ACI 363R-92

(Reapproved 1997)

State-of-the-Art Report on High-Strength Concrete

Reported by ACI Committee 363
Henry G. Russell Jaime Moreno
Chairman Secretary

Arthur R. Anderson Anthony N. Kojundic Kenneth L Saucier*

Jack O. Banning Brian R. Mastin* Surendra P. Shah*
Irwin G. Cantor* William C. Moore J. Craig Williams*
Ramon L. Carrasquillo* Arthur H. Nilson* John Wolsiefer, Sr.
James E. Cook William F. Perenchio J. Francis Young
Gregory C. Frantz Francis J. Principe Paul Zia
Weston T. Hester

l Members responsible for individual chapters

ACI Committee 363 Members Balloting 1992 Revisions

Kenneth L Saucier William F. Perenchio

Chairman Secretary

Pierre Claude Aitcin Weston T. Hester+ Henry G. Russell

F. David Anderson Nathan L Howard Michael T. Russell
Claude Bedard Anthony N. Kojundic Surendra P. Shah
Roger W. Black Mark D. Luther Bryce P. Simons
Irwin G. Cantor Heshem Marzouk Ava Szypula
Ramon L. Carrasquillo Brian R. Mastin Dean J. White, II
Judith A. Castello William C. Moore J. Craig Williams
James E. Cook Jaime Moreno John T. Wolsiefer
Kingsley D. Drake Arthur H. Nilson Francis J. Young
Gregory C. Frantz Clifford R. Ohwiler Paul Zia
Thomas G. Guennewig

Currently available information about high-strength concrete is summar-

ized. Topics discussed include selection of materials, concrete mix pro-
portioning, batching miring, transporting placing, control procedures,
concrete properties, structural design, economics, and applications. A
bibliography is included.
Keywords: bibliographies; bridges (structures); buildings; conveying;
economics; high-strength concretes; mechanical properties; mixing; mix
proportioning; placing; quality control; raw materials; reviews; structural design.
ACI Committee Reports, Guides, Standard Practices,
and Commentaries are intended for guidance in design-
ing, planning, executing, or inspecting construction and
in preparing specifications. Reference to these docu-
ments shall not be made in the Project Documents. If
items found in these documents are desired to be part
of the Project Documents, they should be phrased in
mandatory language and incorporated into the Project
Documents.
Chapter l-Introduction, pg. 363R-2
1.l-Historical background
1.2-Committee objectives
Chapter 2-Selection of materials, pg. 363R-3
2.1-Introduction
2.2-Cements
2.3-Chemical admixtures
2.4-Mineral admixtures and slag cement
Copyright Oc 1992, American Concrete Institute.
All rights reserved including rights of reproduction and use in any form or by
any means, including the making of copies by any photo process, or by any elec-
tronic or mechanical device, printed or written or oral, or recording for sound or
visual reproduction or for use in any knowledge or retrieval system or device,
unless permission in writing is obtained from the copyright proprietors.

363R-1
363R-2 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT

2.5-Aggregates 7.2-Cost studies

2.6-Water 7.3-Case histories
2.7-Cited references 7.4-Other studies
7.5-Selection of materials
Chapter 3-Concrete mix proportions, pg. 363R-8 7.6-Quality control
3.1-Introduction 7.7-Areas of application
3.2-Strength required 7.4-Conclusion
3.3-Test age 7.9-Cited references
3.4-Water-cement ratio or water-cementitious ratio
3.5-Cement content Chapter 8-Applications, pg. 363R-44
3.6-Aggregate proportions 8.1-Introduction
3.7-Proportioning with admixtures 8.2-Buildings
3.8-Workability 8.3-Bridges
3.9-Trial batches 8.4-Special applications
3.10-Cited references 8.5-Potential applications
8.6-Cited references
Chapter 4-Batching, mixing, transporting, placing,
curing, and control procedures, pg. 363R-16 Chapter 9-Summary, pg. 363R-48
4.1-Introduction
4.2-Batching Chapter 10-References, pg. 363R-49
4.3-Mixing
4.4-Transporting
4.5-Placing procedures CHAPTER 1-INTRODUCTION
4.6-Curing
4.7-Quality assurance 1.1-Historical background
4.8-Quality control procedures Although high-strength concrete is often considered a
4.9-Strength measurements relatively new material, its development has been gradual
4.10-Cited references over many years. As the development has continued, the
definition of high-strength concrete has changed. In the
Chapter 5-Properties of high-strength concrete, pg. 1950s, concrete with a compressive strength of 5000 psi
363R-22 (34 MPa) was considered high strength. In the 1960s,
5.1-Introduction concrete with 6000 and 7500 psi (41 and 52 MPa) com-
5.2-Stress-strain behavior in uniaxial compression pressive strengths were used commercially. In the early
5.3-Modulus of elasticity 1970s, 9000 psi (62 MPa) concrete was being produced.
5.4-Poisson’s ratio More recently, compressive strengths approaching 20,000
5.5-Modulus of rupture psi (138 MPa) have been used in cast-in-place buildings.
5.6-Tensile splitting strength For many years, concrete with compressive strength in
5.7-Fatigue strength excess of 6000 psi (41 MPa) was available at only a few
5.8-Unit weight locations. However, in recent years, the applications of
5.9-Thermal properties high-strength concrete have increased, and high-strength
5.10-Heat evolution due to hydration concrete has now been used in many parts of the world.
5.11-Strength gain with age The growth has been possible as a result of recent de-
5.12-Freeze-thaw resistance velopments in material technology and a demand for
5.13-Shrinkage higher-strength concrete. The construction of Chicago’s
5.14-Creep Water Tower Place and 311 South Wacker Drive con-
5.15-Cited references crete buildings would not have been possible without the
development of high-strength concrete. The use of con-
Chapter 6-Structural design considerations, pg. 363R- crete superstructures in long span cable-stayed bridges
29 such as East Huntington, W.V., bridge over the Ohio
6.1-Introduction River would not have taken place without the availability
6.2-Axially-loaded columns of high-strength concrete.
6.3-Beams and slabs
6.4-Eccentric columns 1.2-Committee objectives
6.5-Summary Since the definition of high-strength concrete has
6.6-Cited references changed over the years, the committee needed to define
an applicable range of concrete strengths for its activities.
Chapter 7--Economic considerations, pg. 363R-41 The following working definition was adopted: “The im-
7.1-Introduction mediate concern of Committee 363 shall be concretes
 HIGH STRENGTH CONCRETE
have specified compressive strengths for design of 6000
psi (41 MPa) or greater, but for the present time, con-
siderations shall not include concrete made using exotic
materials or techniques.”
The word exotic was included in the definition so that
the committee would not be concerned with concretes
such as polymer-impregnated concrete, epoxy concrete,
or concrete with artificial normal and heavy-weight ag-
gregates.
Although 6000 psi (41 MPa) was selected as the lower
limit, it is not intended to imply that there is a drastic
change in material properties or in production techniques
that occur at this compressive strength.
In reality, all changes that take place above 6000 psi
(41 MPa) represent a process which starts with the lower-
strength concretes and continues into high-strength con-
cretes. Many empirical equations used to predict prop-
erties of concrete or to design structural members are
based on tests using concrete with compressive strengths
less than about 6000 psi (41 MPa). The availability of
data for higher-strength concretes requires a reassess-
ment of the equations to determine their applicability
with higher-strength concretes. Consequently, caution
should be exercised in extrapolating data from lower-
strength to high-strength concretes. If necessary, tests
should then be made to develop data for the materials or
applications in question.
The committee also recognized that the definition of
high-strength concrete varies on a geographical basis. In
regions where concrete with a compressive strength of
9000 psi (62 MPa) is already being produced commercial-
ly, high-strength concrete might be in the range of 12,000
to 15,000 psi (83 to 103 MPa) compressive strength.
However, in regions where the upper limit on commer-
cially available material is currently 5000 psi (34 MPa)
concrete, 9000 psi (62 MPa) concrete is considered high
strength. The committee recognized that material selec-
tion, concrete mix proportioning, batching, mixing, trans-
porting, placing, and control procedures are applicable
across a wide range of concrete strengths. However, the
committee felt that material properties and structural
design considerations given in this report should be con-
cerned with concretes having the highest compressive
strengths. The committee has tried to cover both aspects
in compiling this state-of-the-art report.
CHAPTER 2-SELECTION OF MATERIALS
2.1-Introduction
The production of high-strength concrete that con-
sistently meets requirements for workability and strength
development places more stringent requirements on
material selection than for lower-strength concretes.
Quality materials are needed and specifications require
enforcement. High-strength concrete has been produced
using a wide range of quality materials based on the re-
sults of trial mixtures. This chapter
I cites the state of
363R-3
knowledge regarding material selection and provides a
baseline for the subsequent discussion of mix proportions
in Chapter 3.
Fig. 2.1-Effects of cement on concrete compressive
strength. 2.2
2.2-Cements
The choice of portland cement for high-strength con-
strength is the objective, such as in prestressed concrete,
there is no need to use a Type III cement. Furthermore,
within a given cement type, different brands will have dif-
ferent strength development characteristics because of
the variations in compound composition and fineness that
are permitted by ASTM C 150.
Initially, silo test certificates should be obtained from
potential suppliers for the previous 6 to 12 months. Not
only will this give an indication of strength characteristics
from the ASTM C 109 mortar cube test, but also, more
importantly, it will provide an indication of cement uni-
formity. The cement supplier should be required to re-
port uniformity in accordance with ASTM C 917. If the
tricalcium silicate content varies by more than 4 percent,
the ignition loss by more than 0.5 percent, or the fineness
by more than 375 cm2/g (Blaine), then problems in main-
taining a uniform high strength may result.2.1Sulfate
(SO,) levels should be maintained at optimum with varia-
tions limited to ± 0.20 percent.
Although mortar cube tests can give a good indication
of potential strength, tests should be run on trial batches.
These should contain the materials to be used in the job
and be prepared at the proposed slump, with strengths
determined at 7, 28, 56, and 91 days. The effect of
cement characteristics on water demand is more notice-
able in high-strength concretes because of the higher
cement contents.
High cement contents can be expected to result in a
high temperature rise within the concrete. For example,
363R-4 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT

the temperature in the 4 ft (1.2 m) square columns used mixtures with sufficient retarder dosage to give the desir-
in Water Tower Place which contained 846 lb cement/yd 3 able rate of hardening under the anticipated temperature
(502 kg/m3), rose to 150 F (66 C) from 75 F (24 C) conditions.
during hydration. 2.2 The heat was dissipated within 6 days Since retarders frequently provide an increase in
without harmful effects. However, when the temperature strength that will be proportional to the dosage rate, mix-
rise is expected to be a problem, a Type II low-heat-of- tures can be designed at different doses if it is expected
hydration cement can be used, provided it meets the that significantly different rates will be used. However,
strength-producing requirements. there is usually an offsetting effect that minimizes the
A further consideration is the optimization of the variations in strengths due to temperature. As tempera-
cement-admixture system. The exact effect of a water- ture increases, later age strengths will decline; however,
reducing agent on water requirement, for example, will an increase in retarder dosage to control the rate of
depend on the cement characteristics. Strength develop- hardening will provide some mitigation of the tempera-
ment will depend on both cement characteristics and ce- ture-induced reduction. Conversely, dosages should be
ment content. decreased as temperatures decline.
While providing initial retardation, strengths at 24
2.3-Chemical admixtures hours and later are usually increased by normal dosages.
2.3.1 General-Admixtures are widely used in the pro- Extended retardation or cool temperatures may affect
duction of high-strength concretes. These materials in- early (24-hour) strengths adversely.
clude air-entraining agents and chemical and mineral 2.3.4 Normal-setting water reducers (ASTM C 494,
admixtures. Air-entraining agents are generally surfac- Type A-Normal setting ASTM C 494 Type A conven-
tants that will develop an air-void system appropriate for tional water-reducing admixtures will provide strength
durability enhancement. Chemical admixtures are gener- increases without altering rates of hardening. Their
ally produced using lignosulfonates, hydroxylated car- selection should be based on strength performance. In-
boxylic acids, carbohydrates, melamine and naphthalene creases in dosage above the normal amounts will gener-
condensates, and organic and inorganic accelerators in ally increase strengths, but may extend setting times.
various formulations. Selection of type, brand, and dos- When admixtures are used in this fashion to provide re-
age rate of all admixtures should be based on perfor- tardation, a benefit in strength performance sometimes
mance with the other materials being considered or results.
selected for use on the project. Significant increases in 2.3.5 High-range water reducers 2.4,2.5 (ASTM C 494,
compressive strength, control of rate of hardening, ac- Types F and G-High-range water reduction provides
celerated strength gain, improved workability, and dur- high-strength performance, particularly at early (24-hour)
ability are contributions that can be expected from the ages. Matching the admixture to the cement, both in type
admixture or admixtures chosen. Reliable performance and dosage rate, is important. The slump loss character-
on previous work should be considered during the selec- istics of a high-range water reducer (HRWR) will deter-
tion process. mine whether it should be added at the plant, at the site,
2.3.2 Air-entraining admixtures (ASTM C 260)-The or a combination of each.
use of air entrainment is recommended to enhance dura- Use of a HRWR in high-strength concrete may serve
bility when concrete will be subjected to freezing and the purpose of increasing strength at the slump or in-
thawing while wet. As compressive strengths increase and creasing slump. The method of addition should distribute
water-cement ratios decrease, air-void parameters im- the admixture throughout the concrete. Adequate mixing
prove and entrained air percentages can be set at the is critical to uniform performance. Supervision is im-
lower limits of the acceptable range as given in ACI 201. portant to the successful use of a HRWR. The use of
2.6
Entrained air has the effect of reducing strength, parti- superplasticizers is discussed further in ACI SP-68.
cularly in high-strength mixtures, and for that reason it 2.3.6 Accelerators (ASTM C 494, Types C and E)-Ac-
has been used only where there is a concern for durabili- celerators are not normally used in high-strength con-
ty. See also Section 5.12. crete unless early form removal is critical. High-strength
2.3.3 Retarders (ASTM C 494, Types B and D)-High- concrete mixtures can provide strengths adequate for ver-
strength concrete mix designs incorporate high cement tical form removal on walls and columns at an early age.
factors that are not common to normal commercial con- Accelerators used to increase the rate of hardening will
crete. A retarder is frequently beneficial in controlling normally be counterproductive in long-term strength de-
early hydration. The addition of water to retemper the velopment.
mixture will result in marked strength reduction. Further, 2.3.7 Admixture combinations-Combinations of high-
structural design frequently requires heavy reinforcing range water reducers with normal-setting water reducers
steel and complicated forming with attendant difficult or retarders have become common to achieve optimum
placement of the concrete. A retarder can control the performance at lowest cost. Improvements in strength
rate of hardening in the forms to eliminate cold joints gain and control of setting times and workability are
and provide more flexibility in placement schedules. Pro- posstble with optimized combinations. In certain cir-
jects have used retarders successfully by initially designing cumstances, combinations of normal-setting or retarding
 HIGH STRENGTH CONCRETE
water-reducing admixtures plus an accelerating admixture
have also been found to be useful.
When using a combination of admixtures, they should
be dispensed individually in a manner approved by the
manufacturer(s). Air-entraining admixtures should, if
used, be dispensed separately from water-reducing ad-
mixtures.
2.4-Mineral admixtures and slag cement
Finely divided mineral admixtures, consisting mainly
of fly ash and silica fume, and slag cement have been
widely used in high-strength concrete.
2.4.1 Fly ash-Fly ash for high-strength concrete is
classified into two classes. Class F fly ash is normally pro-
duced from burning anthracite or bituminous coal and
has pozzolanic properties, but little or no cementitious
properties. Class C fly ash is normally produced from
burning lignite or subbituminous coal, and in addition to
having pozzolanic properties, has some autogenous ce-
mentitious properties. In general, Class F fly ash is avail-
able in the eastern United States and Canada, and Class
C fly ash is available in the western United States and
Canada.
Specifications for fly ash are covered in ASTM C 618.
Methods for sampling and testing are found in
ASTM C 311. Variations in physical or chemical proper-
ties of mineral admixtures, although within the tolerances
of these specifications, may cause appreciable variations
in properties of high-strength concrete. Such variations
can be minimized by appropriate testing of shipments
and increasing the frequency of sampling. ACI 212.2R
provides guidelines for the use of admixtures in concrete.
It is extremely important that mineral admixtures be test-
ed for acceptance and uniformity and carefully investi-
gated for strength-producing properties and compatibility
with the other materials in the high-strength concrete
mixture before they are used in the work.
2.4.2 Silica fume - Silica fume and admixtures contain-
ing silica fume2.8 have been used in high-strength con-
cretes 2.9, 2.10 for structural purposes and for surface ap-
plications and as repair materials in situations where
abrasion resistance and low permeability are advanta-
geous. Silica fume is a by-product resulting from the re-
duction of high-purity quartz with coal in electric arc
furnaces in the production of silicon and ferrosilicon al-
loys. The fume, which has a high content of amorphous
silicon dioxide and consists of very fine spherical par-
ticles, is collected from the gases escaping from the
furnaces.
Silica fume consists of very fine vitreous particles with
a surface area on the order of 20,000 m 2/kg when
measured by nitrogen adsorption techniques 2.29 The
particle-size distribution of a typical silica fume shows
most par-titles to be smaller than one micrometer (1
µm) with an average diameter of about 0.1 µm, which is
approximately 100 times smaller than the average cement
particle. The specific gravity of silica fume is typically 2.2,
but may be as high as 2.5. The bulk density as collected
363R-5
is 10 to 20 lb/ft3 (160 to 320 kg/m3); however, it is also
available in densified or slurry forms for commercial
application.
Silica fume, because of its extreme fineness and high
silica content, is a highly effective pozzolanic material.
The silica fume reacts pozzolanically with the lime during
the hydration of cement to form the stable cementitious
compound calcium silicate hydrate (CSH). The availabili-
ty of high-range water-reducing admixtures has facilitated
the use of silica fume as part of the cementing material
in concrete to produce high-strength concretes.2.29 Nor-
mal silica fume content ranges from 5 to 15 percent of
portland cement content.
The use of silica fume to produce high-strength
concrete increased dramatically in the 1980s. Both labor-
atory and field experience indicate that concrete incor-
porating silica fume has an increased tendency to develop
plastic shrinkage cracks. 2.29 Thus, it is necessary to
quickly cover the surfaces of freshly placed silica-fume
concrete to prevent rapid water evaporation. Since it is
a relatively new material to the concrete industry in the
United States, the user is referred to several recent
symposia and publications for additional information on
2.4.3 Slag cement - Ground slag cement is produced
only in certain areas of the United States and Canada.
Specifications for ground granulated blast furnace slag
are given in ASTM C 989. The classes of portland blast
furnace slag cement are covered in ASTM C 595. Slag
appropriate for concrete is a nonmetallic product that is
developed in a molten condition simultaneously with iron
in a blast furnace. When properly quenched and pro-
cessed, slag will act hydraulically in concrete as a partial
replacement for portland cement. Slag can be inter-
ground with cement or used as an additional cement at
the batching facility. Blast furnace slag essentially consists
of silicates and alumino-silicates of calcium and other
bases. Research using ground slag shows much promise
for its use in high-strength concrete.
2.4.4 Evaluation and selection - Mineral admixtures
and slag cement, like any material in a high-strength con-
crete mixture, should be evaluated using laboratory trial
batches to establish the optimum desirable qualities.
Materials representative of those that will be employed
later in the actual construction should be used. Particular
care should be taken to insure that the mineral admix-
ture comes from bulk supplies and that they are typical.
Generally, several trial batches are made using varying
cement factors and admixture dosages to establish curves
which can be used to select the amount of cement and
admixture required to achieve the desired results.
When fly ash is to be used, the minimum requirement
is that it comply with ASTM C 618. Although this specifi-
cation permits a higher loss on ignition, an ignition loss
2.11
of 3 percent or less is desirable. High fineness, uni-
formity or production, high pozzolanic activity, and com-
patibility with other mixture ingredients are items of pri-
mary importance.
363R-6 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT
2.5-Aggregates
2.5.1 General - Both fine and coarse aggregates used
for high-strength concrete should, as a minimum, meet
the requirements of ASTM C 33; however, the following
exceptions may be beneficial.
2.5.2 - Grading
2.5.2.1 Fine aggregate - Fine aggregates with a
rounded particle shape and smooth texture have been
found to require less mixing water in concrete and for
this reason are preferable in high-strength concrete2.11’ 2.12
The optimum gradation of fine aggregate for high-
strength concrete is determined more by its effect on
water requirement than on physical packing. One re-
port 2.10 stated that a sand with a fineness modulus (PM)
below 2.5 gave the concrete a sticky consistency, making
it difficult to compact. Sand with an FM of about 3.0
gave the best workability and compressive strength.
High-strength concretes typically contain such high
contents of fine cementitious materials that the grading
of the aggregates used is relatively unimportant com-
pared to conventional concrete. However, it is sometimes
helpful to increase the fineness modulus. A National
Crushed Stone Association report2.13 made several re-
commendations in the interest of reducing the water re-
quirement. The amounts passing the No. 50 and 100
sieves should be kept low, but still within the require-
ments of ASTM C 33, and mica or clay contaminants
should be avoided. Another investigation2.13 found that
the sand gradation had no significant effect on early
strengths but that “at later ages and consequently higher
levels of strength, the gap-graded sand mixes exhibited
lower strengths than the standard mixes.”
2.5.2.2 Coarse aggregate
compressive strength with high cement content and low
water-cement ratios the maximum size of coarse aggre-
gate should be kept to a minimum, at ½ in. (12.7 mm) or
H in. (9.5 mm). Maximum sixes of ¾ in. (19.0 mm) and
1 in. (25.4 mm also have been used successfully. Cordon
and Gillespie 2.19 felt that the strength increases were
caused by the reduction in average bond stress due to the
increased surface area of the individual aggregate. Alex-
ander 2.20 found that the bond to a 3 in. (76 mm) aggre-
gate particle was only about l/10 of that to a ½-in. (13
mm) particle. He also stated that except for very good or
very bad aggregates the bond strength was about 50 to 60
percent of the paste strength at 7 days.
Smaller aggregate sixes are also considered to produce
higher concrete strengths because of less severe concen-
trations of stress around the particles, which are caused
by differences between the elastic moduli of the paste
and the aggregate.
Many studies have shown that crushed stone produces
higher strengths than rounded gravel. The most likely
reason for this is the greater mechanical bond which can
develop with angular particles. However, accentuated an-
gularity is to be avoided because of the attendant high
water requirement and reduced workability. The ideal ag-
gregate should be clean, cubical, angular, 100 percent
crushed aggregate with a minimum of flat and elongated
particles. 2.13
Because, as stated earlier, bond strength is the limiting
factor in the development of high-strength concrete, the
mineralogy of the aggregates should be such as to pro-
mote chemical bonding. Some work has been done with
artificial material such as portland and aluminous cement
clinkers and selected slags.2.14,221 The long-term stability
of the clinkers is in question, however. Harris2.22 states
that Moorehead measured a potential silica-lime bond of
at least 28,000 psi (193 M Pa). Presumably many siliceous
minerals would prove to have good bonding potential
with portland cement. This would appear to be a promis-
ing area for further research.
2.5.3 Absorption -Curing is extremely important in the
production of high-strength concrete. To produce a
cement paste with as high a solids content as possible,
the concrete must contain the absolute minimum mix
water. However, after the concrete is in place and the
paste structure is established, water should be freely
available, especially during the early stages of hydra-
tion 2.14,2.23 During this period, a great deal of water
combines with the cement. All of this water loses approx-
imately ¼ of its volume after the chemical reactions are
completed. This creates a small vacuum that is capable of
pulling water short distances into the concrete which, at
this time, is still relatively permeable. Any extra water
which can enter the structure will increase the ultimate
amount of hydration and, therefore the percent of solids
per unit volume of paste, thereby increasing its strength.
If the aggregates are capable of absorbing a moderate
amount of water, they can act as tiny curing-water reser-
voirs distributed throughout the concrete, thereby pro-
viding the added curing water which is beneficial to these
low water-cement ratio pastes.
2.5.4 Intrinsic aggregate strength-It would seem ob-
vious that high-strength concrete would require high-
strength aggregates and, to some extent, this is true.
However, several investigators2.24,2.25 have found that, for
some aggregates, a point is reached beyond which further
increases in cement content produce no increase in the
compressive strength of the concrete. This apparently is
not due to having fully developed the compressive
strength of the concrete but to having reached the limit
of the bonding potential of that cement-aggregate com-
bination.
2.6-Water
The requirements for water quality for high-strength
concrete are no more stringent than those for conven-
tional concrete. Usually, water for concrete is specified to
be of potable quality. This is certainly conservative but
usually does not constitute a problem since most concrete
is produced near a municipal water supply. However,
cases may be encountered where water of a lower quality
must be used. In such cases, test concrete should be
made with the water and compared with concrete made

with distilled water, or it may be more convenient to
make ASTM C 109 mortar cubes. In either case, speci-
mens should be tested in compression at 7 and 28 days.
If those made with the water in question are at least
equal to 90 percent of the compressive strength of the
specimens made with distilled water, the water then can
be considered acceptable to U.S. Army Corps of En-
gineers’ requirements2.26 and ASTM C 94.
For more detailed information on specific contamin-
ants refer to the literature in References 2.27, 2.28, and
2.29. Test methods for water for special situations are
given in AASHTO T26.
2.7-Cited references
(See also Chapter 10-References)
2.1. Hester, Weston, “High Strength Air-Entrained
Concrete,” Concrete Construction, V. 22, No. 2, Feb. 1977,
pp. 77-82.
2.2. “High Strength Concrete in Chicago High-Rise
Buildings,” Task Force Report No. 5, Chicago Committee
on High-Rise Buildings, Feb. 1977, 63 pp.
2.3. Freedman, Sydney, “High-Strength Concrete,”
Modern Concrete, V. 34, No. 6, Oct. 1970, pp. 29-36; No.
7, Nov. 1970 pp 28-32; No. 8, Dec. 1970, pp. 21-24; No.
9, Jan. 1971, pp. 15-22; and No. 10, Feb. 1971, pp. 16-23.
Also, Publication No. IS176T, Portland Cement Associa-
tion.
2.4. “Superplasticizing Admixtures in Concrete,” Pub-
lication No. 45.030, Cement and Concrete Association,
Wexham Springs, 1976, 32 pp.
2.5. Eriksen, Kirsten, and Nepper-Christensen, Palle,
“Experiences in the Use of Superplasticizers in Some
Special Fly Ash Concretes,” Developments in the Use of
Superplasticizers, SP-68, American Concrete Institute,
Detroit, 1981, pp. 1-20.
2.6. Developments in the Use of Superplasticizers, SP-68,
American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1981, 572 pp.
2.7. Wolsiefer, John, “Ultra High-Strength Field Place-
able Concrete with Silica Fume Admixture,” Concrete In-
ternational Design & Construction, V. 6, No. 4, Apr. 1984,
pp. 25-31.
2.8. Malhotra, V.M., and Carette, G.G., “Silica Fume,”
Concrete Construction, V. 27, No. 5, May 1982, pp. 443-
446.
2.9. Fly Ash, Silica Fume, Slag, and other Mineral
By-Products in Concrete, SP-79, American Concrete Insti-
tute, Detroit, 1983, 1196 pp.
2.10. Blick, Ronald L., “Some Factors Influencing
High-Strength Concrete,” Modern Concrete, V. 36, No. 12,
Apr. 1973, pp. 38-41.
2.11. Wills, Milton H., Jr., “How Aggregate Particle
Shape Influences Concrete Mixing Water Requirement
and Strength,” Journal of Materials, V. 2, No. 4, Dec.
1967, pp. 843-865.
2.12. Gaynor, R.D., and Meininger, R.C., “Evaluating
Concrete Sands: Five Tests to Estimate Quality,” Con-
crete International Design & Construction, V. 5, No. 12,
Dec. 1983, pp. 53-60.
TH CONCRETE 363R-7
2.13. “High Strength Concrete,” Manual of Concrete
Materials-Aggregates, National Crashed Stone Associa-
tion, Washington, D.C. Jan. 1975, 16 pp.
2.14. Perenchio, W.P., “An Evaluation of Some of the
Factors Involved in Producing Very High-Strength Con-
crete,” Research and Development Bulletin No. RD014,
Portland Cement Association, Skokie, 1973, 7 pp.
2.15. “Methods of Achieving High Strength Concrete,”
ACI JOURNAL , Proceedings V. 64, No. 1, Jan. 1967, pp.
45-48.
2.16. Fowler, Earl W., and Lewis, D.W., “Flexure and
Compression Tests of High Strength, Air-Entraining Slag
Concrete,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 60, No. 1, Jan.
1963, pp. 113-128.
2.17. Harris, A.J., “High-Strength Concrete: Manufac-
ture and Properties,” The Structural Engineer (London),
V. 47, No. 11, Nov. 1969, pp. 441-446.
2.18. Walker, Stanton, and Bloem, Delmar L., “Effects
of Aggregate Size on Properties of Concrete,” ACI
JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 57, No. 3, Sept. 1960, pp. 283-
298.
2.19. Cordon, William A, and Gillespie, H. Aldridge,
“Variables in Concrete Aggregates and Portland Cement
Paste Which Influence the Strength of Concrete,” ACI
JOURNAL , Proceedings V. 60, No. 8, Aug. 1963, pp. 1029-
1052.
2.20. Alexander, K.M., “Factors Controlling the
Strength and Shrinkage of Concrete,” Constructional
Review (North Sydney), V. 33, No. 11, Nov. 1960, pp.
19-28.
2.21 “Tentative Interim Report of High Strength
Concrete,” ACI JOURNAL , Proceedings V. 64, No. 9, Sept.
1967, pp. 556-557.
2.22. Harris, A.J., “Ultra High Strength Concrete,”
Journal, Prestressed Concrete Institute, V. 12, No. 1, Feb.
1967, pp. 53-59.
2.23. Klieger, Paul, “Early High Strength Concrete for
Prestressing,” Proceedings, World Conference on Pre-
stressed Concrete, San Francisco, 1957, pp. A5-1-A5-14.
2.24. Burgess. A. James; Ryell, John; and Bunting,
John, “High Strength Concrete for the Willows Bridge,”
ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 67, No. 8, Aug. 1970, pp.
611-619.
2.25. Gaynor, Richard D., “High Strength Air-En-
trained Concrete,” Joint Research Laboratory Publication
No. 17, National Sand and Gravel Association/National
Ready Mixed Concrete Association, Silver Spring, Mar.
1968, 19 pp.
2.26. “Requirements for Water for Use in Mixing or
Curing Concrete,” (CRD-C 400-63), Handbook for Con-
crete and Cement, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, 2 pp.
2.27. Concrete Manual, 8th Edition, U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation, Denver, 1975, 627 pp.
2.28. McCoy, W.J., “Mixing and Curing Water for
Concrete,” Significance of Tests and Properties of Concrete
and Concrete-Making Materials, STP-169A, American
Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1966, pp.
363R-8 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT

515-521. tors, inspection agencies, and environmental conditions.

