstable it may allow for the coalescing of larger air bubbles
resulting in increased spacing factors and decreased specific L-Box, U-Box
surface values. These two tests simulate the casting process by forcing a SCC
sample to flow through obstacles under a static pressure. The
Quality Control final height H and H2/H1 for the U-Box and the L-Box, respec-
tively, are recorded. They provide indication on the static and
Test methods have been developed worldwide to quantify the dynamic segregation resistance of a SCC (Fig. 10), as well as its
SCC characteristics of fluidity, passing ability and stability (seg- ability to flow through reinforcements. They are frequently
regation resistance). Some methods, such as the column seg- used in the field as an acceptance test method.
regation test, are useful for laboratory development and oth-
ers, such as the slump flow test, are useful for acceptance V-funnel and Orimet
testing in the field. A few of these methods are briefly pre- By monitoring the time it takes for the SCC to flow through an
sented in the following paragraphs. The dimensions may vary orifice under its own weight, these two test methods give an in-
from one country to the other. dication of its viscosity. Both tests are used in the field and are
sometimes used as acceptance tests. The V-Funnel is presented
Concrete Rheometer in Fig. 11.
A rheometer is a device that applies a range of shear rates and
monitors the force needed to maintain these shear rates in a
plastic material. The force is then converted into stress, know-
ing the flow distribution of the concrete in the device, allowing
drawing the stress/shear rate relationship. A few concrete and
mortar rheometers are available on the market and have been
and are still used for measuring the yield stress, viscosity, and
other rheological characteristics of SCC. They are of a tremen-
dous help in the understanding of SCC behavior.
However, this type of equipment is fairly expensive and
not easy to use at a job site. Therefore, numerous lighter test
methods have been developed for SCC. Neither one of them al-
lows for measuring yield stress or viscosity, but they all simu-
late more or less real scale casting environments.

Slump Flow Test

This procedure relies on the use of the Abram’s cone. The
cone is filled in one layer without rodding and the diameter
instead of the slump of the concrete sample is measured af-
ter the cone has been lifted (Fig. 9). This test is mostly used
for evaluating the SCC self-compactibility as it mainly relates
to its yield stress. Fig. 11—V-Funnel apparatus.
644 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
Fig. 12—J-Ring.
J-Ring
This apparatus is used to force the SCC to flow through rein-
forcement (Fig. 12). It must be used in conjunction with an
Abrams cone or the Orimet setup. The concrete is flowing from
the inside to the outside of the ring. The size and the spacing
between the bars can be adjusted to simulate any reinforce-
ment configuration. The differences between the spread with
and without the ring or the height difference between the con-
crete inside and outside the ring are measured.
German studies showed that with a bar spacing equivalent
to 2.5 times the maximum aggregate size, the spread difference
with and without the J-Ring must be smaller than 50 mm.
Sieve Stability
This procedure is used to evaluate the resistance to static seg-
regation of a SCC. A sample of concrete is poured over a 5-mm
sieve and the amount of mortar passing through the sieve in a
2-min period is measured. The French Civil Engineering Asso-
ciation has published a complete procedure (in French and
English) in July 2000 [10].
As mixtures are being qualified in the laboratory, some
thought should be given to establishing appropriate quality
control criteria. For example, it has been shown that the fluid-
ity level of a given SCC mixture, proportioned with consistent
raw materials has a direct impact on the segregation resistance
of the mixture [22]. Figure 9 shows how the relationship be-
tween the column segregation test and slump flow can be used
to set quality control parameters. One can find the point at
which the segregation factor exceeds some value (in this ex-
ample 10 %), the maximum slump flow value then is set at this
level minus one inch. In this way the simpler slump flow test
can be used rather than the column segregation test for qual-
ity control/consistency testing.
Conclusion
SCC is considered a high-performance concrete. It is high per-
formance in the plastic state. This advancement in concrete
technology has the potential to change concrete construction
in the years to come. Once it becomes a more mainstream tech-
nology, structures will be designed and constructed with SCC
in mind. This is good news for the concrete industry.
References
[1] Ouchi, M., “History of Development and Applications of Self-
Compacting Concrete in Japan,” Proceedings of the Interna-
tional Workshop on Self-Compacting Concrete, Kochi, Japan
1998, pp.1–10.
[2] Vachon, M. and Daczko, J., “U.S. Regulatory Work on SCC,” Pro-
ceedings of the First North American Conference on the Design
and Use of Self-Consolidating Concrete, Evanston, USA, 2002,
pp. 377–380.
[3] Collepardi, M., “Self-Compacting Concrete: What is New?,” Pro-
ceedings of the 7th Canmet/ACI International Conference on Su-
perplasticizers and Other Chemical Admixtures in Concrete,
Berlin, Germany, 2003, pp.1–16.
[4] Ozawa, K., Maekawa, K., Kunishima, M., and Okamura, H.,
“Development of High Performance Concrete Based on the
Durability Design of Concrete Structures,” Proceedings of the
Second East-Asia and Pacific Conference on Structural Engi-
neering and Construction (EASEC-2), 1989, Vol. 1, pp. 445–450,
Chiang-Mai.
[5] Skarendahl, A., “Self-Compacting Concrete in Sweden. Research
and Application,” Proceedings of the International Workshop
on Self-Compacting Concrete, Kochi, Japan 1998, pp. 60–71.
[6] Walraven, J., “The Development of Self-Compacting Concrete in
the Netherlands,” Proceedings of the International Workshop
on Self-Compacting Concrete, Kochi, Japan, 1998, pp. 87–96.
 DACZKO AND VACHON ON SELF-CONSOLIDATING CONCRETE
[7] Byun, K. J., Kim, J. K., and Song, H.W., “Self-Compacting Con-
crete in Korea,” Proceedings of the International Workshop on
Self-Compacting Concrete, Kochi, Japan, 1998, pp. 23–33.
[8] Tangtermsirikul, S., “Design and Construction of Self-Compacting
Concrete in Thailand,” Proceedings of the International Work-
shop on Self-Compacting Concrete, Kochi, Japan, 1998, pp. 72–86.
[9] Khayat, K. H. and Aitcin, P. C., “Use of Self-Consolidating
Concrete in Canada—Present Situation and Perspectives,” Pro-
ceedings of the International Workshop on Self-Compacting
Concrete, Kochi, Japan, 1998, pp. 11–22.
[10] Association Francaise de Genie Civil, « Betons Auto-Placants–
recommandations Provisoires », France, 2000.
[11] BE96-3801, “Rational Production and Improved Working Envi-
ronment Through Using Self-Compacting Concrete,” European
Union, DG XII, 1996.
[12] EFNARC, “Specifications and Guidelines for Self-Compacting
Concrete,” Surrey, UK, 2002.
[13] Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, TR-6-03, ‘’Guidelines for
the Use of Self-Consolidating Concrete in Precast/Prestressed
Concrete Institute Member Plants,” Chicago, USA, 2003.
[14] Sakamoto, J., Matsuoka, Y., Shindoh, T., and Tangtermsirikul,
S., “An Application of Super Workable Concrete to Construc-
tion of Actual Structures,” Transactions of the Japan Concrete
Institute, 1991, Vol. 13, pp. 41–48.
[15] Okamura, H. and Ozawa, K., “Self-Compacting High Perfor-
mance Concrete,” Structural Engineering International, 1996,
Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 269–270.
[16] Walraven, J., “Structural Aspects of Self-Compacting Concrete,”
Proceedings of the 3rd International Rilem Symposium on Self-
Compacting Concrete, Rreykjavik, Iceland, 2003, pp. 15–22.
[17] Walraven, J., “Self-Compacting Concrete in the Netherlands,”
Proceedings of the First North American Conference on the De-
sign and Use of Self-Consolidating Concrete, Evanston, USA,
2002, pp. 355–360.
[18] Emborg, M. and Hedin C., “Production of Self-Compacting Con-
crete for Civil Engineering—Case Studies,” Proceedings of the
1st International RILEM Symposium on Self-Compacting Con-
crete, Stockholm, Sweden, 1999, p. 733.
[19] Chikamatsu, Ryuichi, Shinkai, Chihiro, Kushigemachi, and Hi-
roshi, “Application of Low Shrinkage Type Self-Compacting
Concrete to an Advanced Water Purification Plant,” Proceed-
645
ings of the 1st International RILEM Symposium on Self-
Compacting Concrete, Stockholm, Sweden, 1999, p. 659.
[20] Gustafsson, J., “Experience from Full Scale Production of Steel
Fiber Reinforced Self Compacting Concrete,” Proceedings of
the 1st International RILEM Symposium on Self-Compacting
Concrete, Stockholm, Sweden, 1999, p. 743.
[21] Bury, M. A., Buhler, and Eckart, “Methods and Techniques for
Placing Self-Consolidating Concrete—An Overview of Field Ex-
periences in North American Applications,” Proceedings of the
1st North American Conference on the Design and Use of SCC,
Chicago, IL, 2002, p. 281.
[22] Daczko, J. A., “Stability of Self-Consolidating Concrete, Assumed
or Ensured?,” Proceedings of the 1st North American Conference
on the Design and Use of SCC, Chicago, IL, 2002, p. 245.
[23] Daczko, J. A. and Constantiner, D., “Rheodynamic Concrete,”
Proceedings of the 43rd Congreso Brasilero do Concreto, August
2001.
[24] Japan Society of Civil Engineers, “Recommendations for Con-
struction of Self-Compacting Concrete,” 1998.
[25] “Self-Compacting Concrete Used for Architectural Benefits,”
Ohio Concrete, Vol. 21, No. 2, August 2002.
[26] Billberg, P., “Form Pressure Generated by Self-Compacting Con-
crete,” Proceedings of the 3rd International RILEM Symposium
on Self-Compacting Concrete, Reykjavik, Iceland, 2003, p. 271.
[27] Brameshuber, W. and Uebachs, S., “Investigations on the Form-
work Pressure Using Self-Compacting Concrete,” Proceedings
of the 3rd International RILEM Symposium on Self-Compacting
Concrete, Reykjavik, Iceland, 2003, p. 281.
[28] Leeman, A. and Hoffmann, C., “Pressure of Self-Compacting
Concrete on the Formwork,” Proceedings of the 3rd Interna-
tional RILEM Symposium on Self-Compacting Concrete, Reyk-
javik, Iceland, 2003, p. 288.
[29] Daczko, J. A. and Martin, D. J., “Options for Productivity Im-
provements—The Next Step in SCC Technology,” Proceedings
of the 3rd International Symposium on High Performance Con-
crete and The PCI National Bridge Conference, Orlando, FL,
2003.
[30] Attiogbe, E. K., See, H. T., and Daczko, J. A., “Engineering Prop-
erties of Self-Consolidating Concrete,” Proceedings of the 1st
North American Conference on the Design and Use of SCC,
Chicago, IL, 2002, p. 371.
Index

