Point of View
A technical look at ‘Individual test result’ criterion for
concrete acceptance as per IS 456:2000
N.P. Rajamane, M.C. Nataraja and T.P. Ganesan
The provisions of IS 456:2000 help practical engineers
to decide the acceptance of concrete based on the test
data of four samples, using the principles of statistics
considering the compressive strength as a ‘random
variable’ representable by ‘Normal Distribution Curve’.
This technical note is prepared to understand the use of
the Codal provisions to decide whether the given test
data on samples is indicative of acceptable concrete using
the criterion related to ‘Individual Test Result’. A quick
mathematical analysis suggests that the probability of
occurrence of strength lower than that corresponding to
‘Individual Test Result’ criterion is not uniform for same
grade of concrete with different standard deviations. This
is in contrast to the characteristic strength, fck , where
the probability of occurrence of strength lower than that
corresponding to fck is always 5% (or 1 in 20) and this
value is independent of standard deviation.
Heterogeneity of cement concrete invariably causes
recording of different strengths in samples collected
from any given concrete.1,2 This means that a statistical
test on strengths is required.3,4 This is done usually
by assuming a ‘normal distribution’ (ND) and the
parameters to describe this curve, namely, average
strength (‘population’ mean) and standard deviation
(SD) are obtained from a very large number of the
26 The Indian Concrete Journal APRIL 2012
test results. 5 The concrete strength is considered
mathematically as a ‘random variable’ for the Normal
Distribution Curve and plotted as abscissa (x-axis) on
this curve.1 The task now, as taken up in this paper, is to
determine whether the quality of concrete is acceptable
based on the given set of four test results, using the
acceptance criteria recommended in IS 456:2000.6 The
statistical rationale behind the codal provisions on
acceptability criteria are examined briefly here.
The present paper examines the ‘individual test
result’ (ITR) of a sample against the requirement of
corresponding grade of concrete. Accordingly five sets
of test data (each set consisting of four test results of
samples) were checked against a single concrete, M30
grade with standard deviation (SD) of 5 MPa.
The codal stipulations was interpreted to mean that if
any one of the criteria given is not satisfied, then, the
concrete representing the samples was deemed to be
not acceptable. Notably for each grade of concrete, there
is a possibility of more values of SD due to different
levels of control in the production of concrete, yet, one
value representing the characteristic strength is used for
structural design purposes.
So the subject matter of this paper is statistical in nature
than technical, since many items such as the actual
 Point of View