2.29. “Silica Fume in Concrete,” preliminary report by All factors which will affect the variability of strengths
ACI Committee 226, Materials Journal, American and strength measurements should be considered when
Concrete Institute, Detroit, V. 84, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1987. selecting mix proportions and when establishing the stan-
2.30 Fly Ash, Silica Fume, Slag and Natural Pozzolans dard deviation acceptable for strength results. Materials
in Concrete, SP-91, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, and proportions used for qualifying the mixture should
1986, 1628 pp. not be more closely controlled than is planned for the
2.31 Proceedings of the International Workshop on Con- proposed work. Kennedy and Price have identified fac-
densed Silica Fume in Concrete, CANMET, Montreal, tors which contribute to the variability of measured com-
Canada, May 1987. pressive strengths of concretes in lower strength
2.32 Proceedings of the Third International Conference ranges. 3.3,3.4
on Fly Ash, Silica Fume, and Natural Pozzolans in Hester identified sources of measured strength vari-
Concrete, SP-114, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, ations in high-strength concretes. 3.5 High-strength con-
1989. crete is recognized to be more difficult to test accurately
than normal strength concretes. Testing difficulties may
contribute to lower measured values or higher variability.
A high variance in test results will dictate a higher
CHAPTER 3 - CONCRETE MIX PROPORTIONS required average strength. If variability is predicted to be
relatively low, but proves to be higher, the frequency of
test results below the specified strength may be unaccept-
Concrete mix proportions for high-strength concrete ably high. Therefore, when selecting a target standard
have varied widely depending upon many factors. The deviation the concrete producer should submit the most
3.6
strength level required, test age, material characteristics, appropriate test record. A higher required average
and type of application have influenced mix proportions. strength may be difficult or impossible to attain when
In addition, economics, structural requirements, manufac- producing high-strength concretes because mix propor-
turing practicality, anticipated curing environment, and tions may already be optimized.
even the time of year have affected the selection of mix ACI 318 recognizes that some test results are likely to
proportions. Much information on proportioning con- be lower than the specified strength. The most common
crete mixtures is available in ACI 211.1 and ACI design approach has been to limit the frequency of tests
SP-46. 3.1 Included in ACI publication SP-46 is the paper allowed to fall below the specified strength. The concrete
“Proportioning and Controlling High Strength Concrete” has been judged acceptable if the following requirements
(SP-46-9). are met:
High-strength concrete mix proportioning is a more a) The average of all sets of three consecutive strength
critical process than the design of normal strength con- test results shall equal or exceed the required fc'.
crete mixtures. Usually, specially selected pozzolanic and b) No individual strength test (average of two cylin-
chemical admixtures are employed, and the attainment of ders) shall fall below fc' by more than 500 psi (3.4 MPa).
a low water-cementitious ratio is considered essential. However, some designers have specified higher or
Many trial batches are often required to generate the lower overdesign strengths than called for in ACI 318
data that enables the researcher to identify optimum mix regardless of established performance.
proportions. Schmidt and Hoffman3.7 report that they do not auto-
maticalIy order removal of concrete which is represented
3.2-Strength required by cylinders 500 psi (3.4 MPa) below specified strength
3.2.1 ACI 318- The ACI Building Code Requirements but do order adjustment of the mixture and correction of
for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318) describes concrete the deficiency. This is because the ACI 318 Section 4.7.4
strength requirements. Normally the concrete has been was established for concretes with strengths in the range
proportioned in such a manner that the mean average of of 3000 to 5000 psi (21 to 34 MPa). High-strength con-
compressive strength test results has exceeded the spe- cretes continue to gain considerable strengths above and
cified strength fc' by an amount sufficiently high to beyond design requirements with the passage of time,
3.7
minimize the relative frequency of test results below the more than lower-strength concretes. While the percen-
specified strength value. tage gain of compressive strength of high-strength con-
An average value can be calculated for any set of cretes from 7 days to 90 days may be equal to or lower
measurement data. The amount that individual test val- than concretes in lower strength ranges, the order of
ues deviate from the average is usually quantified by magnitude of strength gain expressed in psi is actually
calculation of the standard deviation. Calculation of much higher. For example, a mixture which averages
standard deviation on concrete test histories can be a 2500 psi (17.2 MPa) in 7 days may average 4200 psi (29
valuable aid in predicting future test result variability. MPa) in 90 days. It would have gained strength equal to
Many factors can influence the variability of the test 68 percent of the 7-day strength, or 1700 psi (11.7 MPa)
results, including the individual materials, plants, contrac- at the age of 90 days. A mixture averaging 7300 psi (50.3
 HIGH STRENGTH CONCRETE
MPa) in 7 days could average 10,000 psi (69 MPa) in 90
days. That would be an increase of only 37 percent, but
it would have gained 2700 psi (18.6 MPa), a full 1000 psi
(6.9 MPa) higher total gain than the lower-strength
mixture.
ACI 318 allows mix designs to be proportioned based
on field experience or by laboratory trial batches. When
the concrete producer chooses to select high-strength
concrete mix proportions based upon laboratory trial
batches, confirming tests results from concretes placed in
the field should also be established.
3.2.2 ACI 214-- Once sufficient test data have been
generated from the job, a reevaluation of mix propor-
tions using “Recommended Practice for Evaluation of
Compression Test Results of Concrete (ACI 214)” may
be appropriate. Analyses affecting reproportioning of
mixtures based upon test histories are described in
Sections 4.8.1 and 4.8.2.
3.2.3 Other Strength Requirements--In some situations,
considerations other than compressive strength may in-
fluence mix proportions. Detailed discussion of material
properties including flexural and tensile strengths is given
in Chapter 5.
3.3- Test age
The selection of mix proportions can be influenced by
the testing age. This testing age has varied depending
upon the construction requirements. Most often the
testing age has been thought to be the age at which the
acceptance criteria are established, for example at 28
days. Testing, however, has been conducted prior to the
age of acceptance testing, or after that age, depending
upon the type of information required.
3.3.1 Early Age-- Prestressed concrete operations may
require high strengths in 12 to 24 hours. Special appli-
cations for early use of machinery foundations, pavement
traffic lanes, or slip formed concrete have required high
strengths at early ages. Post-tensioned concrete is often
stressed at ages of approximately 3 days and requires
relatively high strengths. Generally concretes which de-
velop high later-age strengths will also produce high
early-age strengths. However, the optimum materials
selected, and therefore the mix proportions, may vary for
different test ages. For example, Type III cement and no
fly ash have been used in a high early-strength design,
compared to Type I or II cement and fly ash for a later-
age strength design. Early-age strengths may be more
variable due to the influence of curing temperature and
the early-age characteristics of the specific cement.
Therefore, anticipated mix proportions should be evalu-
ated for a higher required average strength or a later test
age.
3.3.2 Twenty-eight days- A very common test age for
compressive strength of concrete has been 28 days. Per-
formance of structures has been empirically correlated
with moist-cured concrete cylinders, usually 6 x 12 in.
(152 x 305 mm) prepared according to ASTM C 31 and
C 192. This has produced good results for concretes with-
393R-9
in lower strength ranges not requiring early strengths or
early evaluation. High-strength concretes gain consider-
able strengths at later ages and, therefore, are evaluated
at later ages when construction requirements allow the
concrete more time to develop strengths before loads are
imposed. Proportions, notably cementitious components,
have usually been adjusted depending upon test age.
3.3.3 Later age-- High-strength concretes are frequently
tested at later ages such as 56 or 90 days. High-strength
concrete has been placed frequently in columns of high-
rise buildings. Therefore, it has been desirable to take
advantage of long-term strength gains so that efficient
use of construction materials can be achieved. This has
often been justified in high-rise buildings where full
loadings may not occur until later ages.
In cases where later-age acceptance criteria have been
specified, it may be advantageous for the concrete sup-
plier to develop earl -age or accelerated tests to predict
later-age strengths.3.8 The ACI publication SP-56, Accel-
erated StrengthTesting, provides information on acceler-
ated testing. 3.9 Of course, historical correlation data must
be developed relative to the materials and proportions to
be used in the work. These tests may not always accur-
ately predict later-age strengths; however, these tests
could provide an early identification of lower-strength
trends before a long history of non-compliance is
realized. Later-age acceptance criteria can leave suspect
concrete in question for a long time.
Test cylinders have been held for testing at ages later
than the specified acceptance age. In cases where the
specified compressive strength fc' was not achieved, sub-
sequent testing of later-age or “hold” cylinders has some-
times justified the acceptance of the concrete in question.
3.3.4 Test age in relationship to curing- When selecting
mix proportions, the type of curing anticipated should be
considered along with the test age, especially when de-
signing for high early strengths. Concretes gain strength
as a function of maturity, which is usually defined as a
function of time and curing temperature.
3.4- Water-cement ratio or water-cementitious ratio
3.4.1 Nature of water-cement ratio in high-strength con-
crete- The relationship between water-cement ratio and
compressive strength, which has been identified in low-
strength concretes, has been found to be valid for higher-
strength concretes also. Higher cement contents and
lower water contents have produced higher strengths.
Proportioning larger amounts of cement into the con-
crete mixture, however, has also increased the water
demand of the mixture. Increases in cement beyond a
certain point have not always increased compressive
strengths. Other factors which may limit maximum
cement contents are discussed in Section 3.5.3. When
pozzolanic materials are used in concrete, a water-cement
plus pozzolan ratio by weight has been considered in
place of the traditional water-cement ratio by weight. Fly
ash meeting requirements of ASTM C 618 with a loss on
ignition of less than 3.0 percent and ASTM C 494 types
363R-10 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT
A, D, F, and G chemical admixtures have usually been
used. 3.10
Of course the slump of the concrete is related to the
water-cementitious ratio and the total amount of water
in the concrete. While 0 to 2 in. slump concrete has been
produced in precast operations, special consolidation ef-
forts are required. Specified slumps for cast-in-place con-
cretes not containing high-range water reducers have
ranged from 21/2 to 41/4 in. (64 to 114 mm). Field-placed
nonplasticized concretes have had measured slumps aver-
aging as high as 43/4 in. (121 mm). 3.10
The use of high-range water reducers has provided
lower water-cementitious ratios and higher slumps.3.11
Water-cementitious ratios by weight for high-strength
concretes typically have ranged from 0.27 to 0.50. The
quantity of liquid admixtures, particularly high-range
water reducers, sometimes has been included in the
water-cementitious ratio.
3.4.2 Estimating compressive strength-- The compressive
strength that a concrete will develop at a given water-
cementitious ratio has varied widely depending on the
cement, aggregates, and admixtures employed.
Principal causes of variations in compressive strengths
at a given water-cementitious ratio include the strength-
producing capabilities of the cement and potential for
pozzolanic reactivity of the fly ash or other pozzolan if
used. Different types and brands of portland cement have
produced different compressive strengths as shown in Fig.
3.2,3.12
3.1.
Compressive
Strength ,
10000
psi
L
Fig. 3.1-- Effects of various brands of cement on concrete
3.2,3.12
compressive strength
Specific information pertaining to the range of values
of compressive strengths of cements has been published
in ASTM C 917 and Peters.3.13 Fly ashes may vary in
pozzolanic activity index from 75 percent to 110 percent
of the portland cement control, as defined in
ASTM C 618. Proprietary pozzolans containing silica
fume have been reported to have activity indexes in
excess of 200 percent.3.14 The water requirement of the
particular pozzolan employed has varied and has gener-
ally increased with increasing fineness of the pozzolan.
Often water requirements for fly ash concrete are lower
than for portland cement. This helps to lower the water-
cementitious ratio of the mixture.
Perenchio 3.15 has reported variable compressive
strength results at given water-cement ratios in laboratory
prepared concretes, depending on the aggregates used. In
addition, these results have differed from results achieved
in actual production with materials from the same area.
A range of typical strengths reported at given water-
cementitious ratios is represented in Fig. 3.2. Trial
batches with materials actually to be used in the work
have been found to be necessary. Generally, laboratory
trial batches have produced strengths higher than those
strengths which are achievable in production, as seen in
Fig. 3.33.2
Krxo
Compressive Compressive
Strength , Strength,
psi MPa
800
Water - Cementitious Ratio
Fig. 3.2-- Strength versus water-cement ratios of various
mixtures 3.2,3.10,3.15,3.16
3.5-Cement content
The cement quantity proportioned into a high-strength
mixture has been determined best by the fabrication of
trial batches. Common cement contents in high-strength
concrete test programs range from 660 to 940 lb per yd 3
3.2,3.16
(392 to 557 kg/m3). In evaluating optimum cement
contents, trial mixes usually are proportioned to equal
consistencies, allowing the water content to vary accord-
ing to the water demand of the mixture.
3.5.1 Strength-For any given set of materials in a
concrete mixture, there may be a cement content that
produces maximum concrete strength. The maximum
strength may not always be increased by the use of
 HIGH STRENGTH CONCRETE 363R-11

r
60
. Agg. No. I
. Agg. No. 2
. Agg. No.3
50 -

Reduction in Comp. 40
Strength Below
8000 Non-A.E. Concrete 30
Compressive Compessive of Some W/C, %
Strength, Strength,
psi MPo
6000 40

Points Represent Avg.

of ?-and 28-Day Tests
4000
0 2 4 6 6 IO
Added Air , percent

2000 Fig. 3.4--Strength reduction by air entrainment 3.26

the completeness of the testing programs, but particular

1 1
-11 attention has been given to evaluation of the brand of
28 56 90
cement to be used with the class and source of pozzolan,
Age , days if a pozzolan is to be used. Prior to 1977, Chicago high-
strength experience was based on concretes using Class
Fig. 3.3--Laboratory-molded concrete strengths versus F fly ash, while other high-strength work has been done
ready-mixed field-molded concrete strengths for 9000 psi (62 in Houston using Class C fly ash. 3.2,3.10 Class C fly ash
MPa) concrete. 3.2 has been used in Chicago since 1977.
The strength efficiency of cement will vary for differ-
cement added to the mixture beyond this optimum ce- ent maximum size aggregates at different strength levels.
ment content. The strength for any given cement content Higher cement efficiencies are achieved at high strength
will vary with the water demand of the mixture and the levels with lower maximum aggregate sixes. -* Fig. 3.5
strength-producing characteristics of that particular illustrates this principle. For example, a maximum ag-
cement as shown in Fig. 3.1. The “Standard Method of gregate size of less than % in. (9.5 mm) yields the highest
Evaluation of Cement Strength Uniformity from a Single cement efficiency for a 7000 psi (48.3 MPa) mixture.
Source” (ASTM C 917) may prove useful in considering
cement mill sources. 3.13 Mortar cube compressive
IO
strength data of cements at ages of up to 90 days have
been evaluated when proportioning cement in high-
strength mixtures.
The strength of the concrete mixture will depend upon
the gel-space ratio, which is defined as the “ratio of the
volume of hydrated cement paste to the sum of the vol-
umes of the hydrated cement and of the capillary
pores.“ 3.17 This is particularly true when air-entraining 6
Strength Efficiency,
admixtures are employed. Higher cement contents in air-
p i / l b o f c e m e n t / c u Yd
entrained concrete have not been found to be useful in
producing strengths equivalent to, or approaching, r/ /
strengths attainable with non-air-entrained concretes.
Incorporation of entrained air may reduce strength at a
ratio of 5 to 7 percent for each percent of air in the mix = 3.8 to 5.8 in.
as shown in Fig. 3.4. = 28 days, Moist

3.5.2 Optimization-- A principal consideration in est-

ablishing the desired cement content will be the iden-
tification of combinations of materials which will produce
optimum strengths. Ideally, evaluations of each potential
No. 4
source of cement, fly ash, liquid admixture, and aggregate + $ It 3 6
Maximum Size Aggregate , in.
in varying concentrations would indicate the optimum ce-
ment content and optimum combination of materials. Fig. 3.5-- Maximum size aggregate for strength efficiency en-
Testing costs and time requirements usually have limited velop. 3.2
363R-12 ACI COMMlTTEE REPORT
3.5.3 Limiting factors-There are several factors which
may limit the maximum quantity of cement which may be
desirable in a high-strength mixture. The strength of the
concrete may decrease if cement is added above and
beyond a given optimum content. The maximum desir-
able quantity of cement may vary considerably depending
upon the efficiency of dispersing agents, such as high-
range water reducers, in preventing flocculation of
cement particles.
Stickiness and loss of workability will be increased as
higher amounts of cement are incorporated into the mix-
ture. Combinations of cement, pozzolans, and sand
should be evaluated for the effect of cementitious con-
tent upon mixture placeability. Incorporation of an air-
entraining admixture may necessitate reevaluation of the
effect of the cement upon mixture workability.
The maximum temperature desired in the concrete
element may limit the quantity or type of cement in the
mixture. 3.2,3.18 Modification of the mixture with ice, set
retarders, or pozzolans may be helpful.
Cement-rich mixtures frequently have very high water
demands. Therefore, it is possible that special pre-
cautions may be necessary to provide adequate curing
water, so that sufficient hydration can occur. It may be
preferable to reduce the amount of cement in the mix-
ture and to rely upon more careful selection of aggre-
gates, aggregate proportions, etc., optimizing the use of
other constituents.
The amount of slump loss experienced, with attendant
increase in retempering water, and the setting time of the
concrete has varied depending upon the type, brand, and
quantity of cement use. Lower cement contents, within
limits, are desirable in order to enhance the placement
capabilities of the mixture, provided that adequate
strengths can be achieved.
3.6-Aggregate proportions
In the proportioning of high-strength concrete, the
aggregates have been a very important consideration
since they occupy the largest volume of any of the
ingredients in the concrete. Usually, high-strength
concretes have been produced using normal weight ag-
gregates. Shideler3.19 and Holm 3.20 have reported on
light-weight high-strength structural concrete. Mather3.21
has reported on high-strength high-density concrete using
heavyweight aggregate.
3.6.1 Fine aggregates-In proportioning a concrete mix-
ture, it is generally agreed that the fine aggregates or
sand have considerably more impact on mix proportions
than the coarse aggregates.
The fine aggregates contain a much higher surface
area for a given weight than do the larger coarse ag-
gregates. Since the surface area of all the aggregate
particles must be coated with a cementitious paste, the
proportion of fine to coarse can have a direct quan-
titative effect on paste requirements. Furthermore, the
shape of these sand particles may be either spherical,
subangular, or very angular. This property can alter paste
requirements even though the net volume of the sand
remains the same.
The gradation of the fine aggregate plays an important
role in properties of the plastic as well as the hardened
concrete. For example, if the sand has an overabundance
of the No. 50 and No. 100 sieve sixes, the plastic work-
ability will be improved but more paste will be needed to
compensate for the increased surface area. This could re-
sult in a costlier mixture, or if the paste volume is in-
creased by adding water, a serious loss in strength could
result. It is sometimes possible, although not always prac-
tical economically, to blend sands from different sources
to improve their gradation and their capacity to produce
higher-strength concrete.
Low fine aggregate contents with high coarse aggre-
gate contents have resulted in a reduction in paste re-
quirements and normally have been more economical.
Such proportions also have made it possible to produce
higher strengths for a given amount of cementitious ma-
terials. However, if the proportion of sand is too low,
serious problems in workability become apparent.
Consolidation by means of mechanical vibrators may
help to overcome the effects of an undersanded mixture,
and the use of power finishing equipment can help to
offset the lack of trowelability.
Particle shape and surface texture of fine aggregate
can have as great an effect on mixing water requirements
as those of coarse aggregate.“” Tests made by Bloem
and Gaynor 3.22 show that concrete-mixing water require-
ments for each cubic yard of concrete change 1 gal. (3.8
L) for each change of 1 percent in the void content of
the sand. Following the work by Bloem and Gaynor, the
NSGA-NRMCA Joint Research Laboratory has simpli-
fied the procedure for conducting the void content test
of sand and a modified gradation is now used. The new
procedure is described in Reference 2.12.
3.6.2 Coarse aggregates-The optimum amount and
size of coarse aggregate for a given sand will depend to
a great extent on the characteristics of the sand. Most
particularly it depends on the fineness modulus (FM) of
the sand. This is brought out specifically in Table 3.1,
which is taken from ACI 211.1. One reference 3.23 sug-
gests that the proportion of coarse aggregate shown in
Table 3.1 might be increased by up to 4 percent if sands
with low void contents are used. If the sand particles are
very angular, then it is suggested that the amount of
coarse aggregate should be decreased by up to 4 percent
from the values in the table. Such adjustments in the
proportion of coarse aggregate and sand have been in-
tended to produce concretes of equivalent workability,
although such changes will alter the water demand for a
given slump. When more or less water is needed in a
given volume of concrete, to preserve the same consis-
tency of paste, it is also necessary to adjust the amount
of cement or cementitious materials if a given water-
cement ratio is to be maintained.
Another possible expedient in the proportioning of
coarse aggregates for high-strength concrete is to alter
 HIGH STRENGTH CONCRETE
Table 3.1-Volume of coarse aggregate per unit of
volume of concrete*
I Volume of dry-rodded
coarse aggregate’
per unit volume of concrete for
different fineness moduli of sand
*Table 3.1 Taken from ACI 211.1.
+Volumes are based on aggregates in dry-rodded condition as described in
ASTM C 29 for Unit Weight of Aggregate.
These volumes are selected from empirical relationships to produce concrete
with a degree of workability suitable for usual reinforced construction. For less
workable concrete such as required for concrete pavement construction, they
may be increased about 10 percent. For more workable concrete see Section
5.3.6.1.
the amount of these aggregates passing certain sieve sixes
from the amounts shown in ASTM C 33. This method is
described in Reference 3.24 and 3.25 as a means of
avoiding “particle interference,” thus permitting a greater
amount of coarse aggregate and less total sand. This has
helped to reduce the paste requirements or permit the
use of a more viscous paste, resulting in a higher
strength.
3.6.3 Proportioning aggregates-The amounts of coarse
aggregate suggested in Table 3.1 (which is Table 5.3.6 of
ACI 211.1) are recommended for initial proportioning.
Considerations should be given to the properties of the
sand (FM, angularity, etc.) which may alter the quantity
of coarse aggregate. In general, the least sand consistent
with necessary workability has given the best strengths for
a given paste. Mechanical tools for handling and placing
concrete have helped to decrease the proportion of sand
needed. As previously stated, the use of the smaller sixes
of coarse aggregate are generally beneficial, and crushed
aggregates seem to bond best to the cementitious paste.
3.7-Proportioning with admixtures
Nearly all high-strength concretes have contained ad-
mixtures. Changes in the quantities and combinations of
these admixtures affect the plastic and hardened proper-
ties of high-strength concrete. Therefore, special at-
tention has been given to the effects of these admixtures
(described in Sections 2.3 and 2.4). Careful adjustments
to mix proportions have been made when changes in ad-
mixture quantities or combinations have been made. Ma-
terial characteristics have varied extensively, making
experimentation with the candidate materials necessary.
Some of the more common adjustments are described in
Sections 3.7.1 and 3.7.2.
3.7.1 Pozzolanic admixtures- Pozzolanic admixtures are
often used as a cement replacement. In high-strength
concretes they have been used to supplement the port-
land cement from 10 to 40 percent by weight of the ce-
363R-13
ment content. In those cases where a net increase in the
absolute volume of the cementitious materials was exper-
ienced due to the addition of a pozzolan, a correspond-
ing decrease in the absolute volume of the sand was usu-
ally made.
The use of fly ash has often caused a slight reduction
in the water demand of the mixture, and that reduction
in the volume of water (if any) has been compensated for
by the addition of sand. The opposite relationship has
been found to be true for other pozzolans. Silica fume,
for example, dramatically increases the water demand of
the mixture which has made the use of retarding and
superplasticizing admixtures a requirement. Proprietary
products containing silica fume include carefully balanced
chemical admixtures as wel13.14
3.7.2 Chemical admixtures
3.7.2.1 Conventional water-reducers and retarders-
The amount of these admixtures used in high-strength
concrete mixtures has varied depending upon the parti-
cular admixture and application. Generally speaking, the
tendency has been to use larger than normal or maxi-
mum quantities of these admixtures. Typical water re-
ductions of 5 to 8 percent may be increased to 10 per-
cent. Corresponding increases in sand content have been
made to compensate for the loss of volume due to the
reduction of water in the mixture.
3.7.3.2 Superplasticizers or high-range water-reducing
admixtures-Adjustments to high-strength concrete made
with high-range water reducers have been similar to
those adjustments made when conventional water re-
ducers are used. These adjustments have typically been
larger due to the larger amount of water reduction, ap-
proximately 12 to 25 percent. Corresponding increases in
sand content have been made to compensate for the loss
of volume from reduction of water in the mixture.
Some designers have simply added high-range water
reducers to existing mixtures without any adjustments to
the mix proportions to improve the workability of that
concrete.
Sometimes cement or cementitious content has been
reduced for reasons of economy or to achieve a reduc-
tion of the heat of hydration. Usually, however, in
high-strength concretes high-range water reducers are
used to lower the water-cementitious ratio. These ad-
mixtures have been effective enough to both lower the
water-cementitious ratio and increase the slump. Due the
relatively large quantity of liquid that has been added to
the mixture in the form of superplasticizing admixture,
the weight of these admixtures has sometimes been in-
cluded in the calculation of the water-cementitious ratio.
3.7.2.3 Air-entraining agents- Although sometimes
required, air-entraining agents have been found to be
very undesirable in high-strength concretes due the dra-
matic decrease in compressive strength which occurs
when these admixtures are used. Modifications to lower
the water-cementitious ratio and adjust the yield of the
concrete by reduction of sand content have been made.
Larger dosage rates of air-entraining admixture have
363R-14 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT
been found to be required in high-strength concretes,
especially in very rich low-slump mixtures and mixtures
containing large quantities of some fly ashes.
3.7.2.4 Combinations- Most but not all high-
strength concretes have contained both mineral and
chemical admixtures. It has been common for these mix-
tures to contain combinations of chemical admixtures as
well. High-range water reducers have performed better
in high-strength concretes when used in combination with
conventional water reducers or retarders. This is because
of the reduced rate of slump loss experienced. It is not
unusual for portland-pozzolan high-strength concretes to
contain both a conventional and high-range water
reducer.
3.8-Workability
Workability is defined in ACI 116R “Cement and Con-
crete Terminology” as “that property of freshly mixed
concrete . . . which determines the ease and homogeneity
with which it can be mixed, placed, compacted, and
finished.”
3.8.1 Slump- ASTM C 143 describes a standard test
method for the slump of portland cement concrete which
has been used to quantify the consistency of plastic, co-
hesive concretes. This test method has not usually been
considered applicable to ultra-low and ultra-high slump
concretes. Other test methods such as the Vebe consist-
ometer have been used with very stiff mixes and may be
a better aid in proportioning some high-strength con-
cretes.
High-strength concrete performance demands a dense,
void-free mass with full contact with reinforcing steel.
Slumps should reflect this need and provide a workable
mixture, easy to vibrate, and mobile enough to pass
through closely placed reinforcement. Normally a slump
of 4 in. (102 mm) will provide the required workability;
however, details of forms and reinforcing bar spacing
should be considered prior to development of mix de-
signs. Slumps of less than 3 in. (76 mm) have made
special consolidation equipment and procedures a
necessity.
Without uniform placement, structural integrity may
be compromised High-strength mixes tend to lose slump
more rapidly than lower-strength concrete. If slump is to
be used as a field control, testing should be done at a
prescribed time after mixing. Concrete should be dis-
charged before the mixture becomes unworkable.
3.8.2 Placeability-- High-strength concrete, often
designed with % in. (12 mm) top size aggregate and with
a high cementitious content, is inherently placeable pro-
vided attention is given to optimizing the ratio of sand to
coarse aggregate. Local material characteristics have a
marked effect on proportions. Cement fineness and par-
ticle size distribution influence the character of the
mixture. Admixtures have been found to improve the
placeability of the mixture.
Placeability has been evaluated in mock-up forms
prior to final approval of the mix proportions. At that
time placement procedures, vibration techniques, and
scheduling have been established since they greatly affect
the end product and will influence the apparent place-
ability of the mixture.
3.8.3 Flow properties and stickiness-Slumps needed for
almost any flow can be designed for the concrete; how-
ever, full attention must be given to aggregate selection
and proportioning to achieve the optimum slump. Elon-
gated aggregate particles and poorly graded coarse and
fine aggregates are examples of characteristics that have
affected flow and caused higher water content for place-
ability with attendant strength reduction.
Stickiness is inherent in high-fineness mixtures re-
quired for high strengths. Certain cements or cement-
pozzolan or cement-admixture combinations have been
found to cause undue stickiness that impairs flowability.
The cementitious content of the mixture normally has
been the minimum quantity required for strength devel-
opment combined with the maximum quantity of coarse
aggregate within the requirements for workability.
Mixtures that were designed properly but appear to
change in character and become more sticky can be con-
sidered suspect and quickly checked for proportions, pos-
sible false setting of cement, undesirable air entrainment,
or other changes. A change in the character of a high-
strength mixture could be a warning sign for quality con-
trol and, while a subjective judgment, may sometimes be
more important than quantitative parameters.
3.9- Trial batches
Frequently the development of a high-strength con-
crete pro ram has required a large number of trial
batches. 3.2,3.10 In addition to laboratory trial batches,
field-sized trial batches have been used to simulate typ-
ical production conditions. Care should be taken that all
material samples are taken from bulk production and are
typical of the materials which will be used in the work.
To avoid accidental testing bias, some researchers have
sequenced trial mixtures in a randomized order.
3.9.1 Laboratory trial batch investigations- Laboratory
trial batches have been prepared to achieve several goals.
They should be prepared according to “Standard Method
of Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens in the
Laboratory” (ASTM C 192). However, whenever possible,
timing, handling, and environmental conditions similar to
those which are likely to be encountered in the field
should be approximated.
Selection of material sources has been facilitated by
comparative testing, with all variables except the can-
didate materials being held constant. In nearly every
case, particular combinations of materials have proven to
be best. By testing for optimum quantities of optimum
materials, the investigator is most likely to define the best
combination and proportions of materials to be used.
Once a promising mixture has been established, fur-
ther laboratory trial batches may be required to quantify
the characteristics of those mixtures. Strength charac-
teristics at various test ages may be defined. Water