A maturity method, 149–152 ACI E4-04, 484

modified boiling method, 143–144 ACI SP 191, 208
AASHTO Accreditation Program, 54 results, 142–144 Acid attack, 263–265
AASHTO M148, 469 test Acoustic shielding properties, 302
AASHTO M171, 469 precision, 145–146 Activity index
AASHTO M240, 513 procedure significance, 144–145 hydraulic cements, 437–438
AASHTO M302, 513 warm water method, 143 pozzolan, 504
AASHTO Materials Reference Labora- Accelerating admixtures, 485 slag, 514
tory, 53 Acceptable quality level, 22 Additives, content analysis in hardened
AASHTO R18, 52 Acceptance plans, 22–23 concrete, 311
AASHTO T199, 62 Acceptance testing, aggregates, 17–18 Adhesive materials, epoxy resins,
AASHTO T259, 167, 246 ACI 116R, 59–60, 184, 467, 595, 637 626–628
AASHTO T260, 170, 311 ACI 121.3R-91, 484 Adiabatic temperature rise, 45–46
AASHTO T277, 246 ACI 121.4R-93, 484 Admixtures
AASHTO T318, 64, 535 ACI 201.2R, 262 abrasion resistance and, 185
AASHTO TP 164, 247 ACI 207.5R, 599 alkali-silica reactivity, 407–408
AASHTO TP 64, 250 ACI-209R-92, 202 chemical composition, 457
Abrasion, 184 ACI 211.1, 65, 84, 621 content analysis in hardened
Abrasion resistance, 184–192 ACI 211.2, 84, 339, 599, 621 concrete, 311
application of test methods, 191 ACI 211.3R, 68–69, 599 definitions, 495
ASTM C 418, 187–188, 190–192 ACI 213, 554, 556 drying shrinkage and, 218
ASTM C 779, 187–192 ACI 214, 19–20, 28, 63, 80, 82 lightweight aggregate concrete, 553,
ASTM C 944, 190 ACI 216, 275 625
ASTM C 1138, 190–192 ACI 228, 82, 137 polymer-modified concrete and
compressive strength and, 185–186 ACI 228.1R, 319, 324, 328 mortar, 608
concrete types, 185–186 ACI 233R, 513 self-consolidating concrete, 639
curing and, 187 ACI 234R, 219 shotcrete, 620
finishing procedures and, 186–187 ACI 301, 535 see also Air-entraining admixtures;
lightweight aggregate concrete, 558 ACI 302.1R-04, 184 Chemical admixtures
mixture proportioning and, 185 ACI 304R, 65, 592 Aged concrete, petrographic
quality of aggregates and, 184–185 ACI 304.2R-96, 622 examination, 210
roller-compacted concrete, 600 ACI 306R, 543 Aggregates
surface treatment and, 187 ACI 308R, 83, 467, 470, 472 abrasion resistance and, 184–185
Absolute volume method, 346 ACI 308T.G., 471 absorption measurement, accuracy,
Absorption ACI 309.1R, 59 353–354
cross section, radiation shielding, 573 ACI 318, 19–20, 51, 261–262, 544, acceptance testing, 17–18
lightweight aggregates, 551–552 555–556, 620 alkali-carbonate rock reactivity, 410
measurement, accuracy, 353–354 ACI 363, 201 ASTM standards, 366
tests, 244, 358 ACI 503.1, 627 batching and measuring materials,
water, aggregates, 351–352 ACI 503.4, 627 539
Accelerated curing, 141–149, 471 ACI 506R, 616–617, 619, 622 bleeding and, 114–115
apparatus, 142–143 ACI 506.1R-98, 618 bulk density, 348–349
autogenous curing method, 143–144 ACI 506.2, 617, 622 characteristics, thermal conductivity
cement chemistry effect, 146 ACI 506.3-82, 617 and, 227–228
experimental program, 141–142 ACI 506.4R-94, 623 coarse
high temperature and pressure ACI 544.2R, 587 degradation, 366–367
method, 146–147 ACI 805–51, 616–617 grading, 339

647
648 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
Aggregates (continued)
polymer-modified concrete and
mortar, 608
with potentially expansive rock,
422
preplaced aggregate concrete, 592
proportions in hardened concrete,
383–384
size and flexural strength, 134–135
workability and, 65
coatings, 343, 362–363
coefficient of thermal expansion,
426–427
compatibility with slag, 526
compressive strength at high
temperature, 279
consistency, 12–13
constituents, alkali reactivity, 384
content analysis in hardened
concrete, 311
definition, 5
deleterious substances, 360–362
density, effect, 303
dry rodded, 348
elastic properties, 371
to enhance radiation shielding
attributes, 573–574
fine
air entrainment and, 478
cellular concrete, 562
grading, 339–340
manufactured, 340
pavement wear and, 373
polymer-modified concrete and
mortar, 608
preplaced aggregate concrete, 592
proportions in hardened concrete,
383–384
fineness modulus, 337–338
fire resistance and, 277
freeze-thaw tests, 369
frictional properties, 372–373
frost resistance, 290
grading, 337–340
hardness, 371–372
high-density, preplaced aggregate
concrete, 592–593
high-strength, 365
innocuous, 406–407
Micro-Deval test, 369–370
microscopic analysis, hardened
concrete, 388
nomenclature, 355–356, 410
packing, 347–348
particle size distribution, 338
permeability, 12, 168
physical properties, 346
polishing, 372–373
pores and pore distribution, 350– 351
porosity, 12
potential alkali reactivity, 405–406
properties, 365–366
quarry sampling, 421–422
reactive, 404–406
reducing field samples to testing size,
411
relative density, 349–350
roller-compacted concrete, 597–598
sampling, 411
self-consolidating concrete, 639
shape, 340–342
shape and texture, 347–348
shotcrete, 619
size, air content measurement and,
77
soundness, 356–360
specifications, 374
specific gravity, 12
specific heat, 429
strength, 12, 127, 370–371
structure, 13–14
surface moisture, 352–353
surface texture, 342–343
thermal expansion, 426–427
thermal properties, 277, 425–430
transition zone, 13
unconfined, freeze-thaw testing, 358
underwater abrasion test method,
368
voids, 348–349
void space, 13
volume fraction and drying
shrinkage, 218
water absorption, 351–352
wear, 372–373
wet degradation and attrition tests,
368–370
see also Petrographic evaluation
Air
entrained, factors influencing in
fresh concrete, 476–480
function in fresh and hardened
concrete, 475–476
Air cells, introduction into plastic
mixtures, 561
Air content, 288–304
air-entrained concretes, 73
effect
of algae in mixing water, 465
of hardness in mixing water, 465
on density, 304
freeze-thaw damage mechanism,
289–290
fresh fiber-reinforced concrete, 581
fresh versus microscopic, 76–77
hydraulic cements, 446–447
influence on behavior and perform-
ance of concrete, 288–289
lightweight aggregate concrete, 553
measurement, 292
effect of surface preparation, 76
faulty testing, 78
future trends, 79
gravimetric method, 77–78
pressure air measurement, 75–76
sampling, 74
significance and use, 73–74
volumetric method, 76–77
pressure versus
gravimetric, 76
microscopic, 75
ready-mixed concrete, 537–538
sequence of material addition and,
479
supplementary cementitious materi-
als and, 505
test, 62
test result interpretation, 300
Air-entrained concretes, air content, 73
Air-entraining admixtures, 291, 474–481
classification, 477
definitions, 474
hydraulic cements, 446
materials used as, 474–475
ready-mixed concrete, 538
recycled concrete, 396
roller-compacted concrete, 598
self-consolidating concrete, 639
status of specifications, 481
type and amount, 477–478
Air entrainment
freeze-thaw durability, 73
grading effect, 340
workability and, 65–66
Air-free unit weight test, 61
Air voids
determination, 480–481
dispersion and spacing, 293–294
entrained. purposely, 239
freeze-thaw damage and, 289–290
gradation, 291–292
ice formation, 14
large, arbitrary deletion, 298
shape, 292
size and distribution, 476
measurement, 292–293
spacing factor, 293–294, 475
Air-void system
achieving dispersion and small bub-
ble spacing, 290
calculation errors, 298
effective, 290
freeze-thaw durability, 476
geometry evaluation, 294–299
comparison of fresh and hardened
concrete, 299
image analysis techniques, 298–299
linear transverse method, 295–296
microscopic analysis, 294
modified point-conduct method,
296
precision and bias, 296–297
test methods, 294–296
variability and uncertainty,
297–298
origin and geometric characteristics,
290–292
polymer-modified concrete and
mortar, 609

ready-mixed concrete, 538
specific surface, 292–293
test result interpretation, 299–300
with and without air-entraining
admixture, 291
Algae, in mixing water, 465
Alkali
content, fly ash and natural pozzolan,
501–502
extraneous sources, 407
release, 382
Alkali-aggregate reactions
resistance to, lightweight aggregate
concrete, 558
structures with, U. S. locations, 387,
389
Alkali-aggregate reactivity, 108
Alkali-carbonate rock reactivity,
410–422
ASTM standards, 410–411
chemical and mineralogical
composition, 415
compared to alkali-silica reactivity,
413
concrete microbars, 421
concrete prism expansion test,
419–420
distress manifestations, 411–413
expansive dedolomitization reaction,
411
field service record, 419
mechanism of reaction and
expansion, 417
petrographic evaluation, 413–415
potential, determination by chemical
composition, 421
quarry sampling, 421–422
rock cylinder expansion test, 420–421
types, 411
using coarse aggregate with poten-
tially expansive rock, 422
Alkali-reactive dolomite, 384, 418–419
Alkali silica gel, 401–402
Alkali-silica reactivity, 401–408
admixtures, 407–408
aggregate constituents, 384
compared to alkali-carbonate rock
reactivity, 413
controlling, 406–408
by admixtures, 487–488
fly ash and pozzolan, 505–506
gravel and sand, 387
hydraulic cements, 447–448
identifying potentially reactive
aggregate, 404–406
limiting cement alkali level, 407
mechanism of reactions and distress,
402–404
mitigation, slag effect, 520
moisture availability and environ-
mental effects, 404
safe reactions, 402
symptoms, 401–403
INDEX 649
Alkali sulfates, portland cement, 460 ASTM C 125, 5, 59, 65, 292, 339, 383,
Alkali test method, 501–502 390, 392, 467, 474, 495, 512,
Aluminum, embedded, 175–177 616–617
Ambient conditions, effects on curing, ASTM C 127, 53, 84, 349–353, 358, 551
470–471 ASTM C 128, 53, 84, 349–353, 358, 551
American Association for Laboratory ASTM C 131, 184–185, 359, 362,
Accreditation, 53–54 366–368
ANSI A118-4, 614 ASTM C 136, 53, 337, 380
ANSI A118-6, 614 ASTM C 138, 53, 62, 77–78, 84, 289,
Anti-washout admixtures, 488 299, 301, 480, 534, 543, 554, 581
ASI 342, 244 ASTM C 142, 359, 361, 379, 394
ASTM A 185, 620 ASTM C 143, 40, 59, 61, 66–67, 74, 81,
ASTM A 497, 620 84, 554
ASTM A 615, 620 ASTM C 144, 562, 635
ASTM A 616, 620 ASTM C 150, 53, 118, 219, 221, 234,
ASTM A 617, 620 260, 310, 419, 435, 438–442, 444,
ASTM A 706, 620 446–448, 450–456, 459, 562, 597,
ASTM A 767, 620 607, 619, 635, 639
ASTM A 820, 578 chemical requirements of portland
ASTM C 25, 459 cement, 453–455
ASTM C 29, 348, 350 ASTM C 151, 219, 221, 437, 442, 444
ASTM C 31, 53, 61, 80–81, 84–85, ASTM C 156, 467–469, 471
127–128, 136, 151–152, 544, ASTM C 157, 221–222, 420, 437, 439,
554 442, 587
ASTM C 33, 60–61, 185, 281, 337–343, ASTM C 171, 620, 622
355, 358, 361, 366, 372, 374, 395, ASTM C 172, 19, 53, 74, 82, 299, 554,
397, 405, 410, 420, 447–448, 515, 579, 581
562, 597, 608, 619, 621, 635–636, ASTM C 173, 53, 62, 76, 84, 480,
639 553–554, 581, 598
grading, 337–340 ASTM C 177, 227, 280, 430, 564
shape, 340–342 ASTM C 183, 18–19, 26
surface texture, 342–343 ASTM C 185, 437, 447, 478
ASTM C 39, 46–47, 53, 61, 63, 80, ASTM C 186, 45, 48, 233, 437, 441–442,
128–129, 131–132, 196, 544 457
ASTM C 40, 26, 28 ASTM C 187, 44, 437, 439
ASTM C 42, 127–128, 131–132, 327, ASTM C 188, 436–438
622 ASTM C 190, 444
ASTM C 67, 600 ASTM C 191, 43, 88, 437, 441–440, 469
ASTM C 70, 60, 253 ASTM C 192, 80–81, 84–85, 127–128,
ASTM C 78, 63, 80, 133–135, 196, 279 159
ASTM C 85, 310 ASTM C 204, 292, 436–438
ASTM C 88, 257, 355–357, 360, 363, 390 ASTM C 206, 503
ASTM C 91, 53, 635 ASTM C 207, 635
ASTM C 94, 19, 60–61, 63–64, 81, 441, ASTM C 214, 450
462, 533–545, 619, 622 ASTM C 215, 46, 155, 157, 200, 315–316,
aggregates, 539 318–319
batching plant, 539–540 ASTM C 219, 5, 474
cementitious materials, 538–539 ASTM C 227, 179, 212, 395, 404–405,
chemical admixtures, 539 437, 439, 444, 447, 457
compressive strength testing, limitations, 405
543–544 ASTM C 231, 62, 75, 77, 84, 299, 476,
control of water addition, 542–543 480, 537, 553, 581, 598
failure to meet strength requirements, ASTM C 232, 115, 119–121
544 ASTM C 233, 481
mixing operations, 540–542 ASTM C 234, 107
mixing water, 539 ASTM C 235, 361
sampling, 543 ASTM C 236, 280
ASTM C 109, 32, 36, 46, 437, 444, 457, ASTM C 243, 119–120
514 ASTM C 260, 19, 157–158, 474,
ASTM C 114, 311, 451, 457–459, 500 480–481, 620, 639
ASTM C 115, 292, 436–438 ASTM C 265, 446, 448
ASTM C 117, 53, 343, 380, 614 ASTM C 266, 43, 88, 437, 440–442
ASTM C 123, 359, 361 ASTM C 267, 265
650 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE

ASTM C 270, 632, 635
ASTM C 289, 179, 404–405
limitations, 405
ASTM C 290, 154–157
ASTM C 291, 154–155, 157
ASTM C 292, 155
ASTM C 293, 63, 80, 133–135, 196
ASTM C 294, 39, 410, 575
ASTM C 295, 39, 208, 215, 359,
361–363, 377–378, 380–381,
397–398, 404–405, 410–411, 425
ASTM C 309, 19, 469–471, 601, 620, 622
ASTM C 310, 155
ASTM C 311, 18, 437, 497, 499, 501,
505–509
ASTM C 330, 158, 374, 548–550,
556–557, 559, 565, 619
ASTM C 331, 549–550, 562
ASTM C 332, 549–550, 562
ASTM C 341, 221–222
ASTM C 348, 444
ASTM C 349, 444
ASTM C 350, 497–499
ASTM C 359, 440
ASTM C 360, 67
ASTM C 387, 631–632, 634–635
packaged, dry, cementitious mixtures,
632
ASTM C 401, 53
ASTM C 402, 498
ASTM C 403, 86–88, 90–91, 93–97, 142,
441
precision, 88–89
ASTM C 418, 187–188, 190–192, 366
ASTM C 430, 437–438, 503
ASTM C 441, 407–408, 439, 447, 505,
508, 514
ASTM C 451, 437, 440
ASTM C 452, 260, 262, 437, 447–448
ASTM C 457, 75–76, 79, 239–240, 288,
292–300, 310–311, 380, 383–384,
390, 398, 476, 480–481, 538
methods, 294–296
microscopic analysis, 294
precision and bias, 296–297
ASTM C 464, 316
ASTM C 465, 454
ASTM C 469, 196–197, 200, 556
ASTM C 470, 81
ASTM C 490, 155, 232
ASTM C 494, 19, 88–89, 157–158, 160,
168, 441, 485–489, 562, 598, 623,
639
ASTM C 495, 565
ASTM C 496, 63, 80, 133, 135, 556, 559,
565
ASTM C 511, 83–84
ASTM C 512, 81, 202, 556
ASTM C 518, 228
ASTM C 535, 359, 362
ASTM C 563, 437, 446, 454
ASTM C 566, 60, 253
ASTM C 567, 301, 303, 548, 554, 559
ASTM C 579, 579
ASTM C 586, 411, 413, 417–418,
420–422
ASTM C 595, 53, 234, 435, 437–438,
441, 444–448, 456, 513, 515, 517,
562, 619, 635, 639
blended hydraulic cements, 456
ASTM C 596, 221–222, 439
ASTM C 597, 199–200, 318, 623
ASTM C 617, 129–130
ASTM C 618, 114, 232, 260, 407, 442,
456–457, 479, 498–500, 504–507,
509, 562, 591, 597, 619
ASTM C 637, 570, 575, 592, 619
ASTM C 638, 570, 575, 592
ASTM C 642, 239, 244, 250, 303
ASTM C 666, 154–161, 212, 359, 361,
480, 557, 600, 610
ASTM C 670, 26, 28, 145, 158, 160, 357
ASTM C 671, 155–156, 160–161, 359
ASTM C 672, 26, 155–156, 161–162,
267, 524
ASTM C 682, 155–156, 160–162, 359
ASTM C 684, 141, 143, 145–147, 152
ASTM C 685, 533–534, 536, 543–544,
619, 622
ASTM C 702, 411
ASTM C 778, 444
ASTM C 779, 187–192, 366
ASTM C 796, 562, 564
ASTM C 801, 137
ASTM C 802, 26, 28
ASTM C 803, 136, 325, 328, 622
ASTM C 805, 136–137, 324, 622
ASTM C 806, 223
ASTM C 823, 20, 204–209, 379, 411,
419, 581, 622–623
ASTM C 827, 221–222, 439, 633
ASTM C 845, 53, 219, 607
ASTM C 851, 361
ASTM C 856, 170, 207–208, 210,
310–311, 379, 398, 411–412
ASTM C 869, 562
ASTM C 873, 127–128, 136
ASTM C 876, 170
ASTM C 878, 221, 223
ASTM C 881, 620, 626–627
ASTM C 882, 627, 633
ASTM C 884, 627–628
ASTM C 887, 635
ASTM C 900, 136, 328–329
ASTM C 903, 618
ASTM C 917, 19, 26, 32, 36, 445
ASTM C 918, 27, 136, 141, 149–150,
152, 330
ASTM C 928, 632–635
packaged, dry, cementitious mixtures,
632–633
ASTM C 936, 600
ASTM C 937, 570, 576, 592
ASTM C 938, 570, 576, 592
ASTM C 939, 69, 570, 576, 593
ASTM C 940, 119, 221, 223, 570, 576, 593
ASTM C 941, 119, 570, 576, 593
ASTM C 942, 570, 576, 593
ASTM C 943, 570, 576, 594
ASTM C 944, 190, 366
ASTM C 953, 570, 576, 594
ASTM C 973, 618
ASTM C 989, 18, 408, 437, 456,
513–515, 517, 521, 528, 597, 619
use of appendices, 514
ASTM C 1012, 260–261, 437, 439,
447–448, 457, 506, 521
ASTM C 1017, 19, 157–158
ASTM C 1018, 196, 198, 579, 584–586,
589, 617, 621
ASTM C 1038, 437, 446, 448, 454
ASTM C 1040, 303
ASTM C 1059, 625–626
ASTM C 1064, 53, 63, 74, 84
ASTM C 1067, 26
ASTM C 1069, 508
ASTM C 1073, 514–515
ASTM C 1074, 79, 149–150, 152, 331,
472
ASTM C 1077, 52–54, 378, 543
ASTM C 1078, 63
ASTM C 1079, 64
ASTM C 1084, 212, 263, 309–311
ASTM C 1090, 221, 223
ASTM C 1102, 617
ASTM C 1105, 411, 419–422
ASTM C 1107, 591, 633–635
packaged, dry, cementitious mixtures,
633
ASTM C 1116, 579, 582, 617–620,
622–623
ASTM C 1117, 617
ASTM C 1137, 366, 369
ASTM C 1138, 186, 190–192, 366, 368,
600
ASTM C 1140, 617, 620, 622–623
ASTM C 1141, 617, 620, 622–623
ASTM C 1151, 244, 469
ASTM C 1152, 170, 311
ASTM C 1157, 53, 221, 435, 437–438,
440–442, 444–448, 456–459, 562,
619, 635, 639
ASTM C 1170, 63, 68–69, 599, 602–603
ASTM C 1176, 81, 84, 603
ASTM C 1202, 47, 167–168, 246–247,
250, 520, 610
ASTM C 1218, 171
ASTM C 1222, 53–54
ASTM C 1231, 129–130, 544
ASTM C 1240, 19, 408, 456–459,
507–508, 619
ASTM C 1252, 341–343
ASTM C 1260, 378, 404–406
ASTM C 1293, 404, 406, 510–521
ASTM C 1294, 419
ASTM C 1315, 19, 470, 629
ASTM C 1324, 212, 311
ASTM C 1356, 209, 459
ASTM C 1362, 63, 67
 INDEX 651

