Portland Cement Association

High-Strength Concrete
Volume 15/Number 1
March 1994
5420 Old Orchard Road
Skokie, Illinois 60077-1083
Phone: (847) 966-6200
Fax: (847) 966-9781
Contents
High-Strength Concrete
Autoclaved Cellular
Concrete Update
Concrete in a Marine
Environment
Performance Standards
are Coming
New Research Results
Announced
Not until the 1900’s did engineers however, as high-rise buildings like
and materials technologists become 311 South Wacker Drive (see Fig. 1)
involved in optimizing the strength create striking visual impressions.
of concrete, though concrete has This structure, at 969 ft (295 m), was
been used throughout history as a the world’s tallest concrete building
building material. With
each successive develop-
ment and corresponding
strength increase, the defini-
tion of “high strength” was
revised. Of course, there is
no exact point of separation
between “normal-strength”
and “high-strength” con-
crete. According to the
American Concrete
Institute, high strength is
defined as that over 6000
psi (41 MPa) compressive
strength.(1) This value was
adopted by ACI in 1984,
but is not yet hard and fast,
because ACI recognizes
that the definition of high-
strength varies on a geo-
graphical basis. Prof. J.
Francis Young of the
University of Illinois at
Champaign-Urbana has
developed a strength classi-
fication system that, though
not yet adopted by a recog-
nized authority, is a helpful
tool for describing high-
strength concretes (see
Table 1).

Advantages
A versatile material, high-
strength concrete (HSC)
possesses desirable proper-
ties other than high
strength. The most dramat-
ic and memorable applica-
tions stem from this aspect,
Fig. 1. At 969 ft (295 m) and 71 stories,
Chicago’s 311 South Wacker Drive (right) was
the tallest concrete building in the world
when completed in 1989. Photo: George
Lambros, courtesy of Kohn Pedersen Fox
Associates PC.

R e t u r n To I n d e x
Concrete Technology Today

Table 1. Strength classification of concrete

Conventional High-strength Very-high- Ultra-high-
concrete concrete strength concrete strength concrete
Strength, MPa (psi) < 50 (7250) 50-100 (7250-14,500) 100-150 (14,500-21,750) > 150 (21,750)

Water-cement ratio > 0.45 0.45-0.30 0.30-0.25 < 0.25

Chemical admixtures Not necessary WRA/HRWR* HRWR* HRWR*

Mineral admixtures Not necessary Fly ash Silica fume** Silica fume**

Permeability coefficient (cm/s) > 10-10 10-11 > 10-12 < 10-13

Freeze-thaw protection Needs air entrainment Needs air entrainment Needs air entrainment † No freezable water †

* WRA = Water reducing admixture; HRWR = high-range water reducer

** Also may contain fly ash

when completed in 1989, utilizing through smaller vertical members amount of formwork needed and
concrete with compressive strengths and has also often proven to be the result in further cost savings.
of up to 12,000 psi (83 MPa). most economical alternative by
HSC is specified where reduced reducing both the total volume of Structural Lightweight Concrete
weight is important or where archi- concrete and the amount of steel Structural lightweight concrete—not
tectural considerations require required for a load-bearing member. necessarily high-strength—is well-
smaller load-carrying elements. In Also, formwork is a large portion of suited to many special applications.
high-rise buildings, HSC helps to the cost of constructing a column; This material, typically at strengths
achieve more efficient floor plans smaller column sizes reduce the around 3500 psi (24 MPa), has found

Building Building
Height, ft Height, m
12,000
1000 12,000 psi (82.7)
(82.7 MPa)
300
12,000
900 (82.7)
12,000
(82.7) 19,000
800 17,000
(131.0) 250
(117.2)

700 12,500 19,000

(82.2) (131.0)
200
600 14,000
(96.5)

500
150
14,000
(96.5)**
400

100
300

200
50

100

0 0
19 and †

19 nta r*
19 ago *

19 ttle †
19 City *

19 ttle †

19 ttle †
19 ago *
19 olis r*
19 ago *

c ve

l r

c ve

a re
c za

a er

a re
tla te
ve te

ap we
rk lac
hi ri

Se nt
Se ow

Se ua
A en
hi a

hi ri
le en

91

91
89

89
91

90

88
88
91
C rD
C l Pl

89

ne o

C rD
Yo Pa

Sq
C

in T
C C

tC
ke
tia

M orth

ke
e

ay
ty

ew p

on
re

rs
N rum
ac

ie

ac
en

ew
ht

Fi

ni
c

w
W

tW
ud

So

ac

at
T

os

U
fic
h

G
Pr

Pe

o
es
ut

ci

Tw
Pa
So

W
o

n
ne
Tw

ai

5
O

D
1

22
31

* Reinforced concrete frame

† Composite concrete/steel frame
** Also includes one experimental column of 17,000 psi

Fig. 2. High-strength concrete shapes new U.S. skylines.