demand, rate of slump loss, amount of bleeding, seg-
regation, and setting time can be evaluated. The unit
weight of the mixture should be defined and has been
used as a valuable quality control tool. Structural
considerations such as shrinkage and elasticity may also
be determined. While degrees of workability and
placeability may be difficult to define, at least a
subjective evaluation should be attempted.
3.9.2 Field-production trial batches- Once a desirable
mixture has been formulated in the laboratory, field
testing with production-sized batches is recommended.
Quite often laboratory trial batches have exhibited a
strength level significantly higher than that which can be
reasonably achieved in production as shown in Fig. 3.3 3.2
Actual field water demand, and therefore concrete yield,
has varied from laboratory design significantly. Ambient
temperatures and weather conditions have affected the
performance of the concrete. Practicality of production
and of quality control procedures have been better eval-
uated when production-sized trial batches were prepared
using the equipment and personnel that were to be used
in the actual work.
3.10-Cited references
(See also Chapter l0-References)
3.1. Proportioning Concrete Mixes, SP-46, American
Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1974, 240 pp.
3.2. Blick, Ronald L.; Petersen, Charles F.; and
Winter, Michael E., “Proportioning and Controlling High
Strength Concrete,” Proportioning Concrete Mixes, SP-46,
American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1974, p. 149.
3.3. Kennedy, T.B., “Making and Curing Concrete
Specimens,” Significance of Tests and Properties of
Concrete and Concrete-Making Materials, STP-169A,
American Society for Testing and Materials, Phila-
delphia, 1966, pp. 90-101.
3.4. Price, Waller H., “Factors Influencing Concrete
Strength,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 47, No. 6, Feb.
1951, pp. 417-432.
3.5. Hester, Weston T., “Testing High Strength Con-
cretes: A Critical Review of the State of the Art,”
Concrete International Design & Construction, V. 2, No.
12, Dec. 1980, pp. 27-38.
3.6. Gaynor, Richard D., “Mix Design Submission
Under ACI 318 and ACI 301--(or Which Test Record
Should I Use?),” NRMCA Technical Information Letter
No. 372, National Ready Mixed Concrete Association,
Silver Spring, May 8, 1980, 7 pp.
3.7. Schmidt, William, and Hoffman, Edward J., “9000
psi Concrete-Why? Why Not?,” Civil Engineering-
ASCE, V. 45, No. 5, May 1975, pp. 52-55.
3.8. Gaynor, Richard D., “An Outline on High
Strength Concrete,” Publication No. 152, National Ready
Mixed Concrete Association, Silver Spring, May 1975, pp.
3, 4, and 10.
3.9. Accelerated Strength Testing, SP-56, American
Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1978, 328 pp.
3.10. Cook, James E., “A Ready-Mixed Concrete
TH CONCRETE 363R-15
Company’s Experience with Class C Fly Ash,” Publication
No. 163, National Ready-Mixed Concrete Association,
Silver Spring, Apr. 1981, 11 pp.
3.11. Hester, Weston, T., and Leming, M., “Use of
Superplasticizing Admixtures in Precast, Prestressed
Concrete Operations.”
3.12. “High Strength Concrete,” National Crushed
Stone Association, Washington, D.C., Jan. 1975, 16 pp.
3.13. Peters, Donald J., “Evaluation of Cement
Variability-The First Step,” Publication No. 161,
National Ready Mixed Concrete Association, Silver
Spring, Apr. 1980, 9 pp.
3.14. Wolsiefer, John, “Ultra High-Strength Field
Placeable Concrete with Silica Fume Admixture,” Con-
crete International: Design & Construction, V. 6, No. 4,
Apr. 1984, pp. 25-31.
3.15. Perenchio, William F., and Khieger, Paul, “Some
Physical Properties of High Strength Concrete,” Research
and Development Bulletin No. RD056.01T, Portland
Cement Association, Skokie, 1978, 7 pp.
3.16. Freedman, Sydney, “High-Strength Concrete,
Modern Concrete, V. 34, No. 6, Oct. 1970, pp. 29-36; No.
7, Nov. 1970, pp. 28-32; No. 8, Dec. 1970, pp. 21-24; No.
9, Jan. 1971, pp. 15-22; and No. 10, Feb. 1971, pp. 16-23.
Also, Publication No. IS176T, Portland Cement Associa-
tion.
3.17. Neville, A.M., Properties of Concrete, 3rd Edition,
Pitman Publishing Limited, London, 1981, 779 pp.
3.18. Bickley, John A, and Payne, John C., “High
Strength Cast-in-Place Concrete in Major Structures in
Ontario,” paper presented at the ACI Annual Conven-
tion, Milwaukee, Mar. 1979.
3.19. Shideler, J.J., “Lightweight-Aggregate Concrete
for Structural Use, ACI JOURNAL , Proceedings V. 54, No.
4, Oct. 1957, pp. 299-328.
3.20. Holm, T.A., “Physical Properties of High
Strength Lightweight Aggregate Concretes,” Proceedings,
2nd International Congress on Lightweight Concrete
(London, Apr. 1980), Ci8O, Construction Press,
Lancaster, 1980, pp. 187-204.
3.21. Mather, Katharine, “High Strength, High Density
Concrete,” ACI JOURNAL , Proceedings V. 62, No. 8, Aug.
1965, pp. 951-962. Also, Technical Report No. 6-635, U.S.
Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station.
3.22. Bloem, Delmar L., and Gaynor, Richard D.,
“Effects of Aggregate Properties on Strength of Con-
crete,” ACI JOURNAL , Proceedings V. 60, No. 10, Oct.
1963, pp. 1429-1456.
3.23. Tobin, Robert E., “Flow Cone Sand Tests,” ACI
JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 75, No. 1, Jan. 1978, pp. l-12.
3.24. Ehrenburg, D.O., “An Analytical Approach to
Gap-Graded Concrete,” Cement, Concrete, and Aggregates,
V. 2, No. 1, Summer 1980, pp. 39-42.
3.25. Tuthill, Lewis H., “Better Grading of Concrete
Aggregates,” Concrete International Design & Construc-
tion, V. 2, No. 12, Dec. 1980, pp. 49-51.
3.26. Gaynor, Richard D., “High Strength Air-En-
trained Concrete,” Joint Research Laboratory Publication
363R-16 ACI COMMlTTEE REPORT
No. 17, National Sand and Gravel Association/National
Ready Mixed Concrete Association, Silver Spring, Mar.
1968, 19 pp.
CHAPTER 4- BATCHING, MIXING,
TRANSPORTING, PLACING, CURING,
AND CONTROL PROCEDURES
4.1-Introduction
The batching, mixing, transporting, placing, and con-
trol procedures for high-strength concrete are not dif-
ferent in principle from those procedures used for con-
ventional concrete. Thus ACI 304 can be followed. Some
changes, some refinements, and some emphasis on criti-
cal points are necessary. Maintaining the unit water con-
tent as low as possible, consistent with placing require-
ments, is good practice for all concrete; for high-strength
concrete it is critical. Since the production of high-
strength concrete will normally involve the use of rela-
tively large unit cement contents with resulting greater
heat generation, some of the recommendations given in
Chapter 3 on Production and Delivery and Chapter 4 on
Placing and Curing in ACI 305R, “Hot Weather Con-
creting,” may also be applicable.
In addition, the production and testing of high-
strength concrete requires well-qualified concrete pro-
ducers and testing laboratories, respectively.
4.2 - Batching
4.2.1 Control, handling and storage of materials- The
control, handling, and storage of materials need not be
substantially different from the procedures used for con-
ventional concrete as outlined in ACI 304. Proper stock-
piling of aggregates, uniformity of moisture in the
batching process, and good sampling practice are essen-
tial. It may be prudent to place a maximum limit of 170
F (77 C) on the temperature of the cement as batched in
warm weather and 150 F (66 C) in hot weather. Where
possible, batching facilities should be located at or near
the job site to reduce haul time.
The temperature of all ingredients should be kept as
low as possible prior to batching. Delivery time should be
reduced to a minimum and special attention paid to
scheduling and placing to avoid having trucks wait to
unload.
4.2.2 Measuring and weighing- Materials for produc-
tion of high-strength concrete may be batched in manual,
semiautomatic, or automatic plants. However, since
speed and accuracy are required, ACI 304 recommends
that cements and pozzolans be weighed with automatic
equipment. Automatic weigh batchers or meters are re-
commended for water measurement. To maintain the
proper water-cement ratios necessary to secure high-
strength concrete, accurate moisture determination in the
fine aggregate is essential. A combination of warm
weather and high cement content often requires the
cooling of mixing water. ACI 305R notes that the use of
cold miring water effects a moderate reduction in con-
crete placing temperature. The use of ice is more effec-
tive than cold water; however, this will require ice
making or chipping equipment at the batch plant.
4.2.3 Charging of materials-Batching procedures have
important effects on the ease of producing thoroughly
mixed uniform concrete in both stationary and truck
mixers. The uniformity of concrete mixed in central
mixers is generally enhanced by ribbon loading the aggre-
gate, cement, and water simultaneously. However, if
truck mixers are being used, ribbon loading will prevent
delayed miring, which is sometimes used to prevent hy-
dration of the cement during long hauls. This procedure
involves stopping the mixer drum after aggregates and
three-quarters of the water are charged and before the
cement is loaded and not starting the drum again until
the job site is reached. Slump loss problems may thus be
minimized. High-range water-reducing admixtures are
another consideration. These admixtures are very likely
to be used in the production of high-strength concrete.
According to the guidelines in the Canadian Standards
Association’s Preliminary Standard A 266.5-M 1981, tests
have shown that high-range water-reducing admixtures
are most effective and produce the most consistent
results when added at the end of the mixing cycle after
all other ingredients have been introduced and tho-
roughly mired. If there is evidence of improper mixing
and nonuniform slump during discharge, procedures used
to charge truck and central mixers should be modified to
insure uniformity of mixing as required by ASTM C 94.
4.3- Mixing
High-strength concrete may be mixed entirely at the
batch plant, in a central or truck mixer, or by a combin-
ation of the two. In general, mixing follows the recom-
mendations of ACI 304. Experience and tests 4.0,4.2 and
standards documents of the Concrete Plant Manufactur-
ers Bureau have indicated that high-strength concrete can
be mired in all common types of mixers.4.3,4.4,4.5 It may
prove beneficial to reduce the batch size below the rated
capacity to insure more efficient mixing.
4.3.2 Mixer performance- The performance of mixers
is usually determined by a series of uniformity tests
(ASTM C 94) made on samples taken from two to three
locations within the concrete batch being mixed for a
given time period.4.6 Some work 4.2,4.7 has indicated that
due to the relatively low water content and high cement
content and the usual absence of large coarse aggregate,
the efficient mixing of high-strength concrete is more
difficult than conventional concrete. Special precautions
or procedures may by required. Thus, it becomes more
important for the supplier of high-strength concrete to
check mixer performance and efficiency prior to produc-
tion mixing.
4.3.3 Mixing time- The mixing time required is based
upon the ability of the central mixer to produce uniform
concrete both within a batch and between batches. Man-
ufacturers’ recommendations, ACI 304, and usual specifi-
 HIGH STRENGTH CONCRETE
cations, such as 1 min for 1 yd 3(0.75 m3) plus ‘/4 min for
each additional yd 3of capacity, are used as satisfactory
guides for establishing mixing time. Otherwise, mixing
times can be based on the results of mixer performance
tests. The mixing time is measured from the time all in-
gredients are in the mixer. Prolonged miring may cause
moisture loss and result in lower workability,4.8 which in
turn may require retempering to restore slump, thereby
reducing strength potential.
4.3.4 Ready-mixed concrete-High strength concrete
may be mixed at the job in a truck mixer. However, not
all truck mixers can mix high-strength concrete, especially
if the concrete has very low slump. Close job control is
essential for high-strength ready-mixed concrete opera-
tions to avoid causing trucks to wait at the job site due to
slow placing operations. (Note Section 4.7.) Retarding
admixtures are used to prolong the time the concrete will
respond to vibration after it has been placed in the
forms. Withholding some of the mixing water until the
truck arrives at the job site is sometimes desirable. Then
after adding the remaining required water, an additional
30 revolutions at mixing speed are used to incorporate
the additional water into the mixture adequately. (See
ACI 304.) When loss of slump or workability cannot be
offset by these measures, complete batching and miring
can be conducted at the job site. If a high-range water-
reducer is added at the site, a truck mounted dispenser
or an electronic field dispenser is usually required.
4.4-Transporting
4.4.1 General considerations- High-strength concrete
can be transported by a variety of methods and equip-
ment, such as truck mixers, stationary truck bodies with
and without agitators, pipeline or hose, or conveyor belts.
Each type of transportation has specific advantages and
disadvantages depending on the conditions of use, mix-
ture ingredients, accessibility and location of placing site,
required capacity and time for delivery, and weather con-
ditions.
4.4.2 Truck-mixed concrete- Truck miring is a process
in which proportioned concrete materials from a batch
plant are transferred into the truck mixer where all
mixing is performed. The truck is then used to transport
the concrete to the job site. Sometimes dry materials are
transported to the job site in the truck drum with the
miring water carried in a separate tank mounted on the
truck. Water is added and mixing is completed. This
method, which evolved as a solution to long hauls and
placing delays, is adaptable to the production of high-
strength concrete where it is desirable to retain the
workability as long as possible. However, free moisture in
the aggregates, which is part of the mixing water, may
cause some cement hydration.
4.4.3 Stationary truck body with and without agitator-
Units used in this form of transportation usually consist
of an open-top body mounted on a truck. The smooth,
streamlined metal body is usually designed for discharge
of the concrete at the rear when the body is tilted. A
363R-17
discharge gate and vibrators mounted on the body are
provided at the point of discharge. An apparatus that
ribbons and blends the concrete as it is unloaded is
desirable. However, water is not added to the truck body
because adequate mixing cannot be obtained with the
agitator.
4.4.4 Pumping- High-strength concrete will in many
cases be very suitable for pumping. Pumps are available
that can handle low-slump mixtures and provide high
pumping pressure. High-strength concrete is likely to
have a high cement content and small maximum size ag-
gregate--both factors which facilitate concrete pumping.
Chapter 9 of ACI 304 provides guidance for the use of
pumps for transporting high-strength concrete. In the
field, the pump should be located as near to the placing
areas as practicable. Pump lines should be laid out with
a minimum of bends, firmly supported, using alternate
lines and flexible pipe or hose to permit placing over a
large area directly into the forms without rehandling.
Direct communication is essential between the pump op-
erator and the concrete placing crew. Continuous pump-
ing is desirable because if the pump is stopped, move-
ment of the concrete in the line may be difficult or
impossible to start again.
4.4.5 Belt conveyor- Use of belt conveyors to trans-
port concrete has become established in concrete con-
struction. Guidance for use of conveyors is given in ACI
304.4R. The conveyors must be adequately supported to
obtain smooth, nonvibrating travel along the belt. The
angle of incline or decline must be controlled to elim-
inate the tendency for coarse aggregate to segregate from
the mortar fraction. Since the practical slump range for
belt transport of concrete is 1 to 4 in. (25 to 100 mm),
belts may be used to move high-strength concrete only
for relatively short distances of 200 to 300 ft (60 to
90 m). Over longer distances or extended time lapses,
there will be loss of slump and workability.4.9 Enclosures
or covers are used for conveyors when protection against
rain, wind, sun, or extreme ambient temperatures is
needed to prevent significant changes in the slump or
temperature of the concrete. As with other methods of
transport for high-strength concrete, proper planning,
timing, and control are essential.
4.5-Placing procedures
4.5.1 Preparations- Preparations for placing high-
strength concrete should include recognition at the start
of the work that certain abnormal conditions will exist
which will require some items of preparation that cannot
be provided readily the last minute before concrete is
placed. Since workability time is expected to be reduced,
preparation must be made to transport, place, consoli-
date, and finish the concrete at the fastest possible rate.
This means, first, delivery of concrete to the job site must
be scheduled so it will be placed promptly on arrival, par-
ticularly the first batch. Equipment for placing the con-
crete must have adequate capacity to perform its func-
tions efficiently so there will be no delays at distance
363R-18 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT
portions of the work. There should be ample vibration
equipment and manpower to consolidate the concrete
quickly after placement in difficult areas. All equipment
should be in the first class operating condition. Break-
downs or delays that stop or slow the placement can ser-
iously affect the quality of the work. Due to more rapid
slump loss, the strain on vibrating equipment will be
greater. Accordingly, provision should be made for an
ample number of standby vibrators, at least one standby
for each three vibrators in use. A high-strength concrete
placing operation is in serious trouble, especially in hot
weather, when vibration equipment fails and the standby
equipment is inadequate.
4.5.3 Equipment- A basic requirement for placing
equipment is that the quality of the concrete, in terms of
water-cement ratio, slump, air content, and homogeneity,
must be preserved. Selection of equipment should be
based on its capability for efficiently handling concrete of
the most advantageous proportions that can be consoli-
dated readily in place with vibration. Concrete should be
deposited at or near its final position in the placement.
Buggies, chutes, buckets, hoppers, or other means may be
used to move the concrete as required. Bottom-dump
buckets are particularly useful however, side slopes must
be very steep to prevent blockages. High-strength con-
crete should not be allowed to remain in buckets for
extended periods of time, as the delay will cause sticking
and difficulty in discharging.
4.5.3 Consolidation- Proper internal vibration is the
most effective method of consolidating high-strength con-
crete. The advantages of vibration in the placement of
concrete are well established. The provisions of ACI 309
must be followed. Hi h-strength concrete can be very”
sticky" material. 4.1,4.10 indeed, effective consolidation
procedures may well start with mix proportioning. Coarse
sands have been found to provide the best workability.4.10
The im ortance of full compaction cannot be overstated.
Davies 4.11 has shown that up to 5 percent loss in strength
may be sustained from each 1 percent void space in con-
crete. Thus, vibration almost to the point of excess may
be required for high-strength concrete to achieve its full
potential.
4.5.4 Special considerations- Where different strength
concretes are being used within or between different
structural members, special placing considerations are
required. To avoid confusion and error in concrete place-
ment in columns, it is recommended that, where practi-
cal, all columns and shearwalls in any given story be
placed with the same strength concrete. For formwork
economy, no changes in column size in the typical high-
rise buildings are recommended.4.12 In areas where two
different concretes are being used in column and floor
construction, it is important that the high-strength con-
crete in and around the column be placed before the
floor concrete. With this procedure, if an unforeseen cold
joint forms between the two concretes, shear strength will
still be available at the column interface.4.13
4.6-Curing
4.5.1 Need for curing- Curing is the process of main-
taining a satisfactory moisture content and a favorable
temperature in concrete during the hydration period of
the cementitious materials so that desired properties of
the concrete can be developed. Curing is essential in the
production of quality concrete; it is critical to the pro-
duction of high-strength concrete. The potential strength
and durability of concrete will be fully developed only if
it is properly cured for an adequate period prior to being
placed in service. Also, high-strength concrete should be
water cured at an early age since partial hydration may
make the capillaries discontinuous. On renewal of curing,
water would not be able to enter the interior of the con-
crete and further hydration would be arrested.4.14
4.5.3 Type of curing- Water curing of high-strength
concrete is highly recommended4.14 due to the low water-
cement ratios employed. At water-cement ratios below
0.4, the ultimate degree of hydration is significantly
reduced if free water is not provided. Water curing will
allow more efficient, although not complete, hydration of
the cement. Klieger4.15 reported that for low water-
cement ratio concretes it is more advantageous to supply
additional water during curing than is the case with
higher water-cement ratio concretes. For concretes with
water-cement ratio of 0.29, the strength of specimens
made with saturated aggregates and cured by ponding
water on top of the specimen was 850 to 1000 psi (5.9 to
6.9 M Pa) greater at 28 days than that of comparable
specimens made with dry aggregates and cured under
damp burlap. He also noted that although early strength
is increased by elevated temperatures of mixing and
curing, later strengths are reduced by such temperatures.
However, work by Pfieffer 4.16 has shown that later
strengths may have only minor reductions if the heat is
not applied until after time of set. Others 4.1,4.17 have
reported that moist curing for 28 days and thereafter in
air was highly beneficial in securing high-strength con-
crete at 90 days.
4.5.3 Methods of curing- As pointed out in ACI 308,
the most thorough but seldom used method of water
curing consists of total immersion of the finished con-
crete unit in water. “Ponding” or immersion is an excel-
lent method wherever a pond of water can be created by
a ridge or dike of impervious earth or other material at
the edge of the structure. Fog spraying or sprinkling with
nozzles or sprays provides satisfactory curing when im-
mersion is not feasible. Lawn sprinklers are effective
where water runoff is of no concern. Intermittent
sprinkling is not acceptable if drying of the concrete
surface occurs. Soaker hoses are useful, especially on
surfaces that are vertical. Burlap, cotton mats, rugs, and
other coverings of absorbent materials will hold water on
the surface, whether horizontal or vertical. Liquid mem-
brane-forming curing compounds retain the original
moisture in the concrete but do not provide additional
moisture.
 HIGH STRENGTH CONCRETE 363R-19

4.7-- Quality assurance mum elapsed time of 11/2 hr after the cement has entered
4.7.1 Materials- Once the high-strength concrete mix- the drum until completion of discharge is frequently spe-
ture has been proportioned, the concrete supplier or cified (See ASTM C 94). Reduction to 45 minutes may
sampling and testing program is recommended to assure be necessary under hot weather conditions or where
the physical properties required. The use of ASTM severe slump loss is experienced. For extreme job tem-
Standard Method for Evaluation of Cement Strength peratures, field production trial batches are often made.
Uniformity from a Single Source (ASTM C 917) with ap-
propriate limits will provide the proper basis for such 4.8-Quality control procedures
uniformity. It is desirable that the aggregates and ad- 4.8.1 Criteria- The first consideration for selecting
mixtures specified in the mixture be uniform and come quality control procedures is determining that the dis-
from the same source for the duration of the project. tribution of the compressive strength test results follows
4.7.2 Control of operations4.10- Effective coordination a normal distribution curve. It has been suggested4.18 that
and control procedures between the supplier and the a skew distribution may prevail due to the mean ap-
contractor are critical to the operations. The supplier proaching a limit. This may be the case for very-high-
normally has full control of high-strength concrete until strength concrete, 15,000 psi (103 MPa) or higher. How-
it is placed in the forms. Control of the slump, time on ever available data4.19,4.20 indicate that in the range of
job, mixing, and mixture adjustments is under the juris- 6000; to 10,000 psi (41 to 69 MPa) normal distribution is
diction of the supplier. The contractor must be prepared achieved. Thus ACI 214 will normally be a convenient
to handle, place, and consolidate the concrete promptly tool for quality control procedures for high-strength
as received. Cement hydration, temperature rise, slump concrete. Another point which needs consideration both
loss, and aggregate grinding during mixing all increase in the quality control and the design phase is the ques-
with passage of time; thus it is important that the period tion of the age at the time of testing for acceptance for
between initial mixing and delivery be kept to an abso- high-strength concrete. Compressive strength tests show
lute minimum. The dispatching of trucks is coordinated that a considerable strength gain may be achieved after
with the rate of placement to avoid delays in delivery. 28 days in high-strength concrete. To take advantage of
When elapsed time from batching to placement is so long this fact, several investigators 4.10,4.13,4.20 have suggested
as to result in significant increases in mixing water that the specification for compressive strength should be
demand, or in slump loss, mixing in the trucks is delayed modified from the typical 28-day criterion to either 56 or
until only sufficient time remains to accomplish mixing 90 days. This extension of test age would then allow, for
before the concrete is placed. example, the use of 7000 psi (48 MPa) concrete at 56
4.7.3 Communication equipment- Equipment for direct days in lieu of 6000 psi (41 MPa) at 28 days for design
communication between the supply and placement loca- purposes. In this case the same mixture could be used to
tions for use by the inspection force is essential. The meet this criterion. High-strength concrete is generally
need for other equipment such as signaling and identi- used in high-rise structures; therefore, the extension of
fying devices depends on the complexity of the project the time for compressive strength test results is reason-
and the number of different concrete mixtures employed. able since the lower portion of the structure will not
The project engineer will normally advise the contractor attain full dead load for periods up to one year and
of the equipment that is necessary and require him to longer.
present plans or descriptions of the equipment for review 4.8.2 Method of evaluation - To satisfy strength perfor-
well in advance of the start of placement. mance requirements, the average strength of concrete
4.7.4 Laboratoy 4.10-- A competent concrete laboratory must be in excess of fc', the design strength. The amount
must be available for testing the concrete delivered to the of excess strength depends on the expected variability of
job site. This laboratory should be inspected regularly by test results as expressed by a coefficient of variation or
the Cement and Concrete Reference Laboratory (CCRL) standard deviation and on the allowable proportion of
and conform to the requirements of ASTM E 329. A low tests. Available information4.14,4.19,4.20 indicates that
minimum of one set of cylinders is normally made for the standard deviation for high-strength concrete be-
each 100 yd 3 (76 m3) of concrete placed, with at least comes uniform in the range of 500 to 700 psi (3.5 to 4.8
two cylinders cast for each test age; that is, 7, 28, 56, and MPa), and therefore, the coefficient of variation will
90 days. actually decrease as the average strength of the concrete
4.7.5 Contingency plans-Plans need to be developed increases. This, of course, may be the result of increased
to provide for alternate operations in case difficulty is vigilance and quality assurance on the part of the pro-
experienced in the basic placing concept. Backup equip- ducer. Thus, the method of quality control is closely re-
ment is essential, especially vibrators. Batch sixes are lated to the factors noted in Section 4.7. Assuming that
reduced if placing procedures are slowed. For truck- the producer will devote a reasonable effort to proper
mixed concrete, rush hour traffic delays can cause serious quality assurance measures, the standard deviation meth-
problems. It may be desirable to reduce the elapsed time od of evaluation appears to be a logical quality control
between contact of the cement and water (mixing and procedure. Consider, for example, that good quality con-
transporting), especially during warm weather. A maxi- trol may be expected on a job where an fc' of 10,000 psi
363R-20 ACI COMMlTTEE REPORT
(69 MPa) is required. A required average strength fc' of
only 11,000 psi (76 MPa) is thus required with a standard
deviation of 645 psi (4.4 MPa)
fCI’ = f,’+ 134s
= 10,000 + 1.34 x 645
= 10,864 psi (75 MPa) (4-la)
or
f,’ = f,’+ 2.33s - 500
= 10,000 + 2.33 x 645 - 500
= 11,000 psi (76 MPa) (4-lb)
s = standard deviation.
Of course, a close check of the field results and main-
tenance of records in the form of control charts or other
means are necessary to maintain the desired control.
Early-age control of concrete strength such as the accel-
erated curing and testing of compression test specimens
according to ASTM C 684 is often used, especially where
later-age (56 or 90 days) strength tests are the final ac-
ceptance criterion.
4.9 - Strength measurements
4.9.1 Conditions-since much of the interest in high-
strength concrete is limited to strength only in com-
pression, compressive strength measurements are of
primary concern in the testing of high-strength concrete.
Standard test methods of the American Society for Test-
ing and Materials (ASTM) are followed except where
changes are dictated by the peculiarities of the high-
strength concrete. The potential strength and variability
of the concrete can be established only by specimens
made, used, and tested under standard conditions. Then
standard control tests are necessary as a first step in the
control and evaluation of the mixture. Curing concrete
test specimens at the construction site and under job
conditions is sometimes recommended since this is con-
sidered more representative of the curing applied to the
structure. Tests of job-cured specimens may be highly
desirable and are necessary when determining the time
of form removal, particularly in cold weather, and when
establishing the rate of strength development of struc-
tural members. They should never be used for quality
control testing. Strength specimens of concrete made or
cured under other than standard conditions provide addi-
tional information but are analyzed and reported separ-
ately. ASTM C 684 requires that a minimum of two
cylinders be tested for each age and each test condition.
4.9.2 Specimen size and shape- ASTM standards speci-
fy a cylindrical specimen 6 in. (152 mm) in diameter and
12 in. (305 mm) long. This size specimen has evolved
over a period of time, apparently from practical con-
siderations. It is about the maximum weight one person
can handle with reasonable effort and is large enough to
be used for concrete containing 2 in. (50 mm) maximum
size aggregate and smaller, which encompasses the
majority of concrete being placed today. Designers gen-
erally assume 6 x 12 in. (152 x 305 mm) specimens as the
standard for measured strengths. Recently some 4 x 8 in.
(102 x 204 mm) cylinders have been used for determining
compressive strength. 4.18,4.19 However, 4 x 8 in. (102 x 204
mm) cylinders exhibit a higher strength and an increase
in variability compared to the standard 6 x 12 in. (152 x
305 mm) cylinder.4.23,4.24 Regardless of the specimen size,
as the compressive stress is transferred through the
loading platen-specimen interface, a complex, triaxial dis-
tribution of stresses in the specimen end may develop
which can radically alter the specimen failure mode and
affect results.
4.9.3 Testing apparatus- Testing machine character-
istics that may affect the measured compressive strength
include calibration accuracy, longitudinal and lateral
stiffness, stability, alignment of the machine components,
type of platens, and the behavior of the platen spherical
seating. Testing machines should meet the requirements
of ASTM C 39 when used for testing compressive
strength of cylindrical specimens. Overall testing machine
design including longitudinal and lateral stiffness and
machine stability will affect the behavior of the specimen
at its maximum load. The type of platens and behavior of
the spherical seating will affect the level of measured
compressive strength.4.23
Sigvaldason 4.25 recommended a minimum lateral stiff-
ness of 10 xl0 4 lb/in. (17.5 x l0 6 N/m), and a longi-
tudinal stiffness of 10 x l06 lb/in. (17.5 x l06 N/m). He
reported that a longitudinally “flexible” machine would
contribute to an explosive failure of the specimen at the
maximum stress, but that the actual stress achieved was
insensitive to machine flexibility. However, he also noted
that a machine which is longitudinally stiff but laterally
flexible deleteriously influences the measured compres-
sive strengths. Sigvaldason and Cole4.26 reported that use
of proper platen size and design is critical if strengths are
to be maximized and variations reduced. The upper
platen must have a spherical bearing block seating and be
able to rotate and achieve full contact with the specimen
under the initial load and perform in a fixed mode when
approaching the ultimate load. Cole demonstrated that
a testing machine with a spherical bearing block seating
(able to rotate under load) measured increasingly er-
roneous results for higher strength concretes, with
reductions as high as 16 percent for 10,000 psi (69 MPa)
cubes.
The diameters of the platen and spherical bearing
socket are critically important.4.23 Ideally, the platen and
spherical bearing block diameters should be approximate-
ly the same as the bearing surface of the specimen.
Bearing surfaces larger than the specimen will be re-
strained (due to size effects) against lateral expansion will
probably not expand as rapidly as the specimen, and will
consequently create confining stresses in the specimen
end. Bearing surfaces and spherical seating blocks smaller
in diameter than those of the specimen may result in
portions of the specimens remaining unloaded and bend-
 HIGH STRENGTH CONCRETE
ing of the platen around the socket with a consequent
nonuniform distribution of stresses.
4.9.4 Type of mold-- The choice of mold materials, and
specify construction of the mold regardless of the types
of material used, can have a significant effect on
measured compressive strengths. A given consolidation
effort is more effective with rigidly constructed molds,
and sealed waterproofed molds reduce leakage of mortar
paste and inhibit the dehydration of the concrete.
Blick 4.15 compared high-strength specimens cast in steel
and high-quality paper molds and reported that use of
the rigid steel molds increased strengths approximately 13
percent but that use of either mold material did not con-
sistently affect variability of the measured strengths.
Hester 4.7 evaluated a number of mold materials used
under actual field conditions. Measured compressive
strengths achieved with properly prepared specimens
were compared. Specimens cast in steel molds achieved
approximately 6 percent higher strengths but had a
slightly higher coefficient of variation compared to
specimens cast in tin molds. Specimens cast in steel
molds achieved approximately 16 percent higher strength
than specimens cast in plastic molds.
4.9.5 Specimen preparation- For many years concrete
technologists have recognized the need to cap or grind
the ends of cast concrete test specimens prior to testing
for compressive strength. The detrimental effects of non-
planeness, irregulari din and grease, etc., have been
well documented.4.23 For high-strength concrete the
strength of the cap, if used, is another consideration.
Troxell,4.27 Wemer, 4.28 and other have compared the rel-
ative merits of sulfur mortars, gypsum plaster, high-
alumina cements, and other capping materials. If the
compressive strength or modulus of elasticity of the
capping material is less than that of the specimen, loads
applied through the cap will not be transmitted uni-
formly.
Sulfur mortar is the most widely used capping mater-
ial. Most commercially available sulfur mortar capping
compounds are combinations of sulfur with inert minerals
and fillers and, when properly prepared, are economical,
convenient to apply, and develop a relatively high
strength in a short period of time. However, these mater-
ials are sensitive to the material formulations and
handling practices. Kennedy4.29 and Werner investigated
the effect of the thickness of sulfur mortar caps on com-
pressive strengths of moderate strength concretes. Cap
thicknesses in the range of 1/16 to ‘/s in. (1.5 to 3 mm)
are desirable for use on high-strength concrete. However,
caps consistently thinner than Ya in. (3 mm) are difficult
to obtain. Kennedy4.26 and Hester4.23 note that the prin-
cipal problems with thin caps are air voids at the spe-
cimen-cap interface and cracking of the specimen cap
under load. Caps with a thickness of ‘/ in. (6 mm) are
apparently satisfactory. Low-strength thick caps may
creep laterally under load and therefore contribute to
increased tensile stresses in the specimen ends and con-
sequently substantially reduce measured compressive
363R-21
strengths for the concrete specimen. Gaynor 4.30 and
Saucier 4.31 indicate that concrete strengths up to 10,000
psi (69 MPa) may be determined using high-strength cap-
ping materials, including sulfur mortar, which have
strengths in the range of 7000 to 8000 psi (50 to 60
MPa), if the cap thickness is maintained at approximately
l/4 in. (6 mm). For expected compressive strengths above
10,000 psi (69 MPa), the ends are usually formed or
ground to tolerance.4.29.4.30
4.10- Cited References
(See also Chapter l0-- References)
4.1. Saucier, K.L.; Tynes, W.O.; and Smith, E.F.,
“High-Compressive-Strength Concrete-Report 3, Sum-
mary Report,” Miscellaneous Paper No. 6-520, U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Sept. 1965, 87 pp.
4.2. Saucier, K.L., “Evaluation of Spiral-Blade Con-
crete Mixer, Shelbyville Reservoir Project, Shelbyville,
Illinois,” Miscellaneous Paper No. 6-975, U.S. Army
Engineer, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Mar. 1968, 17 pp.
4.3. Strehlow. Robert W., “Concrete Plant Production,”
Concrete Plant Manufacturers Bureau, Silver Spring,
1973, 112 pp.
4.4. “Concrete Plant Standards of the Concrete Plant
Manufacturers Bureau,” 7th Revision, Concrete Plant
Manufacturers Bureau, Silver Spring, Jan. 1, 1983, 11 pp.
4.5. “Concrete Plant Mixer Standards of the Plant
Mixer Manufacturers Division, Concrete Plant Manufac-
turers Bureau,” 5th Revision, Concrete Manufacturers
Bureau, Silver Spring, July 18, 1977, 4 pp.
4.6. Concrete Manual, 8th Edition, U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation, Denver, 1975. 627 pp.
4.7. Saucier, K.L., “Evaluation of a 16-cu-ft Laboratory
Concrete Mixer,” Miscellaneous Paper No. 6-692, U.S.
Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Section,
Vicksburg, Jan. 1965.
4.8. Bloem, Delmar L., “High-Energy Mixing,” Techni-
cal Information Letter No. 169. National Ready Mixed
Concrete Association, Silver Spring, Aug. 1961, pp. 3-8.
4.9. Saucier Kenneth L., “Use of Belt Conveyors to
Transport Mass Concrete,” Technical Report No. C-74-4,
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, 1974, 42 pp.
4.10. Blick, Ronald L., “Some Factors Influencing
High-Strength concrete,” Modern Concrete, V. 36, No. 12,
Apr. 1973, pp. 38-41.
4.11. Davies, R.D., “Some Experiments on the Com-
paction of Concrete by Vibration,” Magazine of Concrete
Research (London), V. 3, No. 8, Dec. 1951, pp. 71-78.
4.12. Schmidt, William, and Hoffman, Edward J.,
“9000-psi ConcreteWhy?-Why Not?,” Civil Engineering
-ASCE, V. 45, No. 5, May 1975, pp. 52-55.
4.13. “High-Strength Concrete in Chicago High-Rise
Buildings,” Task Force Report No. 5, Chicago Committee
on High-Rise Buildings, 1977, 63 pp.
4.14. Neville, A.M., Properties of Concrete, 2nd Edition,
363R-22 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT

John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1973, 686 pp. periment Station, Vicksburg, Apr. 1972, 51 pp.
4.15. Klieger. Paul, “Early High Strength Concrete for
Prestressing,” Proceedings, World Conference on Pre-
stressed Concrete, San Francisco, 1957, pp. A5-l-A5-14.
4.16. Pfieffer, D.W., and Ladgren, J.R., “Energy Ef- CHAPTER 5-PROPERTIES OF
ficient Accelerated Curing of Concrete-A Laboratory HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE
Study for Plant-Produced Prestressed Concrete,” Tech-
nical Report No. 1, Prestressed Concrete Institute, 5.1-Introduction
Chicago, Dec. 1981. Concrete properties such as stress-strain relationship,
4.17. Price, Walter H., “Factor Influencing Concrete modulus of elasticity, tensile strength, shear strength, and
Strength,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 47, No. 6, Feb bond strength are frequently expressed in terms of the
1951, pp. 417-432. uniaxial compressive strength of 6 x 12-m. (152 x 305-
4.18. Mather, Brant, “Stronger Concrete,” Highway mm) cylinders. Generally, the expressions have been
Research Record No. 210, Highway Research Board, 1967, based on experimental data of concrete with compressive
pp. l-28. strengths less than 6000 psi (41 MPa). Various properties
4.19. Day, K.W., “Quality Control of 55 MPa Concrete of high-strength concrete are reviewed in this chapter.
for Collins Place Project, Melbourne, Australia,” Concrete The applicability of current and proposed expressions for
International Design & Construction, V. 3, No. 3, Mar. predicting properties of high-strength concrete are
1981, pp. 17-24. examined.
4.20. Cook, James E., “Research and Application of
High-Strength Concrete Using Class C Fly Ash,” Concrete 5.2-Stress-strain behavior in uniaxial compression
International: Design & Construction, V. 4, No. 7, July Axial-stress versus strain curves for concrete of com-
1982, pp. 72-80. pressive strength up to 12,000 psi (83 MPa) are shown in
4.21. Fortie, Douglas A, and Schnoreier, P.E., “Four- Fig. 5.1. The shape of the ascending part of the stress-
by-Eight Test Cylinder Are Big Enough,” Concrete Con- strain curve is more linear and steeper for high-strength
struction, V. 24, No. 11, Nov. 1979, pp. 751-753. concrete, and the strain at the maximum stress is slightly
4.22. Wolsiefer, John, private communication with higher for high-strength concrete.5.5-5.6 The slope of the
ACI Committee 363, 1982. descending part becomes steeper for high-strength con-
4.23. Hester, Weston T., “Field Testing High-Strength crete. To obtain the descending part of the stress-strain
Concretes: A Critical Review of the State-of-the-Art,” curve, it is generally necessary to avoid the specimen-
Concrete International Design & Construction, V. 2, No. testing system interaction; this is more difficult to do for
12, Dec. 1980, pp. 27-38. high-strength concrete. 5.3,5.5,5.8
4.24. Carrasquillo, Ramon L.; Nilson, Arthur H.; and A simple method of obtaining a stable descending part
Slate, Floyd O., “Properties of High-Strength Concrete of the stress-strain curve is described in References 5.3
Subject to Short-Term Loads,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceed-
ings V. 78, No. 3, May-June 1981, pp. 171-178.
4.25. Sigvaldason, O.T., “The Influence of Testing
Machine Characteristics Upon the Cube and Cylinder
Strength of Concrete, Magazine of Concrete Research
(London), V. 18, No; 57, Dec. 1966, pp. 197-206.
4.26. Cole, D.G., “Some Mechanical Aspects of Com- Stress,
pression Testing Machines,” Magazine of Concrete ksi
Research (London), V. 19, No. 61, Dec. 1967, pp. 247-
251.
4.27. Troxell, G.E., “The Effect of Capping Methods
and End Conditions Before Capping Upon the Compres-
sive Strength of Concrete Test Cylinder,” Proceedings,
ASTM, V. 41, 1941, pp. 1038-1052.
4.28. Werner, George, “The Effect of Type of Capping
Material on the Compressive Strength of Concrete
Cylinder,” Proceedings, ASTM V. 58, 1958, pp. 1166-1186.
4.29. Holland, Terrence C., “Testing High Strength
Concrete,” Concrete Construction, June 1987, pp. 534-536.
4.30. Godfrey, K.A., Jr.,"Concrete Strength record Strain, percent
Jumps 36%,” Civil Engineering, Oct. 1987, pp. 84-88.
4.31. Saucier, K.L., “Effect of Method of Preparation
of Ends of Concrete Cylinders for Testing," Miscellaneous
Paper No. C-72-12, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Ex- Fig. 5.1 -Complete compressive stress-strain curves 5.I
 HIGH STRENGTH CONCRETE
and 5.7. Concrete cylinders were loaded in parallel with
a hardened steel tube with a thickness such that the total
load exerted by the testing machine was always increas-
ing. This approach can be employed with most conven-
tional testing machines. An alternate approach is to use
a closed-loop testing machine.‘.’ In a closed-loop testing
machine, specimens can be loaded so as to maintain a
constant rate of strain increase and avoid unstable
failure.
High-strength concrete exhibits less internal micro-
cracking than lower-strength concrete for a given im-
posed axial strain. 5.9 As a result, the relative increase in
lateral strains is less for high-strength concrete (Fig.
5.2).5.10 The lower relative lateral expansion during the
inelastic range may mean that the effects of triaxial
stresses will be proportionally different for high-strength
concrete. For example, the influence of hoop reinforce-
ment is observed to be different for high-strength con-
crete.5.11 It was reported that the effectiveness of spiral
reinforcement is less for high-strength concrete.5.11
Fig. 5.2-- Axial stress versus axial strain and lateral strain
5.10
for plain normal weight concrete
5.3-Modulus of elasticity
In 1934, Thoman and Raede 5.12 reported values for
the modulus of elasticity determined as the slope of the
tangent to the stress-strain curve in uniaxial compression
at 25 percent of maximum stress from 4.2 x l06 to 5.2 x
l06psi (29 to 36 GPa) for concretes having compressive
strengths ranging from 10,000 (69 MPa to 11,000 psi (76
MPa). Many other investigators5.4,5.13-5.18 have reported
values for the modulus of elasticity of high-strength con-
cretes of the order of 4.5 to 6.5 x l0 6 psi (31 to 45 GPa)
depending mostly on the method of determining the
modulus. A comparison 5-19of experimentally determined
values for the modulus of elasticity with those predicted
by the expression given in ACI 318, Section 8.5 for
lower-strength concrete, based on a dry unit weight of
145 lb/ft 3(2346 kg/m 3) is given in Fig. 5.3. The ACI 318
expression overestimates the modulus of elasticity for
concretes with compressive strengths over 6000 psi (41
MPa) for the data given in Fig. 5.3.
A correlation between the modulus of elasticity Ec and
the compressive strength fc' for normal weight concretes
363R-23
(see Fig. 5.3) was reported in Reference 5.19 as
= 40,000 K + 1.0 x l06 psi
Ec
for 3000 psi < f,’< 12,000 psi
(EC = 3320 &’ + 6900 M P a
for 21 MPa c<f,’ < 83 MPa) (5-l)
Other empirical equations for predicting elastic modu-
lus have been proposed.5.17,5.18 Deviation from predicted
values are highly dependent on the properties and pro-
portions of the coarse aggregate. For example, higher
values than predicted by Eq. (5-l) were reported by
Russell,5.20 Saucier,5.21 and Pfeiffer. 5.22
5.4-Poisson’s ratio
Experimental data on values of Poisson’s ratio for
high-strength concrete are very limited. Shideler5.23 and
Carrasquillo et al5.2 reported values for Poisson’s ratio of
lightweight-aggregate high-strength concrete having uni-
axial compressive strengths up to 10,570 psi (73 MPa) at
28 days to be 0.20 regardless of compressive strength,
age, and moisture content. Values determined by the dy-
namic method were slightly higher.
On the other hand, Perenchio and Klieger5.24 reported
values for Poisson’s ratio of normal weight high-strength
concretes with compressive strengths ranging from 8000
to 11,600 psi (55 to 80 MPa) between 0.20 and 0.28. They
concluded that Poisson’s ratio tends to decrease with in-
creasing water-cement ratio. Kaplan5.25 found values for
Poisson’s ratio of concrete determined using dynamic
measurements to be from 0.23 to 0.32 regardless of com-
pressive strength, coarse aggregate, and test age for con-
cretes having compressive strengths ranging from 2500 to
11,500 psi (17 to 79 MPa).
Based on the available information, Poisson’s ratio of
high-strength concrete in the elastic range seems compar-
able to the expected range of values for lower-strength
concretes.
5.5-Modulus of rupture
The values reported by various investigators 5.23,5.26-5.28
for the modulus of rupture of both lightweight and nor-
mal weight high-strength concretes fall in the range of 7.5
&r to 12 g where both the modulus of rupture and
the compressive strength are expressed in psi. The fol-
lowing equation was recommended 5.2 for the prediction
of the tensile strength of normal weight concrete, as
measured by the modulus of rupture f,’from the com-
pressive strength as shown in Fig. 5.4
fr ’ = 11.7 &r psi
for 3000 psi < f,’< 12,000 psi
c- = 0.94 &r MPa
for 21 MPa < f,’ < 83 MPa) (5-2)
C 8’1
- \\
\

0
 HIGH STRENGTH CONCRETE 363R-25

q, MPa q,MP*
0 2 4 6 8 1O 0 2 4 6 8
I I I I / I
f’,.MPo t; I MPa
0 20 40 60 80
1200
4-x6" (102mm r203mml

1000

Splitting
Tensile 800

Strength t;p
Modulus Modulus of
psi 600
Rupture Rupture
f; , psi f’, , MPa
400

I I 1 I
OO 2000 6000 10000 14000
Cylinder Strength t; . psi
I I / / I I L

0 20 40 R.psi 8o 100 120

Fig. 5.5-Tensile strength based on split cylinder test 5.2

jected to repeated load varied between 66 and 71 percent

Fig. 5.4-- Tensile strength based on modulus of rupture of the static strength for a minimum stress level of 1250
test 5.2 psi (8.6 MPa). The lower values were found for the
higher-strength concretes and for concrete made with the
5.6-Tensile splitting strength smaller-size coarse aggregate, but the actual magnitude
Dewar 5.27 studied the relationship between the indirect of the difference was small. To the extent that is known,
tensile strength (cylinder splitting strength) and the com- the fatigue strength of high-strength concrete is the same
pressive strength of concretes having compressive as that for concretes of lower strengths.
strengths of up to 12,105 psi (83.79 MPa) at 28 days. He
concluded that at low strengths, the indirect tensile 5.8-Unit Weight
strength may be as high as 10 percent of the compressive The measured values of the unit weight of high-
strength but at higher strengths it may reduce to 5 per- strength concrete are slightly higher than lower-strength
cent. He observed that the tensile splitting strength was concrete made with the same materials.
about 8 percent higher for crushed-rock-aggregate con-
crete than for gravel-aggregate concrete- In addition, he 5.9-Thermal properties
found that the indirect tensile strength was about 70 per- The thermal properties of high-strength concretes fall
cent of the flexural strength at 28 days. Carrasquillo, within the a proximate range for lower-strength con-
5.21,5.26
Nilson, and Slate 5.2 reported that the splitting strength cretes. Quantities that have been measured are
did not vary much from the usual range shown in Fig. specific heat, diffusivity, thermal conductivity, and co-
5.5, although as the compressive strength increases, the efficient of thermal expansion.
values for the splitting strength fall in the upper limit of
the expected range. The following equation for the pre- 5.10-Heat evolution due to hydration
diction of the tensile splitting strength &,’ of normal The temperature rise within concrete due to hydration
weight concrete was recommended5.2 depends on the cement content, water-cement ratio, size
of the member, ambient temperature, environment, etc.
= 7.4 K psi Freedman 5.15 has concluded from data of Saucier et al.
f SP'
in Fig. 5.6 that the heat rise of high-strength concretes
for 3000 psi c f,’ < 12,000 psi will be approximately 11 to 15 F/l00 lb of cement/yd 3 (6
(fJp’ = 0.59 g MPa to 8 C per 59 kg/m 3 of cement). Values for temperature
for 21 MPa < f,’< 83 MPa) (5-3) rise of the order of 100 F (56 C) in high-strength con-
crete members containing 846 lb of cement/yd 3 (502
5.7-Fatigue strength kg/m3) were measured in a building in Chicago as shown
5.16
The available data on the fatigue behavior of high- in Fig. 5.7.
strength concrete is very limited. Bennett and Muir.5.29
studied the fatigue strength in axial compression of high- 5.11-Strength gain with age
strength concrete with a 4-in. (102-mm) cube compressive High-strength concrete shows a higher rate of strength
strength of up to 11,155 psi (76.9 MPa) and found that gain at earl a es as compared to lower-strength con-
after one million cycles, the strength of specimens sub- crete5.1,5.2,5.13,5.15but at later ages the difference is not
363R-26 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT

strength concrete and 0.7 to 0.75 for lower-strength c o n -

crete, while Carrasquillo, Nilson, and Slate5.2,5.9 found
typical ratios of 7-day to 95-day strength of 0.60 for
low-strength, 0.65 for medium-strength, and 0.73 for
Temp. , high-strength concrete. It seems likely that the higher
F
rate of strength development of high-strength concrete at
early ages is caused by (1) an increase in the internal
curing temperature in the concrete cylinders due to a
40 - higher heat of hydration and (2) shorter distance between
I I I I
hydrated particles in high-strength concrete due to low
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 water-cement ratio.
Time, hours
5.12-Freeze thaw resistance
Fig. 5.6-Temperature rise of high-strength field-cast 10 x Information about air content requirement for high-
5.21
20 x 5-ft (3 x 6 x 1.5-m) blocks strength concrete to produce adequate durability is
contradictory. For example, Saucier, Tynes, and Smith5.21
concluded from accelerated laboratory freeze-thaw tests
200
that, if high-strength concrete is to be frozen under wet
conditions, air-entrained concrete should be considered
despite the loss of strength due to air entrainment. In
150 C o l u m n c3 i contrast, Perenchio and Klieger5.24 obtained excellent
resistance to freezing and thawing of all of the high-
strength concretes used in their study, whether air en-
yeroture. ,oo
,- trained or non-air-entrained. They attributed this to the
greatly reduced freezable water contents and the in-
1 creased tensile strength of high-strength concrete.

50
Little information is available on the shrinkage be-
havior of high-strength concrete. A relatively high initial
rate of shrinkage has been reported, 5.26,5.30 but after
0 I
5 10
t
15 20
drying for 180 days there is little difference between the
Age, days
shrinkage of high-strength and lower-strength concrete
made with dolomite or limestone. Reducing the curing
Fig. 5.7-- Measured concrete temperatures at Water Tower period from 28 to 7 days caused a slight increase in the
Place. 5.16 shrinkage. 5.26 Shrinkage was unaffected by changes in
water-cement ratio5.15 but is approximately proportional
to the percentage of water by volume in the concrete.
Other laboratory studies 5.31 and field studies 5.16,5.22,5.28

@---I
100 -
have shown that shrinkage of high-strength concrete is
similar to that of lower-strength concrete. Nagataki and
Yonekuras 5.32 reported that the shrinkage of high-
Compressive Strength strength concrete containing high-range water reducers
Compressive Strength was less than for lower-strength concrete.
at 95 days

5.14-- Creep
Parrott 5.26 reported that the total strain observed in
sealed high-strength concrete under a sustained loading
of 30 percent of the ultimate strength was the same as
that of lower-strength concrete when expressed as a ratio
0 7 28 95 of the short-term strain. Under drying conditions, this
Age, days
ratio was 25 percent lower than that of lower-strength
concrete. The total long-term strains of drying and sealed
Fig. 5.8-- Normalized strength gain with age for moist-cured high-strength concrete were 15 and 65 percent higher, re-
limestone concretes 5.2 spectively, than for a corresponding lower-strength con-
crete at a similar relative stress level. Ngab et a1.5.31
significant (see Fig. 5.8). Parrott 5.26 reported typical found little difference between the creep of high-strength
ratios of 7-day to 28-day strengths of 0.8 to 0.9 for high- concrete under drying and sealed conditions. The creep
 HIGH STRENGTH CONCRETE 363R-27

of high-strength concrete made with high-range water “Stress-Strain Curves of Normal and Lightweight
reducers is reported 5.32 to be decreased significantly. The Concrete in Compression,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V.
maximum specific creep was less for high-strength con- 75, No. 10, Nov. 1978, pp. 603-611.
crete than for lower-strength concrete loaded at the same 5.4. Kaar, P.H.; Hanson, N.W.; and Capell, H.T.,
age. 5.16,5.20,5.31 An example is shown in Fig. 5.9. 5 . 2 8 “Stress-Strain Characteristics of High-Strength Concrete,”
However, high-strength concretes are subjected to higher Douglas McHenry International Symposium on Concrete
stresses. Therefore, the total creep will be about the and Concrete Structures, SP-55, American Concrete Insti-
same for any strength h concrete. No problems due to tute, Detroit, 1978, pp. 161-185. Also, Research and
creep were found 5.22 in columns cast with high-strength Development Bulletin No. 051.01D, Portland Cement
concrete. As is found with lower-strength concrete, creep Association.
decreases as the age at loading increases,5.31 specific 5.5. Shah, S.P.; Gokoz, U.; and Ansari, F., “An
creep increases with increased water-cement ratio,5.24 and Experimental Technique for Obtaining Complete Stress-
there is a linear relationship with the applied stress.5.31 Strain Curves for High Strength Concrete,” Cement,
This linearity extends to a higher stress-strain ratio than Concrete and Aggregates, V. 3, No. 1, Summer 1981, pp.
for lower-strength concrete. 21-27.
Some additional information on properties of high- 5.6. Shah, S.P., “High Strength Concrete-A Work-
strength concrete can be obtained from References 5.33 shop Summary,” Concrete International Design & Con-
to 5.42. struction, V. 3, No. 5, May 1981, pp. 94-98.
5.7. Shah, S.P.; Naaman, A.E.; and Moreno, J., “Effect
1.75 ,- Unsealed
De-
of Confinement on the Ductility of Lightweight Con-
- Sealed crete,” International Journal of Cement Composites and
Lightweight Concrete (Harlow, Essex), V. 5, No. 1, Feb.
1.50
1983, pp. 15-25.
yft;=48DD psi
5.8. Holm, T.A., “Physical Properties of High Strength
1.25
Lightweight Aggregate Concrete,” Proceedings, 2nd Inter-
national Congress on Lightweight Concrete (London,
Creep
Apr. 1980) Ci80, Construction Press, Lancaster, 1980,
Coefficient,
I.00 pp. 187-204.
Cc 5.9. Carrasquillo, Ramon L.; Slate, Floyd 0.; and
Nilson, Arthur H., “Microcracking and Behavior of High-
075 Strength Concrete Subject to Short-Term Loading,” ACI
JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 78, No. 3, May-June 1981, pp.
179-186.
0.50 5.10. Ahmad, Schuaib, and Shah, Surendra P.,
“Complete Triaxial Stress-Strain Curves for Concrete,”
1000 psi = 6.895 M PO
= 0.45 in All Cases
Proceedings, ASCE, V. 108, ST4, Apr. 1982, pp. 728-742.
0.25
5.11. Ahmad, S.H., and Shah, S.P., “Stress-Strain
Age at Loading = 2 Days
Curves Of Concrete Confined by Spiral Reinforcement,
After 28 Days Curing
0 , I I I ACI JOURNAL , Proceedings V. 79, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1982,
0 15 30 45 60 75 pp. 484-490.
5.12. Thoman, William H., and Raeder, Warren, “Ulti-
Time After Loading, days
mate Strength and Modulus of Elasticity of High
Fig. 5.9-- Relationship between creep coefficient and time Strength Portland Cement Concrete,” ACI J OURNAL ,
for sealed and unsealed concrete specimens 5.31 Proceedings V. 30, No. 3, Jan-Feb. 1934, pp. 231-238.
5.13. Smith, E.F.; Tynes, W.O.; and Saucier, K.L.,
5.15-Cited references “High-Compressive-Strength Concrete, Development of
(See also Chapter 10-References) Concrete Mixtures,” Technical Documentary Report No.
5.1 Wischers, Gerd, “Applications and Effects of RTD TDR-63-3114, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Ex-
Compressive Loads on Concrete,” Betontechnische periment Station, Vicksburg, Feb. 1964, 44 pp.
Berichte 1978, Betone Verlag GmbH, Dusseldorf, 1979, 5.14. Nedderman, Howard, “Flexural Stress Distri-
pp. 31-56. (in German) bution in Very-High-Strength Concrete,” MSc thesis,
5.2. Carrasquiho, Ramon L.; Nilson, Arthur H.; and University of Texas at Arlington, Dec. 1973, 182 pp.
Slate, Floyd O., “Properties of High Strength Concrete 5.15. Freedman, Sydney, High-Strength Concrete,”
Subjected to Short-Term Loads,” ACI JOURNAL , Proceed- Modern Concrete, V. 34, No. 6, Oct. 1970, pp. 29-36; No.
ings V. 78, No. 3, May-June 1981, pp. 171-178, and 7, Nov. 1970, pp. 28-32; No. 8, Dec. 1970, pp. 21-24; No.
Discussion, Proceedings V. 79, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1982, pp. 9, Jan. 1971, pp. 15-22; and No. 10, Feb. 1971, pp. 16-23.
162-163. Also, Publication No. lS176T, Portland Cement Associ-
5.3. Wang, P.T.; Shah, S.P.; and Naaman, A.E., ation.
363R-28 ACI COMMlTTEE REPORT

5.16. “High-Strength Concrete in Chicago High-Rise pression,” Magazine of Concrete Research (London), V.
Buildings,” Task Force Report No. 5, Chicago Committee 19, No. 59, June 1967, pp. 113-117.
on High-Rise Buildings, Feb. 1977, 63 pp. 5.30. Swamy, R.N., and Anand, K.L., “Shrinkage and
5.17. Teychenne, D.C.; Parrott, L.J.; and Pomeroy, Creep of High Strength Concrete,” Civil Engineering and
C.D., “The Estimation of the Elastic Modulus of Con- Public Works Review (London), V. 68, No. 807, Oct. 1973,
crete for the Design of Structures,” Current Paper No. pp. 859-865, 867-868.
CP23/78, Building Research Establishment, Garston, 5.31. Ngab, A.S.; Slate, F.O.; and Nilson, A.H.,
Watford, 1978, 11 pp. “Behavior of High-Strength Concrete Under Sustained
5.18. Ahmad, S.H., “Properties of Confined Concrete Compressive Stress,” Research Report No. 80-2, Depart-
Subjected to Static and Dynamic Loading,” PhD thesis, ment of Structural Engineering, Cornell University,
University of IIIinois at Chicago Circle, Mar. 1981. Ithaca, Feb. 1980, 201 pp. Also, PhD dissertation, Cornell
5.19. Martinez, S.; NiIson, AH.; and Slate, F.O., University, 1980, and “Shrinkage and Creep of High
“Spirally-Reinforced High-Strength Concrete Columns,” Strength Concrete,” ACI JOURNAL , Proceedings V. 78,
Research Report No. 82-10, Department of Structural No. 4, July-Aug. 1981, pp. 255-261.
Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, Aug. 1982. 5.32. Nagataki, S., and Yonekura, A., “Studies of the
5.20. Russell, H.G., and Corley, W.G., “Time- Volume Changes of High Strength Concretes with Super-
Dependent Behavior of Columns in Water Tower Place, plasticizer,” Journal, Japan Prestressed Concrete
Douglas McHenry International Symposium on Concrete Engineering Association (Tokyo), V. 20, 1978, pp. 26-33.
and Concrete Structures, SP-55, American Concrete 5.33. Ahmad, S.H. and Shah, S.P. “Behavior of Hoop
Institute, Detroit, 1978, pp. 347-373, Also, Research and Confined Concrete Under High Strain Rates,” ACI
Development Bulletin No. RD052.01B, Portland Cement JOURNAL , Proceedings V. 82, No. 5. Sept.-Oct. 1985, pp.
Association. 634-647.
5.21. Saucier, K.L.; Tynes, W.O.; and Smith, E.F., 5.34. “Research Needs for High-Strength Concrete,”
“High Compressive-Strength Concrete-Report 3, Sum- reported by ACI Committee 363, ACI Materials Journal,
mary Report,” Miscellaneous Paper No. 6-520, U.S. Army Proceedings V. 84, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1987, pp. 559-561.
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, 5.35. Proceedings of Symposium on Utilization of High-
Sept. 1965, 87 pp. Strength Concrete, Stavanger, Norway, June 15-18, 1987,
5.22. Pfeifer, Donald W.; Magura, Donald D.; Russell, Tapir, Publishers, N-7034 Trondheim-N7H, Norway, 688
Henry G.;, and Corley, W.G., “Time Dependent Defor- PP.
mations in a 70 Story Structure,” Designing for Effects of 5.36. Yogendram, Langan, Hagne and Ward, “Silica
Creep, Shrinkage, Temperature in Concrete Structures, Fume in High Strength Concrete,” ACI Materials Journal,
SP-37, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1971, pp. V. 84, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1987, pp. 124-129.
159-185. 5.37. Carrasquillo, P., and Carrasquillo, R., “Current
5.23. Shideler, J J., “Lightweight-Aggregate Concrete Practice in Evaluation of High Strength Concrete,”
for Structural Use,” ACI JOURNAL , Proceedings V. 54, ACI Materials Journal, V. 85, No. 1, Jan.-Feb., 1988, pp.
No. 4, Oct. 1957, pp. 299-328. 49-54.
5.24. Perenchio, William F., and Khieger, Paul, “Some 5.38. Smadi, M.M., Slate, F.O., and Nilson, A.H.,
Physical Properties of High Strength Concrete,” Research “Shrinkage and Creep of High, Medium, and Low
and Development Bulletin No. RD056.01T, Portland Strength Concretes Including Overloads,” ACI Materials
Cement Association, Skokie, 1978, 7 pp. Journal, Proceedings V. 84, No. 3, May-June 1987, pp.
5.25. Kaplan, M.F., “Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity, 224-234.
Dynamic Modulus of Elasticity, Poisson’s Ratio and the 5.39. Smadi, M.M., Slate, F.O., and Nilson, AH.,
Strength of Concrete Made with Thirteen Different “High, Medium, and Low Strength Concrete Subject to
Coarse Aggregates,” RILEM Bulletin (Paris), New Series Sustained Loads-Strains, Strengths and Failure
No. 1, Mar. 1959, pp. 58-73. Mechanisms,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 82, No. 5,
5.26. Parrot, LJ., “The Properties of High-Strength Sept.-Oct. 1985, pp. 657-664.
Concrete,” Technical Report No. 42.417, Cement and 5.40. Ahmad, S.H., and Shah, S.P., “Structural
Concrete Association, Wexham Springs, 1969, 12 pp. Properties of High Strength Concrete and Its Impli-
5.27. Dewar, J.D., “The Indirect Tensile Strength of cations on Precast and Prestressed Concrete,” Journal of
Concretes of High Compressive Strength,” Technical Prestressed Concrete Institute, Nov.-Dec. 1985.
Report No. 42.377, Cement and Concrete Association, 5.41. Ahmad, S.H., and Shah, S.P., “High Strength
Wexham Springs, Mar. 1964, 12 pp. Concrete-A Review,” Proceedings of International Sym-
5.28. Kaplan, M.F., “Flexural and Compressive posium on Utilization of High Strength Concrete,
Strength of Concrete as Affected by the Properties of the Stavanger, Norway, June 15-18, 1987.
Coarse Aggregates, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 55, 5.42. Shirley, T. Scott, Burg, G. Ronald, and Fiorato,
No. 11, May 1959, pp. 1193-1208. E. Anthony, “Fire Endurance of High Strength Concrete
5.29. Bennett, E.W., and Muir, S.E. St. J., “Some Slabs,” ACI Materials Journal, Mar.-Apr. 1988, pp. 102-
Fatigue Tests of High-Strength Concrete in Axial Com- 108.
 HIGH STRENGTH CONCRETE
CHAPTER 6-STRUCTURAL DESIGN
CONSIDERATIONS
High-strength concretes have some characteristics and
engineering properties that are different from those of
lower-strength concretes. Internal changes resulting from
short-term and sustained loads and environmental factors
are known to be different. Directly related to these inter-
nal differences are distinctions in mechanical properties
that must be recognized by design engineers in predicting
the performance and safety of structures. These distinc-
tions are increasingly important as strengths increase.
Tests of unreinforced high-strength concrete have shown,
for example, that such material in many cases may be
closely characterized as linearly elastic up to stress levels
approaching the maximum stress. Thereafter, the stress-
strain curve of high-strength concrete decreases at a
much greater rate than lower-strength concretes.6.1-6.10
Extensive experimentation at several research centers
has provided a fundamental understanding of the be-
havior of high-strength concrete. While substantial infor-
mation is now available on many aspects, some final re-
commendations must await the results of current and
future work.
In this chapter, the emphasis will be placed on design
of members and structures.6.11 Where recommendations
are made, they are based on the best current experi-
mental information and in most cases must be considered
tentative.
6.2-Axially-loaded columns
Few columns in practice are subjected to truly axial
loads. Bending moments, due to eccentric application of
load or associated with rigid frame action, are usually
superimposed on axial loads. ACI 318-83 requirements
for design and ACI 318R-83 reflect this. However, it is
useful to look first at the behavior of columns carrying
axial load only.
6.2.1 Strength contribution of steel and concrete-The
attribute of main interest is the ultimate strength. Present
design practice, in calculating the nominal strength of an
axially loaded member, is to assume a direct addition law
summing the strength of the concrete and that of the
steel. The justification for this is seen in Fig. 6.1, which
superimposes typical stress-strain curves in compression
for three concretes with that for reinforcing steel having
60,000 psi (414 MPa) yield strength (the last curve is
drawn to a different vertical scale for convenience). The
usual assumption is made that steel and concrete strains
are identical at any load stage.
For lower-strength concrete, when the concrete
reaches the range of significant nonlinearity (about 0.001
strain), the steel is still in the elastic range and con-
sequently starts to pick up a larger share of the load.
When the strain is close to 0.002, the slope of the con-
crete curve is nearly zero and it can be thought of as de-
forming plastically, with little or no increase in stress.
363R-29
70 r
1,s -60 “c,
M PO M PO
440
-2-o
O? JO
0 02 04 06
Strain, percent
Fig. 6.1-- Concrete and steel stress-strain curves
The steel reaches its yield point at about the same strain
in this case; thus, concrete is at its maximum stress, steel
is at fy, and the strength of the column is predicted by
P = 0.85 fc' Ac + fy As (6-l)
where fc' = cylinder compressive strength of the con-
crete
fy = yield strength of steel
Ac = area of concrete section
As = area of steel
The factor 0.85 is used to account for the observed dif-
ference in strength of concrete in columns compared with
concrete of the same mix in standard compression-test
cylinders.
A similar analysis holds for high-strength concrete
columns, except the steel will yield before the concrete
reaches its peak strength. However, the steel will con-
tinue to yield at essentially constant stress until the
concrete is fully stressed. Prediction of strength may
therefore still be based on Eq. (6-l). Experimental
documentation also supports use of the factor 0.85 for
high-strength concrete.6.12-6.13
6.2.2 Effects of confinement steel-Lateral steel in
columns, preferably in the form of continuous spirals, has
two beneficial effects on column behavior: (a) it greatly
increases the strength of the core concrete inside the
spiral by confining the core against lateral expansion
under load, and (b) it increases the axial strain capacity
of the concrete, permitting a more gradual and ductile
failure, i.e., a tougher column.6.12-6.16
The basis for design of spiral steel under the 1977 and
later versions of ACI 318 is that the strengthening effect
of the spiral must be at least equal to the column
strength lost when the concrete shell outside of the spiral
spalls off under load. The ACI 318 equation for mini-
363R-30 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT
mum volumetric ratio of spiral is
f'
ps = 0.45 2 - 1 -L P-2)
i E I4
where ps = ratio of volume of spiral reinforcement to
volume of concrete core
= gross area of concrete section
Ag
= area of concrete core
r”: = cylinder compressive strength of concrete
6 = yield strength of spiral steel
The increase in compressive strength of columns pro-
vided by spiral steel is based on an experimentally
derived relationship for strength gain
x - fcl’ = 4.oJy (6-3a)
where x = compressive strength of spirally reinforc-
ed concrete column
f,” = compressive strength of unconfined con-
crete column
f.2' = concrete confinement stress produced by
spiral
This relationship can be shown to lead directly to Eq.
(6-2). The concrete confinement stress produced by spiral
f2' is calculated on the basis that the spiral steel has
yielded, using the familiar hoop tension equation.
or
2J4 f
f2' = ds
c
where ASP = area of spiral steel
4 = diameter of concrete core
S = pitch of spiral
and other terms are as already defined.
Recent work by Ahmad and Shah 6.14 has shown that
spiral reinforcement is less effective for columns of
higher-strength concrete and for lightweight concrete
columns. They found also that the stress in the steel
spiral at peak load for high-strength concrete columns
and lightweight concrete columns is often significantly
less than the yield strength assumed in the development
of Eq. (6-2).
These conclusions are consistent with results of experi-
mental research at Cornell University.6.13 In the Cornell
research, an “effective” confinement stress f2 (1 - s/dc)
was used in evaluating results, where f2 is the confine-
ment stress in the concrete, calculated using the actual
stress in the spiral steel, often less than fy . The term (1 -
s/dc) reflects the reduction in effectiveness of spirals
associated with increasing spacing of the spiral
wires. 6.13,6.17 Thus an improved version of Eq. (6-3a) is
z - fc,’ = 4.Of, (1 - s/d,) (6-3b)
Fig. 6.2 shows the results of the Cornell tests on
columns using different strength concretes. It is clear that
the strength gain predicted by Eq. (6-3b) is valid for nor-
mal weight concrete of all strengths for confinement
stress up to at least 3000 psi (21 MPa). A similar plot
based on Eq. (6-3a) shows a somewhat unconservative
prediction for higher confinement stresses, but it can be
shown that typical confinement stresses for practical
column spirals are seldom more than about 1000 psi (7
MPa). For this range Eq. (6-3a) gives good results. From
the strength viewpoint, the present ACI 318 equation for
minimum spiral steel ratio can be used safely for high-
strength normal weight columns as well as for lower-
strength concrete columns.
Fig. 6.2 also shows that a spiral has much less con-
fining effect in lightweight concrete columns. The light-
weight concrete tends to crush under the spirals at heavy
loads, relieving the confining pressure.6.13 For lightweight
spirally reinforced columns, Martinez has suggested that
Eq. (6-3a) be replaced by
z - fcl’ = 1.8fi’ (6-4a)
and Eq. (6-3b) be replaced by
x - fcl’ = 1.8 f2’ (1 - s/d,) (6-4b)
This important difference in behavior means that Eq.
(6-2) found in ACI 318 must be reexamined. It appears
that lightweight concrete columns would require about
2.5 times more spiral steel than corresponding normal
weight columns to satisfy strength requirements after the
cover spalls off, a requirement that is not reflected in
ACI 318. Whether or not such heavy spirals are practical
may be questioned.
There is not yet general agreement on the effective-
ness of spiral steel for improving the ductility of high-
strength concrete columns, that is, for increasing the
strain limit and flattening the negative slope of the
stress-strain curve past the point of peak stress. A paper
by Ahmad and Shah 6.14 indicates that confining spirals
are about as effective in flattening the negative slope of
the stress-strain curve for high-strength concrete columns
as for lower-strength concrete columns. However, the
Cornell work 6.13 showed significant differences. Fig. 6.3
shows experimental stress-strain curves for different
strengths of normal weight concrete columns with varying
spiral reinforcement. Three groups of curves are identi-
fied by the three concrete strength levels studied. Each
of these groups consists of three sets of curves corres-
ponding to three different amounts of lateral reinforce-
ment. Indicated in each set of curves with a short hori-
zontal line is the average unconfined column strength
corresponding to that particular set of confined columns.
 HIGH STRENGTH CONCRETE 363R-31