Table 1a. Failure rate for ‘Individual test result’ process of mix design, concreting conditions, sampling
criterion before Amendment No. 3 to IS 456:2000 procedure, testing conditions etc are not covered in the
SD ITRf1 z AFL %AFL Failure Rate = 1/ AFL discussions. The main purpose of the paper is to present
2 4 -3.65 0.00013 0.013 7627 sets of test sample data and use them to describe and
2.5 4 -3.25 0.00058 0.058 1733 discuss the BIS Code provision on Individual Test Result
3 4 -2.98 0.00143 0.143 701 (ITR) criterion. It was the experience of the authors that
3.5 4 -2.79 0.00261 0.261 383 many engineers feel that the statistical nature of concrete
4 4 -2.65 0.00402 0.402 248 and the provisions of IS 456 need to be discussed
4.5 4 -2.54 0.00556 0.556 180 explicitly so that the interpretation of test data on site
5 4 -2.45 0.00714 0.714 140 becomes more rational and scientific.
5.5 4 -2.38 0.00872 0.872 115
6 4 -2.32 0.01026 1.026 97
6.5 4 -2.27 0.01174 1.174 85 Problem statement
7 4 -2.22 0.01316 1.316 76 The average 28 day compressive strength obtained from
7.5 4 -2.18 0.01451 1.451 69 tests on 3 numbers of 150 mm cube specimens is given
8 4 -2.15 0.01578 1.578 63 under each test data set under the heading 'Typical test
data sets'. One may note that to accept the one data point
Table 1b .Failure rate for ‘Individual test result’ from tests on 3 numbers of 150 mm cube specimens, the
criterion after Amendment No. 3 to IS 456:2000 clause 15.4 of IS 456:2000 should be satisfied. It states
SD ITRf2 z AFL %AFL Failure rate = 1/ AFL that:
2 3 -3.15 0.00082 0.082 1225
2.5 3 -2.85 0.00219 0.219 457 “The test results of the sample shall be the average of
3 3 -2.65 0.00402 0.402 248 the strength of three specimens. The individual variation
3.5 3 -2.51 0.00609 0.609 164
should not be more than ±15 percent of the average. If
4 3 -2.40 0.0082 0.820 122
more, the test results of the sample are invalid.”
4.5 3 -2.32 0.01026 1.026 97
5 3 -2.25 0.01222 1.222 82
It is assumed that each of the test result in the data given
5.5 3 -2.20 0.01407 1.407 71
under paragraph 'Typical test data sets' given below is
6 3 -2.15 0.01578 1.578 63
recorded after satisfying the above mentioned Clause 15.2 of
6.5 3 -2.11 0.01736 1.736 58
7 3 -2.08 0.01883 1.883 53
IS 456:2000.
7.5 3 -2.05 0.02018 2.018 50
8 3 -2.03 0.02143 2.143 47 Typical test data sets
The following test data sets were obtained from the
ITRf1 = Factor in ‘ITR’ criterion of IS 456:2000 before Amendment
No 3=4 MPa since ITR criterion for acceptability was fck-4 MPa for
field (Figure 1):
grade M20 and above
ITRf2 = Factor in ‘ITR’ criterion of IS 456:2000 after Amendment No Test data set A
3=3 MPa since ITR criterion for acceptability was fck-3 MPa for Grade
M15, Grade M20 and above (i) 35, (ii) 33, (iii) 33, (iv) 34 MPa
SD = Standard Deviation, MPa;
z = X-coordinate of ‘standard normal distribution’ curve
= ( x – μ ) / σ = ( fc – fm ) / SD = ( ( fck –ITRf ) – fm ) / SD where fm
Test data set B
= fck + 1.65 * SD (i) 35, (ii) 27, (iii) 40, (iv) 34 MPa
AFL = Fraction of the area to the left of fc considering the total area
under curve as 1
%AFL = %age of the area to the left of fc considering the total area Test data set C
under curve as 100 (i) 35, (ii) 25, (iii) 41, (iv) 34 MPa
= Percentage of specimens with value less than fc
Failure Rate = For each one of the specimens having strength less than
fc, the possible number of specimens having strength more than fc Test data set D
Higher numerical value in last column under ‘Failure Rate = 1/ AFL’
in above table’ means stricter quality control , but lower possibility (i) 38, (ii) 26, (iii) 27, (iv) 44 MPa
of actual occurrence on site or higher difficulty achieving this in
practice. Test data set E
It may be noted here that it is not always possibility, beyond a limit,
to suggest specific steps for improvement in quality control measures (i) 38, (ii) 28, (iii) 29, (iv) 44 MPa
to get the change of ‘Failure Rate’ from lower value to higher value,
in case of concrete production.

APRIL 2012 The Indian Concrete Journal 27

 Point of View

Concrete properties
for examining the test
samples
The above test samples are
to be examined against the
following concrete:
• Grade of concrete = M30
• Standard deviation of 28
day compressive strengths
of concrete = 5 MPa.
• Target mean compressive
strengths of concrete at
28 day
= fm
= fck + 1.65 * SD
= 30 + 1.65 * 5 = 38.25
MPa
= Population mean above grades. Thus, for concretes of M15,
strength of the concrete mix M20 and above grades, the value of each test result of the
= µ test samples should satisfy the following condition:
Now, the task is to decide whether the given data of four fcindividual ≥ fck – 3
consecutive test results, in each of data sets given under
'Typical test data sets', is acceptable as representative of
the above concrete, as per provisions in IS 456:2000, from Acceptability of data for ‘Itr’ criterion
consideration of ‘Individual Test Result’ (ITR). In the present case of M30 grade concrete,