2
R e t u r n To I n d e x
 March 1994

batched,(4) delivered by a few ready

More About High-Strength Concrete mix producers, and placed by con-
tractors in some major structures
This article on high-strength concrete has been excerpted from the
(see Fig. 2), the idea of 25,000-psi
comprehensive PCA engineering bulletin High-Strength Concrete
concrete in the near future may be
(EB114T) and edited for Concrete Technology Today. Much of the tech-
quite feasible with certain aggregates
nical information included in EB114T comes from a recent joint indus-
and other materials. Cement pastes
try study, Engineering Properties of Commercially Available High-Strength
have already been made and tested
Concretes (RD104T), published by PCA in 1992.
to failure at strengths of approxi-
High-strength concrete as we know it today in the ready mix and
mately 25,000 psi.
precast industries is the result of ongoing research and development to
The number of precasters that rou-
optimize concrete ingredients, proportioning, mixing, placing, and
tinely produce concrete with
quality control methods. For commercially available HSC, materials
strengths above 6000 psi is rather
technology has perhaps out-paced available engineering information;
limited. Under careful control and
accordingly, EB114T has been developed to provide the most current
through the use of low water-cement
available engineering data to concrete producers, specifiers, designers,
ratios, water-reducing admixtures,
contractors, and other users of HSC.
and pozzolans, high-compressive-
EB114T includes information on the types, dosages, and uses of
strength precast concrete products
chemical and mineral admixtures; sample material proportions for
can be consistently produced with
typical HSC mixtures; detailed discussions of compressive strength,
quality aggregates and cements. At
ultimate strength, and in-place strength—including drilled cores;
precasting plants, low-slump con-
strength comparisons between cylinders of various dimensions; sub-
crete is consolidated in forms by
stantial discussions of modulus of elasticity and durability; and meth-
prolonged vibration or shock meth-
ods of developing optimal mixture proportions with available materi-
ods. However, the more fragile
als. Current and future applications of HSC are also discussed.
forms used in cast-in-place construc-
With a table of contents and 7 chapters—including a list of 73 refer-
tion do not permit the same com-
ences—information is plentiful, but easy to locate. Over 35 tables, fig-
paction procedures, and more plastic
ures, and photos help describe the history, development, properties,
and workable concretes are neces-
and various projects that have used high-strength concrete. All
sary to avoid segregation and hon-
numerical values in the text, tables, and figures are presented in both
eycomb. Furthermore, special han-
U.S. customary and SI metric units.
dling, placing, and quality control
The 56-page bulletin, High-Strength Concrete (EB114T), published in
techniques may be necessary to
1994, is available for purchase in the United States from Portland
ensure the achievement of high
Cement Association, Order Processing, P. O. Box 726, Skokie, IL 60076-
strength.
0726, telephone 1-800/868-6733. In Canada, please direct requests to
the nearest regional office of the Canadian Portland Cement
Association (Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, or Vancouver). Production, Optimization, Testing
With new technology, a few ready
mix producers, as already men-
tioned, are capable of producing
extensive use for constructing the Compressive Strength 19,000-psi (131-MPa) concrete; but
floors of high-rise buildings. Traditionally, compressive strength even without the most recent devel-
The two properties that best char- tests are made at 28 days, but many opments, careful adherence to every
acterize high-strength lightweight high-rise structures now requiring aspect of good concrete practice can
concrete (HSLWC) are its high HSC employ a construction schedule yield strengths of over 14,000 psi (96
strength and relatively low density. whereby the structural elements in MPa) at 56 days.(5) To be successful,
Like HSC, its appeal stems from its the lower floors are not fully loaded close cooperation is required from
ability to carry heavy loads with for periods of a year or more. Under the project engineer, the ready mix
smaller size members. Unlike its these circumstances, it is reasonable producer, the contractor, and the
normal-weight counterpart, HSLWC to specify compressive strengths testing agency.
reduces dead weight loads even fur- based on either 56- or 90-day results, A ready mix producer should not
ther because members are not only thereby taking advantage of the attempt to supply high-strength con-
stronger, but also lighter, lowering strength gain that occurs after 28 crete without an extensive mixture
foundation costs for a structure. days. development program. As higher
One type of construction in particu- The upper limit of concrete strengths become more common,
lar that takes advantage of its strength at 90 days and beyond more is learned about the materials
strength, light weight, and durability appears to be 25,000 to 30,000 psi required for the production of HSC.
characteristics is arctic offshore (172 to 207 MPa)(2) with some esti- The producer needs to know which
drilling platforms. The reduced den- mates for very special materials factors affect compressive strength
sity is also advantageous where ther- ranging as high as 106,000 psi (731 and how to vary those factors for the
mal resistance is important in a load- MPa).(3) As 19,000-psi (131-MPa) best results. Each variable should be
bearing member. concretes have already been analyzed separately in developing