Effective Confinement Stress f,(l- s/d,) , MPa

0 5 IO 15 20
t I I I I I
Normal Weight Concrete
12 -
A High- Strength - 80
. Medium - Strength
l Low- Strength
10 -
Lightweight Concrete
A High- Strength - 60
a Medium - Strength
Strength Strength
o Low- Strength
Incrememt Increment
T,- f’; , Tc-f‘ , )
ksi 6 - MPa

fc= f;t l.Bfe(l-s/d,) - 2 0

4 x 16 - in. (102 x 406 -mm) Cylinder

Stroke Rote: 12,000 p-in (0.30 mm)/min.
I 0
2000 3000
Effective Confinement Stress 1,(1-s/d,) , psi

Fig. 6.2-Strength increment provided by spiral reinforcement action on 4 x 16-in. columns

Normal Weight Spiral Columns

4 x 16 - in. (102 x 406 -mm) Cylinder
Stroke Rate: 12.000 p-in.(O 30mmtlnun
1; = Unconfined Column Strength
(2500) = Effective Ccnfinement
stress ‘L, t- l/d&
Axial Axial
Stress, Stress ,
ksi M Pa

Axial Strain , in. / in.

Fig. 6.3-Experimental stress-strain curves of 4 x 16-in. normal weight spiral columns

Referring to Fig. 6.3, the curves for high-strength
concrete columns NC167 that had an effective confine-
ment stress of 767 psi (5 MPa) are compared with the
curves for lower-strength concrete columns NC163 with
an effective confinement stress of 800 psi (6 MPa). Dif-
ferent behavior for comparable confinement stress is
evident. Not only is the strain at peak stress much less
for high-strength concrete, but the stress falls off sharply
just past the peak value. This last fact is seen to be true
even for columns NC169 with a very high confinement
stress of 2500 psi (17 MPa) (probably not attainable in
practical columns).
Based on the available evidence, one may conclude
that normal density high-strength concrete columns with
spiral steel show strength gain due to the spirals that is
predicted well by present equations, but that their pro-
perties past peak stress may be deficient compared with
lower-strength columns. The design of lightweight con-
crete columns with spiral steel should be approached very
carefully. 6.13,6.17
Another interesting and important observation relating
to spirally reinforced columns generally is that the level
of confinement stress corresponding to spirals designed
by ACI 318 is rather low for all columns. The confine-
ment stress becomes significantly lower for larger dia-
meter columns, assuming that the cover requirements re-
main constant. This follows directly from Eq. (6-2). For
larger columns, the ratio Ag/Ac becomes much smaller;
consequently the required spiral steel ratio becomes
smaller and the effective confinement stress becomes
363R-32 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT
proportionately smaller. Confinement stress produced by
spirals designed to ACI 318 for lower-and high-strength
concrete, for 15 and 50 in. column core diameters are
compared in Table 6.1.
Table 6.1-Confinement stress produced by spirals
designed by ACI 318
4. f’(1 - s/a, s,
in. (mm) A, /A Ps* psi (MPa) in. (mm)
f,’ = 3000 psi (21 MPa) (#3 spiral bar)
15(38) ;:;“: 0.0099 238 (1.64) 2.96 (75)
50( 172) 0.0028 83 (0.57) 3.17 (81)
f: = 10,000 psi (69 MPa) (#5 spiral bar)
0.0330 825(5.69) 2.50(64)
5 0 ( 1 2 7 ) 0.0093 263(1.81) 2.67(68)
*Ratio of volume of spiral reinforcement to total volume of core
(out-to-out of spirals).
Tests show that for lower-strength concrete even the
reduction in confinement stress from 238 to 83 psi (1.64
to 0.57 MPa) obtained under ACI 318 wilI produce a col-
umn with very large strain capacity without significant
loss of resistance. For high-strength concrete, the
reduction of confinement stress from 825 to 263 psi (5.69
to 1.81 MPa) produces a column with virtually no post-
peak strain capacity. Even the higher confinement stress
of 825 psi (5.69 MPa) produces a column with the unde-
sirable characteristic of a sharp drop-off of resistance
immediately after peak stress.6.13
While some experimental data are available at this
time for high-strength concrete columns using lateral ties
rather than spirals,6.18,6.19 more work must be done for
such members.
6.2.3 Repeated loading-High-strength concrete is rela-
tively free of internal microcracking, even close to ulti-
mate load, when loaded monotonically.6.1 On the other
hand, high-strength concrete is reported to be more
brittle than lower-strength concrete,6.2 lacking much of
the ductility that accompanies progressive crack growth.
Some experimental research indicates that fatigue
strength is essentially independent of compressive
strength.6.20 Recent research indicates that failure of
concrete subject to repeated loading can be approximate-
ly predicted by the concept of the envelope curve, di-
rectly related to the short-term monotonic stress-strain
curve. 6.21 For high-strength concrete, each load appli-
cation causes relatively less incremental damage. How-
ever, the number of cycles to failure may not be neces-
sarily larger because of the greater negative slope of the
post-peak envelope curve.
While important work has been done,6.20,6.22,6.23 it is
clear that additional research is needed on all aspects of
high-strength concrete, with and without confinement
steel, subject to various repeated load regimens, before
design recommendations can be made.
6.2.4 Sustained loading-In most structures, concrete
is subjected to sustained loads. The time-dependent
strains associated with these stresses have a profound ef-
fect on the structural behavior. Such strains are directly
related to long-term deflection, losses in prestress force,
and cracking. Column strength may be reduced due to
sustained loading of high intensity. It may also be in-
creased because of the capability of a concrete structure
to adjust itself to local high over-stresses through creep.
Creep may be described either in terms of the creep
coefficient
Cc = creep strain
(6-5)
initial elastic strain
or by the coefficient of specific creep (unit creep coef-
ficient)
6, = creep strain per unit stress (6-6)
The two can be related through the modulus of elasticity
cc = E,6, (6-7)
There is general agreement that creep of high-strength
concrete is significantly less than that of a lower-strength
concrete6.7,6.24-6.27 The most recent information, for con-
cretes with strength up to about 10,000 psi (69-MPa), in-
dicates that high-strength concrete has a specific creep
only about 20 percent that of lower-strength concrete and
a creep coefficient about 30 percent as high.6.27
As a result, for axially loaded high-strength concrete
columns, creep shortening at a given stress level will be
less than that of lower-strength columns, a fact of pos-
sible significance in high-rise concrete structures.6.30 In
addition, the distribution of load between concrete and
steel of high-strength concrete columns will be less sub-
ject to change with the passage of time. Elastic distri-
bution of stresses may be more nearly maintained. Loss
of stress in a prestressed member due to creep shorten-
ing will be much less at a given concrete stress level, but
this advantage may be largely canceled if higher sustained
load stresses are permitted.
6.3-Beams and slabs
The material properties described in Chapter 5 and in
Section 6.2 may effect the characteristic behavior of high-
strength concrete beams.6.31-6.34 In some cases, improve-
ments are seen; in other cases less satisfactory behavior
will result. In many ways, high-strength beams may be-
have according to essentially the same rules that have
been used to describe behavior of beams made of lower-
strength concrete. However, some questions remain to be
answered.
6.3.1 Compressive stress distribution-The compressive
stress distribution in beams is directly related to the
shape of the stress-strain curve in uniaxial compression.
Consequently, for high-strength concrete, which displays
differences in that shape, as shown in Fig. 6.1, it is
reasonable to expect differences in flexural compressive
 HIGH STRENGTH CONCRETE
stress distribution, particularly at loads approaching
ultimate.
In present U.S. practice as in ACI 318 and ACI 318R,
proportioning of beam sections is generally based on con-
ditions at a hypothetical state of incipient collapse at
factored loads. Fig. 6.4(a) shows the generally parabolic
shape of the compressive stress distribution in a beam
made of lower-strength concrete. The nominal resisting
moment may be calculated knowing the internal forces T
and C and the internal lever arm between them. The act-
ual shape of the compressive stress distribution at in-
cipient failure, always highly variable even within a given
range of concrete strengths, may be considered irrelevant
if one knows (a) the magnitude of the compressive resul-
tant C, and (b) the level in the beam at which it acts.
These may be established in terms of three parameters
characteristic of a given stress distribution [see Fig.
6.4(a)].
k 1 = ratio of average to maximum compressive stress
in beam
k 2 = ratio of depth to compressive resultant to neutral
axis depth
k 3 = ratio of maximum stress in beam to maximum
stress in corresponding axially loaded cylinder
C=k,k,f;bc
-> T = Asfs
C-O.85 f’,ab
drp- C=$.f;bc
T=A,f,
Fig. 6.4-Concrete stress distributions for rectangular beams
363R-33
For ordinary design purposes, it is convenient to work
with an equivalent rectangular compressive stress distri-
bution, shown in Fig. 6.4(b), with magnitude of compres-
sive resultant and line of action the same as before. Such
an equivalent distribution is specifically referenced and
permitted in ACI 318 and its Commentary, ACI 318R.
With the uniform value of concrete compression assumed
equal to 0.85fc', a single parameter PI is sufficient to
define both magnitude and line of action.
For high-strength concrete, the stress-strain curve is
more linear than parabolic. Therefore, there is reason to
suspect that the stress block parameters may be different.
Experimental research has confirmed that differences do
exist, and alternatives to the rectangular stress block have
been proposed, such as in Fig. 6.4(c).6.34 However, differ-
ences in calculated strength values for beams and eccen-
tric columns depend on steel ratios and other factors.
ACI 318R suggests, based on an equivalent rectangu-
lar stress block, that the nominal flexural strength of a
singly reinforced beam that is under-reinforced can be
calculated by
where Mn = nominal moment strength at section,
in-lb
= area of tension reinforcement, in.2
; = specified yield strength of reinforcement,
psi
d = distance from extreme compression fiber
to centroid of tension reinforcement, in.
= ratio of tension reinforcement
if = specified compressive strength of con-
crete, psi
The coefficient 0.59 can be shown to be equivalent to
k2/k1k3. The experimental variation of k2/k1k3 with con-
crete compressive strength based on research at several
centers is shown in Fig. 6.5. 6.6,6.31-6.35 While a detailed
study of the separate k values indicates that significant
differences in the separate values exist depending on
concrete strength, it is clear from Fig. 6.5 that the
differences are compensative and that the combined coef-
ficient is well-represented by the constant value 0.59. This
statement is reinforced by the results shown in Fig. 6.6,
which compares flexural strength predictions obtained
using the usual rectangular stress block, a triangular
stress block, and a distribution based on experimentally
derived stress-strain curves with test data for beams of
varying reinforcement ratios and concrete strengths to
11,000 psi (76 MPa). Test values were best predicted
using actual stress-strain curves, but either the rec-
tangular or triangular distributions gave acceptable lower
bounds to the experimental and theoretical values.6.36
Based on these and similar studies, it appears that, for
under-reinforced beams, the present ACI 318 methods
can be used without change, at least for concrete
strengths up to 12,000 psi (83 MPa). For over-reinforced
 363R-34 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT

Concrete Strength , M Pa
Concrete Strength , M Pa
0 20 40 60 80 l00 120
0.005 r I I 1 I I I

08
I

..
0.6

k2
- & - - - - A - - - - 0.500
- -
k, Rectangular
.
i
0.4
t
0001 t

0.2
0 I I I I I
0 4 8 12 16 20

Concrete Strength , ksi

L t I 1 I
0
0 4 8 I2 16 20
Fig. 6.7-- Ultimate concrete flexural strain Q, versus con-
Concrete Strength , ksi crete compressive strength

Fig. 6.5-- Stress block parameter k2/k1k3 versus concrete energy release from the testing equipment. Fig. 6.76.5
strength shows the variation of concrete strain at failure at the
extreme compression face of singly reinforced concrete
beams or eccentrically loaded columns without lateral
140
Test Dato 0 confinement steel. The constant value of strain at ex-
ACI Cods -4.- treme concrete compression fiber of 0.003 prescribed by
Triangular
Stress Block --*-
ACI 318 is seen to represent satisfactorily the experi-
Theoretical I*-- mental results for high-strength as well as lower-strength
concrete, although it is not as conservative for high-
100 strength concrete.
Mu,
6.3.3 Influence of confinement steel and compression
kip-ft
80
Steel-Considering the more limited strain capacity of
high-strength concrete in compression, it is necessary to
evaluate the ductility of beams made of high-strength
60 concrete. Deflection ductility index /1 will be defined
here as
4 0

20
0.5 I 2
Reinforcement Ratio p ,%
Fig. 6.6-- Comparison of flexural strength Mu , of beams for
several compressive stress distributions
beams, which are not allowed by ACI 318, or for
members combining axial compression and bending,
important differences may occur. 6.33
6.2.3 Limiting compressive strain-While high-strength
concrete reaches its peak stress at a compressive strain
slightly higher than that for lower-strength concrete, the
ultimate strain is lower for high-strength concrete, both
in uniaxial compression tests and in beam tests. 6.13,6.34 It
has been suggested that this result apparently is due to
3
where
4 = beam deflection at failure load
4, = beam deflection at the load producing yielding
of tensile steel
6.34
Tests by Pastor et al of beams made of relatively high-
strength concrete are summarized in Table 6.2 (Series A)
and Table 6.3 (Series B). Beams of Series A were singly
reinforced with no compression steel and no confinement
steel. The series includes beams with concrete strengths
from 3700 to 9265 psi (26 to 64 MPa). For the high-
strength beams, tensile steel ratio varied from 0.29 &, to
1.11 pb where ,,b = reinforcement ratio for balanced
strain conditions.
The results show a lower ductility for the beams with
 HIGH STRENGTH CONCRETE
the higher concrete strengths. Based on these results, the
second series summarized in Table 6.3 was performed.
These beams included varying amounts of compression
steel (50 to 100 percent of tensile steel area) and lateral
confinement steel in the form of closed hoops at spacing
of 3, 6, and 12 in. (7.6, 15.2, and 30.5 mm). All beams
were of high-strength concrete and comparable to Beam
A4 of the first series, which had no ties and no com-
pression steel.
Table 6.2-Deflection ductility index for Series A
beams 6.34
Ductility
index
*Ratio of tension reinforcement divided by reinforcement ratio producing
balanced strain conditions.
Table 6.3-Deflection ductility index for Series B
b e a m s 6.34
T Ductility
Beam psi p/p,
Bl 8534 0.57
8605 0.55
i: 8578 0.57
8478 0.59
E 8516 0.56
B6 8466 0.58
From Beams Bl and B2, compared with Beam A4, it
can be concluded that ties at 12 in. (30.5 mm) increased
the ductility index, but not significantly. Ductility index
increased markedly when the tie spacing was reduced to
6 in. (15.2 mm) in Beams B3 and B4, but showed no up-
ward trend when the spacing was further reduced to 3 in.
(7.6 mm).
A comparison between Beams B3 and B4 indicates a
beneficial effect in adding more compression steel, al-
though this trend is not clearly reflected in a comparison
of Beams B5 and B6.
6.3.4 Minimum tensile steel ratios-ACI 318 sets an
upper limit on the tensile steel ratio for beams at 75
percent of the balanced ratio to insure that failure,
should it occur, will be a gradual, yielding type. A lower
limit of tensile steel ratio is set to guard against sudden
failure of very lightly reinforced beams upon concrete
cracking, when the tension formerly carried by the con-
crete is transferred to the steel reinforcement.
The present ACI 318 expression for minimum steel
ratio
363R-35
PmfJl = 7 for fy in psi
Y
P#&= 1.7 for 4 in MPa (6.10)
Y
is derived on the basis that the resisting moment of the
cracked section should be at least as great as the moment
that caused the member to crack, based on the modulus
of rupture. Since the latter is known to be greater for
high-strength concrete than for lower-strength con-
crete, 6.2,6.12 it is evident that the strength of concrete
should be included in a revised version of Eq. (6.10).
With modulus of rupture taken at 7.5 &r (0.62 q), it
can be shown that
_ i-7 $r (6.11)
Pmi?a 2 m/l’y (1.38/f,)
4
would be an appropriate equation for all concrete
strengths from 3000 to 12,000 psi (21 to 83 MPa).6.28
6.3.5 Shear and diagonal tension-In current US. prac-
tice, design for shear is based on conditions at factored
loads. The total shear resistance is made up of two parts:
Vs provided by the stirrups and Vc, nominally the “con-
crete contribution.” The nominal concrete contribution
index
includes, in an undefined way, the contributions of the
WA.
still uncracked concrete at the head of a hypothetical
2.36
diagonal crack, the resistance provided by aggregate
2.64 interlock along the diagonal crack face, and the dowel
4.88
8.32
resistance provided by the main reinforcing steel.
5.61 High-strength concrete loaded in uniaxial compression
6.14
fractures suddenly and, in so doing, may form a failure
surface that is smooth and nearly a plane. 6.1-6.3 This is in
contrast to the rugged failure surface characteristic of
lower-strength concrete. In beams controlled by shear
strength, the state of stress is biaxial, combining diagonal
compression in the direction from the load point to the
support with diagonal tension in the perpendicular direc-
tion. Diagonal tension cracks in high-strength concrete
beams can be expected to have a smooth surface, likely
to be deficient in aggregate interlock.
Tests confirm that aggregate interlock decreases as
concrete strength increases. Thus, a shear strength
deficiency may be produced which is not accounted for
by present design equations. Data from Frantz 6.38,6.39 at
the University of Connecticut have indicated that the cal-
culated concrete contribution Vc is ade uate for high-
strength concrete. Data byNilson 6.40,6.41 at Cornell
University indicates that current design methods are not
conservative for high strength concrete. Experimental re-
search by Ahmad et al. 6.42,6.43 indicates that the shear
strength contribution of the concrete is conservatively
predicted by ACI 318-83 Eq. (11-3) for shear-span ratios
of 2.5 or less, but for higher ratios, more typical in
ordinary construction, and for relatively low steel ratios,
the ACI equation may be unconservative. It was further
363R-36 ACI COMMlTTEE REPORT
shown by their research that the more complex ACI 318-
83 Eq. (11-6) is unconservative for high-strength concrete
beams with low steel ratios. Recent research by Russell
and Roller6.37 indicates that, for beams with high flexural
steel ratios, the current ACI Code equations are safe.
The beneficial effects of high-strength concrete for pre-
stressed beams was demonstrated, using an analysis based
on truss models, by Kaufman and Ramirez.6.44 Higher
strength concrete increases the strength of the diagonal
truss members, resulting in increased efficiency of the
web reinforcement through the mobilization of more stir-
rups as well as increased load-carrying capacity of the
struts themselves. Currently, no research data are avail-
able regarding the minimum requirement of web reinfor-
cement to prevent brittle failure resulting from the
formation of a critical diagonal crack.
6.3.6 Bond, anchorage, and development length-
Present ACI 318 methods of design for development
length and anchorage of tensile steel are based on tests,
generally using concretes with compressive strengths not
greater than about 4000 psi (28 MPa). Although some in-
formation has recently become available for high-strength
concrete, not enough data have been obtained to permit
recommendations.
6.3.7 Cracking-The modulus of rupture, which is the
appropriate measure of concrete tensile strength for use
in predicting flexural cracking load, has been reported in
Chapter 5 to be 11.7 K for normal weight concretes
with strengths in the range from 3000 to 12,000 psi (21 to
83 MPa). It thus appears that the ACI 318 value of 7.5
g is too low. However, for curing conditions such as
seven days moist curing followed by air drying, a value of
7.5 K is probably fairly close for the full strength
range. It may, therefore, be recommended with no
change. The assumption of a modulus of rupture lower
than the actual value for a flexural member is neither
conservative nor unconservative but simply results in an
inaccurate prediction of cracking load. This will result in
inaccurate estimation of both elastic and creep deflec-
tions.
The direct tensile strength is seldom measured but is
of interest in studying web-shear cracking in prestressed
concrete members, for one example. Both modulus of
rupture and tensile splitting strength of high-strength
concrete are well above the corresponding values for
lower-strength concrete. In this respect, at least, em-
pirically derived equations for flexural shear and torsional
shear strength could be used for high-strength concrete
calculations based on the lower-strength material. How-
ever, other aspects of concern are discussed in Section
6.3.5.
6.3.8 Elastic deflections--The main uncertainties in
predicting elastic deflections of reinforced concrete
beams are (a) elastic modulus Ec; (b) modulus of rupture
fr; and (c) effective moment of inertia, which depends on
the extent of cracking of the beam.
For the elastic modulus, the following equation of
Chapter 5 may be used unless actual values of modulus
are known.
Ec = 40,000 K + 1.0 x 106 psi
(Ec = 3320 K + 6900 MPa) (6-12)
Eq. (6.12) should be modified by the correction factor
(w/c/145)1.5 [for SI units (wc/2300)1.5 for concrete densities
other than 145 lb/ft3 (2320 kg/m 3). 6.2,6.13,6.46
The modulus of rupture has been discussed in Section
6.3.7. For prediction of deflections a value of 7.5 E
may be used to calculate the flexural cracking moment of
the beam. The eauation for effective moment of inertia
Ie included in the ACI 318 is
(6-13)
where
Mcr = cracking moment
Ma = maximum moment
Ig = gross moment of inertia of section
Icr = moment of inertia of cracked transformed
section
This provides a basis for beam deflection calculation that
appears valid for high-strength concrete as well as normal
concrete beams, based on information currently avail-
ablee 6.34,6.47,6.48
6.3.9 Time-dependent deflections-Time-dependent de-
flections of beams due to creep and shrinkage are
presently calculated by applying multipliers to
o computed
elastic deflections. This procedure is generally valid for
high-strength concrete members, but experimental data
indicates that the multipliers may be significantly less
because of the lower creep coefficient typical of high-
strength concrete. According to ACI 318, additional long-
term deflections are obtained using the following multi-
plier
f
1 + 5Op’
where
= reinforcement ratio for nonprestressed
compression reinforcement
= time-dependent factor
The time-dependent factor is given by Fig. 6.8, taken
from ACI 318R.
Research in progress,6.47,6.48 providing an indication of
long-term multipliers and their variation with time, is
summarized in Fig. 6.9. Results are currently available up
to about 1 year loading age, and clear trends are evident,
as follows:
 HIGH STRENGTH CONCRETE 363R-37