Acceptance criteria for ‘individual test’ fcindividual ≥ 30 – 3

result in IS 456:2000
fcindividual ≥ 27 MPa
The number of cube specimens for getting any sample
considered for computations for acceptability of concrete
It is worthwhile to recognise here that, for given fck ,
is 3 and this ‘Individual Test Result’ has to checked
i.e., grade of concrete, there could be different values
as per the Column 3 of Table 11 of IS 456 2000.6 The
of Standard Deviation, SDpop , then for each pair of
value of each test result of the test samples, was to be
fck and SDpop , there is only one average compressive
checked before Amendment No. 3 against the following
strength computable as per the Codal provision given
criteria:
in Column 2 of Table 11 of IS 456:2000. However,
for checking against ‘Individual Test Result’ (ITR)
fcindividual ≥ fck – 3 for concrete of M15.
criterion, SD of concrete is not required. If we recognise
fc individual ≥ f ck – 4 for concrete of M20 and above that SD represents the degree of quality control on the
grades. site, then by not considering SD, the ‘ITR’ criterion is
applicable to the given concrete grade produced under
It may be noted here that SD of concrete under any quality control.
consideration was not used here; only the numerical
value of fck, representing the grade of concrete, is used Check for acceptability
for computing the numerical value of the criterion on It is clear from earlier paragraph that each of ‘Individual
‘Individual Test Result’ (ITR). Test Result’ in any data set should be equal or more
'than 27 MPa. It is important to note here the numerical
However, there was, later on, an Amendment No. 3 to
value used 27 is less the number 30 representing the
IS 456 dated August 2007, to modify the Table 11 on ITR
grade of concrete.'
acceptance from fck-4 to fck-3 for concrete of M20 and

28 The Indian Concrete Journal APRIL 2012

 Point of View
Test data set A
(i) 35, (ii) 33, (iii) 33, (iv) 34 MPa
Each of the above test results is more than 27 MPa and
hence, this concrete is acceptable from ‘Individual Test
Result’ criterion. However, the concrete test data has to
be scrutinised against other criteria of the Code also for
deciding about the concrete itself.
Test data set B
(i) 35, (ii) 27, (iii) 40, (iv) 34 MPa
Three of the above test results are more than 27 MPa and
one test result is equal to 27 MPa. Hence, this concrete
is still acceptable from ‘Individual Test Result’ criterion.
However, the concrete test data has to be scrutinised
against other criteria of the Code also for deciding about
the concrete itself.
Test data set C
(i) 35, (ii) 25, (iii) 41, (iv) 34 MPa
Three of the above test results are more than 27 MPa, but,
one test result is less than 27 MPa. Hence, this concrete
is not acceptable from ‘Individual Test Result’ criterion.
Hence, the concrete test data need not be scrutinised
against other criteria of the code and we can now declare
that the concrete as unacceptable as a whole.
Test data set D
(i) 38, (ii) 26, (iii) 27, (iv) 44 MPa
Among the above four consecutive test results, two
are more than 27 MPa, and, one test result is equal to
27 MPa. But, there is a test value of 26 MPa, which is
1 MPa less than 27 MPa. Hence, the concrete represented
by the above four samples test values is not acceptable
from ‘Individual Test Result’ criterion. Therefore, the
concrete test data need not be scrutinised against other
criteria of the Code and it is possible to decide about the
unacceptability of the concrete itself, immediately after
checking against the ITR criterion.
Test data Set E
(i) 38, (ii) 28, (iii) 29, (iv) 44 MPa
All of the above test results are more than 27 MPa.
Hence, this concrete is acceptable from ‘Individual Test
Result’ criterion. However, the concrete test data has to
be scrutinised against other criteria of the Code also for
deciding about the concrete itself.
The above mentioned conclusions on non-acceptability
of some of the concretes are valid even when we observe
that some of the four test values are numerically more
than the ‘characteristic strength’, fck, denoted by the
number describing the Grade of concrete.
In the present case, the M30 Grade concrete has the
‘characteristic strength’, fck of 30 MPa and it is seen that
each of the test results has to be more than or equal to
27 MPa.
It should be recognised here that after checking the
individual value in any concrete sample (consisting of
four test results), the sample average needs to be checked
against the criterion given in Column 2 of Table 11 of
IS 456:2000.6
Statistical basis of ‘ITR’ criterion
It is interesting to note that the ‘ITR’ criterion does
not use SD characteristic of concrete, but, the other
criterion of ‘average of four consecutive tests’ needs
SD characteristic of concrete for acceptability. It would
be now worthwhile to consider the statistical aspect
of ‘ITR’. For this purpose, we should consider the ND
curve which represents the strength variations of the
concrete defined by two parameters – fck and SD. The
fck and ‘mean population’ fm, are related through SD by
following relation:
fm = fck + 1.65 * SD
The actual population of normal distribution of
compressive strengths of the concrete considered in
this paper is given in Figure 2. The main features of the
ND curve are :
1. Abscissa, x-axis, represents the compressive
strength, fc
2. Ordinate, y-axis, represents the frequency of
occurrence of fc
3. Total area of curve is equal to unity
4. Actually, ND curve is a kind of conventional
histogram where the interval of strengths on the
x-axis is very small so that a continuous curve
can be drawn.7
5. Any fraction of the area represents the
corresponding fraction of total number of
APRIL 2012 The Indian Concrete Journal 29
 Point of View

