by Adam Neville
Creep of Concrete
and Behavior of
Structures—
Part II: Dealing with Problems
I n the Part I article,1 published in
the May 2002 issue of Concrete
International, I discussed creep as a
property of concrete. I also
described several types of problems
caused by creep in various types of
structures. I now propose to
This point of view article is presented
for reader interest by the editors.
However, the opinions expressed are not
necessarily those of the American
Concrete Institute. Reader comment is
invited.
52 JUNE 2002 / Concrete international
consider, in a descriptive manner,
ways of dealing with the consequences
of creep in design and construction.
WHAT SHOULD THE
DESIGNER DO?
First of all, designers must be
aware of the likelihood of differential
settlement in structures with vertical
members. Secondly, they must know
enough about creep to assess the
likely magnitude of differential
settlement. The necessity of possessing
this knowledge is the point that I am
trying to make in the present article.
The designer can then minimize any
possible differential creep by appro-
priate arrangement of the columns.
For example, referring to the tall
buildings discussed in Part I,1 the
differences in their effective volume-
to-surface ratios can be minimized
by cladding of some columns.
Column-to-column differences in
cross-section size and in the amount
of reinforcement can also be mini-
mized, regardless of design require-
ments. Because there is an interplay
between these two parameters,2 it is
possible to vary them so as to
minimize the differences in creep of
adjacent columns.
An alternative approach to mitigate
differential creep effects is for the
designer to accept the expected
parasitic bending moments, shearing
forces, and the resulting stresses, and
to design the structure so that it is
strong enough to resist them. In either
case, a good knowledge of expected or
possible creep is essential.
RELEVANCE TO
THE CONTRACTOR
The contractor must know the
properties of the concrete mixture
that affect creep and, therefore, must
not arbitrarily change the type of
aggregate used or some other
relevant parameter. In other words,
the contractor must be aware of
structural consequences of the
composition of the concrete.
There is a further aspect of the
contractor’s work that affects
differential creep: the application of
temporary loads, such as those from
bricks or concrete block, stored on
some floors during construction.
Although these are temporary loads,
they may act for a month or two, and
thus cause creep to take place. If
these loads are applied at an early
age, the magnitude of creep in one
column, but not another, may be
significant. The safest remedy is
prevention: the contractor must be
aware of the potential problem, and
the designer must issue strict
instructions about storage of
materials during construction.
ARE USEFUL DATA ON CREEP
PROVIDED TO DESIGNERS?
The majority of reinforced con-
crete structures are not highly
sensitive to creep and the use of a
simple, standard coefficient to
design for creep effects does suffice.
But in many other structures, creep
can have a significant influence on
the performance of the structure.
Some examples were discussed in
the Part I article.1
The containment vessel for a
nuclear reactor, a large structure
with a complex prestressing system,
illustrates an extreme case of the
need for reliable and accurate
knowledge about creep properties in
a given structure. In this case, it is
essential that no cracks develop and
that the concrete in the vessel is
always in compression. Several
loading conditions need to be
considered because the pressure
and temperature in the vessel are
not constant, such that creep, creep
recovery, and relaxation need to
be known.
I was involved with an experimental
determination of such properties for
one of the early British atomic power
stations whose construction started
in 1963. The schedule of design and
construction was such that I was
able to perform tests on specific
concrete mixtures, which were to
be actually used in the structure.
No recourse to “creep tables” was
necessary.
I also did work later on nuclear
power stations in the United States
and in Scotland. In some of those
stations, and in some others, a way
of ensuring adequate time for creep
tests was to designate the contractor
ahead of completion of design, so
that enough time was available for
creep tests using the actual
materials proposed by the contractor.
Such an approach precludes, to
some extent, competitive bidding,
but “fairness” is achieved by
nominating different contractors in
turn. On the other hand, this
militates against the advantages the
contractor’s experience offers
during the bidding process.
For less critical structures that
are nevertheless sensitive to creep,
the question is: When a good knowl-
edge of creep is required, is it
available to the designer?
USE OF CODES
The first source of design informa-
tion is usually the code. But codes
often lag behind state-of-the-art
knowledge; for example, the first
British code for prestressed con-
crete was published in 1959, which is
more than 10 years after prestressed
concrete structures began to be
built. This is not surprising because,
in order to write the code, there
must exist experienced members of
the drafting committee. Incidentally,
that code gave a simple expression
for the loss of prestress in the steel due
to creep of concrete per unit length:
48 x 10–6 per MPa (0.33 x 10–6 per psi).