ample, for high-strength beams with no compression

steel, the value of 0.55 at 1 year is only 40 percent of the
ACI 318 value and 65 percent of the experimental value
for lower-strength concrete.
c. The influence of compression steel may be less im-
portant for high-strength concrete beams than for lower-
strength beams. For beams of lower-strength concrete,
addition of compression steel having an area equal to
that of the tensile steel reduces l-year deflections by 41
percent. For high-strength concrete, the beam with com-
pression steel shows about 35 percent reduction. This
0 1 3 6 12 18 24 30 36 48 60 could be expected because the role of compression steel
is mainly to reduce the creep of the concrete in the com-
Duration of Load , months
pression zone under sustained loads, the high-strength
Fig. 6.8-ACI 318R Commentary multiplier for long-time concrete with lower creep coefficient needs less help in
deflections of beams this respect.
Deflection measurements are continuing in the re-
search described. Results over a longer period of time
will be available as well as information for beams with
compressive strengths fc' to 12,000 psi (83 MPa). Con-
crete strength should appear as a parameter in equations
to predict long-term deflections. Concrete strength not
Multiplier
only influences long-term deflections directly because of
the lower creep coefficient but also influences the effect-
iveness of compression steel.
f’c=36w psi
I
6.3.10 Repeated Loading-With reference to Section
0 I I
0 l00 200 300 6.2.3, it appears that high-strength concrete, because of
Duration of Load, days its relative freedom from internal microcracking at ser-
vice loads, would be more resistant to repeated loading
consisting of a large number of cycles at relatively low
stress ranges such as in bridges. If ductility is an im-
portant consideration, as is the case in seismic resistant
Multiplier
design, it would be important to include lateral confine-
ment steel in the form of closed hoop stirrups as well as
f;=6500 psi
compression reinforcement. While the subject has been
I 1 1 thoroughly studied for lower-strength concrete,6.20,6.22,6.23
100 200 300 little information on high-strength concrete beams subject
Duration of Load, days to repeated loads is available at this time.
6.3.11 Prestressed concrete beams-Characteristics of
high-strength concrete, discussed previously in this
chapter in the context of axially loaded members and
Multiplier reinforced concrete beams, affect the behavior of pre-
stressed concrete beams in corresponding ways. Special
/ 1 I
mention must be made, however, of the effects of a very
l00 200 300
low creep coefficient.
Duration of Load, days At the same concrete stress levels, time-dependent
deflection of high-strength beams will be less. On the
Fig. 6.9-- Multipliers for long-term deflections for different other hand, low concrete creep may have little effect on
strength concrete beams prestressed beam deflections because upward creep de-
flection due to prestress is, in many cases, canceled by
downward creep deflection due to sustained loads. This
a. For 3600 psi (2.5 MPa) concrete beams, l-year mul- results in only very small net deflections associated with
tipliers of 0.85, 0.60, and 0.50 for beams with p’/p, re- all sustained loads.
spectively, equal to 0, 0.5, and 1.0 are less than the ACI For a given level of concrete stress, loss of prestress
318 l-year values of 1.40, 1.10, and 0.80, which were force due to creep could be expected to be much smaller
determined for lower-concrete strengths. for prestressed beams using high-strength concrete.
b. For high-strength concrete beams, deflection multi- Higher sustained concrete stress would negate this ad-
pliers are still lower than the ACI 318 values. For ex- vantage.
363R-38 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT
6.4-Eccentric columns
6.4.1 Compressive stress distribution-It was pointed out
in discussing beams in Section 6.3.1 that the shape of the
compressive stress distribution in high-strength concrete
beams is apt to be different from that in lower-strength
concrete beams, reflecting the different shape of the
compressive stress-strain curve as shown in Fig. 6.1. For
under-reinforced concrete beams, with strength con-
trolled by the yield strength of the reinforcement, the
actual shape of the compressive stress block used in cal-
culation of the nominal flexural strength is of little
importance so long as the internal lever arm to the com-
pressive resultant is close to the true value. The con-
ventional rectangular stress block and equations for de-
termining nominal flexural strength based on the rec-
tangular stress block will normally be satisfactory. Over-
reinforced beams are not permitted according to ACI
318, and so one concludes that present procedures will
produce adequate results for all beams designed under
provisions of ACI 318, whether lower- or high-strength
concrete is used.
In the case of combined bending and axial load, i.e.,
eccentric columns, members failing in flexural compres-
sion cannot be avoided. For members with relatively low
eccentricity, failure will be initiated by the concrete
reaching its limiting strain, while the steel on the far side
of the column may be well below tensile yielding or may
remain in compression at the failure load. For such cases,
a more accurate representation of the concrete compres-
sive stress block could be important.
6.4.2 Interaction diagram for strength of short columns-
Limited analytical studies have been made of eccentric
columns comparing the predictions of the current ACI
318R Commentary approach based on the equivalent rec-
tangular stress block, with a trapezoidal concrete stress
distribution.6.49 The general shape of the trapezoid would
vary, ranging from nearly rectangular for lower-strength
concrete to nearly triangular for very-high-strength as
discussed in Section 6.3.1. Fig. 6.10 shows a comparison
of the strength interaction diagram relating axial load
capacity Pn and flexural capacity Mn for a 14 x 14 in.
column made of 12,000 psi (83 MPa) strength concrete.
Reinforcement is provided by four No. 11 comer bars
having yield strength fy = 60,000 psi (414 MPa). Strength
under combined axial load and bending was computed
first using the conventional rectangular stress block (solid
line), then using a variable-proportioned trapezoid
(dashed line).
For relatively large eccentricities, when moment dom-
inates and failure is initiated by tensile reinforcement
yielding, the two curves are almost indistinguishable. For
intermediate to small eccentricities, ACI 318 results in
larger values for both moment and axial force at a given
eccentricity at failure than those obtained by the more
exact calculation. Differences of up to 15 percent in the
interaction diagram relating moment to axial load have
been found based on comparative calculations.6.49
ACI 318 procedures in corporate an assumed concrete
3000
“r
2000
Nominal Axial
Load Strength
at given
Eccentricity
P n, kips
1000
0
0 200 400 500
Nominal M o m e n t Strength Mu,ff-klp
Fig. 6.10-- Comparative interaction diagrams for high-
strength concrete column
strain limit in compression of 0.003. It has been shown in
Section 6.3.2 that this is less conservative for high-
strength concrete than for lower-strength concrete. In the
presence of effective lateral confinement, such as provid-
ed by continuous spirals in normal weight concrete col-
umns, the effective strain limit is larger than this value,
and strain compatibility analysis can be based on 0.003
strain. However, there is no apparent justification for in-
creasing limiting strain assumptions above present values.
6.4.3 Slenderness effects-The moment magnification
method for dealing with slenderness effects in reducing
the strength of reinforced concrete columns appears to
be generally valid for high-strength concrete. An excep-
tion may be in the equations for calculating effective
flexural rigidity. Two alternative equations are given in
ACI 318 for flexural rigidity, both of which include fac-
tors to account for the effect of concrete creep in an
approximate way. The validity of these equations for
high-strength concrete may at least be questioned, recog-
nixing the significantly lower creep coefficient for high-
strength concrete. No experimental information is avail-
able at this time. In addition, calculations should
incorporate estimates of Ec as given by Eq. (6-12).
6.5-Summary
6.5.1 Review-A brief summary has been given of the
special characteristics of high-strength concrete as they
bear upon the behavior and design of reinforced concrete
members and structures.
For axially loaded columns, the direct addition of con-
crete and steel strength contributions is generally valid,
as for lower-strength concrete members. Lateral steel
plays a particularly important role in that it is necessary
to improve ductility and toughness. Of special concern is
 HIGH STRENGTH CONCRETE
the sharp drop-off of load after peak stress and the
apparent diminished effectiveness of lateral steel in
increasing ductility compared with lower-strength con-
crete columns. Further studies are needed. High-strength
concrete columns will exhibit less shortening under load
than lower-strength concrete columns because of the
higher elastic modulus and lower creep coefficient.
For beams, use of the conventional equivalent rec-
tangular stress block appears to give satisfactory results
for under-reinforced members required by ACI 318 pro-
cedures. The compressive strain limit is less than found
for lower-strength concrete but still may be taken at
0.003. Confinement steel and compressive steel should be
used in designing concrete beams where ductility is im-
portant as for seismic resistant structures. Changes have
been recommended for ACI 318 values for minimum ten-
sile steel ratio to reflect the influence of concrete
strength, as well as in the modulus of elasticity to be used
in deflection calculations. Significant changes should also
be considered in the calculation of long-term beam
deflections to reflect the much lower creep coefficient
and reduced effectiveness of compression steel in the
case of high-strength concrete beams.
The calculation of eccentric column strength may be
influenced by the shape of the compressive stress block
used, particularly for columns with relatively small ec-
centricity with neutral axis at failure close to an edge.
Limited trial calculations comparing rectangular stress
block with trapezoidal stress block indicate only small
differences. In determining slenderness effects, special
consideration should be given to the lower creep coef-
ficient for high-strength concrete, as it affects the
effective flexural rigidity used in the calculations, and to
improved values of modulus of elasticity.
6.5.2 Research needs-The material of Chapter 6
should be considered to be subject to revision based on
future research results. Areas in which information is
lacking include shear, diagonal tension, torsion, bond,
anchorage, development length, and the effects of re-
peated loading. Research programs are now in progress
in several centers that are aimed at filling some of these
gaps. In this way, the research base will be expanded so
that the many advantages of high-strength concrete may
be used safely and with confidence based on thorough
documentation of material properties and behavioral
characteristics of members.
6.6-Cited references
(See also Chapter l0--References)
6.1. Carrasquillo, Ramon L.; Nilson, Arthur H.; and
Slate, Floyd O., “Microcracking and Engineering Pro-
perties of High-Strength Concrete,” Research Report No.
80-1, Department of Structural Engineering, Cornell
University, Ithaca, Feb. 1980, 254 pp.
6.2. Carrasquillo, Ramon L.; Nilson, Arthur H.; and
Slate, Floyd O., “Properties of High Strength Concrete
Subject to Short-Term Loads,” ACI JOURNAL , Proceed-
ings V. 78, No. 3, May-June 1981, pp. 171-178.
393R-39
6.3. Carrasquillo, Ramon L.; Slate, Floyd 0.; and
Nilson, Arthur H., “Microcracking and Behavior of High
Strength Concrete Subject to Short-Term Loading,” ACI
JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 78, No. 3, May-June 1981, pp.
179-186.
6.4. “High Strength Concrete in Chicago High-Rise
Buildings,” Task Force Report No. 5, Chicago Committee
on High-Rise Buildings, 1977, 63 pp.
6.5. Kaar, P.H.; Hanson, N.W.; and Capell, H.T.,
“Stress-Strain Characteristics of High-Strength Concrete,”
Douglas McHenry International Symposium on Concrete
and Concrete Structures, SP-55, American Concrete Inst-
itute, Detroit, 1978, pp. 161-185. Also, Research and
Development Bulletin No. RD051.01D, Portland Cement
Association.
6.6 Perenchio, William F., and Klieger, Paul, “Some
Physical Properties of High Strength Concrete,” Research
and Development Bulletin No. RD056.01T, Portland
Cement Association, Skokie, 1978, 7 pp.
6.7. Shah, S.P., Editor, Proceedings, National Science
Foundation Workshop on High Strength Concrete, Uni-
versity of Illinois at Chicago Circle, Dec. 1979, 226 pp.
6.8. Wang, P.T.; Shah, S.P.; and Naaman, A.E.,
“Stress-Strain Curves of Normal and Lightweight Con-
crete in Compression,” ACI JOURNAL , Proceedings V. 75,
No. 11, Nov. 1978, pp. 603-611.
6.9. “Research Needs for High-Strength Concrete,”
reported by ACI Committee 363, ACI Materials Journal,
Proceedings V. 84, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1987, pp. 559-561.
6.10. Proceedings of Symposium on Utilization of High-
Strength Concrete, Stavanger, Norway, June 15-18, 1987,
Tapir Publishers, N-7034 Trondheim-NTH, Norway, 688
pp.
6.11. Nilson, A.H., “Design Implications of Current
Research on High-Strength Concrete,” High-Strength
Concrete, SP-87, American Concrete Institute, Detroit,
1985, pp. 85-118.
6.12. Martinez, S., Nilson, AH., and Slate, F.O.,
“Spirally-Reinforced High-Strength Concrete Columns,”
Research Report No. 82-10, Department of Structural
Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, Aug. 1982.
6.13. Martinez, S., Nilson, AH., and Slate, F.O.,
“Spirally-Reinforced High-Strength Concrete Columns,
ACI JOURNAL , Proceedings V. 81, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1984,
pp. 431-442.
6.14. Ahmad, S.H., and Shah, S.P., “Stress-Strain
Curves of Concrete Confined by Spiral Reinforcement,”
ACI JOURNAL , Proceedings V. 79, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1982,
pp. 484-490.
6.15. Fafitis, A., and Shah, S.P., “Lateral Rein-
forcement for High-Strength Concrete columns,” High-
Strength Concrete, SP-87, American Concrete Institute,
Detroit, 1985, pp. 213-232.
6.16. Yong, Y.K., Nour, M.G., and Nawy, E.G., “Be-
havior of Laterally-Confined High-Strength Concrete
Under Axial Loads,” Journal of Structural Engineering, V.
114, No. 2, Feb. 1988, pp. 332-351.
6.17. Slate, F.O., Nilson, A.H., and Martinez, S.,
363R-40 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT
“Mechanical Properties of High-Strength Lightweight
Concrete,” ACI JOURNAL , Proceedings V. 83, No. 4, July-
Aug. 1986, pp. 606-613.
6.18. Vallenas, J.; Bertero, V.V.; and Popov, E.P.,
“Concrete Confined by Rectangular Hoops and Subjected
to Axial Loads,” Report No. UCB/EERC-77/13, Earth-
quake Engineering Research Center, University of Cali-
fornia, Berkeley, 1977.
6.19. Sheikh, S.A. and Uzumeri, S.M., “Strength and
Ductility of Tied Concrete Columns,” Journal of Structur-
al Division, ASCE, V. 106, No. ST5, May 1980, pp. 1079-
1102.
6.20. Bennett, E.W., and Muir, S.E. St. J., “Some
Fatigue Tests on High Strength Concrete in Uniaxial
Compression,” Magazine of Concrete Research (London),
V. 19, No. 59, June 1967, pp. 113-117.
6.21. Ahmad, S.H., “Properties of Confined Concrete
Subject to Static and Dynamic Loading,” PhD thesis,
University of Illinois at Chicago Circle, Mar. 1981.
6.22. Bertero, V.V.; Bresler, B.; and Liao, H.,
“Stiffness Degradation of Reinforced Concrete Members
Subject to Cyclic Flexural Moments,” Report No. EERC-
69/12, University of California, Berkeley, Dec. 1969.
6.23. Bresler, B., and Bertero, V.V., “Influence of High
Strain Rate and Cyclic Loading Behavior of Unconfined
and Confined Concrete in Compression,” Proceedings,
2nd Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Department of Civil Engineering, McMaster University,
Hamilton, June 1975, pp. 15-1 - 15-38.
6.24. Ngab, AS.; Slate, F.O.; and NiIson, A.H.,
“Behavior of High-Strength Concrete Under Sustained
Compressive Stress,” Research Report No. 80-2, Depart-
ment of Structural Engineering, Cornell University,
Ithaca, Feb. 1980, 201 pp.
6.25. Ngab, Ali S.; NiIson, Arthur H.; and Slate, Floyd
O., “Shrinkage and Creep of High Strength Concrete,
ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 78, No. 4, July-Aug. 1981,
pp. 255-261.
6.26. Ngab, Ali S.; Slate, Floyd 0.; and Nilson, Arthur
H., “Microcracking and Time-Dependent Strains in High-
Strength Concrete, ACI JOURNAL , Proceedings V. 78, No.
4, JuIy-Aug. 1981, pp. 262-268.
6.27. Smadi, M.M.; Slate, F.O.; and NiIson, A.H.,
“Time-Dependent Behavior of High-Strength Concrete
Under High Sustained Compressive Stresses,” Research
Report No. 82-16, Department of Structural Engineering,
Cornell University, Ithaca, Nov. 1982.
6.28. Smadi, M.M., Slate, F.O., and Nilson, A.H.,
“Shrinkage and Creep of High-, Medium-, and Low-
Strength Concretes, Including Overloads,” ACI Materials
Journal Proceedings V. 84, No. 3, May-June 1987, pp.
224-234.
6.29. Smadi, M.M., Slate, F.O., and Nilson, A.H.,
“High-, Medium-, and Low-Strength Concrete Subject to
Sustained Overloads--Strains, Strengths, and Failure
Mechanisms,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 82, No. 5,
Sept.-Oct. 1985, pp. 657-664.
6.30. Russell, H.G., and Corley, W.G., “Time-
Dependent Behavior of Columns in Water Tower Place,”
Douglas McHenry International Symposium on Concrete
and Concrete Structures, SP-55, American Concrete Insti-
tute, Detroit, 1978, pp. 347-373. Also, Research and
Development Bulletin No. RD052.01B, Portland Cement
Association.
6.31. Leslie, Keith E.; Rajagopalan, K.S.; and Everard,
Noel J., “Flexural Behavior of High-Strength Concrete
Beams,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 73, No. 9, Sept.
1976, pp. 517-521.
6.32. Nedderman, H., “Flexural Stress Distribution in
Very-High Strength Concrete,” MSc thesis, University of
Texas at Arlington, Dec. 1973, 182 pp.
6.33. Zia, Paul, “Structural Design with High Strength
Concrete,” Report No. PZIA-77-01, Civil Engineering
Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh,
Mar. 1977, 65 pp.
6.34. Pastor, J.A.; NiIson, A.H.; and Slate, F.O.,
“Behavior of High Strength Concrete Beams,” Research
Report No. 84-3, Department of Structural Engineering,
Cornell University, Ithaca, Feb. 1984.
6.35. Wang, Pao-Tsan; Shah, Surendra P.; and
Naaman, Antoine E., “High Strength Concrete in Ulti-
mate Strength Design,” Proceedings, ASCE, V. 104, ST11,
Nov. 1978, pp. 1761-1773.
6.36. Discussion of “Flexural Behavior of High-
Strength Concrete Beams” by Keith E. Leslie, K.S.
Rajagopalan, and Noel J. Everard, ACI JOURNAL , Pro-
ceedings V. 74, No. 3, Mar. 1977, pp. 140-145.
6.37. Russell, H., and Roller, J.J., “Shear Strength of
High-Strength Concrete Beams,” accepted for publication
in ACI Structural Journal.
6.38. Mphonde, A.G., and Frantz G.C., “Shear Tests
of High and Low Strength Concrete Beams Without
Stirrups,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 81 No. 4, July-
Aug. 1984.
6.39. Mphonde, A.G., and Frantz G.C., “Shear Tests
of High- and Low-Strength Concrete Beams with Stir-
rups,” High-Strength Concrete, SP-87, American Concrete
Institute, Detroit, 1985, pp. 179-196.
6.40. El-Zanaty, AH., Nilson, AH., and Slate, F.O.,
“Shear Capacity of Prestressed Concrete Beams Using
High-Strength Concrete,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V.
83, No. 3, May-June 1986, pp. 359-368.
6.41. El-Zanaty, A.H., Nilson, A.H., and Slate, F.O.,
“Shear Capacity of Reinforced Concrete Beams Using
High-Strength Concrete,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V.
83, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1986, pp. 290-296.
6.42. Ahmad, S.H., Khaloo, A.R., and Poveda, A.,
“Shear Capacity of Reinforced High-Strength Concrete
Beams,” ACI JOURNAL , Proceedings, V. 83, No. 2, Mar.-
Apr. 1986, pp. 297-305.
6.43. Ahmad, S.H., and Lue, D.M., “Flexure-Shear
Interaction of Reinforced High-Strength Concrete
Beams,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 84, No. 4, July-Aug.
1987, pp. 330-341.
6.44. Kaufman, M.K., and Ramirez, J.A., “Re-eval-
uation of the Ultimate Shear Behavior of High-Strength
 HIGH STRENGTH CONCRETE 363R-41

Concrete Prestressed I-Beams,” ACI Structural Journal, amount of reinforcing steel equal to 4 percent of the
Proceedings V. 85, No. 3, May-June 1988, pp. 295-303. column area for a given load, whereas the same column
6.45. Treece, R.A., and Jima, J.O., “Bond Strength of in 9,000 psi would require only 1 percent steel-the
Epoxy-Coated Reinforcing Bars,” ACI Materials Journal, minimum allowed by code."7.3
V. 86, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1989.
6.46. Pauw, Adrian, “Static Modulus of Elasticity of 7.2-Cost studies
Concrete as Affected by Density,” ACI JOURNAL , Pro- The Material Service Corporation 7.4 conducted a
ceedings V. 57, No. 6, Dec. 1960, pp. 679-688. pricing study that dramatically demonstrated the cost
6.47. Leubkeman, C.H., Nilson, A.H., and Slate, F.O., advantage of replacing percentages of steel with high-
“Sustained Load Deflection of High-Strength Concrete strength concrete in short tied columns. This 1983 study
Beams,” Research Report No. 85-2. Department of Struc- was made for a column supporting a design load (1.4D
tural Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, Feb. 1985, + 1.7L) of 1000 kips (4.45 MN) and based on the follow-
164 PP. ing prices:
6.48. Paulson, K.A., and Nilson, A.H., “Deflections of
High-Strength Concrete beams Under Sustained Reinforcing steel $760/ton in place
Loading,” Research Report (in preparation), Department 7000 psi concrete $80/yd3 in place
of Structural Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca. 9000 psi concrete $85/yd3 in place
6.49. Garcia, D.T., and Nilson, AH., “A Comparative 11,000 psi concrete $104/yd 3 in place
Study of Eccentrically Loaded High-Strength Concrete 14,000 psi concrete $129/yd 3 in place
Columns,” Research Report (in preparation), Department Formwork $280/yd 3 in place
of Structural Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca.
As Fig. 7.1 shows, using high-strength concrete with a
minimum of steel is the most economical solution.
CHAPTER 7-- ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
Compressive Strength , MPa
60 80
30 I I
As earlier chapters have demonstrated, high-strength
concrete is a state-of-the-art material, and like most
state-of-the-art materials, it commands a premium price. Cost of 40 x 40 in.
In some instances, the benefits are well worth the addi- Column per Foot of 20 -
Length per 1000
tional effort and expense; in others they are not. Before kips of Design Load
the cost/benefit trade-offs in specific applications are (1.4 D’+l.7L), $ 10 _
discussed, the economic considerations regarding the use
of high-strength concrete generally will be examined.
In many areas and for many uses, the benefits of high- 0, 1 I I
strength concrete more than compensate for the in- 6 8 IO 12 14

creased costs of raw materials and quality control.
Basically, high-strength concrete will carry a compression
load at less cost than any lower-strength concrete.7.1
Chicago-based structural engineers William Schmidt and
Edward S. Hoffman compiled charts indicating the cost
of supporting 100,000 lb (445 kN) of service load comes
to $5.02 per story with 6000 psi (41 MPa) concrete, $4.21
with 7500 psi (52 MPa), and drops to $3.65 with 9000 psi
(62 MPa) concrete (which the authors report they had no
difficulty obtaining in the Chicago area).7.2
While the figures reflect 1975 costs, the ratio should
remain similar. The reason for these economies is that,
although the concrete itself is more costly than lower-
strength mixtures, the cost differential is offset by sig-
nificant reduction in the given member size. This capa-
bility is particularly attractive for use in columns.
Since column size is so important for architectural and
rental reasons, the ability to limit the sixes for taller
structures often allows the use of a concrete solution in
lieu of one of structural steel.
In 1976, Architectural Record noted that ". . . a 30 x
30-in. column of 6,000 psi concrete might require an
Compressive Strength , ksi
Fig. 7.1-- Cost of columns
7.3-Case histories
Two examples might help translate this savings into
actual dollars.
7.3.1 Case history No. 1-In 1968, Philadelphia’s first
high-rise office building using 6000 psi (41 MPa) concrete
was designed. To meet the span requirements [approxi-
mately 30 ft (9m) square bays] while avoiding unaccept-
able oversized columns on the lower floors, the columns
of the first three floors were built of structural steel.
However, a comparison study made by the designing en-
gineers for 8000 psi (55 MPa) concrete showed that
7.3.1.1- With the same column sixes as the original
unacceptable sixes, a 60 percent reduction in reinforcing
steel with the 8000 psi (55 MPa) concrete would have
been made. This would also have resulted in 24 fewer
splices per column, a side benefit in labor and time cost
savings.
7.3.12- With the same amount of reinforcing used
363R-42 ACI COMMlTTEE REPORT
as in the original column, the column size could have
been reduced from 36 x 46 in. (915 x 1170 mm) to 30 x
30 in. (760 x 760 mm). This size would have been ac-
ceptable to the architect and owner and would have
eliminated the need for an additional trade-structural
steel-on the job.
Rough calculations show that 8000 psi (55 MPa) con-
crete for the lower-floor columns with a stepped strength
reduction, as the building reached the upper floors, to
3000 psi (21 MPa) concrete at the top would have result-
ed in a column size that met the demands of the archi-
tect, owner, and rental agent. This would have saved
close to $530,000 in 1968 dollars.
7.3.2 Case history No. 2-- The economies of high-
strength concrete were more dramatically demonstrated
in the construction of New York City’s first building
using 8000 psi (55 MPa) concrete, The Palace Hotel built
in 1979. The building was originally conceived using
structural steel for the lower floors, designated for
ballroom and restaurant functions, with a reinforced
concrete superstructure for the hotel facilities. However,
the engineers were able to convert the entire design,
except for two columns on the lowest four levels, to
reinforced concrete through the use of 8000 psi (55 MPa)
concrete. These ballroom and restaurant areas required
large column spacing. The common limitations of 6000
psi (41 MPa) concrete would have made the columns
prohibitively large and uneconomical. A presentation to
the New York City Building Department about the val-
ues of high-strength concrete, together with the proposed
controls to insure quality, resulted in its acceptance for
use in New York.
Concrete with compressive strengths of 8000 and 7000
psi (55 and 48 MPa) was used in the columns of the
building only. Lightweight concrete with compressive
strength of 3500 psi (24 MPa) was used for floor slabs,
and 5000 to 6000 psi (34 to 41 MPa) concrete was used
in wall construction. On the lower five levels of the hotel,
column sixes were reduced by approximately 25 percent.
Approximately 10 percent less reinforcing steel was used
because of the strength of the concrete. In addition, No.
11 reinforcing bars remained a viable size, avoiding the
need for mechanical connections between the reinforcing
bars, thus considerably reducing the floor-framing time
requirements. Further economies were realized by mini-
mixing changes in column sixes and reducing column
reinforcement on the upper floors.
The ability to reduce the amount of costly reinforcing
steel without sacrificing strength is an attractive benefit
to owners, builders, and engineers, but the use of high-
strength concrete in building columns has a corollary
economic benefit. It enables the lower floors of high-rise
buildings to maintain an acceptable column size, while at
the same time increasing the number of possible
stories7.1
This is a case of a relatively new material meeting the
needs of market economics. The Chicago Committee
study7. 5 noted “The potential number of stories in
high-rise buildings is limited by the required large
columns if they were to be built with ordinary low-
strength concrete. Real estate properties in prime loca-
tions had to be developed with maximum rental floor
area. Architectural layout of apartment or condominium
units demanded flexibility, which is restricted by large
columns. High-strength concrete satisfied this condition
by allowing column sixes to be reduced to a minimum.”
7.4-Other studies
In Ontario, Canada, the Richmond-Adelaide Center’s
use of high-strength concrete columns enabled the arch-
itect to increase the use of the underground parking
garage by approximately 30 percent.7.6 In times when all
building construction is difficult to capitalize, a material
that both reduces construction costs and substantially
increases the amount of revenue-gathering space within
a building can be a tremendous factor in the decision to
build.
7.5-Selection of materials
The economic consequences of requiring fly ash may
vary. On The Royal Bank Plaza Project in Ontario, Can-
ada, a 43-story building constructed from 1973-1976 (one
of the first to use fly ash in high-strength concrete), all of
the various strength concrete mixtures on the project
were converted to local fly ash. This resulted in a saving
of approximately $100,000 over the contract and pro-
duced concretes with extremely good fresh and hardened
properties. 7.6
The Scotia Plaza-A 68-story building in Toronto,
Canada, constructed in 1988--is one of the first buildings
to employ the use of silica fume in concrete as an ele-
ment in increasing strength. Strengths of up to 10,000 psi
have been achieved. Two Union Square in Seattle em-
ploys 19,000-psi concrete containing silica fume-the
highest strength used to date in a conventional building.
7.6-Quality control
While selection of materials will influence costs, an-
other factor, and one more exclusively the result of the
use of high-strength concrete, is the cost of the increased
testing, quality control, and inspection that the use of
high-strength concrete requires. The quality and consis-
tency of the concrete is crucial, and additional steps must
be taken to insure that quality and consistency.
In the Royal Bank Plaza Project, a number of precau-
tions were necessary. The supplier had to have a quality
control person at the site to control both the scheduling
of trucks and the consistency of the concrete at the time
it was delivered. For this central plant project, the suppli-
er agreed that there would be no water added to the
trucks after they had come onto the site and that any
minor adjustments would be made prior to sending the
truck to the site. Regular visits were made to the batch
plant to check batching procedures and to obtain the test
samples. Furthermore, a full-time technician was employ-
ed to carry out sampling and testing on site. This was
 HIGH STRENGTH CONCRETE
found to be an essential feature of quality control.
On a later project, Richmond-Adelaide Center, Phase
II, Ontario, Canada, 1977-1979, by the same engineers,
not only did the supplier maintain full-time inspection on
the site to insure that the delivered material met require-
ments but the engineers employed by the owner also
maintained full-time inspection and regularly inspected
the batch plant. Often this type of stringent quality
control is required by regulation. For The Palace Hotel,
the New York City Building Department stipulated that
at least two suppliers of concrete prequalify the concrete
mixtures to strengths up to 8000 psi (55 MPa). The pre-
qualification was to be performed by an independent
testing laboratory, and a full-time professional engineer
would be required to continuously inspect the progress of
the work, performing no other work during the construc-
tion.7.7 For hot weather concreting, the engineers re-
quired mixing water limited to no more than 50 F (10 C)
and the truck drums to be hosed down if standing in
direct sunlight. Further, all trucks were limited to 10 yd 3
(7.6 m 3) loads, despite capacities of 16 yd3(12.2 m3 ).
While the professional inspection does add to cost, the
continuing education of the suppliers and concrete sub-
contractors in the areas of quality control should ul-
timately create better concretes of all strengths and result
in better and more economical use of materials.
7.7-Areas of application
In general, the economic advantages of high-strength
concrete are most readily realized when the concrete is
used in the columns of high-rise buildings. In this appli-
cation, engineers may take full advantage of its increased
compressive strength: reducing the amount of steel, re-
ducing column size to increase usable floor space, or al-
lowing additional stories without detracting from lower
floors. These benefits overshadow the increased quality
control costs and possible higher cost of raw materials
discussed earlier. Yet the use of high-strength concrete
has also spread to other applications, primarily slabs,
beams, and long-span bridges. The economic considera-
tions of these uses should also be examined.
Parking garages, bridge decks, and other installations
requiring improved density, lower permeability, and in-
creased resistance to freeze-thaw and corrosion have
become prime candidates for consideration of the use of
high-strength materials.
The primary advantage of high-strength concrete in
slabs is the resulting reduction in dead load.7.8 However,
as Schmidt and Hoffman point out, significant economies
can be achieved only by reducing the thickness that is
required for stiffness; the additional reinforcement
required may offset the concrete savings. Used for rec-
tangular beams, T-beams, and one-way slabs, high-
strength concrete yields reduced section width or thick-
ness and allows for longer spans, but (as with slabs) less
expensive lightweight concrete continues to perform this
job satisfactorily. Presently, there is no economic justi-
fication, under normal circumstances, for the use of a
363R-43
premium material such as high-strength concrete for
slabs or beams.
Long-span bridges are another area where the quali-
ties of high-strength concrete are proving themselves
economically attractive. High-strength concrete’s com-
paratively greater compressive strength per unit weight
and unit volume allows lighter, more slender bridge piers.
This provides improved horizontal clearances. In addi-
tion, the increased stiffness of high-strength concrete is
advantageous when deflections or stability govern the
bridge design. Increased tensile strength of high-strength
concrete is helpful in service load design in prestressed
concrete. 7.9
In bidding to build a cable-stayed bridge across the
Ohio River, a concrete deck proposal beat steel by 29
percent-roughly $10 million. The two-lane crossing be-
tween Huntington, West Virginia, and Proctorville, Ohio,
includes the first major asymmetrical stayed-girder struc-
ture in the United States. The bridge has a main span of
900 feet over one pier. The three bids to construct the
bridge using concrete ranged from $23.5 million to $29.7
million, all well below the lowest steel bid ($33.3 million).
The designer, Arvid Grant Associates, specified box gir-
ders only 5 ft (1.5 m) deep cast of 8000 psi (55 MPa)
high-strength concrete.7.8
7.8-Conclusion
The economic benefits of high-strength concrete are
just now becoming fully apparent. Certainly as the use of
high-strength concrete increases, additional and possibly
even greater benefits will be realized. In any case, those
projects that have led the way in the use of high-strength
concrete have clearly demonstrated its economic advan-
tages. For now, it allows the profession to engineer most
cost effectively and space effectively. In the future, those
considerations may tip the balance on whether certain
projects are constructed at all.
7.9-Cited references
(See also Chapter 10--References)
7.1. “High Strength Concrete--Costs More in the
Truck, Costs Less in the Structure,” PCA Concrete Tech-
nology Today, No. 4, Dec. 1980, p. 3.
7.2. Schmidt, William, and Hoffman, Edward S.,
“9,000-psi Concrete-Why?, Why Not?,” Civil Engineering
-ASCE, V. 45, No. 5, May 1975, pp. 52-55.
7.3. “High-Strength Concrete Allows Bigger Loads on
Smaller Columns,” Architectural Record, V. 159, No. 7,
June 1976, pp. 133-135.
7.4. Private correspondence from J. Moreno of
Material Service Corp. to Irwin G. Cantor, May 12, 1983.
7.5. “High-Strength Concrete in Chicago High-Rise
Buildings,” Task Force Report No. 5, Chicago Committee
on High-Rise Buildings, Feb. 1977, 63 pp.
7.6. Bickley, John A., and Payne, John C., “High
Strength Cast-in-Place Concrete in Major Structures in
Ontario,” paper presented at the ACI Annual Conven-
tion, Milwaukee, Mar. 1979.
363R-44 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT

7.7. Private correspondence from J. T. Walsh, Depart- 8.2-Buildings

ment of Buildings, New York, to Irwin G. Cantor, Aug.
11, 1977.
7.8. “Concrete Beats Steel by 29%,” Engineering
News-Record, V. 206, May 14, 1981, p. 16.
7.9. Carpenter, James E., “Applications of High
Strength Concrete for Highway Bridges,” Public Roads,
V. 44, No. 2, Sept. 1980, pp. 76-83.
CHAPTER 8-APPLICATIONS
Some specific applications of high-strength concrete
are described in this chapter. Separate sections describe
applications in buildings, bridges, and special structures.
The applications are not all-inclusive but demonstrate a
range of applications of high-strength concrete. Some po-
tential applications for high-strength concrete are also
discussed.
The largest application of high-strength concrete in
buildings has been for columns of high-rise structures.
The history of high-strength concrete columns in the
Chicago area has been described in Task Force Report
No.58.1 of the Chicago Committee on High-Rise Build-
ings. Since 1972, more than 30 buildings in the Chicago
area have been constructed with columns having a design
compressive strength of 9000 psi (62 MPa). The develop-
ment of concrete for use in two buildings in Toronto has
been reported by Bickley and Payne. 8.2 Other applica-
tions have been reported in New York,8.3 Houston, 8.4,8.5
Minneaplis,8.6 Melbourne, Australia,8.7 Dallas, 8.25 and
Seattle.8.26 Information obtained from these and other
sources is summarized in Table 8.1.
8.3-Bridges
There have been many applications of high-strength
concrete in precast prestressed bridge girders. However,
published information on actual structures is limited.