It can be proved that the integration of the equation of

the curve given above is equal to unity.

9. The spread of the curve is related to SD; a lower

SD means narrower distribution of strengths and
a higher peak in the middle.

10. fck is a point on x-axis such that 5% of the area of

curve lies to left side and remaining 95% area lies
towards right. This indicates that an fck is a specific
point where 5% of the test results can be less than
this value and 95% of the test results can be more
than this value. Thus, if fck is considered, there is
a 1 in 20 chance that the strength from tests will
be less than this. The point, fck , is situated at a
distance of 1.65*SD from mean value, fm , situated
at the middle of the ND curve.

11. A ‘Standard Normal Distribution’ is a normal

distribution with mean 0 and standard deviation
1. The abscissa of this curve is given by the
following equation:

z = ( x – μ ) / σ = ( fc – Xbar-pop ) / SDpop where fc is any

strength on x-axis

(i) Areas under this curve can be found using

specimens. If Area, A, is taken as 100% of
specimens, then, fraction of area, Af, is equal to
percentage of specimens given by 100*(Af/A)
6. Mean is a point on the x-axis having maximum
frequency and dividing the area into two exact
halves.
7. The curve is symmetrical about the centrally
located ‘mean’.
8. The curve is defined by the equation:
where, σ = Standard Deviation of the all data points =
SDpop = Standard Deviation for the ‘population’
μ = Mean value of all the data points = Xbar-pop = Average
value for the ‘population’
a ‘standard normal table’ from many
textbooks and handbooks
(ii) The 68% of the observations fall between
-1 and 1 (within 1 standard deviation of
the mean of 0). In the present case of M30
with SD of 4, 68% of the strengths can
be expected to lie between (38.25-5) and
(38.25+5) i.e., 33.25 and 43.25.
(iii) 95% fall between -2 and 2 (within 2 standard
deviations of the mean). In the present case
of M30 with SD of 4, 95% of the strengths
can be expected to lie between (38.25-2*5)
and (38.25+2*5) i.e., 28.25 and 48.25.
(iv) 99.7% fall between -3 and 3 (within 3
standard deviations of the mean). In the
present case of M30 with SD of 4, 95% of
the strengths can be expected to lie between
(38.25-3*5) and (38.25+3*5) i.e., 23.25 and
53.25.
(v) We may note here that the above mentioned
ranges may look sometimes too wide for
M30 grade concrete and seems to indicate
inconsistency or lack of control in quality
management. But, once, the concrete is