ASTM C 1365, 459 ASTM E 289, 428 paste-aggregate bond, 106–107

ASTM C 1383, 200, 320 ASTM E 303, 373 paste-steel bond, 107
ASTM C 1385, 617, 621 ASTM E 329, 52 scaling, 108–109
ASTM C 1398, 617, 620, 623 ASTM E 350, 459 strength and density, 106
ASTM C 1399, 579, 584, 586–587 ASTM E 660, 366, 373 surface appearance, 111–112
ASTM C 1402, 625 ASTM E 707, 366 surface determination, 109–111
ASTM C 1404, 625 ASTM E 994, 52 effects on plastic concrete, 102–106
ASTM C 1435, 81, 84, 603 ASTM E 1085, 514 placing and finishing, 106
ASTM C 1436, 617, 619, 621, 623 ASTM E 1187, 52 plastic shrinkage, 104–106
ASTM C 1437, 437, 439 ASTM E 1301, 52 postbleeding expansion, 103–104
ASTM C 1438, 608, 615, 620 ASTM E 1323, 52 thixotropic mixtures, 106
ASTM C 1439, 608 ASTM E 1550, 52 volume change, 102–103
ASTM C 1451, 19, 27, 30, 36 ASTM E 1738, 52 water-cement ratio, 106
ASTM C 1452, 568 ASTM E 2159, 52 fresh concrete, slag effect, 518
ASTM C 1453, 167 ASTM E 2226, 275 fundamentals, 99–101
ASTM C 1480, 617, 619, 621, 623 ASTM F 1869, 243, 250 increasing, 118
ASTM C 1543, 246, 250 ASTM F 2170, 244, 250 ingredient effects, 112–116
ASTM C 1550, 584, 587, 589, 617–618, ASTM G 40, 184 aggregate, 114–115
623 Atmospheric diffusion, shrinkage and, cement, 112–113
ASTM C 1556, 47, 168, 246, 250 219 chemical admixtures, 115
ASTM C 1558, 244, 250 Atom, model, 570 supplementary cementing
ASTM C 1567, 514, 520 Attrition test, aggregates, 368–370 materials, 113–114
ASTM C 1581, 204, 221–222 Autogenous shrinkage, 7 water content and water-cement
ASTM C 1583, 628 Autogenous volume changes, 216 ratio, 112
ASTM C 1585, 168, 244, 250 mathematical models, 119, 121
ASTM C 1602, 462–463 B placement conditions, 116–118
ASTM C 1603, 463, 537 planes of weakness due to, 128
ASTM C 1604, 617, 622 Backscattered electron SEM, 39–40 rate, 101–102
ASTM D 75, 17, 380, 411 Ball-bearing abrasion test machine, reducing, 116, 118
ASTM D 448, 337 189–190 significance, 99
ASTM D 672, 610 Ball penetration test, 67 special applications, 119
ASTM D 1557, 599, 603 Basic water content, 12 test methods, 119–121
ASTM D 2419, 361 Batching zones, 101–102
ASTM D 2766, 229 roller-compacted concrete, 601 Bleed-reducing admixtures, 116
ASTM D 2936, 133–134 self-consolidating concrete, 641 Bleed water, 118–119, 558
ASTM D 2940, 598 sequence of material addition, air Blended cement, slag, 515
ASTM D 3042, 366, 373 content and, 479 Blistering, 111, 289
ASTM D 3319, 366, 373–374 shotcrete, 621–622 Bogue calculations, 451–452
ASTM D 3398, 341 Batching plant, ASTM C 94, 539–540 Bond, polymer-modified concrete and
ASTM D 3665, 20, 25 Bearing strips, splitting tensile strength mortar, 609–611
ASTM D 3744, 368 and, 135 Bond breakers, new concrete surfaces,
ASTM D 4326, 499 Beneficiation, petrographic evaluation 471
ASTM D 4397, 469 and, 379 Bonded capping, 129–130
ASTM D 4460, 27 Bias, 296–297 Bonding materials, organic, 625–626
ASTM D 4580, 111 chemical analysis of hydraulic Brickwork, contamination of recycled
ASTM D 4748, 322 cement, 458 concrete, 397
ASTM D 4788, 321 statements, acceptance testing, 26–27 Brines, 265–266
ASTM D 4791, 340–343 sulfate soundness test, 356–357 Brucite, 418
ASTM D 4944, 60 Binders, shotcrete, 619 BS 812, 369, 373
ASTM D 4971, 39 Bituminous coatings, 628–630 BS 1881, 244
ASTM D 5882, 320 Bituminous materials, contamination of Bulk density, aggregates, 348–349,
ASTM D 6087, 322 recycled concrete, 396 549–550
ASTM D 6607, 27 Blaine fineness, 39 Bulk modulus, high temperature and,
ASTM D 6928, 366, 369 Blaine test, 438–439 280
ASTM E 6, 195–196, 201 Blast-furnace slag, see Slag
ASTM E 11, 337 Bleeding, 239 C
ASTM E 96, 243, 250, 469 capacity, 101–103
ASTM E 105, 20 controlling, 118–119 Calcium chloride in admixtures, 485
ASTM E 119, 274–275, 283, 558, 566 duration of, 101–102 bleeding and, 116
ASTM E 122, 20, 25 effects on hardened concrete, 106 effect on galvanic current, 176–177
ASTM E 141, 20 blisters, 111 Calcium hydroxide
ASTM E 177, 211 durability, 107–108 crystals, 13
ASTM E 288, 428 mortar flaking, 109 hydration product, 254
652 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
Calcium hydroxide (continued)
involved in leaching or mineral
deposition, 255
sulfate resistance and, 260
Calcium nitrite, permeability and, 169
Calcium oxide
analysis, 310
expansion due to hydration, 219, 221
Calcium silicate hydrate, 6, 8–9
Calcium sulfate, portland cement,
459–460
Calcium sulfate reaction, 257–258
Calcium sulfoaluminates, sulfate attack
and, 256
California Division of Highways, 160
Capillary absorption tests, 244
Capillary tension, pore water, 9
Capping procedures, 129–130
Carbonate, portland cement, 459
Carbonate rocks, alkali-carbonate rock
reactivity, 411
Carbonation
Chemical resistance, 266
depth of, 243
portland-cement paste, 174
Carbonation shrinkage, 216–217
Carlson-Forbrich van conduction
calorimeter, 233
Casting direction, compressive strength,
132
Casting techniques, cellular concrete,
564
Cast-in-place concrete, radiation
shielding, 575
Cathodic protection, reinforcing steel,
171
Cellular concrete, 561–568
air cell introduction, 561
applications, 567
batching, mixing, and application
techniques, 563–564
classification, 562
compressive strength, 565
density, 564
drying shrinkage, 566
energy absorption, 566
engineered fills, 567
fire resistance, 566
floor fills, 567
freeze-thaw resistance, 566
materials, 562–563
modulus of elasticity, 566
nailability and sawability, 567
precast elements, 567–568
proportioning, 563
quality control, 568
roof deck fills, 567
shear strength, 566
tensile strength, 565
thermal conductivity, 564–565
walkability, 566–567
water absorption, 566
workability, 564
Cement
air entrainment and, 478
analysis of type, 310–311
bleeding and, 112–113
cellular concrete, 562
classification, 436
fresh, rheology, 40–41
hardened, modeling degradation and
service life, 47
particle shape, 39–40
polymer-modified concrete and
mortar, 607
Cement-aggregates combinations,
potential alkali reactivity,
405
Cement and Concrete Reference
Laboratory, 53
Cement chemistry, accelerated curing
methods and, 146
Cement content
analysis, 309, 311
fresh concrete, 64
petrographic evaluation, 310
uniformity, tests, 63–64
Cement gels, 9
Cementing materials, preplaced aggre-
gate concrete, 591
Cementitious materials
acceptance testing, 18–19
paste strength and, 126
roller-compacted concrete, 597
see also Packaged, dry, cementitious
mixtures; Supplementary cemen-
titious materials
Cement maintenance paint, latex-
modified, 614
Cement mix, workability and, 65
Cement mortar, volume change,
222–223
Cement particles, dispersion, 6
Cement paste
composition and fire resistance,
276–277
compressive strength, 11
creep, 10–11,201
density, 126
diffusivity, 11–12
elasticity, 10–11
film thickness and aggregates, 13
fresh, structure, 6
hardened, properties, 46–47
hardening, properties, 41–46
permeability, 11–12
rheology, 10
strength, 126
thermal expansion, 12, 230
thermal properties, 226
water content, drying shrinkage, 218,
220–221
X-ray diffraction, 212
Cement paste matrix, 5
CEMHYD3D, 42–46, 472
CEN/TC 154, 367
Center-point loading, flexural strength,
135
Central mixing, ready-mixed concrete,
540–541
Centrifuge test, 63
Ceramic tile thinsets, latex-modified,
614
Certification, testing personnel, 81
Chemical admixtures, 484–489
accelerating, 485
acceptance testing, 19
air-entraining, 478
batching and measuring materials,
539
bleeding and, 115–116
cellular concrete, 563
cold weather, 488–489
compatibility with slag, 526
corrosion-inhibiting, 486–487
high-range water reducing, 486
hydration and, 233
hydration controlling, 489
mid-range water reducing, 486
paste strength and, 126
recycled concrete, 396
shrinkage-reducing, 488
suppression of alkali-silica reactions,
487–488
viscosity-modifying and anti-washout,
488
water-reducing and set-retarding,
484–485
workability and, 66
Chemical attack, 253–254
Chemical contamination, recycled
concrete, 396
Chemical reactions
mechanisms in deterioration, 253
supply of aggressive agents, 254
Chemical resistance, 253–267
acid attack, 263–265
attack by other chemicals, 266–267
carbonation, 266
efflorescence, 254–256
improving, 254–256
leaching, 254–256
scaling, 254–256
seawater and brines, 265–266
sulfate resistance, 256–263
see also Sulfate resistance
Chemical shrinkage, 7, 9, 44–45, 216
Chert, 360–361
Chi-square test, 20
Chloride
analysis in reinforcing steels,
170–171
effect on sulfate resistance, 259
ion effect, 167–168
Chloride-induced corrosion, 164–167
Chloride penetration, 164
prestressed concrete, 169
seawater and, 265
test methods, 245–247

Clay
in alkali-carbonate rocks, 447–448
expanded, petrographic evaluation,
394
Clay lumps, 360–361, 379
Clinker particles, 8
Clinker phases, 39, 452
Coal, 360–361
Coatings
abrasion resistance and, 187
aggregates, 343, 362–363
artificially generated, 362
bituminous, 628–630
definition, 355–356
effect on concrete, 362–363
embedded lead, 177–178
latex, 629–630
naturally occurring, 362
on gravel and sand, 386
petrographic evaluation of
aggregates, 383
polymer-modified concrete and
mortar, 613–614
synthetic-resin, 629
Coefficient of thermal expansion, 278,
426–427
Coefficient of variation, 23
Cohesion, air content and, 289
Cold weather admixtures, 488–489
Color, slag effect, 524–526
Compactability, roller-compacted
concrete, 602–603
Compaction, roller-compacted
concrete, 601–602
Composition, petrographic
examination, 210–211
Compression
creep measurement, 202
modulus of elasticity, 196–198
Compressive members, deflection,
203
Compressive strength, 80
abrasion resistance and, 185–186
cellular concrete, 565
cement paste, 11
elastic properties and, 200–201
factors affecting, 129–132
high temperature and, 278–279
lightweight aggregate concrete,
555–556
preplaced aggregate concrete, 593
ready-mixed concrete, 543–544
recycled concrete, 395–396
roller-compacted concrete, 600
test procedures, 128–129
test result significance, 132–133
virtual testing, 46–47
Compressometer, 197
Concrete
bleeding capacities, 101, 103
definition, 5
hardening, properties, 41–46
microbars, 421
INDEX 653
normal consistency, measurement, embedded organic materials, 181
66–68 embedded plastics, 180
physical properties, curing effects, embedded steel, 181
470 embedded zinc, 178–179
recycled, embedded in new concrete, mechanisms, 164–166
181–182 reinforced steel, 164–171
types, abrasion resistance and, assessing severity in existing
185–186 structures, 170
volume change, 222–223 cathodic protection, 171
see also Fresh concrete; Hardened chloride ion effect, 167–168
concrete chloride samples, 170–171
Concrete-making materials concrete cores, 170
definition, 5 damage, 166–167
perceived relative importance of new steels, 171
materials, 32–35 precautionary steps against,
properties and performance, 30–35 168–169
see also Uniformity, concrete-making prestressed concrete, 169–170
materials repairs to deteriorated structures,
Concrete prism expansion test, 419–420 171
Concrete rheometer, self-consolidating wood, 179–180
concrete, 643 Corrosion-inhibiting admixtures,
Consistency 486–487
aggregates, 12–13 Corrosion resistance, hardened cement,
hydraulic cements, 439–440 slag effect, 520
roller-compacted concrete, 602–603 Crack damage, alkali reactivity, 411
workability and, 65 Cracking, 216
Consolidation fire-damage, 283–284
bleeding and, 117–118 resistance, fiber-reinforced concrete,
fresh concrete, slag effect, 517–518 587–589
laboratory specimens, 84 Crank’s solution, 246
Construction, roller-compacted CRD-C 36, 230
concrete, 601–602 CRD-C 37, 230
Construction Materials Engineering CRD-C 38, 233
Council, 54 CRD-C 39, 232
Construction Materials Reference CRD-C 44, 227
Laboratories, 53 CRD-C 45, 228
Contact zone, lightweight aggregate CRD-C 55–92, 61
concrete, 557–558 CRD-C 124, 229
Contamination CRD-C 148, 368
detection, petrographic evaluation, CRD-C 300, 470
379 CRD-C 302, 470
recycled concrete, 396 CRD-C 401, 465
Continuous penetration measurement, CRD-C 621–89a, 633
91–92 Creep, 14, 201–203, 215
Control chart, 27–28 cement paste, 10–11, 201
Copper and copper alloys, embedded, effect of specimen size, 202
178 high temperatures and, 280
Core and pullout test, 329 importance, 194
Cored specimens, 128, 130, 170 lightweight aggregate concrete,
Core testing, versus probe penetration 556–557
test, 327 measurement in compression, 202
Corps of Engineers method, 599 property specification and
Correlation coefficient, 23 estimation, 202–203
Corrosion significance and use, 203
chloride-induced, 164–167 tensile, measurement, 202
embedded asbestos, 181 Creep coefficient, 202–203
embedded aluminum, 175 Crushing, particle shape, 341–342
embedded concrete, 181–182 Crusted stone, petrographic evaluation,
embedded copper and copper alloys, 390–392
178 CSA A23.1, 481
embedded fibers, 180–181 CSA A23.2–14A, 419–420, 422
embedded glass, 179 CSA A23.2–23A, 369
embedded lead, 177–178 CSA A3001, 513
654 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE

Curing degree of consolidation, 301–302 Durability, 14, 80

abrasion resistance and, 187
accelerated, 471
ambient conditions effects, 470–471
effects on concrete properties, 470
fresh concrete, slag effect, 519
internal, 471–472, 553–554
liquid membrane-forming curing
compounds, 469–470
materials for water retention, 468
needs for future work, 472–473
new concrete surfaces, 469–473
effectiveness, 467–468
paste strength and, 126
roller-compacted concrete, 602
self-consolidating concrete, 642
sheet materials, 469
specimens, 83
test methods, 468–469
Curing compounds, 19, 629
Curing meter, 472
Curing water, 465–466, 619–620
Cylinder strength, 130
D Diameter-aggregate size ratio, compres-
Damping properties, 316
Dams, roller-compacted concrete,
595–596
Darcian flow, 241–242
Darcy’s law, 245
D-cracking, 156
Decorative coatings, polymer-modified
concrete and mortar, 613
Dedolomitization, 417–418
expansive, 411
Deflection, compressive and flexural
members, 203
Degradation, coarse aggregates,
366–367
modeling, 47
Degree of consolidation, density,
301–302
Degree of hydration, 41–43
Dehydration, during fires, 276–277
Deicing salts, 164, 245, 524
Delamination
air content and, 289
bleeding, 109–111
detection, ground-penetrating radar,
321–322
Delayed ettringite formation, 257, 260,
262–263
Deleterious substances
aggregates, 360–362
definition, 355
slag, 393
see also Alkali-silica reactivity
Density, 300–304
air content effect, 289, 304
cellular concrete, 564
cement paste, 126
composition effect, 303–304
determination, 303
fresh fiber-reinforced concrete, 581
hardened concrete, bleeding and,
106–112
hydraulic cements, 436, 446–448
in-place, roller-compacted concrete,
603
lightweight aggregate concrete, 554
measurement
as cross-check to air content
measurement, 77–78
significance and use, 73
paste content effect, 304
permeability, 301
preplaced aggregate concrete, 594
radiation shielding, 574
shielding properties, 302
significance, 301–302
test, 62–63
typical values, 302–303
uniformity of materials, 301
voids content, 301
Deteriorated structures, repairs, 171
sive strength and, 131
Diatomite, petrographic evaluation, 395
Difference two sigma limit, 23, 26
Diffusion coefficients, 11–12
Diffusivity
cement paste, 11–12
high temperatures, 280–281
virtual testing, 47
Digital recorders, 540
Dilation methods, freezing and
thawing, 160–161
Dilatometry tests, fire resistance, 276
DIN 1048, 244–245
Direct tension test, 134
Discontinuity, 247–249
Dissipative particle dynamics approach,
41
Distress, due to alkali-carbonate rock
reactivity, 411–412
Dolomitic carbonate rocks, petro-
graphic evaluation, 421
Dressing-wheel abrasion test machine,
189
Drilled cores, strength testing, 127–128
Drilled-in pullout test, 329
Drying
effects, 9–10
new concrete surfaces, 472
time, 174–175
Drying shrinkage, 215, 217–219
cellular concrete, 566
hydraulic cements, 442
slag effect, 523–524
supplementary cementitious
materials, 505
Dry shake hardeners, new concrete
surfaces, 471
Dunagantest, 61
bleeding and, 107–108
fiber-reinforced concrete, 589
hydraulic cements, 446–448
improvement, 254
lightweight aggregate concrete, 557
roller-compacted concrete, 600–601
Durability factor, freezing and thawing,
157
Dynamic modulus of elasticity, 314–316
Dynamic modulus of rigidity, 315–316
E
Echo method, 319–320
Efflorescence, 254–256, 524
Elastic constants, 194–196
Elasticity, cement paste, 10–11
Elastic modulus, 11, 194–195
drying shrinkage and, 218
from ultrasonic measurements,
199–200
virtual testing, 46
Elastic properties, 196–201
aggregates, 371
elastic modulus, from ultrasonic
measurements, 199–200
importance, 194
modulus of elasticity
in compression, 196–198
in tension and flexure, 198–199
Poisson’s ratio, 200
property specification and estima-
tion, 200–201
significance and use, 203
Elastic strain, 215
Electolytic cell, 165–166
Electrical methods, time of setting,
95–96
Embedded materials, 174–182
aluminum, 175–177
asbestos, 181
concrete, 181–182
copper and copper alloys, 178
fibers, 180–181
general condition, 174–175
glass, 179
glass fibers, 181
lead, 177–178
organic materials, 181
other metals, 179
plastics, 180
steel, 181
corrosion-inhibiting admixtures,
486–487
wood, 179–180
zinc, 178–179
see also Corrosion, reinforced steel
EN 1097-1:1996, 367
EN 1097-2:1998, 367
EN 1097-8:1999, 367
EN 1097-9:1998, 367
EN 197, 222
 INDEX 655

End conditions, specimen, compressive Finisher’s foot, 90 durability air entrainment, 73

strength and, 129–130
Energy absorption, cellular concrete, 566
Engineered fills, cellular concrete, 567
Entrained air, factors influencing in
fresh concrete, 476–480
Environment, of concrete, effect on pet-
rographic examination, 211–212
Environmental benefits
self-consolidating concrete, 638–639
slag, 527–528
Epoxy, permeability and, 169
Epoxy-coated reinforcing steel, fire
resistance, 278
Epoxy resins, as adhesive, patching, and
overlaying materials, 626–628
Erosion resistance, roller-compacted
concrete, 600
Ettringite, 257, 260, 262–263
Evaporation rate, bleeding and, 105
Expansive cements, volume change,
219–221
Expansive dedolomitization reaction,
411
Exterior insulation finish systems,
polymer-modified concrete and
mortar, 613
F Flowability, entrained air and, 478–479
Failure, contact zone and, 558
False set, 8, 440
Fatigue strength, 137–138
Fiber content, fresh fiber-reinforced
concrete, 581–582
Fiber-reinforced concrete, 578–589
fresh, 579–582
hardened, 582–589
cracking resistance, 587–589
durability, 589
dynamic loading, 587
fiber content and orientation, 582
static loading, 582–587
Fiber reinforcement
cellular concrete, 563
shotcrete, 618
Fibers, air entrainment and, 478
Fick’s first law, 243
Field concrete
penetration resistance versus time, 91
petrographic examination, 210–212
Field curing, specimens, 83
Fine materials
as deleterious substances, 360–361
workability and, 66
Fineness
hydraulic cements, 438–439
slag, 514
supplementary cementitious
materials, 503
Fineness modulus, 337–338
Finishability, fresh concrete, slag effect,
517–518
Finishing
abrasion resistance and, 186–187
air content and, 289
bleeding and, 106
self-consolidating concrete, 642
Fire damage, investigation and repair,
284–285
Fire endurance standards, 275
Fire resistance, 274–286
aggregate component and, 277
cellular concrete, 566
cement paste component and,
276–277
embedded steel, 277–278
factors influencing behavior,
275–276
lightweight aggregate concrete,
558–559
spalling and cracking, 283–284
testing, 274–275
see also High temperature, 279
Flash set, 7, 440
Flexural deflection, 203
Flexural strength, 80, 134–136
Flexural strength testing, 133, 585
Flexure, modulus of elasticity, 198–199
Floor fills, cellular concrete, 567
Flow cone, 69
Flow test, 63
Flow tester, 67
Fluid grout characteristics, preplaced
aggregate concrete, 593
Fluid penetration coefficient, 245
Fly ash, 7–8, 265
avoiding alkali-silica reactivity, 407
bleeding and, 113–114
chemical composition, 457
chemical requirements, 499–500
classification, 499
compatibility with slag, 526
controlling alkali-silica reaction,
505–506
fineness, 233
fire resistance and, 276
history and use, 496–499
loss on ignition, 499–500
optional chemical requirements,
500–503
physical requirements, 503–505
preplaced aggregate concrete, 591
sampling, 18
specification, 497–498
sulfate resistance and, 260–261
Foam, preformed, cellular concrete,
562–563
Fogging, 468
Free moisture, in concrete, 174
Freezing and thawing
damage, mechanism and air content,
289–290
dilation methods, 160–161
air-void system, 476
slag effect, 524
lightweight aggregate concrete, 557
petrographic examination and, 212
rapid tests, 157–160
criticism, 158
degree of saturation, 159–160
effect of container, 159
use of salt water, 160
which deterioration measure to
use, 158
resistance to, 239
cellular concrete, 566
polymer-modified concrete and
mortar, 610
recycled concrete, 396
roller-compacted concrete, 600–601
scaling resistance, 161–162
testing, 157, 358–359
see also Weathering
Fresh concrete
air-void system, versus hardened
concrete, 299
determining air voids, 480
factors influencing entrained air,
476–480
function of entrained air, 475–476
rheology, 40–41
sampling, 19–20
slag effect on properties, 517–519
Friable particles, 360
petrographic evaluation, 379
tests for, 361
Frictional properties, aggregates,
372–373
Frost resistance
aggregates, 290
air content and, 289
entrained air, 475
Frying pan moisture test, 353
G
Galvanic current, calcium chloride and,
176–177
Galvanized corrugated steel sheets, 178
Galvanized reinforcing steel, 169
Gas diffusion, 243
Gas flow, transport test methods,
242–243
Gel-space ratio theory, 46
German impact test, 367
Gillmore test, 440
Glass
embedded, 179
reactive, 387
as recycled concrete contaminant, 397
volcanic, 395
Grab sample, 17–18
Grading, 337–340
aggregates, 339–340, 597–598
air entrainment and, 340
656 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
Grading (continued)
definition, 337
lightweight aggregates, 550–551
significance, 338–339
specifications, 340
test method, 337–338
Graphical recorders, 540
Gravel, petrographic evaluation, 384,
386–387
Gravimetric method, air content
measurement, 77–78
Greening, 524–526
Ground-granulated-blast-furnace slag,
sampling, 18–19
Ground penetrating radar, 321–322
Grout
cement content analysis, 311
determining consistency, 69
fluidifier, preplaced aggregate
concrete, 592
mix proportions, preplaced aggregate
concrete, 592
mixtures, cellular concrete, 563
surface monitoring, preplaced aggre-
gate concrete, 593
latex-modified, 614
mix proportions, preplaced aggregate
concrete, 592
mixtures, cellular concrete, 563
packaged dry mixtures, 633
surface monitoring, preplaced aggre-
gate concrete, 593
Grout consistency meter, 69
Gypsum
in cement hydration, 7
in sulfate attack, 257
H aggregate concrete, 285
Half-cell potential surveys, 170
Hard core/soft shell microstructural
model, 47
Hardened cement paste, water move-
ment, 240–241
Hardened concrete, 309–312
aggregate determination, 311
air-void system, 299–300
ASTM C 1084, 310–311
calcium oxide analysis, 310
cement type analysis, 310–311
chemical analysis, 309
density, determination, 303
determination of additives and
admixtures, 311
determining air voids, 480–481
examination, 411
function of entrained air, 475–476
instrumental methods of analysis, 312
maleic acid analysis, 310
microscopic analysis of aggregates,
388
modeling degradation and service
life, 47
petrographic evaluation, 310, 411
aggregates, 383–384
polymer-modified concrete and
mortar, 609–613
porosity, 239
preplaced aggregate, 594
properties, 14, 46–47
proportions of coarse and fine aggre-
gates, 383–384
sample, 310
sampling, 20
water content, determination,
311–312
see also Air content; Bleeding; Non-
destructive tests; Time of setting
Hardening reactions, microstructure,
8–9
Hardness
aggregates, 371–372
mixing water, 465
Heat evolution, portland cement paste,
6–7
Heat generation, 234
Heat of hydration, 232–233, 441–442
hydraulic cements, 441–442
reduction, slag effect, 521–523
Heat release, 45–46
Heavyweight aggregate concrete, high
temperatures, 285
High paste method, 599
High-range water reducer, 66, 168–169,
486
ready-mixed concrete, 537, 542
self-consolidating concrete, 639
High temperature and pressure acceler-
ated curing method, 146–147
High temperatures
behavior mechanisms, 282–283
compressive strength and, 278–279
coupled with air blast, 285–286
determining thermal properties, 280
diffusivity, 280–281
effect on
creep, 280
modulus of elasticity, Poisson’s ra-
tio, and bulk modulus, 279–280
flexural strength and, 279
mechanical properties and, 278
moisture content influence, 282–284
refractory concrete, 285
spalling and cracking, 283–284
thermal conductivity, 280–281
thermal cycling, 282
thermal volume change, 281–282
very high strength concrete, 285
see also Fire resistance Hooke’s law,
194, 196, 203
Hydrating cement pastes, isothermal
calorimetry curve, 92
Hydration, 41–43
early reactions, 6–8
new concrete surfaces, 472
portland cement, 452–453
products, 254–256
volume change, 215–216, 219, 221
Hydration controlling admixtures, 489
Hydration shells, 6–8
Hydraulic activity, effect of slag, 517
Hydraulic cement, 435–448, 450–460
activity index, 437–438
air content, 446–447
alkali-silica reactivity, 447–448
blended, 456
chemical analysis methods, 457–458
consistency, 439–440
definition, 5
density, 436
durability, 446–448
fineness, 438–439
heat of hydration, 441–442
microscopic techniques, 459
optimum sulfate content, 446
performance-based specifications,
456–457
quantitative phase analysis, 459
quantitative x-ray diffraction,
459–460
sampling, 18
selective dissolution, 458
set, 440–441
strength, 444–446
sulfate reaction, 447–448
volume change, 442, 444
x-ray fluorescence, 458
see also Portland cements
Hydraulic pressure theory, 156
Hydrogen bonding, 5–6
HYMOSTRUC model, 42
I
IBB rheometer, 70
Ice formation, at frozen surfaces, 14
Image analysis techniques, air-void
system, 298–299
Impact testing, fiber-reinforced
concrete, 587
Impulse response method, 320
Impurities, in mixing water, 463–464
Indices of precision, 26
Industrial cinders, petrographic
evaluation, 394
Infrared spectroscopy, hardened
concrete, 312
Infrared-thermographic techniques,
320–321
Insoluble residue, portland cement, 454
Inspection by variables, 23
Insulating concrete, thermal conductiv-
ity, 227, 229
International Cement microscopy
Assocition, 207
Interparticle forces, 6
Intrinsic permeability coefficient, 245
Ionic diffusion, 245–247
 INDEX 657