Table 8.1-- Buildings with high-strength concrete

Maximum
design
concrete
Total strength,
Building Location Year* psi
S.E. Financial center Miami 1982 53 7000
Petrocanada Building Calgary 1982 34 7250
Lake Point Tower Chicago 1965 70 7500
1130 S. Michigan Ave. Chicago 7500
Texas Commerce Tower Houston 1981 75 7500
Helmsley Palace Hotel New York 1978 53 8000
Trump Tower New York 68 8000
City Center Project Minneapolis 1981 52 8000
Collins Place Melbourne 44 8000
Larimer Place Condominium Denver 1980 31 8000
499 Park Avenue New York 27 8500
Royal Bank Plaza Toronto 1975 43 8800
Richmond-Adelaide Center Toronto 1978 33 8800
Midcontinental Plaza Chicago 1972 50 9000
Water Tower Place Chicago 1975 79 9000
River Plaza Chicago 1976 56 9Qw
Chicago Mercantile Exchange Chicago 1982 40 g@m
Columbia Center Seattle 1983 76 9500
Interfirst Plaza Dallas 1983 72 10,000
Eugene Terrace Chicago 1987 44 11,000
311 S. Wacker Drive Chicago 1988 70 12,000 ss
900 N. Michigan Annex Chicago 1986 15 14,000
Two Union Square Seattle 1987 62 14,000**
225 W. Wacker Drive Chicago 1988 30 14,000
Scotia Plaza Toronto 1988 68 10,000
* Year in which high-strength concrete was cast.
t ‘Avo experimental columns of 11,000 psi strength were included.
$ Two experimental columns of 14,000 psi strength were included.
~9,CN~psiakousedhflowskbroflowerkvek.
l * 19,000 psi indirectly specified to achieve a high modulus of elasticity.
 HIGH STRENGTH CONCRETE 363R-45

Table 8.2-- Bridges with high-strength concrete

Maximum
design
concrete
Maximum strength,
Year span, ft psi
1967 158 6,000
1981 750 6,000
San Diego to Coronado California 1969 140 6,000 L*
8.13
Linn Cove Viaduct I North Carolina 1979 180 6,000
Pasco-Kennewick Intercity Washington 1978 981 6,000
Coweman River Bridges 8.14 Washington 146 7,000
Huntington to Proctorville W. Va. to Ohio 1984 900 8,000
Annicis Bridge British Columbia 1986 1526 8,000
Nitta Highway Bridge Japan 1968 98 8,500
Kaminoshima Highway Bridge Japan 1970 282 8,500
Tower Road Washington 1987 161 9,000
Fukamitsu Highway Bridge Japan 1974 85 10,000
Ootanabe Railway Bridge Japan 1973 79 11,400
Akkagawa Railway Bridge Japan 1976 150 11,400
* Lightweight concrete
Metric equivalent: 100 psi = 6.895 MPa

The effect of using high-strength concrete in four
different solid-section girders has been described by
Carpenter. 8.8 For integral deck bulb tees, span capability
for closely spaced girders increased with increase in
concrete strength. For wider spaced girders, capability
increased when concrete strength was increased up to
8000 psi (55 MPa). Above 8000 psi (55 MPa) compres-
sive strength, span capability did not increase because
sufficient prestress forces could not be provided. Similar
results were obtained for other cross sections.
For post-tensioned box girder bridges, Carpenter re-
ported that high-strength concrete can be used to in-
crease span capability. However, for higher-strength con-
cretes, maximum available prestress force again limited
maximum spans. For segmental box girder bridges, he
showed that high-strength concrete is feasible in regions
where member thickness is controlled by stress. However,
where thickness is controlled by other factors, high-
strength concrete may not be beneficial.
Some actual bridges in which the use of high-strength
concrete has been reported are listed in Table 8.2. Per-
haps the most significant application in the United States
is the Huntington, West Virginia, to Proctorville, Ohio,
crossing for which a compressive strength of 8000 psi (55
MPa) was specified.8.9 The bridge consists of an asym-
metrical stayed-girder superstructure with a main span of
900 ft (274 m).
The use of concrete with compressive strengths up to
11,000 psi (76 MPa) in railway bridges in Japan has also
been reported. 8.10,8.11 Nagataki8.11 reports that strengths
of 11,400 psi (79 MPa) can be easily obtained in the field
in Japan.
8.4-Special applications
In 1948, concrete with a specified compressive strength
of 9000 psi (62 MPa) was used for precast panels for a
powerhouse at Fort Peck Dam, Montana. High-strength
concrete was specified to provide an extremely dense
concrete that would withstand the harsh exposure. Actual
compressive strengths of concrete were reported 8.15 to be
considerably higher than 9000 psi (62 MPa).
The use of 10,000 psi (69 MPa) concrete for pre-
stressed concrete poles produced by spinning has been
described by Skrastins8.16 m 1970. High-strength concrete
was selected to reduce the size of the poles.
Copen 8.17 has indicated that the use of 10,000 psi (69
MPa) concrete in thin arch dams would usually result in
greater economy through reduced volume of concrete.
High-strength concrete would tend to reduce deflections
in a dam and may improve strength of construction joints
and permit earlier removal of formwork. Disadvantages
of high-strength concrete listed by Copen include de-
velopment of stress concentrations, particularly in the
foundation for the dam; tendency toward more cracking
in concrete; increased temperature control problems; and
complications involved with openings through the dam
and railways over the dam.
The application of high-strength concrete in two
grandstand roofs has been described by Bobrowski8.18
Lightweight concrete with a density of 118 lb/ft3 (1.89
Mg/m 3) and a minimum cube strength of 7500 psi (52
MPa) at 28 days was used in the roof beams at Don-
caster racecourse, England. Roof beams at Leopardstown
racecourse, Ireland, had 28 day cube compressive
strengths between 7200 and 8850 psi (50 and 61 MPa)
and an average density of 115 lb/ft3 (1.84 Mg/m3).
Anderson has reported8.19 the use of high-strength
concrete in piles for marine foundations in northwestern
United States. Measured 28 day compressive strengths
ranged between 7900 and 9900 psi (55 to 68 MPa). High-
strength concretes with compressive strengths up to 9400
psi (65 MPa) have also been used for decks of dock
structures in the northwestern United States.
In 1984, the Glomar Beaufort Sea I8.27 was placed in
the arctic, This exploratory drilling structure contains
about 12,000 yd3 (9200 m3) of high-strength lightweight
363R-46 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT
Table 8.3-- Corrosion resistance data for selected high-strength concrete (data from reference 8.29)
Strength hficrosilicat Chloride
(psi) (mpa) (wt. %) Permeability*
(Coulombs)
5,160 35.6 0 3,663
7,360 50.8 15 198
8,580 59.2 15 98
9,290 64.1 8 132
12,120 83.6 15 75
t By weight of portland cement.
* Measured by AASHTO-T-227 rapid chloride permeability tat at 28 days age.
$ Corrosion potential measured with respect to a copper sulfate reference electrode.
Q F$ is the polarization current; its reciprocal is a measure of the rate of corrosion.
concrete with unit weights of about 112 lb/ft 3 (1794
kg/m3) with 56-day compressive strength of 9000 psi (62
MPa) and about 6500 yd3 (5000 m3) of high-strength nor-
mal-weight concrete with unit weights of about 145 lb/ft3
(2323 kg/m3) and 56-day compressive strengths of about
10,000 psi (69 MPa).
Field placements of high-strength, low-permeability,
and chemical-resistant concretes for industrial manufac-
turing applications were reported by Wolsiefer.8.20 Spe-
cial applications have included several modular bank
vaults placed at slumps of 9 in. (230 mm) with measured
compressive strengths of 12,000 psi (83 MPa) at 45 days.
The protection of reinforcing steel from corrosion can
be expected to be enhanced when high-strength concrete
is used. The resultant low porosity should increase the
electrical resistivity and reduce the rate at which oxygen
reaches the steel, both of which will reduce corrosion
rates. Moreover, the ease with which chloride ions from
deicing salts can reach the steel and initiate corrosion is
also reduced.
Although there are many studies evaluating the corro-
sion of steel embedded in regular strength concrete, no
systematic studies in the influence of concrete strength
appear to have been reported. Published data for high-
strength concrete can be extracted from studies investi-
gating other factors, particularly the influence of silica
fume. The conclusions obtained with regular concretes
are also applicable to high-strength concrete: namely,
there is an increase in electrical resistivity 8.28,8.29 and a
reduction in chloride permeability 8.29,8.30 with increased
strength. Data linking these parameters with laboratory
corrosion data are given in Table 8.3. The corrosion be-
havior of a very high-strength mortar has also been re-
ported.8.31 Useful discussions regarding the factors af-
fecting the corrosion of steel in concretes with silica fume
are to be found in references.8.31,8.32,8.33
8.5-- Potential applications
Most applications of high-strength concrete have used
the strength property of the material. However, high-
strength concrete may possess other characteristics that
could be used advantageously in concrete structures.
Electrical 18 month Corrosion Data
Resistivity %orl~ ‘ 4
(ohm.cm) (mv) ( pohm/cm’)
8 -456 22
95 -26 4
118 -53 4
74 -3 1
161 +53 4
LeMessurier 8.21 proposed the use of high-strength con-
crete to satisfy the need for a high modulus of elasticity.
Similarly, high-strength concrete can be used in slabs to
allow early removal of formwork and avoid reshoring.8.22
This takes advantage of both the high modulus of elasti-
city and lower creep of high-strength concrete. Ander-
son 8.19 had suggested that the low creep of high-strength
concrete should be taken into account when considering
prestress losses. Since most of the prestress loss is at-
tributable to creep and shrinkage, prestress losses for
high-strength concrete members should be less than for
lower-strength concrete members.
Rabbat and Russell 8.23 have reported that the maxi-
mum span capability of solid-section girders can be in-
creased by 15 percent when the concrete compressive
strength is increased from 5000 to 7000 psi (34 to 48
MPa). Finally, Manning 8.24 has suggested that the rela-
tionship between high-strength concrete and high-quality
concrete may make high-strength concrete attractive not
for its strength but for its long-term service performance.
More recently, high-strength concrete has been speci-
fied for applications in warehouses, foundries, parking
garages, bridge deck overlays, dam spillways, and heavy
duty industrial floors. In these applications, high-strength
concrete is being used to provide a concrete with im-
proved resistance to chemical attack, better abrasion re-
sistance, improved freeze-thaw durability, and reduced
permeability.
8.6-Cited references
(See also Chapter 10-References)
8.1. “High-Strength Concrete in Chicago High-Rise
Buildings,” Task Force Report No. 5, Chicago Committee
on High-Rise Buildings, Feb. 1977, 63 pp.
8.2. Bickley, John A., and Payne, John C., “High-
Strength Cast-in-Place Concrete in Major Structures in
Ontario,” paper presented at the ACI Annual Conven-
tion, Milwaukee, Mar. 1979.
8.3. “New York City Gets Its First High-Strength
Concrete Tower,” Engineering News-Record, V. 202, Nov.
2, 1978, p. 22.
8.4. Pickard, Scott S., “Ruptured Composite Tube
 HIGH STRENGTH CONCRETE
Design for Houston’s Texas Commerce Tower,” Concrete
International: Design & Construction, V. 3, No. 7, July
1981, pp. 13-19.
8.5. Cook, James E., “Research and Application of
High-Strength Concrete Using Class C Fly Ash,” Concrete
International Design & Construction, V. 4, No. 7, July
1982, pp. 72-80.
8.6. Venema, T.P., and Regnier, H.J., “Placement,
Batching, and Tests of High Strength Concrete for
Minneapolis City Center Project,” submitted to ACI for
publication.
8.7. Day, K.W., “Quality Control of 55 MPa Concrete
for Collins Place Project, Melbourne, Australia,” Concrete
International Design & Construction, V. 3, No. 3, Mar.
1981, pp. 17-24.
8.8. Carpenter, James E., “Applications of High
Strength Concrete for Highway Bridges,” Public Roads,
V. 44, No. 2, Sept. 1980, pp. 76-83.
8.9. “Concrete Beats Steel by 29%,” Engineering
News-Record, V. 206, May 14, 1981, p. 16.
8.10. “Stronger Concrete,” EngineeringNews-Record, V.
189, June 8, 1982, p. 12.
8.11. Nagataki, Shigeyoshi, “On the Use of Superplasti-
cizers,” Seminar on Special Concretes, 8th FIP Congress
(London, 1978), Federation Intenationale de la Pre-
contrainte, Wexham Springs, 1978, 15 pp.
8.12. “Concrete Box Girder Span Establishes U.S.
Record,” Engineering News-Record, V. 208, No. 1, Jan. 7,
1982, pp. 22-25.
8.13. Pfeifer, Donald W., “Development of the Con-
crete Technology for a Precast Prestressed Concrete
Segmental Bridge,” Journal, Prestressed Concrete Insti-
tute, V. 27, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1982, pp. 78-99.
8.14. Hurlbut, Roger, “146-ft Long Precast Prestressed
Bridge Girders in Washington State, “Journal, Prestressed
Concrete Institute, V. 24, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1979, pp. 88-
92.
8.15. “Unusual Strengths Attained in Precast Slabs
Used for Facing Power House Walls,” Concrete, V. 57,
No. 5, May 10, 1949, pp. 9-10.
8.16. Skrastins, Janis I., ‘Toward High-Strength Con-
crete,” Modern Concrete, V. 34, No. 1, May 1970, pp. 44-
48.
8.17. Copen, Merlin D., “Problems Attending Use of
Higher Strength Concrete in Thin Arch Dams,” ACI
JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 72, No. 4, Apr. 1975, pp. 138
140.
8.18. Bobrowski, J., and Bardham-Roy, B.K., “Struc-
tural Assessment of Lightweight Aggregate Concrete,”
Concrete (London), V. 5, No. 7, July 1971, pp. 229-234.
8.19. Anderson, Arthur R., “Research Answers Needed
for Greater Utilization of High Strength Concrete,”
Journal, Prestressed Concrete Institute, V. 25, No. 4,
July-Aug. 1960, pp. 162-164.
8.20. Wolsiefer, John, “Ultra High-Strength Field
Placeable Concrete with Silica Fume Admixtures,” Con-
363R-47
crete International Design & Construction, V. 6, No. 4,
Apr. 1984, pp. 25-31.
8.21. Fischer, R.E., “Round Table--Concrete in Archi-
tecture: A Current Assessment,” Architectural Record,
Nov. 1982.
8.22. Nilson, AH., “Structural Design Considerations
for High Strength Concrete,” Proceedings, National
Science Foundation Workshop on High Strength Con-
crete, University of Illinois at Chicago Circle, Dec. 1979.
8.23. Rabbat, Basile G., and Russell, Henry G., “Op-
timized Sections for Precast, Prestressed Bridge Girders,”
Journal, Prestressed Concrete Institute, V. 27, No. 4,
July-Aug. 1982, pp. 88-104.
8.24. Young, F.J., and Russell, H.G., “Session V--
Summary of Floor Discussion,” Proceedings, National
Science Foundation Workshop on High Strength Con-
crete, University of Illinois at Chicago Circle, Dec. 1979.
8.25. “Tower Touches Few Bases,” Engineering News-
Record, V. 210, No. 24, June 16, 1983, pp. 24-25.
8.26 Godfey, K.A., Jr., “Concrete Strength Record
Jumps 36%,” Civil Engineering, V. 57, No. 10, Oct. 1987,
pp. 84-88.
8.27. Fiorato, A.E., Person, A, and Pfeifer, D.W.,
“The First Large-Scale Use of High Strength Lightweight
Concrete in the Arctic Environment,” Second Symposium
on Artic Offshore Drilling Platforms, Houston, Texas, Apr.
1984.
8.28. Vennesland. O., and Gjorv, O.E., “Silica Con-
crete-- Protection Against Corrosion of Embedded Steel,”
Fly Ash, Silica Fume and Other Mineral By-Products in
Concrete, ACI SP-79, V. 2, 1983, pp. 719-730.
8.29. Burke, N.S., and Weil, T.G., “Corrosion Protec-
tion Through the Use of Concrete Admixtures,” Supple-
mentary Paper, Proceedings, 2nd International Confer-
ence on Performance of Concrete in the Marine Environ-
ment, St. Andrews-by-the-Sea, New Brunswick, Aug.
1988.
8.30. Preece, C.M., Frolund, T., and Bager, D.H.,
“Chloride Ion Diffusion in Low Porosity Silica Cement
Paste,” Condensed Silica Fume in Concrete, Report BML
82.610, Norwegian Institute of Technology, Trondheim,
1982, pp. 51-58.
8.31. Preece, C.M., Frolund, T., and Bager, D.H.,
“Electrochemical Behavior of Steel in Dense Silica-
Cement Mortar,” Fly Ash, Silica Fume and Other Mineral
By-Products in Concrete, ACI SP-79, V. 2, 1983, pp. 785-
796.
8.32. Fidjestol, P., “Reinforcement Corrosion and the
Use of CSF-Based Additives,” Concrete Durability, ACI
SP-100, V. 2, 1987, pp. 1445-1458.
8.33. Scali, M.J., Chin, D., and Burke, N.S., “Effect of
Microsilica and Fly Ash Upon the Microstructure and
Permeability of Concrete,” Proceedings, Ninth Inter-
national Conference on Cement Microscopy, Internation-
al Cement Microscopy Association, Texas, 1987, pp. 375-
397.
363R-48 ACI COMMlTTEE REPORT
CHAPTER 9-- SUMMARY
The objective of this report was to present state-of-
the-art information on concrete with strengths in excess
of about 6000 psi (41 MPa) but not including concrete
made using exotic materials or techniques. This section
of the report presents a summary of the material con-
tained in the previous chapters.
All materials for use in high-strength concrete must be
carefully selected using all available techniques to insure
uniform success. Items to be considered in selecting ma-
terials include cement characteristics, aggregate size, ag-
gregate strength, particle shape and texture, and the ef-
fects of set-controlling admixtures, water reducers, silica
fume, and pozzolans. Trial mixtures are essential to in-
sure that required concrete strengths will be obtained
and that all constituent materials are compatible.
Mix proportions for high-strength concrete generally
have been based on achieving a required compressive
strength at a specified age. Depending on the appropriate
application, a specified age other than 28 days has been
used. Factors included in selecting concrete mix propor-
tions have included availability of materials, desired
workability, and effects of temperature rise. All materials
must be optimized in concrete mix proportioning to
achieve maximum strength. High-strength concrete mixes
have usually used high cement contents, low water-
cement ratios, normal weight aggregate, and chemical
and pozzolanic admixtures. Required strength, specified
age, material characteristics, and type of application have
strongly influenced mix design. High-strength concrete
mix proportioning has been found to be a more critical
process than the proportioning of lower-strength concrete
mixes. Laboratory trial batches have been required in
order to generate necessary data on mix design. In many
cases, laboratory mixes have been followed by field pro-
duction trial batches.
Batching, mixing, transporting, placing, and control
procedures for high-strength concrete are not essentially
different from procedures used for lower-strength con-
cretes. However, special attention is required to insure a
high-strength uniform material. Special consideration
should be given to minimizing the length of time between
concrete batching and final placement in the forms. De-
lay in concrete placement can result in a subsequent loss
of long-term strength or difficulties in concrete place-
ment. Special attention should also be paid to the testing
of high-strength concrete cylinders since any deficiency
will result in an apparent lower strength than that actu-
ally achieved by the concrete. Items deserving specific
attention include manufacture, curing, and capping of
control specimens for compressive strength measure-
ments; characteristics of testing machines; type of mold
used to produce specimens; and age of testing. In many
instances, strength measurements at early ages have been
made even though the compressive strength has not been
specified until 56 or 90 days.
Some research data have indicated that the modulus
of elasticity of high-strength concrete is lower than would
have been predicted from data on lower-strength con-
cretes. However, values of Poisson’s ratio appear to be in
the expected range, based on lower-strength concretes.
The modulus of rupture for high-strength concretes is
higher than would have been anticipated. However, the
tensile splitting strength values appear to be consistent
with lower-strength concretes. Unit weight, specific heat,
diffusivity, thermal conductivity, and coefficient of ther-
mal expansion have been found to fall generally within
the usual range for lower-strength concretes. High-
strength concrete has shown a higher rate of strength
gain at early ages as compared to lower-strength con-
crete, but at later ages the difference is not significant.
Information on creep and shrinkage of high-strength con-
crete has indicated that the shrinkage is similar to that
for lower-strength concrete. However, specific creep is
much less for high-strength concretes than for lower-
strength concretes.
In the area of structural design, it has been found that
axially loaded columns with high-strength concrete can be
designed in the same way as lower-strength columns. It
has also been identified that high-strength concrete col-
umns exhibit less shortening under load than lower-
strength columns because of the higher modulus of elasti-
city and lower creep coefficients. For beams, use of the
conventional equivalent rectangular stress block appears
to give satisfactory results for under-reinforced concrete
members. The compressive strain limit of 0.003 appears
to be acceptable. However, changes have been recom-
mended for present code values for minimum tensile
steel ratio, modulus of rupture, modulus of elasticity,
shear strength, and development length. Changes are also
needed in the area of calculating long-term beam de-
flections.
The economic advantages of using high-strength con-
crete in the columns of high-rise buildings have been
clearly demonstrated by applications in many cities. The
ability to reduce the amount of reinforcing steel in
columns without sacrificing strength and to keep, the
columns to an acceptable size has been an economic
benefit to owners of high-rise buildings. Consequently,
concrete with compressive strengths in excess of 6000 psi
(41 MPa) has been used in the columns of high-rise
buildings in cities throughout North America. Studies
have also indicated advantages in the use of high-strength
concrete in long-span concrete bridges. However, this ap-
plication has yet to be fully implemented. There have
also been applications where high-compressive-strength
concrete has been needed to satisfy special local re-
quirements. These have included dams, prestressed con-
crete poles, grandstand roofs, marine foundations,
parking garages, bridge deck overlays, heavy duty indus-
trial floors, and industrial manufacturing applications.
Although high-strength concrete is often considered a
relatively new material, it is becoming accepted in more
parts of North America as shown by the many examples
of its usage. At the same time, material producers are
 HIGH STRENGTH CONCRETE
responding to the demands for the material and are
learning production techniques. As with many devel-
opments of new materials, research data supporting the
growth has also increased. However, the need for
additional research has been documented in ACI 363.1R.
Some research projects are underway to satisfy these
needs. However, further work is needed to fully use the
advantages of high-strength concrete and to affirm its
capabilities. This report has documented existing
knowledge of high-strength concrete so that the direction
for future development may be ascertained.
CHAPTER 10-REFERENCES
10.1-Recommended references
The documents of the various standards-producing or-
ganizations referred to in this document are listed below
with their serial designation.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials
T-26 Quality of Water to be Used in Concrete
American Concrete Institute
116R Cement and Concrete Terminology
20l.lR Guide for Making a Condition Survey of Con-
crete in Service
211.1 Standard Practice for Selecting Proportions for
Normal, Heavyweight, and Mass Concrete
212.2R Guide for Use of Admixtures in Concrete
214 Recommended Practice for Evaluation of
Strength Test Results of Concrete
304 Guide for Measuring, Mixing, Transporting, and
Placing Concrete
304.4R Placing Concrete with Belt Conveyors
305R Hot Weather Concreting
308 Standard Practice for Curing Concrete
309 Guide for Consolidation of Concrete
318 Building Code Requirements for Reinforced
Concrete
318R Commentary on Building Code Requirements
for Reinforced Concrete
American Society for Testing and Materials
C 31 Standard Method of Making and Curing Con-
crete Test Specimens in the Field
C 33 Standard Specification for Concrete Aggregates
C 39 Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength
of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens
C 94 Standard Specification for Ready-Mixed Con-
crete
C 109 Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength
of Hydraulic Cement, Mortars (using 2 in. or
50 mm cube specimens)
C 143 Standard Test Method for Slump of Portland
Cement Concrete
393R-49
C 150 Standard Specification for Portland Cement
C 192 Standard Method of Making and Curing Con-
crete Test Specimens in the Laboratory
C 260 Standard Specification for Air-Entraining
Admixtures for Concrete
C 311 Standard Methods of Sampling and Testing Fly
Ash or Natural Pozzolans for Use as a Mineral
Admixture in Portland Cement Concrete
C 494 Standard Specification for Chemical Admixtures
for Concrete
C 595 Standard Specification for Blended Hydraulic
Cements
C 618 Standard Specification for Fly Ash and Raw or
Calcined Natural Pozzolan for Use as a Mineral
Admixture in Portland Cement Concrete
C 684 Standard Method of Making, Accelerated
Curing, and Testing of Concrete Compression
Test Specimens
C 917 Standard Method for Evaluation of Cement
Strength Uniformity from a Single Source
C 989 Standard Specification for Ground Iron Blast-
Furnace Slag for use in Cement and Mortars
E 329 Standard Recommended Practice for Inspection
and Testing Agencies for Concrete, Steel, and
Bituminous Materials as Used in Construction
Canadian Standards Association
A 266.5-M1981 Guidelines for the Use of Super-
plasticizing Admixtures in Concrete
Concrete Plant Manufacturers Bureau
Concrete Plant Manufacturers Standards of the Plant
Mixer Manufacturers Division
The above publications may be obtained from the fol-
lowing organizations:
American Association of State Highway and Transporta-
tion Officials
333 N Capitol St. N.W.
Suite 225
Washington, D.C. 20001
American Concrete Institute
P.O. Box 19150
Detroit, MI 48219
American Society for Testing and Materials
1916 Race Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Canadian Standards Association
178 Rexdale Blvd.
Rexdale, Ont.
Canada M9W 1R3
363R-50 ACI COMMlTTEE
Concrete Plant Manufacturers Bureau
900 spring St.
Silver Spring, Md. 20910
10.2-- Cited references
Cited references are provided at the end of each
chapter.
10.3-- Bibliography
The purpose of this bibliography is to call attention to
literature on high-strength concrete in addition to that
listed at the ends of chapters in this report. The entries
are organized alphabetically by author. Anonymous refer-
ences are listed alphabetically according to their titles.
10.1. Abeles Paul W., “Experience with High-Strength
Concrete in Combination with High-Strength Steel in
Precast Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete,” Materials
and Structures, Research and Testing (RILEM Paris) V. 6,
No. 36, Nov.-Dec. 1973, pp. 464-472.
10.2. Ahmad, S.H., and Shah, S.P., “Complete Stress-
Strain Curve of Concrete and Nonlinear Design,” Progress
Report, National Science Foundation Grant PFR 78
22878, University of Illinois at Chicago Circle, Aug. 1979,
29 pp. Also, Nonlinear Design of Concrete Structures, Uni-
versity of Waterloo Press, 1980, pp. 61-81.
10.3. Aitcin, Pierre-Claude, “How to Produce High
Strength Concrete,” Concrete Construction, V. 25, No. 3,
Mar. 1980, pp. 222-230.
10.4. Albinger, John, and Moreno, Jaime, “High-
Strength Concrete, Chicago Style,” Concrete Construction,
V. 26, No. 3, Mar. 1981, pp. 241-245.
10.5. Alexander, K.M.; Bruere, G.M.; and Ivanusec, I.,
“The Creep and Related Properties of Very High-
Strength Superplasticized Concrete,” Cement and Con-
crete Research, V. 10, No. 2, Mar. 1980, pp. 131-137.
10.6. Anderson, Arthur R., “Some Examples of Energy
and Resource Conservation Utilizing High-Strength Con-
crete,” presented at the ACI Annual Convention, Mil-
waukee, Mar. 1979.
10.7. Bache, H.H., “Compression Failure in Brittle
Materials. Fracture Hardening (Trykbrud I Skore Materi-
aler),” Nordisk Betong (Stockholm), No. 1, 1977, pp. 7-10.
(in Swedish)
10.8. Bazant, Z.P., “High Strength Concrete: Discus-
sion on Material Behavior Under Various Types of Load-
ing,” Proceedings, National Science Foundation Workshop
on High Strength Concrete, University of Illinois at
Chicago Circle, 1979, Report D-l, 13 pp.
10.9 Bennett, E.W., “Fatigue in Concrete,” Concrete
(London), May 1974, pp. 43-45.
10.10. Berntsson, L.; Hedberg, B.; and Malinowski, R.,
“Triaxial Deformations by Uniaxial Load on Heat-Cured
and High-Strength Concrete (Triaxiala Deformationer
Till Foljd av Enaxlig Tryckbelastning pa Varmerhardad,
hoghallfast betong),” Cement-och-Betonginstitutet, V. 45,
No. 2, May 1970, pp. 205-224. (in Swedish)
10.11. Berry, E.E., and Malhotra, V.M., “Fly Ash for
Use in Concrete-A Critical Review,” ACI J OURNAL ,
REPORT
Proceedings V. 77, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1980, pp. 59-73.
10.12. Bertero, Vitelmo V., “Inelastic Behavior of
Structural Elements and Structures,” Proceedings, Na-
tional Science Foundation Workshop on High Strength
Concrete, University of Illinois at Chicago Circle, 1979,
Report E-l, 70 pp.
10.13. Bickley, J.A., “Concrete Optimization,” Concrete
International: Design & Construction, V. 4, No. 6, June
1982, pp. 38-41.
10.14. Billington, C.J., “Underwater Repair of Con-
crete Offshore Structures,” Proceedings, 11th Annual Off-
shore Technology Conference (Houston, 1979), Offshore
Technology Conference, Dallas, 1979, V. 2, pp. 927-937.
10.15. Bloss, D.R.; Hubbard, S.J.; and Gray, B.H.,
“Development and Evaluation of a High-Strength Poly-
ester Synthetic Concrete,” Technical Report No. M-2, U.S.
Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory,
Champaign, Mar. 1970, 70 pp.
10.16. Bremer, F., “Prestressed Concrete Pressure Ves-
sels for Nuclear Reactors,” Technical Session on Design
and Construction of Nuclear Power Plants, 7th FIP Con-
gress (New York, 1974), Federation Internationale de la
Precontrainte, Wexham Springs, 1975, pp. 34-40.
10.17. Bromham, S.B., “Superplasticizing Admixtures
in High Strength Concrete,” Symposium on Concrete in
Engineering: Engineering for Concrete (Brisbane, Aug.
1977), National Conference Publication No. 77/8, Insti-
tution of Engineers, Australia, Brisbane, 1977, pp. 17-22.
10.18. Brooks, J.J., and Neville, AM., “Predicting
Long-Term Creep and Shrinkage from Short-Term
Tests,” Magazine of Concrete Research (London), V. 30,
No. 103, June 1978, pp. 51-61.
10.19. Brown, Colin B., “A Discussion on the Micro-
mechanics of Achieving High Strength and Other Super-
ior Properties,” National Science Foundation Workshop
on High Strength Concrete, University of Illinois at
Chicago Circle, Dec. 1979, Report No. B-l, 5 pp.
10.20. Carrasquillo, R.L.; Nilson, A.H.; and Slate,
F.O., “High-Strength Concrete: An Annotated Biblio-
graphy 1930-1979,” Cement, Concrete, and Aggregates, V.
2, No. 1, Summer 1980, pp. 3-19.
10.21. Carrasquillo, R.L.; Nilson, A.H.; and Slate,
F.O., “The Prediction of High-Strength Concrete,” Report
No. 78-1, Department of Structural Engineering, Cornell
University, Ithaca, May 1978, 91 pp. Also, MSc thesis,
Cornell University, Ithaca, May 1978, 90 pp.
10.22. Carrasquillo, R.L.; Nilson, A.H.; and Slate,
F.O., “Very High-Strength Concrete-An Annotated Bib-
liography 1930-1976,” Report No. 367, Department of
Structural Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, Apr.
1977, 46 pp.
10.23. Carrasquillo, Ramon L., and Slate, Floyd O.,
“Micro-cracking and Definition of Failure of High- and
Normal-Strength Concretes,” Cement, Concrete, and Ag-
gregates, V. 5, No. 1, Summer 1983, pp. 54-61.
10.24. Chernobaev, V.I., “Investigation of the Carrying
Capacity of High Strength Concrete Flexible Columns
(Issledovanie Nesush-ehei Sposobnosti Gibkikh Kolonn
 HIGH STRENGTH CONCRETE 353R-51