(Continued on page 35)

30 The Indian Concrete Journal APRIL 2012
 Point of View
accepted to be represented by ND curve,
the above ranges are part of the distribution
of strengths of the concrete and general
quality control is assumed to correspond
to SD of 4 in the present case. Therefore, it
could be natural that when four samples
(each sample is itself the mean of 3 cube
strengths) are taken as required by IS
456:2000, it could be that this data set may
itself show large variation, as in the case
of Data Set D where the range is 26 to 44
MPa.
(vi) Though no naturally measured variable
has this ‘Standard Normal Distribution’, all
normal distributions are equivalent to this
distribution where the unit of measurement
ox x-axis is changed to measure in terms of
standard deviations from the mean and this
new x-ordinate is marked as z. Therefore,
this ‘standard normal distribution’ is used
to handle problems involving any normal
distribution.
(vii) For any value of z, the standard tables
supply the area under the curve over the
region to the left of z. We may note that
this area denotes the relative frequency
occurrence of a value less than z.
(viii) For example, for fck, the characteristic
strength, which is situated at a distance of
1.65*SDpop, the value of z for this point is
fck = Xbar-pop – 1.65 * SDpop
Z = ( fc – Xbar-pop ) / SDpop
= ( fck – Xbar-pop ) / SDpop
= 1.65
Corresponding to a measurement value of z = 1.65, the
fraction of the area to the left of this point is an area of
0.049471 (from Standard Table) which is approximately
5%. Thus, it can be said that 5% the fc values can be
expected to fall below fck, which alternately confirms
that 95% the fc values are expected to exceed fck.
The above procedure can be used to estimate the
percentage of fc values to fall below at any z. This will
give us a technique to know the probability of occurrence
of ITR value suggested in the Code.
Estimation of probability of strength to
be less than ‘ITR’
According to the ‘ITR’ criterion, the minimum strength
of concrete in a test sample must be equal to or more
than fck – 3.
Assuming the minimum fc to be fck – 3, we can write,
fc = fck – 3
But, fck = fm - 1.65 * SDpop , therefore,
fc = fm - 1.65 * SDpop – 3 = Xbar-pop - 1.65 * SDpop – 3
We may note here that
Xbar-pop = fm = µ = Population mean
Therefore, the value of z on ‘standard normal distribution’
curve as discussed earlier is computed as:
Z = ( fc – Xbar-pop ) / SDpop
= (Xbar-pop - 1.65 * SDpop – 3 – Xbar-pop ) / SDpop
= - 1.65 – (3 / SDpop )
The above equation shows that the ITR criterion gives a
different probability of fc values falling below (fck – 3) for
the same grade of concrete depending upon the standard
APRIL 2012 The Indian Concrete Journal 35
 Point of View
deviation of the concrete itself. However, the failure rate
of this must be less that of fck itself which has a failure
rate of about 5% as seen earlier. The data regarding the
area falling to the right of the minimum ‘ITR’ value for
any grade of concrete, but, with different SD values, is
given in Tables 1a and 1b, and Figure 3. It is seen that
the probability of getting strength lower than strength
of ITR criterion increases with increase in SD and hence,
lower value of SD is always preferable. When the SD is
normally adopted/observed SD of 5 MPa gives a failure
rate of 1 in 140, which has less probability of occurrence
than that of fck, where the probability is 1 in 20 only,
before Amendment No 3 to IS 456:2000 (Table 1a). But
after considering the Amendment No 3 to IS 456:2000
(Table 1b), for a SD of 5 MPa, the failure rate becomes 1
in 82, which has less probability of occurrence than that
of fck, where the probability is 1 in 20 only. Thus, the
data from the Tables 1a and 1b, represented in Figure 3,
it is seen that the failure rates have increased at each SD.
Probably, the amended clause demands a higher level
of quality control.
Concluding remarks
1. Concrete is a heterogeneous material and
hence, each portion of its total volume can have
a different strength. Therefore, compressive
strength of concrete is treated mathematically as a
‘random variable’. However, the concrete strength
of a given grade follows generally a ‘Normal
Distribution Curve’ and hence, the concrete can
be characterised by statistical parameters for the