Ionizing electromagnetic waves, 571 petrographic evaluation, 394–395 new concrete surfaces, 472
Iron blast furnace, 515 properties, 554–557 precautions, 152
Irradiation effects, 574–575 proportioning, 552–553 strength-maturity relationship,
ISO 9002, 54 resistance to alkali-aggregate 150
ISO/IEC 17025, 52, 54 reactions, 558 Maximum density method, 599
Isothermal calorimetry curve, hydrating sampling, 554 Mean, arithmetic, 23
cement pastes, 92 shrinkage, 556 Mechanical properties, high tempera-
specifications, 559 ture and, 278
J specified density, 554–555 Mercury intrusion porosimetry,
structural, 548 239–240
J-ring, 644 tensile strength, 556 Metakaolin, avoiding alkali-silica
JSCE-SF4, 584, 586 see also Cellular concrete reactivity, 408
JSCE-SF5, 584 Lightweight aggregates Metallic contaminants, recycled
JSCE-SF6, 584 absorption characteristics, 551–552 concrete, 396–397
JSCE-SF7, 581–582 classification, 548–549 Metals, embedded, see Corrosion,
coarse, cellular concrete, 562 reinforced steel; Embedded
K internal curing, 553–554 materials
internal structure, 549 Microcracking, 125–126
Kelly ball test, 67 properties, 549–552 high temperatures and, 282
K-slump tester, 67 sampling, 554 Micro-Deval test, 369–370
Kurtosis, 23 Lignite, 360–361 Micro-fillers, 285
Linear transverse method, air content, Microscopic techniques, hydraulic
L 295–296 cement, 459
Liquid displacement techniques, 239 Microstrain, 215
Laboratory technicians Liquid membrane-forming curing Microstructure
certification, 543 compounds, 469–470 hardening reactions, 8–9
competency, 54 Lithium, suppressing alkali-silica mathematical modeling, 14
Laser diffraction method, 39 reaction, 408, 487 Micro texture, 373
Latex Loading Microwave oven drying, water content
adhesives, organic materials, 625–626 direction, compressive strength and, determination, 64
coatings, 629–630 132 Mid-range water reducing admixtures,
formulating with, 607–608 flexural strength, 135 486
modification mechanism, 606–607 rate, compressive strength and, 132 Mill certificate, 18
permeability and, 168 splitting tensile strength and, 136 Mineral admixtures
types, 605–606 Los Angeles abrasion, 366–368 definitions, 495
L-Box, 643 Loss on ignition recycled concrete, 396
Leaching, 254–256 fly ash, 499–500 Mineral deposits, cause, 255
soft water and, 264 portland cement, 454 Minerals, to enhance radiation shield-
Lead, embedded, 177 Low-alkali cement, 456 ing attributes, 573
Le Chatelier’s method, 221–222 Miner’s rule, 138
Length-diameter ratio, compressive M Mini-volumetric air meter, 62
strength and, 131–132 Mixer, uniformity, 19, 61
Light elements, 571 Magnesium oxide Mixing
Light microscopy, hydraulic cement, content, fly ash and natural pozzolan, air entrainment and, 479
459 500–501 roller-compacted concrete, 601
Lightweight aggregate concrete, expansion due to hydration, 219, 221 self-consolidating concrete, 641
548–559 portland cement, 454 shotcrete, 621–622
abrasion resistance, 558 Magnesium sulfate reaction, 258 uniformity testing, ready-mixed
admixtures, 553 Magnetic rebar locator, 170 concrete, 542
air content, 553 Magnetite, 166 Mixing water, 462–466
cellular concrete, 562 Maleic acid, analysis, 310 algae in, 465
classification, 548–549 Mass concrete, heat reduction, slag batching and measuring materials,
compressive strength, 555–556 effect, 521–523 539
contact zone, 557–558 Materials characterization, importance, hardness, 465
creep, 556–557 39–40 impurity effect, 463–464
density, 554 Mathematical models, bleeding, 119, 121 mixer wash, in ready-mixed concrete,
durability, 557 Maturity, 249 536–537
field adjustments, 554 Maturity functions, 330 polymer-modified concrete and
field tests, 557 Maturity index, 149 mortar, 608
fire resistance, 558–559 Maturity method, 136, 149–152, ready-mixed concrete, 536
high temperatures, 285 330–331 seawater, 464–465
insulating, 548 application, 150–151 shotcrete, 619–620
modulus of elasticity, 556 interpretation of results, 151–152 specification, 462–463
658 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
Mode, ideal, 39
Models
degradation and service, hardened
cement and concrete, 47
time of setting, 97
using real-shape aggregates, 39–40
Modified point-count method, air
content, 296
Modulus of elasticity
cellular concrete, 566
in compression, 196–198
high temperature and, 280
lightweight aggregate concrete, 556
static, 197
in tension and flexure, 198–199
Mohr failure envelope, 137
Moisture clog spalling, 284
Moisture condition
flexural strength and, 135
specimen, compressive strength and,
132
Moisture content, high temperature
behavior and, 282–284
Molded specimens, 81
strength testing, 127
Monitoring, continuous evaluation,
27–28
Mortar
aggregate size requirements, 339
bleeding capacities, 101, 103
cement content analysis, 311
packaged dry mixtures, 632
polymer-modified, applications, 613
see also Polymer-modified concrete
and mortar
Mortar bar method, 405–406
Mortar flaking, bleeding and, 109
MTO LS-614, 358
N epoxy resins, 626–628
Nailability, cellular concrete, 567
National Voluntary Laboratory Accredi-
tation Program, 54
Neat-cement cellular concrete, 562
Neutron attenuation, 572
New concrete surfaces
applied silicates, 471
bond breakers, 471
curing, 469–473
dry shake hardeners, 471
effectiveness of curing, 467–468
hydration research, 472
maturity testing, 472
NMR, time of setting, 97
Nondestructive tests, 314–331
combined methods, 331
echo method, 319–320
ground penetrating radar, 321–322
impulse response method, 320
infrared-thermographic techniques,
320–321
in-place strength testing, 136–137
maturity method, 330–331
pin penetration test, 328
probe penetration test, 324–328
pulloff tests, 331
pullout test, 328–330
pulse velocity method, 317–319
rebound method, 322–324
resonant frequency methods,
314–317
shotcrete, 622–623
spectral analysis of surface waves
method, 320
stress wave propagation methods,
319–320
surface hardness methods, 322–328
Nonparametric tests, 28
Nonplastic mixtures, 12–13
No-slump concrete, measuring
consistency, 68–69
Nozzles, shotcrete, 619
NT Build 443, 246
NT Build 492, 247
Nuclear methods, 64
Nuclear particles, 571–572
Nuclear-shielding properties, 302
Nurse-Saul maturity function, 330
O Perlite, petrographic evaluation, 395
Oils, oxidation and chemical attack,
266
Operating characteristics, 22
Operator subjectivity, air content
testing, 298
Organic impurities, test for, 362
Organic materials, 625–630
bituminous coatings, 628–630
bonding and patching materials,
625–626
sealers, 630
Orimet, 643
Osmotic pressure hypothesis, 156
Overlaying materials, epoxy resins,
626–628
Oxides, chemist’s shorthand, 451
P determining processing effects,
Packaged, dry, cementitious mixtures,
631–636
applications, 634–635
ASTMC 1107,633
ASTM C 387, 632
ASTM C 928, 632–633
availability, 635
future needs, 635–636
hazardous considerations, 631
packaging, 635
quality control, 635
rejection of product, 635
specifications, 631–633
use of, 633–635
Paint
abrasion resistance and, 187
maintenance, latex-modified, 614
Particles
condition, petrographic evaluation,
382–383
shape, 39–40, 549
size distribution, 41–42
Paste-aggregate bond, bleeding and,
106–107
Paste-aggregate interface, strength, 127
Paste content, effect on density, 304
Paste-steel bond, bleeding and, 107
Patching materials, 625–628
Pavement
roller-compacted concrete, 596, 601
thickness measurement, ground
penetrating radar, 322
strength, 80
wear testing, 373
Penetration methods, see Time of
setting
Penetration resistance data, time of
setting, 87–88
Percolation plots, 43–44
Periclase, expansion due to hydration,
219, 221
Permeability
aggregates, 12
cement paste, 11–12
decreasing, 168
density, 301
hardened cement, slag effect, 519–520
polymer-modified concrete and
mortar, 610–613
relationship with porosity, 247–250
roller-compacted concrete, 600
Permeability coefficients, 11
Petrographers, qualifications, 377–378
Petrographic evaluation, 207–213
acceptability, 211
age of concrete under study, 210
aggregates, 377–398, 404–405, 410
contamination detection, 379
correlation of samples with aggre-
gates previous tested, 378–379
379–380
establishing properties and
performance, 378
hardened concrete, 383–384
natural, 384, 386–387
observations included in, 381–382
particle condition, 382–383
performance, 380–381
preliminary determination of
quality, 378
purpose, 378–380
selecting and interpreting other
tests, 379
alkali-reactive carbonate rocks,
413–415