3
R e t u r n To I n d e x
Concrete Technology Today
the mix proportions. As each mater-
ial is chosen for its optimum perfor-
mance, it should be incorporated
into the mixture design as the
remaining variables are studied. An
optimum mixture is then developed
for the materials on the basis of per-
formance, cost, and quality control.
Quality control for high-strength
concrete warrants additional atten-
tion. Many testing methods used for
normal-strength concrete are not
adequate for HSC. To truly com-
plete the process of optimizing the
mixture design, further research into
proper testing is required.
References
1. State-of-the-Art Report on High-
Strength Concrete, ACI 363R-92,
ACI Committee 363 Report,
American Concrete Institute,
Detroit, 1992.
2. Perenchio, W.F., An Evaluation of
Some Factors Involved in Producing
Very High-Strength Concrete,
Research and Development
Bulletin RD014T, Portland Cement
Association, 1973.
3. “ACBM researchers break the
100,000 psi barrier,” Cementing the
future, National Science
Foundation Center for Science and
Technology of Advanced
Cement-Based Materials,
Northwestern University,
Evanston, Illinois, Fall 1992,
page 8.
4. Godfrey, K.A., Jr., “Concrete
Strength Record Jumps 36%,”
Civil Engineering, American
Society of Civil Engineers, New
York, October 1987, pages 84-88.
5. Moreno, Jaime, “225 W. Wacker
Drive—The State of the Art of
High-Strength Concrete in
Chicago,” Concrete International,
American Concrete Institute,
Detroit, January 1990, pages 35-39.
4
Autoclaved
Cellular Concrete
Update
A demonstration tour of U.S. electric
utility plants continues to pick up
steam as testing progresses on pro-
duction of a specialty concrete that is
popular around the world but has
never before been widely used in the
United States.
The Electric Power Research
Institute’s North American Cellular
Concrete (NACC) tour is now at the
Tennessee Valley Authority in
Chattanooga, Tenn. TVA is the sixth
of eight stops for a mobile plant
capable of producing sample blocks
of autoclaved cellular concrete
(ACC), a lightweight building mater-
ial for structural and architectural
applications (floors, roofs, walls,
etc.).
The tour is demonstrating small-
scale production possibilities of a
material that has eluded much of
North America, particularly the
United States, for a variety of mar-
ket-related and financial reasons.
NACC believes it can overcome a
chief obstacle of the past—plant
start-up costs of $20-$50 million—
with small production assemblies
costing in the $3-$5 million range.
While by no means the first
attempt to bring ACC to U.S. mar-
kets—efforts date to the 1920’s—
NACC has a few new twists: lower
equipment costs and an ACC mix-
ture design that substitutes fly ash
for sand.
NACC and EPRI have timed the
effort to cope with management and
disposal of large volumes of fly ash.
Equally timely, although not imme-
diately exploitable due to the uncer-
tainty of permanent ACC production
facilities, is the timber crisis, which
has left the construction industry,
especially home builders, grappling
for alternatives to wood frame con-
struction.
ACC, also known as aerated con-
crete, is produced by mixing port-
land cement, lime, aluminum pow-
der, and water with a large propor-
tion of a silica-rich material. In lieu
of silica sand, NACC is using fly ash
from its host utility plants. Project
R e t u r n To I n d e x
ACC—the Benefits are
Well Documented
As an extremely lightweight
cement-based material, auto-
claved cellular concrete (ACC)
blends some classic concrete
qualities with attributes usually
associated with plastics or wood
composites:
• Lightweight—ACC is only
about 25% the weight of con-
ventional concrete.
• Fire resistant—ACC does not
burn; block or panel configu-
rations provide fire ratings of
3 to 7 hours.
• Rot and vermin resistant—
Like concrete, ACC is imper-
vious to damage from mois-
ture and termites.
• Insulation—A high air con-
tent gives ACC an R-value of
1.26 per in. (25 mm) of thick-
ness.
• Easy to work with—ACC
can be drilled, sawed, chis-
eled, nailed, or screwed using
conventional carpentry tools.
• Environmentally friendly—
ACC recycles fly ash,
replaces wood components,
and reduces heating and
cooling costs.
managers have opted to use Type III
cement in each of the mixtures, part-
ly due to the variety of fly ashes.
When mixtures are batched into a
mold, the aluminum powder
reacts chemically to create millions
of tiny hydrogen bubbles, causing
the material to expand to nearly
twice its volume.
Following removal from the
mold, the foam-like material is wire
cut into blocks or slabs and moved
into an autoclave—an airtight cham-
ber with pressurized steam.
Autoclaving for 10 to 12 hours spurs
a second chemical reaction that gives
the highly porous material its
strength, rigidity, dimensional stabil-
ity, and other unique properties (see
box). Typical ACC compressive