purpose of quality control, mix design, quality
control, and evaluation of sample test results for
conformity to acceptance criteria of BIS Codes.
2. Practically every structural concrete, for the
purpose of quality checking, according to
IS 456:2000, should be always defined by two
parameters: (a) its grade (numerically equal
to its characteristic strength, fck) and (b) its
standard deviation, SD. But, for checking against
‘Individual Test Result’ criterion, SD is not
required even though the probability of the ITR
value being not reached depends upon SD itself.
As the SD increases (meaning that with lower
quality control systems), the probability of the
ITR value occurring is more. Hence, it is always
necessary to maintain the stricter quality control
so that the SD anticipated is never exceeded in
actual concrete mixes.
36 The Indian Concrete Journal APRIL 2012
3. Based on the provision in IS 456:2000 regarding
‘Individual Test Result’ criterion, the mixtures
represented by the data sets A, B, and E discussed
in this paper, are acceptable, but the data sets C
and D are not acceptable.
4. As ‘Individual Test Result’ criterion is independent
of SD, this criterion is applicable to concretes
produced under any quality control system.
This is the present position of the criterion in IS
456:2000. However, it may be rational to connect
this to SD of the concrete also so that the rejection
or acceptance of concrete remains at same level in
terms of statistical nature of concrete. The degree
of quality control may be also made part of the
criterion of ‘ITR’ in the code. Or as defined in
case of characteristic strength, fck, the ITR may
be specified with certain degree of acceptability
of failure which is 1 in 20 for the fck.
5. The ‘Individual Test Result’ criterion, when
analysed statistically, indicates that for a typical
SD of 5 MPa, before the Amendment No. 3 of
IS 456:2000, the probability of strength falling
below ITR criterion is 1 in 140 which reduces to as
less as 1 in 700 for a SD of 3 MPa, and further down
to a failure rate of 1 in 7627 when the SD falls to
2 MPa. However, after the Amendment No. 3, the
above numerical values gets lowered; 140 changes
to 82, 700 changes to 248, 7627 changes to 1225.
Thus, the rate of occurrence of ITR lower than
the specified minimum ITR increases (Tables 1a
and 1b). It is interesting to note that these failure
rates computed statistically are independent of
the grade of the concrete itself.
6. In contrast to characteristic strength, fck , the ‘ITR’
criterion gives a probability of failure depending
upon the SD itself. So perhaps a case exists for
specifying an ‘ITR’ value containing SD also.
Because, the statistical nature of strengths of
concretes is generally accepted.
7. Towards above, ACI 214 criterion on minimum
strength test value of 1 in 100 failure can be
considered in Indian context and incorporated
suitably in the IS 456. Under Criterion No 3
under paragraph 4.3.3 of ACI 214R, it is stated
that “The minimum required average strength
is established so that non-conformance of an
individual, random test is anticipated no more
often than 1 in 100 times in either case”.
 Point of View
8. It is pertinent to observe that slightest changes
in acceptance criteria can have severe financial
and practical ramifications in the field. Therefore,
discussions among the experienced engineers
is necessary in trying to arrive at consensus
for evolving practical guidelines. BIS as a body
can plan a programme to collect different view
points on the ITR to bring about meaningful
and practically acceptable modifications to the
provisions in IS 456.
9. There is a need for special consideration to be
given for practising engineers’ concern related
to ‘minimum acceptance value’ and ‘strength
for structural design’, while fixing lower bound
values of concrete strength in the form of ITR.
Though the mean strength and standard deviation
define a concrete represented by the Normal
Distribution Curve, mean strength, fm, (with 50%
probability of occurrence as seen from the ND
curve) is taken for laboratory design of concrete
mix (often called as ‘Target Mean Strength’) and
the Characteristic Strength, fck, (a 95% probability
value from ND Curve) for structural design. The
minimum acceptable strength value on site should