approach, 209–210
blast-furnace slag, 392–394
cement content, 310
clay lumps, 379
composition, 210–211
concrete exposed to freezing and
thawing, 212
crusted stone, 390–392
dolomitic carbonate rocks, 421
environment effect, 211–212
friable particles, 379
hardened concrete, 411
lightweight concrete aggregates,
394–395
methods, 208–209
observations, 210
purpose, 209
reconstruction of history of field
concrete, 210
recycled concrete, 395–398
responsibilities, 208
for soundness, 359–360
source of concrete, 210
texture, 210
Petrography, 207–208
Phase composition, portland cement,
451
Pin penetration test, 328
Placement
self-consolidating concrete, 641–642
size and height, bleeding and,
116–117
Placing, bleeding and, 106
Plastic concrete, bleeding and, 102–106
Plasticizers, bleeding and, 115–116
Plastics, embedded, 180
Plastic shrinkage, 104–106, 215
Poiseuille-Hagen law, 247
Poisson’s ratio, 195, 200, 315–316
high temperature and, 280
Polishing, aggregates, 372–373
Polymer-modified concrete and mortar,
605–615
abrasion resistance and, 186
aggregates, 608
applications, 613–614
cellular concrete, 563
cement, 607
equipment considerations, 614
latex
formulating with, 607–608
modification mechanism, 606–607
types, 605–606
limitations, 614
modifiers, 608
polymer modifiers, 608
properties, 609–613
air void system, 609
bond, 609–611
freeze-thaw resistance, 610
fresh, 609
permeability, 610–613
strain capacity, 613
proportioning, 608
shotcrete, 620
specifications, 615
Pores
aggregates, 350–351
size distributions, 249
systems, characterizing, 249–250
Pore water, capillary tension, 9
Porosity, 9, 238–240
aggregates, 12
formed during concrete production,
239
hardened concrete, 239
measurement, 239–240
relationship with permeability,
247–250
Portland cement
alkali sulfates, 460
Bogue calculations, 451–452
calcium sulfate, 459–460
carbonate, 459
cement content analysis, 311
cement phases and performance, 453
chemical composition, 450–451
chemical properties, 450–453
chemical requirements, ASTM C 150,
453–455
degree of hydration, 42
dry, 631
hydration reactions, 232, 452–453
insoluble residue, 454
loss on ignition, 454
magnesium oxide, 454
optional chemical requirements,
455–456
performance versus presciptive
standards, 460
phase composition, 451
roller-compacted concrete, 597
substitute elements in clinker phases,
452
sulfur trioxide, 454–455
trace elements, 460
types, ASTM C 150 chemical require-
ments, 455
volume change, 221–222
Portland cement paste
carbonation, 174
heat evolution, 6–7
Postbleeding expansion, 103–104
Powers’ spacing factor, 475
Powers’s spacing factor, 293–294
Pozzolanic reaction, 9
Pozzolans, 265
activity index, 437, 504
bleeding and, 114
chemical composition, 457
controlling alkali-silica reaction,
505–506
natural
chemical requirements, 499–500
classification, 499
history and use, 496–499
INDEX 659
optional chemical requirements,
500–503
physical requirements, 503–505
raw or calcined natural, avoiding
alkali-silica reactivity, 408
roller-compacted concrete, 597
sampling, 18
strength index, 503–504
sulfate resistance and, 260
Precast concrete, 567–568, 575
Precision, 296–297
acceptance testing, 26–27
chemical analysis of hydraulic
cement, 458
limit, 28
sulfate soundness test, 356–357
Preformed foam, cellular concrete,
562–563
Premature stiffening, test for, 440
Preplaced aggregate concrete, 591–594
aggregates, 592–593
cementing materials, 591
compressive strength, 593
density, 594
fluid grout characteristics, 593
grout fluidifier, 592
grout mix proportions, 592
grout surface monitoring, 593
hardened, 594
radiation shielding, 576
temperatures at time of grout injec-
tions, 593
time of setting, 594
Pressure meter, 75
Prestressed concrete, corrosion,
169–170
Prestressing force, loss, 203
Prewetting, lightweight aggregates, 553
Probe penetration test, 324–328
advantages and disadvantages,
327–328
versus core testing, 327
Production control, workability, 60–61
Proportioning, 12–13
abrasion resistance, 185
cellular concrete, 563
lightweight aggregate concrete,
552–553
polymer-modified concrete and
mortar, 608
roller-compacted concrete, 598–599
self-consolidating concrete, 640–641
shotcrete, 620–621
workability and, 66
Proton attenuation, 572–573
Proton magnetic resonance, 472
Pulloff tests, 331
Pullout test, 136, 328–330
standardization, 329–330
Pulse velocity method, 317–319
standardization, 318–319
Pumice, petrographic evaluation,
394–395
660 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
Q mixer wash water, 536–537
Quality, preliminary determination, 378
Quality assurance
shotcrete, 622
supplementary cementitious mate-
rials, 507
Quality control
cellular concrete, 568
packaged, dry, cementitious mixtures,
635
roller-compacted concrete, 602–603
self-consolidating concrete, 643–644
slag, 514–515
uniformity, tests, 61–63
Quantitative phase analysis, hydraulic
cement, 459
Quantitative x-ray diffraction, hydraulic
cement, 459–460
Quarry sampling, alkali-carbonate rock
reactivity, 421–422
Quartz, fire and, 277
Quick set, 7
R forced steel
Radiation shielding, 570–576
absorption cross section, 573
atomic structure and physics,
570–572
concrete materials, 573–575
density, 574
irradiation effects, 574–575
mechanics, 572–573
physical and biological perspective,
572
placement and verification, 575
preplaced-aggregate concrete, 576
scattering cross section, 573
temperature effects, 575
terms for design calculations, 573
Radioactivity, recycled concrete, 396
Radon gas, 572
Range, 23
Rapid chloride permeability, 47,
246–247
Ready-mixed concrete, 533–545
aggregates, 539
air-entraining admixtures, 538
air void system, 538
approval of mixtures, 536
basis of purchase, 534–535
batching and measuring materials,
538–539
batching plant, 539–540
compressive strength testing,
543–544
control of water addition, 542–543
failure to meet strength require-
ments, 544
high-range water reducers, 537, 542
history of industry, 533
hydration stabilizing admixtures, 537
mixing operations, 540–542
mixing, placing, and curing, 553–554
mixing uniformity testing, 542
ordering information, 535–536
recorders, 540
returned concrete, 537
sampling, 543
slump and air content, 537–538
specifications, 534
testing laboratories, 543
truck mixer hold back, 534–535
volumetric concrete mixers, 543
water-cementitious materials ratio,
535
water quality, 536
yield, 534
Rebound method, 322–324
Recycled concrete, 395–397
Refractory concrete, high temperatures,
285
Refractory shotcrete, 618
Regression lines, 24
Reinforced steel, see Corrosion, rein-
Reinforcing bars, shotcrete, 620
Rejectable quality level, 22
Relative density, aggregates, 349–350,
549
Relative humidities, 9
Relaxation, 201–203
Remixing, bleeding and, 118
Remolding test, 67
Representative sample, 25
Residual stress, calculations, 203–204
Resonant frequency methods, 157,
314–317
damping properties, 316
dynamic modulus of elasticity,
314–316
limitations and usefulness, 316–317
other methods, 316
standardization of methods, 316
Returned concrete, reuse, 537
Reusable molds, 81
Revibration, bleeding and, 117–118
Revolving-disk abrasion test machine,
188–189
Rewetting, micro structure effects, 9
Rheological methods, time of setting,
96–97
Rheologic properties, 201–204
Rheology
cement paste, 10
fresh cement and concrete, 40–41
Rheometers, 70
Rice husk ash, bleeding and, 114
Ring test, fiber-reinforced concrete, 588
Rock cylinder expansion test, 420–421
Roller-compacted concrete, 545–603
advantages, 596–597
aggregates, 597–598
air-entraining admixtures, 598
cementitious materials, 597
construction, 601–602
curing, 602
dams, 595–596
definition, 595
hardened, properties, 600
pavement, 596
placement, 601
proportioning, 598–599
quality control, 602–603
water-reducing and retarding
admixtures, 598
Roller-compacted dam method, 599
Roof deck fills, cellular concrete, 567
Rotating-cutter drill press, 190
Roundness, 340–342
S
Salt attack, 266–267
Salts, dissolved, effect on lime
dissolution, 255
Sample
preparation, hardened concrete, 310
selection, hardened concrete, 310
size, 25
unit, 17
see also Specimens
Sampling, 16–17
air content, 74, 297
contamination, 18
determination of uniformity, 19
fresh concrete, 19–20
fresh fiber-reinforced concrete, 579
hardened concrete, 20
lightweight aggregates, 554
ready-mixed concrete, 543
statistical considerations, 24–25
Sand
petrographic evaluation, 384, 386–387
workability and, 65
Sandblasting, abrasion testing, 187
Sanded cellular concrete, 562
Saturated flow, test methods, 245
Saturated steam conditions, 283
Saturation index, 255
Sawability, cellular concrete, 567
Sawed specimens, strength testing,
127–128
Scaling, 156, 254–256
bleeding and, 108–109
resistance, 161–162, 610
slag effect, 524
Scanning electron microscopy, hard-
ened concrete, 312
Scattering cross section, radiation
shielding, 573
Scoria, petrographic evaluation,
394–395
Sealers, organic, 630
Sealing compounds, 629
Seawater, 265–266
mixing water, 464–465
 INDEX 661

Sedimentation, 7 Silane, 169, 630 Soft particles, testing for, 361–362

Self-consolidating concrete, 637–644 Silica fume, 7, 9, 265, 507–508 Solid-phase admixtures, sampling, 19
admixtures, 639 avoiding alkali-silica reactivity, 408 Soniscope, 317
advantages, 638–639 batching, 538 Soundness, 356–360
aggregates, 639 bleeding and, 114 absorption tests, 358
applications, 638 chemical composition, 457 definition, 355
batching and mixing, 641 chemical requirements, 507–508 petrographic examination for,
definition, 637 compatibility with slag, 526 359–360
environmental benefits, 638–639 drying shrinkage, 219 sulfate soundness test, 356–358
finishing and curing, 642 fire resistance and, 276 supplementary cementitious mate-
hardened, properties, 642–643 history and use, 507 rials, 504
history, 637–638 permeability and, 169 Spacing factor, 293–294
placement, 641–642 physical requirements, 508 air voids, 475
proportioning, 640–641 Silicates, applied to new concrete test result interpretation, 300
quality control, 643–644 surfaces, 471 Spalling, fire-damage, 283–284
supplementary cementitious mate- Single-use mold, 81 Specific gravity, aggregates, 12, 349
rials, 639 Skewness, 23 Specific heat, 229
transporting, 641 Skid-resistant coatings, polymer-modi- aggregates, 429
workability, 69–70 fied concrete and mortar, 613 high temperatures and, 280–281
Self-desiccation, 216 Slag, 9, 512–528 test methods, 429–430
Self-leveling flooring materials, 636 activity index, 437, 514 Specific surface
Service life blast-furnace air-void system, 292–293
modeling, 47 expanded, petrographic evaluation, test result interpretation, 300
strategies to improve, 254 394 Specified density concrete, 554–555
Set, hydraulic cements, 440–441 petrographic evaluation, 392–394 Specimens, 80–85
Set-retarding admixtures, 484–485 bleeding and, 114 applications, 80–81
Setting, see Time of setting blended cement, 515 dimensions, flexural strength and,
Sewer lines, acid attack, 264 chemical requirements, 514 134
Shale, petrographic evaluation, 394 compatibility with end conditions, compressive strength,
Shape, 340–342 aggregates, 526 129–130
aggregates, 347–348 chemical admixtures, 526 from existing structures, strength
petrographic evaluation, 383 supplementary cementitious testing, 127–128
Shear strength, cellular concrete, 566 materials, 526–527 field curing, 83
Shear stress, 195–196 composition, 516–517 length and diameter, splitting tensile
Sheet materials, curing, 469 compounds in, 392–393 strength, 135–136
Shotcrete, 616–623 definition, 512 making and curing, 82–83
ACI and, 617 effect on fresh concrete properties, in the field, 81–84
applications, history, 619 517–519 in the laboratory, 84
ASTM and, 617–618 effect on hardened concrete proper- moisture condition
batching and mixing, 621–622 ties, 519–526 compressive strength and, 132
definition, 616–617 effect on hydraulic activity, 517 splitting tensile strength and, 135
dry-mixture, 621 environmental benefits, 527–528 molds, 81
equipment, 619 fineness, 514 samples derived from, 82
fiber-reinforced, 618 fire resistance and, 276 sizes, 82
history, 618–619 grades, 514 compressive strength and,
latex-modified, 614 ground granulated blast-furnace 130–131
materials, 619–620 avoiding alkali-silica reactivity, 408 creep and, 202
nozzles, 619 chemical composition, 457 flexural strength and, 134
prepackaged, 636 history, 512–513 standard final laboratory curing,
properties, 617 production, 515 83–84
proportioning, 620–621 quality control, 514–515 standard initial curing, 83
quality assurance, 622 specifications, 513–515 test data, 82
refractory, 618 sulfate resistance and, 260 testing personnel, 81
testing, 622–623 U. S. cement use, 513 transporting, 83
wet-mixture, 621 Slate, petrographic evaluation, 394 uses, 81–82
Shrinkage Slump see also Sample
lightweight aggregate concrete, 556 rate of loss, 542 Spectral analysis of surface waves
slag effect, 523–524 ready-mixed concrete, 537 method, 320
Shrinkage-reducing admixtures, 488 Slump flow test, self-consolidating Speedy moisture test, 353
Shrink mixing, ready-mixed concrete, concrete, 643 Sphericity, 340–341
541 Slump test, 61–62, 66–67 Splitting tensile strength, 80, 133–136
Sieve stability, self-consolidating Slurry mixtures, cellular concrete, 563 Spring coefficient, 194
concrete, 644 Sodium sulfate reaction, 258 Standard deviation, 23
662 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
Statistical considerations, 22–28
arithmetic mean, 23
coefficient of variation, 23
correlation coefficient, 23
difference two sigma limit, 23, 26
evaluation of test data, 26
inspection by variables, 23
kurtosis, 23
number of subsamples, 25
operating characteristics, 22
range, 23
regression lines, 24
sampling, 24–25
skewness, 23
standard deviation, 23
statistical parameters, 22–23
testing, 25–26
Statistical parameters, 22–23
Statistical uncertainty, air content, 297
Steel
embedded, fire and, 277–278
new, 171
Stockpiles, sampling, 17
Stoke’s law, 247
Strain capacity, polymer-modified con-
crete and mortar, 613
Stratified random sampling, 25
Strength, 32, 125–138
aggregates, 370–371
cement paste, 126
effect of algae in mixing water, 465
fatigue, 137–138
flexural, 134–135
hardened cement, slag effect, 519
hardened concrete, bleeding and,
106–112
hardened fiber-reinforced concrete,
tests, 584–587
hydraulic cements, 444–446
nature of, 125–127
paste-aggregate interface, 127
pavement concrete, 80
prediction at later ages, 141–152
accelerated curing methods,
141–149
compressive strength, 141–149
strength estimation, 147–149
rebound test method, 323–324
reduction, air content and, 289
relationships, 136
testing, 63, 80–81
evaluation, 28
nondestructive in-place, 136–137
purposes, 125
test specimen preparation, 127–128
variables affecting, 80
see also Compressive strength
Strengthening, hardened fiber-
reinforced concrete, 582–583
Strength index, pozzolan, 503–504
Stress, combined states, strength and,
137
Stress-strain curve, concrete, 126
Stress wave propagation methods,
319–320
Structural integrity, fire and, 277–278
Structure, design, improving service
life, 254
Stucco, cement content analysis, 311
Studded tire wear, 373
Sub-bases, impermeable, bleeding and,
117
Sulfate attack, 215
external, 256–259
calcium sulfate reaction, 257–258
control, 259–261
magnesium sulfate reaction, 258
sodium sulfate reaction, 258
hydraulic cements, 447–448
internal, 257, 262
mitigation, slag effect, 520–521
thaumasite form, 259
Sulfate content, 309, 446
Sulfate corrosion, see Sulfate attack
Sulfate resistance
delayed ettringite formation, 257,
260, 262–263
effect of chlorides, 259
tests, 261–262
Sulfate soundness test, 356–358
Sulfoaluminate attack, 257
Sulfur mortar, capping technique,
129–130
Sulfur trioxide, portland cement,
454–455
Superplasticizers, 10
Supplement, definitions, 495–496
Supplementary cementitious materials,
9, 495–504
air entrainment, 479
ASTM C 94, 538–539
batching and measuring materials,
538–539
bleeding and, 113–114
cellular concrete, 563
compatibility with slag, 526–527
definitions, 495–496
drying shrinkage, 505
fineness, 503
fundamental properties, 496
optional physical requirements,
505–506
quality assurance, 507
self-consolidating concrete, 639
shotcrete, 619
soundness, 504
test requirements not in
specifications, 506–507
see also Fly ash; Pozzolan; Silica
fume
Surface appearance, bleeding and,
111–112
Surface hardness methods, 322–328
pin penetration test, 328
probe penetration test, 324–328
rebound method, 322–324
Surface moisture, aggregates, 352–353
Surface preparation, air content speci-
mens, 298
Surface sealer, 169
Surface texture, 342–343
aggregates, 347–348, 549
Surface treatment, abrasion resistance
and, 187
Sweating, see Bleeding
Swelling, 216
Synthetic-resin coatings, 629
T
Temperature
air entrainment and, 479
workability and, 63
radiation shielding, 575
Temperature-matched curing
technique, 127
Temperature measurement, 73–74
Temperature rise, 234
Tensile creep, measurement, 202
Tensile strength, 80
cellular concrete, 565
lightweight aggregate concrete, 556
splitting, 133–134
test procedures, 133–134
Tension, modulus of elasticity, 198–199
Testing
concerns, 51–52
continuing improvements in quality
of, 53
shotcrete, 622–623
statistical considerations, 25–26
trends, 52–53
Testing laboratories, 51–54
evaluation authorities, 53–54
ready-mixed concrete, 543
technician competency, 54
Testing machine, characteristics, com-
pressive strength and, 132
Testing personnel, 81
Texture, 210
Thaulow concrete tester, 68–69
Thaumasite, in sulfate attack, 257, 259
Thawing, see Freezing and thawing;
Weathering tests
Thermal coefficient of expansion, 281,
427–428
Thermal conductivity, 226–227, 428
cellular concrete, 564–565
fire resistance of steel, 278
high temperatures, 280–281
test methods, 429–430
Thermal cracking, 284
Thermal cycling, high temperatures, 282
Thermal diffusivity, 229–230, 429–430
Thermal expansion, 230–232
aggregates, 426–427
cement paste, 12
Thermal incompatibilities, high temper-
atures, 281–282
 INDEX 663