strengths are 400 to 800 psi (2.8 to
5.5 MPa).
The NACC tour began in late
1992 with a trial casting in Boston,
port of call for plant equipment
shipped from Europe and home of
Hodge Boiler Co., the firm that
assembled the plant onto three flat-
bed trailers. Public Service of
Indiana, Noblesville Station, was the
first utility location; a two-month
demonstration began there in March
1993. In May 1993, the plant trav-
eled to New England Power in
Somerset, Mass., and from there it
completed scheduled stops through-
out 1993 at United Illumination in
Bridgeport, Conn., Ohio Edison in
Akron, and Georgia Power in
Atlanta. As of this writing, the plant
is at the TVA in Chattanooga, Tenn.
The remaining utilities on the tour
are NYSEG and Niagara Mohawk,
both in the state of New York, and a
Sierra Pacific facility in the state of
Nevada.
For more information on ACC, or
to visit one of the remaining plant
locations on the tour, contact Bob
Sauber, managing director, North
American Cellular Concrete, 3
Regency Plaza, Suite 6, Providence,
RI 02903, Tel. 401/621-8108, Fax.
401/861-9527.
CLARIFICATION
In the article titled “Long-Term
Properties of High-Strength
Concretes” (Concrete Technology
Today, November 1993), we incor-
rectly identified the building asso-
ciated with the data in Table 2.
The compressive strength and
modulus of elasticity data in Table
2 is correct, but it relates to the 44-
story Pacific First Center project in
Seattle, not Two Union Square.
Obviously, this is a major error.
We apologize to Mr. Michael R.
Gardner, who is the quality con-
trol manager for Stoneway
Concrete of Renton, Washington,
the ready mix supplier for the
Pacific First Center project, and
the gentleman who brought this
error to our attention.
Concrete
in a Marine
Environment
Seawater contains significant
amounts of sulfates and chlorides.
Although sulfates in seawater are
capable of attacking concrete, the
presence of chlorides inhibits the
expansive reaction that is character-
istic of sulfate attack. Calcium sul-
foaluminate, the reaction product of
sulfate attack, is more soluble in a
chloride solution and can be more
readily leached out of concrete, thus
resulting in less destructive expan-
sion. This is a major factor explain-
ing observations from a number of
sources that the performance of con-
crete in seawater with portland
cement having tricalcium aluminate
(C3A) contents as high as 10%, and
sometimes higher, have shown satis-
factory durability, providing the per-
meability of the concrete is low and
the reinforcing steel has adequate
cover.
The maximum permissible water-
cement ratio for the submerged por-
tion of a structure is 0.45 by weight.
For portions in the splash zone and
above, the maximum permissible
water-cement ratio is 0.40 by weight.
Water-cement ratios as high as 0.50
by weight may be used provided the
C3A content of the cement does not
exceed 8%.
Cements meeting the requirements
of ASTM C150, Specification for
Portland Cement, and ASTM C595,
Specification for Blended Hydraulic
Cements, and meeting the C3A
requirement noted above, that is, not
more than 10%, are acceptable for
concrete in a marine environment.
In the case of C595 blended cements,
this limitation applies only to the
portland cement clinker used in the
blended cement.
In addition to the proper selection
of cement and water-cement ratio,
other requirements for securing eco-
nomical and durable concrete in a
marine environment include: (1)
adequate air entrainment, (2) low
slump, (3) adequate consolidation,
(4) uniformity of batching, mixing,
transporting, and placing, (5) a
smooth finish free from surface
R e t u r n To I n d e x
March 1994
voids and other defects, (6) adequate
concrete cover over reinforcement
[minimum 2 in. (50 mm), preferably
3 in. (75 mm)], and (7) sufficient cur-
ing to develop the required imper-
meability and other desired proper-
ties of the concrete.
For More Information
1. Verbeck, G. J., Field and Laboratory
Studies of the Sulfate Resistance of
Concrete, Research Department
Bulletin RX227, Portland Cement
Association, Skokie, Illinois, 1967.
2. Guide for the Design and
Construction of Fixed Offshore
Concrete Structures, ACI 357R-84,
ACI Committee 357 Report,
American Concrete Institute,
Detroit, 1984.
3. Mehta, P. K., “Durability of
Concrete Exposed to Marine
Environment—A Fresh Look,”
Concrete in Marine Environment,
Proceedings, Second International
Conference, SP-109, American
Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1988.
Performance
Standards are
Coming
The American Society for Testing
and Materials (ASTM) recently pub-
lished a new specification designat-
ed C1157-92, Standard Performance
Specification for Blended Hydraulic
Cement. The new standard, howev-
er, does not replace ASTM’s existing
standard C595, Specification for
Blended Hydraulic Cements, which
defines five types of blended cement
in terms of ingredient proportions
and chemical limitations.
Unique Development
Unlike C595, the new C1157 perfor-
mance standard does not dictate the
composition or constituents of
blended cement other than the
requirement that it should consist of
“two or more inorganic constituents