also be taken logically from ND curve. This is the
ITR value of the IS 456 and this definitely should
have rationally probability much lower than both
fm and fck. Considering this, a probability of 99%
(i.e, 1 in 100 failure) value (mentioned in Criterion
No 3 under paragraph 4.3.3 of ACI 214R) or much
more stricter than this can be suggested for the
ITR which represents the ‘minimum acceptance
value’. Instead of mentioning openly probability
value for defining the ITR, another suggestion
could be (fck-SD) as ITR which means a value of
(fm-2.65*SD) since the fck is at a distance of 1.65
from the fm (on the ND curve). The data in Table 1
shows that, this could mean a failure rate of more
than 1 in 700 which may seem to be a little stiff
criterion.
Acknowledgements
The topic of this paper was earlier presented at DST
sponsored ‘National workshop on utilisation of fly
ash (UFA 11)’, June 10-11, 2011, organised by SVNIT,
Surat. The technical discussions occurred during this
Workshop were utilised in the preparation of this paper.
The authors wish to acknowledge here the contributions
made by Dr C.S. Viswanatha, Chairman, Civil - Aid
Technoclinic Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore. He felt that the topic
discussed here is of high practical importance. He
encouraged the authors to write this paper and did the
early scrutiny of the draft of the paper.
References
1. Neville A.M. (1995). Properties of concrete Fourth edition. By A.M. Neville.
Addison-Wesley Longman Ltd., USA p. 844.
2. Cook James E. (1989), Research and application of High-strength concrete-
10,000 psi concrete, Concrete International, October, pp 67-75.
3. Mehta, P.K. and Monteiro, P.J.M., (2005). Concrete: Microstructure, Properties
and Materials. Third Ed., New York: McGraw-Hill
4. ACI, (2002), ACI Committee 214, Evaluation of Strength Test Results of
Concrete, ACI214R-02, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 20 p.
5. BIS (1999), SP 23(S&T): 1982. Handbook on concrete mixes, Fifth reprint,
Bureau of Indian Standards, 1999.
6. ______Indian standard code for plain and reinforced concrete-code of practice, IS :
456:2000, 4th Revision, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
7. Benjamin Jack R. and Cornell C. Allin, Probability, Statistics. And Decision
Making For Civil Engineers, McGraw Hill Book Company, New York,
1970. 683 p
N.P. Rajamane holds a B.E. (Civil) First Class with
Distinction, from Karnataka University and M.Tech.
from IIT Madras. He is former Head, Advanced
Materials Lab, CSIR, SERC, Chennai. At present, he
is Head, Centre for Advanced Concrete Research,
SRM University, Kattankulathur, Tamil Nadu. He is
the recipient of “Outstanding Concrete Technologist
for 2008” by Indian Concrete Institute. He has
patents on building blocks from lateritic soil and
natural rubber latex modified cement concrete. He has about
300 technical publications related to his research interests of
high performance concrete, geopolymer concrete, lightweight
concrete, concrete chemicals, repair materials, nanotechnology
and mineral admixtures.
Dr. M.C. Nataraja holds a PhD from Indian
Institute of Technology, Kharagpur. He is a
Professor in the Department of Civil Engineering
at Sri Jayachamarajendra College of Engineering,
Mysore. He has research experience of 25 years and
has published over 100 technical papers in national
and international journals and conferences. His
areas of interest are SFRC, concrete mix design
and controlled low strength materials. He is in the international
technical committee of PROTECT in connection with international
conferences.
Dr. T.P. Ganesan holds a PhD from Indian
Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai. He is
Pro-Vice Chancellor (Planning and Development)
of SRM University, Tamil Nadu. He has published
several technical papers in national and
international journals and conferences, besides
authoring books in the field of model analysis
of structures. His wide areas of interest/expertise in civil
engineering include masonry structures, preparation of
laboratory models and testing for special structures,
experimental stress analysis, analysis and design of
structures, modern building materials, low cost housing and
repairs and renovation of buildings.
APRIL 2012 The Indian Concrete Journal 37