Iz Vysokoprochnykh Betonov),” Beton i Zhelezobeton “Consistency, Setting, and Strength Gain Characteristics
(Moscow), No. 4, Apr. 1975, pp. 9-11. (in Russian) of a ‘Low Porosity’ Portland Cement Paste,” Cement and
10.25. Chung, H.; Hayashi, S; and Kokusho, S., Concrete Research, V. 8, No. 5, Sept. 1978, pp. 613-621.
“Experimental Study on the Shear Strength of High 10.39. Dikeou, J.T.; Kukacka, L.E.; Backstrom, J.E.;
Strength Concrete Beams,” Transactions, Japan Concrete and Steinberg, M., “Polymerization Makes Tougher Con-
Institute, Tokyo, V. 2, 1980, pp. 233-240. crete,” ACI JOURNAL , Proceedings V. 66, No. 10, Oct.
10.26. Chung, H.; Hayashi, S.; and Kokusho, S., 1969, pp. 829-839.
“Reinforced High Strength Concrete Columns Subjected 10.40. Erntroy, H.C., and Shacklock, B.W., “Design of
to Axial Forces, Bending Moments and Shear Forces,” High Strength Concrete Mixes,” Reprint No. 32, Cement
Transactions, Japan Concrete Institute, Tokyo, V. 2, 1980, and Concrete Association, London, 1954.
pp. 335-342. 10.41. “Federal Complex Strikes Low-Key Note,”
10.27. Colaco, Joseph P.; Ames, Jay B.; and Dubinsky, Building Design and Construction, V. 22, No. 11, Nov.
Eli, “Concrete Shear Walls and Spandrel Beam Moment 1981, pp. 92-94.
Frame Brace New York Office Tower,” Concrete Interna- 10.42. FIP 7th Congress (New York, 1974), Proceed-
tional Design & Construction, V. 3, No. 6, June 1981, pp. ings, V. 2, Lectures and General Reports, Federation
23-28. Internationale de la Prewntrainte, Wexham Springs,
10.28. Collepardi, Mario, and Corradi, Mario, “Influ- 1975, 137 pp.
ence of Naphthalene-Sulfonated Polymer Based Super- 10.43. Fintel, Mark, “Creep, Shrinkage and Tempera-
plasticizers on the Strength of Ordinary and Lightweight ture Effects in Tall Buildings,” Concrete Industry Bulletin,
Concretes,” Superplasticizers in Concrete, SP-62, American V. 14, No. 3, Mar. 1974, pp. 4-11.
Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1979, pp. 315-336. 10.44. French, P.J.; Montgomery, R.G.J.; and Robson,
10.29. Collins, A.R., “The Principles of Making High- T.D., “High Concrete Strength Within the Hour,” Con-
Strength Concrete,” Civil Engineers Review, V. 4, May- crete (London), V. 5, No. 8, Aug. 1971, pp. 253-258.
June 1954, pp. 172-176, 203-206. Also, Civil Engineering 10.45. Fukuchi, Toshio, and Ohama, Yoshihiko, ‘Pro-
and Public Works Review (London), V. 45, No. 524, Feb. cess Technology and Properties of 2500 kg/cm2--Strength
1950, pp. 110-112, and No. 525, Mar. 1950, pp. 170-171, Polymer-Impregnated Concrete,” Proceedings, 2nd Inter-
180. national Congress on Polymers in Concrete (Austin, Oct.
10.30. “Concrete Strength Secret: Dry Mix,” En- 1978), University of Texas at Austin, 1979, pp. 45-56.
gineering News-Record, V. 189, June 15, 1972, p. 3. 10.46. Fukuchi, Toshio, et al., “Effect of Course
10.31. Coppetti, G.; Cambini, F.; and Tognon, G., Aggregate on Compressive Strength of Polymer-Impreg-
“Use of Very High-Strength Concrete for the Manufac- nated Autoclaved Concrete,” Proceedings, 22nd Japan
ture of Centrifuged Piles (Impiego Di Calcestruzzi Ad Congress on Materials Research (Kyoto, Sept. 1978),
Altissime Resistenze Per la Producione De Pali Centri- Society of Materials Science, Kyoto, 1979, pp. 373-376.
fugati),” Industria Italiana del Cemento (Rome), V. 50, 10.47. Funakoshi, M., and Okamoto, T., “The Shear
No. 2, Feb. 1980, pp. 121-130. (in Italian) Strength of Prestressed Beams for which Very High
10.32. Craven, M.A., “High-Strength and Lightweight Strength Concrete is Employed,” Transactions, Japan
Concretes for Prestressing,” New Zealand Concrete Con- Concrete Institute, Tokyo, V. 2, 1980, pp. 271-278.
struction (Wellington), V. 11, No. 3, Mar. 1967, pp. 40-41. 10.48. Gallagher, J.E., “Acrylic-Latex Additives Create
10.33. Cross, Hardy, “Design of Reinforced Concrete Extra Strength New Concretes,” Architectural Record,
Columns Subject to Flexure,” ACI JOURNAL , Proceedings Mar. 1967, pp. 199-200.
V. 26, No. 2, Dec. 1929, pp. 157-169. 10.49. Galwey, AK., et al., “Relatively High Strength
10.34. Crow, L.J., and Bates, R.C., “Strengths of Sul- of a Chalk-Aggregate Concrete,” Journal of Applied
fur-Basalt Concretes,” Report Investigations No. 7349, U.S. Chemistry, May 1966, pp. 159-162.
Bureau of Mines, Washington, D.C., 1970, 21 pp. 10.50. Garas, F.K., “Research and Development in
10.35. Dawson, P., “Design and Construction of a Pre- Support of the Design of a Prestressed Concrete Pressure
stressed Concrete Pressure Vessel for a Working Pres- Vessel for a Working Pressure of 69 N/mm2 (10,000 psi),”
sure of 69 N/mm2 (10,000 psi),” Transactions, 4th Inter- International Journal of Pressure Vessels Piping, V. 8, No.
national Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor 3, May-June 1980, pp. 233-244.
Technology (San Francisco, Aug. 1977) Committee of the 10.51. Gaynor, R.D., “Producing High Strength Air-
European Communities, Luxemburg, 1977, Volume H, Entrained Concrete,” unpublished discussion paper. For
Paper H l/5, 13 pp. detailed information of the test data, see Gaynor,
10.36. Desov, A.E., “Basic Principles of High Strength Richard D., “High Strength Air-Entrained Concrete,”
Concrete,” Transportation Research Record No. 504, Joint Research Laboratory Publication No. 17, National
Transportation Research Board, 1974, pp. 37-42. Sand and Gravel Association/National Ready Mixed Con-
10.37. “Development of Prestressed Concrete High crete Association, Silver Spring, Mar. 1968, 19 pp.
Strength Concrete,” Concrete and Constructional En- 10.52. Ghosh, R.S., and Malhotra, V.M., “Use of
gineering (London), V. 57, No. 7, July 1962, p. 268. Super-plasticizers as Water Reducers,” Cement, Concrete,
10.38. Diamond, Sidney, and Gomez-Toledo, Carlos, and Aggregates, V. 1, No. 2, 1979, pp. 56-63.
353R-52 ACI COMMlTTEE REPORT
10.53. Givens, J.J., Jr., and Carter, G., “Rehabilitation
of Offshore Platforms,” Civil Engineering-- ASCE, V. 40,
No. 4, Apr. 1970, pp. 47-49.
10.54. Golikov, A.E., “The Effect of High-Strength
Concrete Moulding Technology on the Physico-Mech-
anical Properties,” Beton i Zhelezobeton (Moscow), No. 9,
1967, pp. 34-35. (in Russian)
10.55. Green, Arthur N., “Low Dosage Super Water
Reducer,” presented at the International Symposium on
Superplasticizers in Concrete, Ottawa, May 1978.
10.56. Gupchup, V.N.; Jayaram, S.; and Kulkarni, J.A.,
“Effect of Admixtures on Properties of High-Strength
Concrete Mixes,” Indian Concrete Journal (Bombay), V.
53, No. 12, Dec. 1979, pp. 331-335.
10.57. Guy, I.N., Editor, Advances in Concrete (Sym-
posium Proceedings, University of Birmingham, Sept.
1971), The Concrete Society, London, 1972.
10.58. Hanson, J.A, “Shear Strength of Lightweight
Reinforced Concrete Beams,” ACI JOURNAL , Proceed-
ings V. 55, No. 3, Sept. 1958, pp. 387-403.
10.59. Harris, Alan, “Optimization of Concrete Hulls,”
Proceedings, Conference on Concrete Ships and Floating
Structures (Berkeley, Sept. 1975), University of Califor-
nia, Berkeley, 1976, pp. 270-273.
10.60. Hattori, Kenichi, ‘Experiences with Mighty
Superplasticizer in Japan,” Superplasticizers in Concrete,
SP-62, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1979, pp.
37-66.
10.61. Hattori, K., “Properties of Admixtures for High
Strength Concrete and Their Water Reducing Meehan-
ism,” Concrete Journal (Tokyo), V. 14, No. 3, 1976, pp.
12-19. (in Japanese)
10.62. Hester, Weston T., “High Strength, Superplasti-
cized Concrete: The Significance of Mix Water-Cement
Ratio, Mortar-Aggregate Bond and Cement Efficiency,
presented at the ACI Annual Convention, Atlanta, Jan.
1982.
10.63. “High-Strength Concrete,” Building (London),
V. 211, No. 6436, 1966, pp. 129-130.
10.64. “High-Strength Concrete-Crushed Stone Ag-
gregate Makes the Difference,” National Crushed Stone
Association, Washington, D.C., Nov. 1974, 31 pp.
10.65. Hognestad, E., and Perenchio, W.F., “Devel-
opments in High-Strength Concrete,” Proceedings, 7th
FIP Congress (New York, 1974), Federation Inter-
nationale de la Prewntrainte, Wexham Springs, 1975, V.
2, Lectures and General Reports, pp. 21-24.
10.66. Hollister, S.C., “Urgent Need for Research in
High-Strength Concrete,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V.
73, No. 3, Mar. 1976, pp. 136-137.
10.67. “How Super are Superplasticizers?,” Concrete
Construction, V. 27, No. 5, May 1982, pp. 409-415.
10.68. Hughes, B.P., “Temperature Rises in Low-Heat
Cement Concrete,” Proceedings, ASCE, V. 97, ST12, Dec.
1971, pp. 2807-2823.
10.69. Ikenaga, Hirotake, and Oshima, Hisaji, “Study
on the Relation between an Age of Concrete and Shrink-
age, Creep, and Strength--Study of Mixing Design of
Site Concrete Preventing from Cracking Due to Shrink-
age and Creep,” Transactions, Architectural Institute of
Japan (Tokyo), V. 215, Jan. 1974, pp. 13-30. (in Japanese
with English abstract)
10.70. “Innovation in Concrete,” Progressive Arch-
itecture, V. 59, No. 5, May 1978, pp. 100-109.
10.71. “In Sub-Freezing Weather: Bridge Deck
Repaired with Quick-Set Gunned Concrete,” Better
Roads, V. 45, No. 5, May 1975, p. 44.
10.72. James, Robert M., “High-Strength Concrete
Does Have Its Problems,” ACI JOURNAL , Proceedings, V.
75, No. 2, Feb. 1978, p. N8.
10.73. Johnston, Colin D., “Fifty-Year Developments
in High Strength Concrete,” Proceedings, ASCE, V. 101,
C04, Dec. 1975, pp. 801-818.
10.74. Kageyama, H.; Nakagawa, K.; and Nagafuchi,
T., “High-Strength Concrete Made With Special Cement
Admixture,” Zairyo, V. 29, No. 318, Mar. 1980, pp. 220-
225. Also, abstract in Chemical Abstracts, V. 93, No. 3,
Aug. 11, 1980, p. 371.
10.75. Kar, Anil K., “Underwater Structures,” Bulletin,
International Association for Shell and Spatial Structures
(Madrid), No. 50, Dec. 1972, pp. 49-56.
10.76. Karlsson, Inge, “High-Strength Concrete (Hog-
hallfast Betong),” Nordisk Betong (Stockholm), No. 4,
1977, pp. 19-22. (in Swedish)
10.77. Kemi, Toroa, et al., ‘Experiment of Grouting by
Special Super High Early Strength Cement Paste,” Review
of the 31st General Meeting-Technical Session, Cement
Association of Japan, Tokyo, May 1977, pp. 218-221.
10.78. Kennedy, Henry, “High Strength Concrete,” Pro-
ceedings, 1st United States Conference on Prestressed
Concrete, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cam-
bridge, 1951, pp. 126-135.
10.79. Klieger, Paul, “High Strength Concrete,” pre-
sented at the 3rd Symposium on Modern Concrete Tech-
nology, Caracas, Nov. 1976, 29 pp.
10.80. Kobayashi, Masaki, and Tanaka, Hiroshi, “On
Frost Resistance of High-Strength Concrete,” Review of
the 28th General Meeting- Technical Session, Cement Asso-
ciation of Japan, Tokyo, 1974, pp. 173-174.
10.81. Krishna, Raju N., “Compressibility and Modulus
of Rupture of High-Strength Concrete,” Journal of the In-
stitute of Engineering (India), Civil Engineering Division,
V. 52, No. 3, Part C12, Nov. 1971, pp. 98-101.
10.82. Law, Sheldon M., and Rasoulian, Masood, “De-
sign and Evaluation of High Strength Concrete for Gir-
ders,” Report No. FHWA/LA-80/138, Louisiana Depart-
ment of Transportation, Baton Rouge, 1980, 50 pp. Also,
PB81-151 623, National Technical Information Service.
10.83. Lawrence, C.D., “The Properties of Cement
Paste Compacted Under High Pressure,” Research Report
No. 19, Cement and Concrete Association, Wexham
Springs, June 1969, pp. 1-20.
10.84. Lobanov, A.T., et al., “Practice of Prefabrication
of High-Strength Concrete Columns for Buildings (Opyt
Izgotovleniya Kolonn Iz Vysokoprochnyky Betonov Dlya
Zhilykh Domov),” Beton i Zhelezobeton (MOSCOW ), No.
 HIGH STRENGTH CONCRETE
12, Dec. 1976, pp. 14-15. (in Russian)
10.85. Machida, F.; Nakahara, S.; Hirose, T.;
Kumonda, T.; Miyasaka, T.; and Ishikawa, H., “Design
and Execution of Prestressed Concrete Girder Using
High Strength Concrete,” Journal, Japan Prestressed
Concrete Engineering Association (Tokyo), V. 16, No. 4,
1974, pp. 30-36, and No. 5, 1974, pp. 36-45. (in Japanese)
10.86. MacInnis, Cameron, and Kosteniuk, Paul W.,
“Effectiveness of Revibration and High-Speed Slurry
Mixing for Producing High-Strength Concrete,” ACI
J OURNAL , Proceedings V. 76, No. 12, Dec. 1979, pp.
1255-1265.
10.87. MacInnis, Cameron, and Thomas, Donald V.,
“Special Techniques for Producing High Strength Con-
crete,” ACI JOURNAL , Proceedings V. 67, No. 12, Dec.
1970, pp. 996-1002.
10.88. Malhotra, V.M., “Development of Sulphur-ln-
filtrated High-Strength Concrete,” ACI JOURNAL, Pro-
ceedings V. 72, No. 9, Sept. 1975, pp. 466-473.
10.89. Malhotra, V.M., “Superplasticizers in Concrete,”
Modern Concrete, V. 41, No. 12, Apr. 1978, pp. 38-43.
10.90. Malhotra, V.M.; Painter, K.E.; and Soles, J.A.,
“Development of High-Strength Concrete at Early States
Using a Sulphur Infiltration Technique,” Mines Branch
Internal Report No. MPI (A) 74-4, CANMET, Depart-
ment of Energy, Mines and Resources, Ottawa, July
1974, 13 pp.
10.91. Mather, Bryant, “High-Compressive-Strength
Concrete, A Review of the State of the Art,” Technical
Documentary Report No. AFSWC-TDR-62-56, Air Force
Special Weapons Center, Kirtland Air Force Base, Aug.
1962, 90 pp.
10.92. Mather, Bryant, “High Strength Concrete,”
Seminar on Control of Quality of Concrete and Construc-
tion Practice, ACI Canadian Capital Chapter, Ottawa,
1968, 56 pp.
10.93. Mather, Bryant, “Tests of High-Range Water-
Reducing Admixtures,” Superplasticizers in Concrete,
SP-62, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1979, pp.
157-166.
10.94. Mather, Katharine, “High Strength, High Den-
sity Concrete,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 62, No. 8,
Aug. 1965, pp. 951-962.
10.95. Matsumoto, Y., et al., “Precast Prestressed
Concrete Truss Railway Bridge Using Extremely High
Strength Concrete,” Final Report, 10th IABSE Congress
(Tokyo, 1976), International Association for Bridge and
Structural Engineering, Zurich, 1976, pp. 433-438.
10.96. Matsushita, H., “Studies on High-Strength Con-
crete with Superplasticizer,” Abstract of 31st General
Meeting, Cement Association of Japan, Tokyo, 1977, pp.
191-192. (in Japanese)
10.97. Mattison, E.N., and Beresford, F.D., “Studies of
the Production of High Strength Concrete,” 4th Symposi-
um on Concrete Research and Development 1970-1973,
National Conference Publication No. 73/6, Institution of
Engineers, Australia, Sydney, 1973, pp. 5-10.
10.98. Maxson, Orwin G., and Achenbach, Gary D.,
3S3R-53
“Properties of Concrete with Pressured Hydrocarbons
and Seawater,” Proceedings, 8th Annual Offshore Tech-
nology Conference, Houston, May 1976, paper OTC2662,
V. 3, pp. 507-512.
10.99. McBee, William C., and Sullivan, Thomas A.,
“Development of Specialized Sulphur Concretes,” Report
No. 8346, U.S. Bureau of Mines, Washington, D.C., 1979,
21 pp.
10.100. Melnik, R.A., and Patsula, A.Y., “Investigation
of the Nonlinear Creep of High Strength Concrete (Issle-
dovanie Nelineinoi Polzuchesti Vysokoprochnykh
Betonov),” Beton i Zehelzobeton (Moscow), No. 3, Mar.
1973, pp. 39-40. (in Russian)
10.101. “Mix Design for Pre-Mixed Concrete 50-55
MPa,” Boral Resources (Vic) Pty Limited, Boral Con-
crete, Abbotsford, Australia, 11 pp.
10.102. Moe, Johannes, “Feasibility Study of Pre-
stressed Concrete Tanker Ships,” ACI JOURNAL , Proceed-
ings V. 71, No. 12, Dec. 1974, pp. 617-626.
10.103. Moreno, Jaime, “Sixteen Years of High-
Strength Concrete in the Chicago Area,” presented at the
ACI Annual Convention, Atlanta, Jan. 1982.
10.104. Morgan, Austin H., “High-Strength Ready-
Mixed Concrete,” National Ready Mixed Concrete Asso-
ciation, Silver Spring, Jan. 1971, 18 pp.
10.105. Morin, A.L.; Tkachuk, V.M.; and Korytnyuk,
Y.V., “Investigation of the Eccentrically Compressed
Structural Components Built by Using High-Strength
Concrete (Issledovaniya Vnetsen-trenno Szhatykh Ele-
mentov Iz Betonov Vysokikh),” Beton i Zhelezobeton
(Moscow), No. 1, Jan. 1974, pp. 39-41. (in Russian)
10.106. Muguruma, Hiroshi, and Tanaka, Shinzo,
“Mechanical Properties of High-Strength Concrete,”
Review of the 27th General Meeting-Technical Session,
Cement Association of Japan, Tokyo, May 1973, pp. 140-
143.
10.107. Nagataki, S., “The Properties of High-Strength
Concrete,” Concrete Journal (Tokyo), V. 14, No. 3, 1976,
pp. 38-41. (in Japanese)
10.108. Nagataki, S., and Imai, M., “Some Experiments
on High-Strength Concrete,” 27th Annual Meeting, Japan
Society of Civil Engineers, Tokyo, 1972, pp. V-187-190.
(in Japanese)
10.109. Nasser, George D., “Are We Headed Towards
Very High-Strength Concretes?"Concrete Products, V. 70,
Oct. 1967, pp. 53-54.
10.110. Nasser, George D., “Bibliography on High
Strength Concretes,” ACI JOURNAL , Proceedings V. 64,
No. 10, Oct. 1967, pp. 690-691.
10.111. Nilson, A.H., and Slate, F.O., “Properties of
High Strength Concrete,” presented at the Session on
Inelastic Response of Normal, Lightweight, and High-S
trength Concrete, ASCE Fall Convention, Chicago, Oct.
1978.
10.112. Nilson, A.H., and Slate, F.O., “Structural
Properties of High-Strength Concrete,” presented at the
ACI Annual Convention, Milwaukee, Mar. 1979.
10.113. Nishi, H.: -Ohshio, A.: and Fukuzawa, K.,
363R-54 ACI COMMlTTEE REPORT
“Autoclave-Cured High Strength Concrete and Piles,”
Cement and Concrete, No. 299, Cement Association of
Japan, Tokyo, 1972, pp. 23-29. (in Japanese)
10.114. Okada, Kiyoshi, and Azimi, M. Azam,
“Strength and Ductility of Reinforced High Strength
Concrete Beams,” Memoirs, Faculty of Engineering,
Kyoto University, V. 43, Part 2, Apr. 1981, pp. 304-318.
10.115. Okada, Kiyoshi, and Kobayashi, Kazuo, “Ef-
fects of Addition of Gypsum and Super Water-Reducing
Agent on Mechanical Properties of Blast-Furnace Slag
Cement Mortar,” Proceedings, 21st Japan Congress on
Materials Research (Tokyo, Oct. 1977), Society of
Materials Science, Kyoto, 1978, pp. 209-213.
10.116. Parrot, L.J., “High-Strength Concrete,” Con-
crete (London), V. 4, No. 2, Feb. 1970, pp. 83-84.
10.117. Parrot, L.J., “The Production and Properties of
High-Strength Concrete,” Concrete (London), V. 3, No.
11, Nov. 1969, pp. 443-448.
10.118. Parrott, L.J., “The Selection of Constituents
and Proportions for Producing Workable Concrete with
a Compressive Cube Strength of 80 to 110 n/mm 2 (11,600
to 15,900 lbf/in2),” Technical Report No. 416, Cement and
Concrete Association, Wexham Springs, 1969, 12 pp.
10.119. Pastor, J.A.; Nilson, A.H.; and Slate, F.O.,
“Strength and Deformation of High Strength Reinforced
Concrete Beams,” Research Report, Department of Struc-
tural Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca (in pre-
paration).
10.120. Perenchio, W.F.; Whiting, D.A.; and Kantro,
D.L., “Water Reduction, Slump Loss, and Entrained Air
Void Systems as Influenced by Superplasticizers,” Super-
plasticizers in Concrete, SP-62, American Concrete Insti-
tute, Detroit, 1979, pp. 137-155.
10.121. Pollet, Henri M., “Attainment of Very High
Strength Concrete-eater than 1000 kg/cm 2 (Reali-
sation de Betons a Tres Haute Resistance-Supreiure a
1000 kg/cm2),” Annales, Institut Technique du Batiment
et des Travaux Publics (Paris), No. 214, Oct. 1965, pp.
1425-1426. (in French)
10.122. Popovics, Sandor, “Strength Relationships for
Fly Ash Concrete,” ACI, JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 79, No.
1, Jan.-Feb. 1982, pp. 43-49.
10.123. “Precasting Efficiency Pays Off on Long
Bridge," Construction Equipment, V. 64, No. 1, Aug. 1981.
10.124. P’yachev, V.A.; P’yachev, G.E.; and Kokhaev,
N.F., “Raw Materials in Cement Manufacture for Produc-
ing High-Strength Concrete (Tsementy Dlya Vysokopro-
chniykh Betonov),” Tsement (Leningrad), No. 1, Jan.
1974, pp. 21-22. (in Russian)
10.125. Rayner, Johnathan, “Floating Docks in Van-
couver Need Continuous Pour of New High-Strength
Concrete,” Engineering and Contract Record (Don Mills),
V. 89, No. 9, Sept. 1976, pp. 22-24.
10.126. Reigstad, Gordon H., “Energy Conservation in
Buildings: A Prestressed Concrete System,” Professional
Engineer, V. 47, No. 4, Apr. 1977, pp. 27-28.
10.127. Richart, F.E., “A Study of the Economics of
High Strength Concrete in Building Construction,” ACI
JOURNAL , Proceedings V. 32, No. 4, Mar.-Apr. 1936, pp.
459-472.
10.128. Roy, Della M., and Gouda, G.R., “High
Strength Generation in Cement Pastes,” Cement and
Concrete Research, V. 3, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1973, pp.
807-820.
10.129. Roy, D.M.; Gouda, G.R.; and Bobrowsky, A.,
“Very High Strength Cement Pastes Prepared by Hot
Pressing and Other High Pressure Techniques,” Cement
and Concrete Research, V. 2, No. 3, May-June 1972, pp.
349-366.
10.130. Ryaboshapko, Y.I.; Vaslavskii, V.F.; and
Olginskii, A.G., “Experience in the Application of High-
Strength Concrete with Acid FIy Ash Admixture (Opyt
Primeneniya Vysokomarochnogo Betona S Prisadkoi Kis-
loi Zoly-Unosa),” Beton i Zhelezobeton (Moscow), No. 5,
May 1974, pp. 12-13. (in Russian)
10.131. Ryell, John, “High Strength Concrete,” Tenth
Annual School of Concrete Technology, Ready Mixed
Concrete Association of Ontario, Toronto, Apr. 1969, 19
pp.
10.132. Ryell John, “High Strength Concrete,” Can-
adian Pit and Quarry (Don Mills), Jan. 1970, pp. 16-19,
and Feb. 1970, pp. 26-28.
10.133. Saito, T.; Ohshio, A.; Goto, Y.; and Omori, Y.,
“High Strength Concrete. Part 2, Strength Properties,
Durability, and Thermal Characteristics,” Journal of
Research, Onoda Cement Co., V. 28, 1976, pp. 12-27. (in
Japanese)
10.134. Saucier, Kenneth L., “High-Strength Concrete,
Past, Present, Future: Concrete International Design &
Construction, V. 2, No. 6, June 1980, pp. 46-50.
10.135. Saucier, Kenneth L., “Determination of Prac-
tical Ultimate Strength of Concrete,” Miscellaneous Paper
No. C-72-16, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, June 1972, 29 pp.
10.136. Savage, E.S., “Deep-Bed Filtration Lengthens
Filter Runs, Lowers Backwash Water Needs,” American
City, V. 88, No. 1, Jan. 1973, p. 44.
10.137. Schrader, Ernest K., and Munch, Anthony V.,
“Fibrous Concrete Repair of Cavitation Damage,” Pro-
ceedings, V. 102, C02, June 1976, pp. 385-399.
10.138. Shah, S.P., and Ahmad, S.H., “Effective Con-
finement on High-Strength Concrete,” presented at the
ACI Annual Convention, Atlanta, Jan. 1982.
10.139. Shah, S.P.; Gokoz, UIker; and Ansari, Farhad,
“Experimental Technique for Obtaining Complete Stress-
Strain Curves for High Strength Concrete,” Cement,
Concrete, and Aggregates, V. 3, No. 1, Summer 1981, pp.
21-27.
10.140. Schukla, S.N., and Mittal, M.K., “Short-Term
Deflection in Two-Way Reinforced Concrete Slabs After
Cracking,” ACI JOURNAL , Proceedings V. 73, No. 7, July
1976, pp. 416-419.
10.141. Slate, F.O., and Nilson, A.H., “High-Strength
Concrete-Preliminary Results on Microcracking and
Creep,” presented at the ACI Annual Convention,
Milwaukee, Mar. 1979.
 HIGH STRENGTH CONCRETE
10.142. Southworth, George, and Scott, Norman L.,
“Special Concretes,” Concrete Construction, V. 26, No. 3,
Mar. 1981, pp. 229-233, 275-279.
10.143. “Soviet Concrete Not So Tough?,” Engineering
News-Record, V. 166, No. 22, June 1, 1961, p. 47.
10.144. Stachiw, J.D., ‘Concrete Deep Submergence
Hollow Shell Structures,” Proceedings, ASCE, V. 95, ST
12, Dec. 1969, pp. 2931-2954.
10.145. Stamenkovic, Hrista, “Causes, Mechanisms and
Control of Surface Voids,” Concrete (London), V. 7, No.
7, July 1973, pp. 45-48.
10.146. “Structural Trends in New York City Build-
ings,” Civil Engineering-- ASCE, V. 53, No. 1, Jan. 1983,
pp. 30-37.
10.147. Superplasticizers in Concrete, SP-62, American
Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1979, 436 pp.
10.148. Swamy, R.N., and Anand, K.L., “Shrinkage and
Creep Properties of High Strength Structural Concrete,”
Civil Engineering and Public Work Review (London), V.
68, No. 807, Oct. 1973, pp. 859-868.
10.149. Swamy, R.N., and Anand, K.L., “Structural Be-
havior of High Strength Concrete Beams,” Building
Science, V. 9, No. 2, June 1974, pp. 131-141.
10.150. Swamy, R.N., and Ibrahim, A.B., “Shrinkage
and Creep Properties of High Early Strength Structural
Lightweight Concrete, Proceedings, Institution of Civil
Engineers (London), V. 55, Sept. 1973, pp. 635-646.
10.151. Swamy, R.N.; Ibrahim, A.B.; and Anand, K.L.,
“The Strength and Deformation Characteristics of High
Early Strength Structural Concrete,” Materials and
Structures, Research and Testing (RILEM, Paris), V. 8,
No. 48, 1975, pp. 413-423.
10.152. Symposium on Concrete for Engineering, En-
gineering for Concrete (Brisbane, Aug. 1977), National
Conference Publication No. 7718, Institution of Engineers,
Australia, Brisbane, 1977.
10.153. “Tapping Concrete’s Potentials,” Building
Design and Construction, V. 20, No. 10, Oct. 1979, pp.
63-93.
10.154. ‘Thaulow, Sven, ‘Tensile Splitting Test and
High Strength Concrete Test Cylinders,” ACI JOURNAL ,
Proceedings V. 53, No. 7, Jan. 1957, pp. 699-706.
10.155. “The World’s Tallest Concrete Buildings-
Today and Yesterday,” Concrete Construction, V. 28, No.
2, Feb. 1983, pp. 91-100.
10.156. Tognon, G.; Copetti, G.; and Ursella, P., “Very
High Strength Concretes for Precasting: Production
Technology and Characteristic Properties,” Proceedings,
9th International Congress of the Precast Concrete
Industry (Vienna, Oct. 1978), BIBM, Linz/Donau, 1978,
pp. 1-39-I-46.
10.157. Tognon, G.; Ursella, P.; and Copetti, G.,
“Design and Properties of Concretes with Strength over
1500 kg/cm2,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 77, No. 3,
May-June 1980, pp. 171-178.
10.158. Towles, Thomas T., “Advantages in the Use of
High Strength Concretes,” ACI JOURNAL , Proceedings V.
28, No. 9, Apr. 1932, pp. 607-612.
363R-55
10.159. “Undersea Restaurant Uses 25,500-psi Con-
crete,” Engineering News-Record, V. 190, July 13, 1972, p.
17.
10.160. Valore, R.C.; Kudrenski, W.; and Gray, D.E.,
“Application of High-Range Water Reducing Admixtures
in Steam Cured Cement-Fly Ash Concretes,” Superplasti-
cizers in Concrete, SP-62, American Concrete Institute,
Detroit, 1979, pp. 337-373.
10.161. Vivesaraya, H.C.; Desay, P.; and Babu, Shri
K.H., “High Strength Concrete Mix Design, A Case
Study,” Special Publication No. SP-2, Cement Research
Institute of India, New Delhi, Mar. 1970, 28 pp.
10.162. Walz, K., “The Production of High Strength
Concrete,” Translation Tech. No. 2037/R39, Cement and
Marketing Company Limited, London, June 1966, p. 7.
10.163. Wang, Pao-Tsan; Shah, Surendra P.; and
Naaman, Antoine, “High-Strength Concrete in Ultimate
Strength Design,” Proceedings, ASCE, V. 104, ST11, Nov.
1978, pp. 1761-1773.
10.164. Wantanabe, A., et al., “Fatigue Behavior of
High-Strength Concrete,” Abstract of 31st General Meet-
ing, Cement Association of Japan, Tokyo, 1977, pp. 221-
222. (in Japanese)
10.165. “Water-Tower Place-High-Strength Con-
crete,” Concrete Construction, V. 21, No. 3, Mar. 1976,
pp. 102-104.
10.166. Wittman, F.H., “Micromechanics of Achieving
High-Strength and Other Superior Properties,” Proceed-
ings, National Science Foundation Workshop on High-
Strength Concrete (Dec. 1979), University of Illinois at
Chicago Circle, 1979, Report A-l, 22 pp.
10.167. Woolgar, G., and Oates, D-B., “Fly Ash and
the Ready-Mixed Concrete Producer,” Concrete Interna-
tional: Design & Construction, V. 1, NO. 11, NOV. 1979,
pp. 34-40.
10.168. Yamamoto, Y., and Kobayashi, M., “Use of
Mineral Fines in High Strength Concrete-Water Re-
quirement and Strength,” Concrete International Design
& Construction, V. 4, No. 7, July 1982, pp. 33-40.
10.169. Young, J.F.; Berger, R.L.; and Breese, J.,
“Accelerated Curing of Compacted Calcium Silicate Mor-
tars on Exposure to CO2,” Journal of the American Cer-
amic Society, V. 57, No. 9, Sept. 1974, pp. 394-397.
10.170. Zaitsev, Y.B., and Wittman, F.H., “Simulation
of Crack Propagation and Failure of Concrete,” Materials
and Structures, Research and Testing (RILEM, Paris), V.
14, No. 83, Sept.-Oct. 1981, pp. 357-365.
10.171. Zia, Paul, “Review of ACI Code for Design
with High-Strength Concrete,” Concrete International
Design & Construction, V. 5, No. 8, Aug. 1983, pp. 16-20.
10.172. Zorich, A.S., “Bearing Capacity of Eccentri-
cally Tensioned Reinforcing Elements of Ordinary and
High-Strength Concrete Under Transversal Forces (Ne-
sushchaya Sposobnost Vnetsentrenno Rastyanutykh Za-
helezobetonnykh Elementov Iz Obychnogo I Vysoko-
prochnogo Betonov Pri Deistvii Poperechnykh Sil):
Beton i Zhelezobetotn, No. 11, Nov. 1976, pp. 34-37. (in
Russian)