which contribute to the strength-
gaining properties of the cement,
with or without other constituents,
processing additions, and functional
additions.” The blended cement
5
Concrete Technology Today
may be produced by intergrinding
or other blending processes. C1157
does require that the ingredients of
the blended cement be reported and
that the ingredients, including pro-
cessing and functional additions,
independently meet any applicable
specifications.
“This really is a unique develop-
ment,” notes Steven Kosmatka, who
as PCA’s manager of research and
development tracks specifications
and standards in the cement indus-
try and serves on several ASTM
committees. “For the cement indus-
try, it’s our first foray into perfor-
mance specifications.”
Six Types
C1157 sets physical requirements for
the following six types of blended
cement, mirroring the attributes of
ASTM’s C150 cement types:
Type GU—Blended cement for gen-
eral construction use
when a specialized type
is not required
Type HE—High Early Strength
Type MS—Moderate Sulfate
Resistance
Type HS—High Sulfate Resistance
Type MH—Moderate Heat of
Hydration
Type LH—Low Heat of Hydration
In addition, any of the above types
may be designated with Option R—
Low Reactivity with Alkali-Reactive
Aggregates. If Option R is invoked,
the cement should be tested using
ASTM Test Method C227, which
uses crushed borosilicate (Pyrex)
glass as the reactive aggregate. The
expansion during this test should
not exceed 0.020% at 14 days or
0.060% at 56 days. Additionally,
pozzolans used in any blended
cement also should be tested using
C227 with a nonreactive sand to
determine whether they have any
potential for alkali-reactivity.
Optimizing Cements
As noted earlier, the new standard
does not replace ASTM’s existing
C595 standard; the new designations
for six types of blended cement are
simply an additional way to specify
blended cements. “It gives cement
6
companies far more leeway in for-
mulating their product,” concedes
Kosmatka. “For the first time, man-
ufacturers can truly optimize
cements, using ingredients available
to them without the limitations of
recipe specifications.”
Ultimately, performance-specified
blended cements could spawn a new
breed of products—special formula-
tions that address specific customer
needs such as resistance to alkali-
aggregate reaction and sulfate reac-
tion, to name two.
There are also environmental con-
siderations. Blending portland
cement with materials such as fly
ash, ground granulated blast-furnace
slag, kiln dust, or limestone means
less embodied energy and reduced
carbon dioxide emissions. And in
the case of kiln dust, slag, fly ash,
and other mineral byproducts, it’s a
way to recycle waste materials into
cement.
Acceptance?
But don’t expect an overnight shift
from recipe to performance specifi-
cations; publication of the standard
is only the beginning. It has yet to
be accepted by ASTM C94
Specification for Ready-Mixed Concrete,
the ACI 318 Building Code, ACI 301
Specifications for Structural Concrete
for Buildings, and other important
standards and codes organizations, a
process that could take the rest of
this decade. Moreover, acceptance
may be only the first hurdle.
Historically, U.S. specifiers have
shied away from blended cements,
perhaps finding a tandem set of
cement types confusing. Adding a
third set—C1157—to the existing
C150 and C595 specifications may
further complicate cement choices.
In any case, if use of a blended
cement under ASTM C1157 is con-
templated, or an order is placed, a
request should be made for the man-
ufacturer’s certification, which is dis-
cussed in Section 14 of the standard.
This section requires the manufac-
turer to provide results of tests and
chemical analyses and a list of spe-
cific constituents and functional
additions, if any, contained in the
cement specified.
Copies of ASTM Designation
C1157-92 may be purchased from
R e t u r n To I n d e x
American Society for Testing and
Materials, 1916 Race Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-
299-5400, Fax: 215-977-9679.
New Research
Results
Announced
The following new research and
development bulletins are now
available. To purchase any of these
bulletins in the United States, con-
tact Portland Cement Association,
Order Processing, P. O. Box 726,
Skokie, IL 60076-0726; telephone 1-
800/868-6733, or fax 708/966-9666
(24 hours a day, 7 days a week). In
Canada please direct requests to the
nearest regional office of the
Canadian Portland Cement
Association (Halifax, Montreal,
Toronto, and Vancouver).
Guide Specification for
Concrete Subject to Alkali-
Silica Reactions, IS415T
This 8-page document, authored by
the Portland Cement Association’s
Alkali-Silica Reactivity/Pavement
Durability Task Group, provides
specifiers and engineers guidance
with state-of-the-art approaches to
control alkali-silica reactivity (ASR).
The guide is compiled from the best
of U.S., Canadian, and European
approaches, including the Strategic
Highway Research Program.
Alkali-silica reactivity (ASR) has
been reported worldwide since 1940.
Fortunately most concrete is not
affected by this condition. Although