Thermal methods, time of setting,
92–94
Thermal methods of analysis, hardened
concrete, 312
Thermal properties, 226–236
aggregate, 277, 425–430
analytical methods, 235–236
coefficient of thermal expansion,
426–427
determining, 280
heat flow, 234–235
heat generation, 234
heat of hydration, 232–233
restrained volume changes, 235
significance, 233–236
specific heat, 229, 429
test methods, 227–228, 429–430
thermal conductivity, 226–227, 428
thermal diffusivity, 229–230, 429
thermal expansion, 230–232
Thermal shielding properties, 302
Thermogravimetry tests, fire resistance,
276
Third-point loading, flexural strength,
135
Thixotropic mixtures, bleeding and,
106
Time-domain-reflectometry microwave
spectrometry, 472
Time of setting, 43–44, 86–97
advantages, 88
computer modeling, 97
current ASTM method, 86–90
advantages, 88
basics, 86–87
data manipulation, 87–88
disadvantages, 88–89
modifications, 89–90
electrical methods, 95–96
fresh concrete, slag effect, 518
as function of punch location, 89–90
history, 86
NMR, 97
other penetration methods, 90–92
preplaced aggregate concrete, 594
rheological methods, 96–97
temperature versus time, 93–94
test result significance, 136
thermal methods, 92–94
ultrasonic methods, 94–95
virtual testing, 43–44
x-ray diffraction, 97
Toughening, hardened fiber-reinforced
concrete, 583–584
Toughness, hardened fiber-reinforced
concrete, tests, 584–587
Trace elements, portland cement, 460
Transition zone, 13
Transport
mechanisms, 240–242
test methods, 242–247
chloride ingress, 245
gas, 242–243
ionic diffusion, 245–247
water, 243–245
Transporting
roller-compacted concrete, 601
self-consolidating concrete, 641
specimens, 83
Tricalcium aluminate, sulfate resistance
and, 260
Truck mixing, ready-mixed concrete,
541–542
Truck slump meter, 68
TT-C-800, 470
Tuff, petrographic evaluation, 394–395
Two-point workability tests, 70
Type K expansive cement, 219–221
U tion, 394–395
U-Box, 643
Ultrasonic concrete tester, 317
Ultrasonic methods
elastic modulus, 199–200
time of setting, 94–95
Underwater abrasion test method,
190–191, 368
Uniformity
concrete-making materials, 30–37
evaluation, 32, 36–37
evaluation of uniformity, 32, 36–37
as function of design and construc-
tion process, 30–31
standard for determining, 36–37
density, 301
determination, 19
measuring, 61–64
workability and, 60
USBR 4907, 229
USBR 4908, 230, 260, 262
USBR 4910, 232
USBR 4911,233
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, test of
mixer performance, 61
V Volumetric concrete mixers, 543
VCCTL, 38
Vebe appartus, 63, 68–69
Vermiculite, exfoliated, petrographic
evaluation, 395
Very high strength concrete, high
temperatures, 285
V-funnel, 643
Vibration, air entrainment and,
479–480
Vicat test, 441
Virtual Cement and Concrete Testing
Laboratory, 38
Virtual testing, 38–48
adiabatic temperature rise, 45–46
chemical shrinkage, 44–45
definition, 38–39
future directions, 47–48
heat release, 45–46
laser diffraction method, 39
properties of hardened cement paste
and concrete, 46–47
properties of hardening cement paste
and concrete, 41–46
rheology of fresh cement and
concrete, 40–41
setting time, 43–44
Viscosity-modifying admixtures, 66, 488
Visual survey, 170
Voids
aggregates, 348–349
frequency, test result interpretation,
300
Voids content, density, 301
Volcanic cinders, petrographic evalua-
Volume change, 215–223
autogenous, 216
bleeding, 102–103
carbonation shrinkage, 216–217
concrete with reactive carbonate
rocks, 415–417
delayed ettringite formation, 263
drying shrinkage, 217–219
expansion due to hydration of free
CaO and MgO, 219,221
expansive cement mortar and
concrete, 219–223
length
alkali-carbonate rock reactivity, 411
due to alkali-silica reaction, 406
hydraulic cements, 442, 444
portland cement mortar and
concrete, 221–222
restrained, 235
roller-compacted concrete, 600
swelling clay minerals, 361
test methods, 221–223
thermal, 230–232
fire and, 276–277
high temperatures and, 281–282
types, 215
Volumetric method, air content
measurement, 76–77
Volumetric Mixer Manufacturers
Bureau, 543
W
Wagner test, 438
Walkability, cellular concrete, 566–567
WATEQ model, 255
Water
absorption
aggregates, 351–352
cellular concrete, 566
air entrainment and, 478
for cellular concrete, 562
city, analysis, 463–464
in concrete, 5–6
curing, 465–466
664 TESTS AND PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
Water (continued)
free, high temperatures and, 283
lime-saturated, 255
mixing, see Mixing water
quality, ready-mixed concrete, 536
transport test methods, 243–245
volume of freezable, 290
Water-cementitious materials ratio
petrographic examination, 211
ready-mixed concrete, 535
Water-cement ratio, 9–10
bleeding and, 106, 112
sulfate resistance and, 261
Water content
basic, 12
bleeding and, 112
cement paste, drying shrinkage, 218,
220–221
curing and, 470
hardened concrete, determination,
311–312
heat of hydration and, 232
non-evaporable, cement phases, 43
thermal conductivity and, 226–227
uniformity, tests, 64
Water gain, see Bleeding
Water-immersion test method, 353
Water penetration, test methods,
244–245
Water-reducing admixtures, 10,
484–485
bleeding and, 115
workability and, 66
roller-compacted concrete, 598
Water-resistance basement coatings,
polymer-modified concrete and
mortar, 614
Water retention, curing materials, 468
Water-vapor diffusion, 243–244
Wave reflection factor, 94–95
Wear, aggregates, 372–373
Weather conditions, bleeding and, 117
Weathering
other processes, 162
tests, 154–155
historical evolution, 155–156
rapid freezing and thawing tests,
157–160
theoretical considerations,
156–157
see also Freezing and thawing
Weeping, see Bleeding
Wet degradation test, aggregates,
368–370
Wick action, 245
Wigmore consistometer, 68
Willis-Hime method, 63
Windsor probe test system, 324
Wind velocity, bleeding and, 117
Wood, embedded, 179–180
Workability, 59–71
aggregate size and, 339
air content and, 62, 289
ball penetration test, 67
cellular concrete, 564
cement content uniformity, 63–64
definition, 64
density test, 62–63
entrained air and, 478–479
factors affecting, 64–66
fiber effect, 578
flow test, 63, 67
fresh concrete, slag effect, 517–518
fresh fiber-reinforced concrete,
579–581
grout consistency, 69
mixer uniformity, 61
normal consistency concrete, 66–68
no-slump concrete, 68–69
production control, 60–61
properties involved in, 64
quality control uniformity, 61–63
recycled concrete, 396
remolding test, 67
self-consolidating concrete, 69–70
strength testing, 63
surface texture and, 342
temperature and, 63
terminology, 59–60
truck slump meter, 68
two-point tests, 70
uniformity of concrete, 61
Vebe apparatus, 63, 68–69
water content uniformity, 64
Wigmore consistometer, 68
X
X-ray diffraction
cement paste, 212
hardened concrete, 312
Rietveld analysis, 39, 42–43
time of setting, 97
X-ray fluorescence, hydraulic cement,
458
Y
Yield
air content and, 289
data, 73
fresh fiber-reinforced concrete, 581
ready-mixed concrete, 534
stress, cement paste, 10
Young’s modulus, 40, 194–195
relation with rock type, 371–372
Z
Zinc
embedded, 178–179
as galvanized coating for steel, 178
as steel coating, 169