the risk of catastrophic failure and
the number of affected structures are
low, ASR-induced cracking can exac-
erbate other deterioration mecha-
nisms such as occur in frost, deicer,
or sulfate exposures. ASR can be
controlled by the methods presented
in this guide specification.
Most aggregates are chemically
stable in hydraulic cement concrete
without deleterious interaction with
other concrete ingredients. However,
this is not the case for concrete con-
taining certain siliceous aggregates,
resulting in detrimental expansion
and cracking of concrete structures.
The guide concisely informs the
specifier how to determine if aggre-
gates are potentially reactive by
using petrography, a rapid mortar
bar test (ASTM P214), and the
Canadian concrete prism test. The
guide provides three options to con-
trol ASR and methods to determine
the effectiveness of mineral admix-
tures and blended cements.
This guide specification is mod-
eled after the document Using Guide
Specifications for Concrete Subject to
Alkali-Silica Reactions published by
the Mid-Atlantic Regional Technical
Committee in 1993. As this group
consisted of local concrete users,
material suppliers, consulting engi-
neers, and state transportation engi-
neers, it focused on a regional
approach to ASR. The PCA-version
is designed to be used on a national
level by owners, transportation and
structural engineers, and others to
provide safeguards against the
occurrence of ASR failures.
Comparison of the Perform-
ance of Concretes Made
with ASTM and AASHTO
Type II Cements/Survey of
Cement Specifications in
Concrete Pavement and
Bridge Construction, RP320T
Presently, there are two specifica-
tions for Type II cement, ASTM and
AASHTO. The great majority of
cements are produced under ASTM
specifications, but many state high-
way projects require cements made
to AASHTO specifications. For
AASHTO Type II cements there is a
maximum limit of 55% on C3S
whereas for ASTM Type II cements,
this parameter is not limited. Other
than a slightly more restrictive limi-
tation on fineness for the AASHTO
Type II cements, there are no other
differences in the two cement speci-
fications. To investigate if concrete
properties differ as a result of using
the different Type II cements, two
pairs of cements were obtained, each
pair included one ASTM Type II
cement and one AASHTO Type II
cement. Each pair was obtained
from a single plant. Concretes were
made with these cements using an
identical mix design representative
of paving applications. Fresh con-
crete properties , potential for plastic
shrinkage cracking, heat develop-
ment, compressive strength develop-
ment, and drying shrinkage were
measured for each concrete made
with each cement. Results show
there is little difference in concrete
properties as a result of using either
ASTM or AASHTO Type II cements.
Complete DX, RX, and RD
Series, RX300
This newly compiled series is a col-
lection of technical information from
more than 50 years of research by
the Portland Cement Association—
over 500 bulletins—on cement and
concrete. This complete set of all
Development (DX), Research (RX),
and Research and Development
(RD) bulletins from 1939 to 1994
addresses hundreds of cement and
concrete technology subjects. Air
entrainment, alkalis, hydration,
chemical analysis, strength, creep,
durability, long-time properties,
modulus of elasticity, pozzolans,
temperature effects, and water con-
tent are just a few of the topics cov-
ered. As an aid in data searches, a
comprehensive subject and author
R e t u r n To I n d e x
March 1994
index (RD100T), which includes an
abstract for each bulletin, is included
with every order.
Few other sources provide so
much cement and concrete informa-
tion in so well-organized and con-
cise a form. RD100T is also available
in microcomputer database formats,
further easing the process of infor-
mation retrieval. Some of the out-of-
print bulletins are available only as
photocopies.
Fire Test of Concrete Beams
Reinforced with Epoxy
Coated Bars, RP321B
This 14-page research report pre-
sents the results of fire tests on con-
crete beams reinforced with epoxy-
coated bars. Funded jointly by PCA
and the Concrete Reinforcing Steel
Institute, this study determined the
fire endurance of two full-size con-
crete beams.
Both beams were 12x14-in.
(300x350-mm) by 32-ft (9.8-m) long
and made with carbonate aggregate
concrete. Each was subjected to a
fire test following the provisions
outlined in ASTM E119, Standard
Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building
Construction and Materials. During
the fire test the beams were loaded
to simulate the end span of a contin-
uous member, such that the applied
moments at midspan and over the
continuous support were equivalent
to 40% and 50% respectively of the
nominal moment strengths at corre-
sponding sections. Tests were dis-
continued when the beams showed
signs of imminent structural failure.
Beam A was designed in accor-
dance with ACI 318-83 provisions
whereas Beam B met design criteria
for the ACI 318-89 code. The mea-
7
Concrete Technology Today
sured fire endurances were 2 hours
33 minutes for Beam A and 3 hours
48 minutes for Beam B. In the sum-
mary, authors T. D. Lin and R. G.
Burg noted that the beam designed
to ACI 318-89 provisions was in
good agreement with values current-
ly accepted by the three U. S. model
building codes for the fire endurance
of beams with non-coated bars.
Tilt-Up Walls Test Results,
RP322D
This 20-page research report pre-
sents the results of experimental
tests to supplement existing physical
test data on various slender tilt-up
walls. Furthermore, this work
expands available test information
through a series of experimental
tests to include other types of tilt-up
walls commonly seen in practice,
such as walls with two layers of
• Walls reinforced with two layers
• A decrease in the size of isolated
reinforcement, isolated footings, con-
centrated loads, and panels with
openings. Authors A. Azzinamini, J.
D. Gilkin, and R. G. Oesterle made
three significant conclusions based
on these tests:
• It was found that tilt-up walls
with aspect ratios, h/t, as large as
60 can continue to sustain com-
R e t u r n To I n d e x
March 1994
bined axial and lateral loads
while loaded to deflected shapes
well beyond wall cracking and
first yield of reinforcement.
of reinforcing bars, one layer
located near each face, provide a
stiffer wall with higher ductility
when compared to a wall with an
equivalent total amount of rein-
forcement placed in one layer at
the panel midthickness.
footings did not have a significant
effect on the observed behavior or
measured capacity of the tilt-up
wall specimens.
PL941.01B