The current British code, BS 8110:
Part 2: 1985, has tables and nomo-
grams providing data on creep and
shrinkage. The parameters used are:
age at loading, volume-to-surface
ratio (expressed as effective section
thickness), and ambient relative
humidity. Creep recovery is given as
a single coefficient, applied to the
modulus of elasticity, at the time of
unloading. Such an approach is
grossly oversimplified but the code
recognizes this, stating: “It is
stressed that these statements
provide only general guidance and
are based primarily on laboratory
data.” As someone who was a
member of the committee that
drafted the code, I am aware that the
code represents the “lowest
common denominator” that could
be agreed upon.
The difficulty with reliance on the
code alone is that some of the
concrete properties involved are
unknown to the designer. For
example, it is only when the contractor
has been chosen that it is known
exactly what kind of aggregate will
be used, and yet aggregate has a
considerable influence on creep; this
was re-emphasized in Daye and
Neville’s publication.3 Moreover, with
the increasing use of performance
specifications with respect to
durability or thermal gradients,
much leeway must be given to the
contractor to choose the
concrete mixture.
One could ask: Why not specify
the performance with respect to
creep? The problem is that, by their
very nature, creep tests take a long
time. Brooks and Neville tried to
develop a system of relatively short-
term tests coupled with extrapola-
tion formulas.4 This is helpful, but
even short-term tests take several
months, and the contractor can
rarely wait that long before work
starts. Furthermore, the contractor’s
bid is predicated on its freedom to
choose the aggregate to suit the
Concrete international / JUNE 2002 53
contract price. (In accordance with
court usage, the pronoun “it” applies
to a contractor, which is, in reality, a
firm.) And in the interval between
the call for tenders and their
submission, there is no time to
perform creep tests. I am mentioning
this to show that technical consider-
ations are not the only factor in
selecting a mixture; economic
considerations play a large role, and
laboratory-based technologists
sometimes forget this.
CREEP COMMITTEE
REPORTS
The mission of ACI Committee 209
includes the words “develop and
maintain standards for creep and
shrinkage of concrete and concrete
structures.” I chaired that committee
some 35 years ago, and I am now an
associate member. The latest
committee report, “Prediction of
Creep, Shrinkage, and Temperature
Effects in Concrete Structures,” was
published in 1992 and reapproved in
1997. However, the 1992 report was
based on the 1982 report and, as
stated in a footnote, the revisions to
the preceding 1982 report, reapproved
in 1986, “consisted of minor editorial
changes.” In turn, the 1982 report
was said to be “generally consistent
with ACI 318-77.”
I am giving this historical back-
ground because, in effect, there has
been no change in the creep and
shrinkage report in a quarter of a
century whereas, during the same
period, ACI 318, was modified and
changed several times, including
substantially new thinking.
ACI Committee 209 has produced
several draft reports, but has not
reached consensus on a single set of
mathematical expressions for creep
and shrinkage. I expressed my view
of the situation in the Foreword to
the Proceedings of the Adam Neville
54 JUNE 2002 / Concrete international
Symposium generously organized by
ACI:5 “I am somewhat bemused by
these continuing efforts, each on an
individual track, but the tracks are
not convergent.” It has been difficult
on both sides of the Atlantic to
develop a unique “creep formula.” In
2001, Stuart Alexander discussed
creep and the transfer of stress from
concrete to steel, and he referred to
“textbooks, which go to considerable
lengths to model it [creep] math-
ematically, usually incomprehensibly
and possibly incorrectly.”2
There is a story that bears upon
the search for a single creep
prediction expression. Imagine a
room painted black, with people in
it all dressed in black, and a black
cat in it. They are trying to catch
the cat; that is philosophy. Imagine
the same black room, people, and
cat. Every now and again, someone
calls out, “I’ve got it”; that is religion.
Again, imagine a black room, with
people dressed in black, trying to
catch a cat, and every now and
again someone calls out, “I’ve got it,”
but there is no cat. That is the
search for the creep expression
and, in my opinion, a universally
valid expression cannot be found
by curve-fitting.
What worries me is that the
various expressions for creep are
based on experiments performed in
the past, some of them 50 years old.
Such data are an inadequate base
for the prediction of creep in
present-day concretes. Nowadays,
concrete often contains many
cementitious materials and admixtures;
it also has a much lower water-
cement ratio and a much higher
strength than in the past.
Engineers who work in a single
field for a long time sometimes forget
the benefits of cross-fertilization
with other disciplines and do not
look at other fields. Perhaps the
“curve fitting” of creep could benefit
from the work of Peter Young in
flood forecasting.6 Possibly, a
deductive approach may be replaced,
or complemented, by an inductive
approach, starting with a simple
conceptual model that has a physical
interpretation, leading to a more
general model.6 Young points out
that if the end-user understands the
nature of the forecasting algorithm,
this engenders confidence in its use.6
Sometimes, the expressions being
derived contain terms not ad-
equately related to the physical
phenomena involved. For example,
an ACI-RILEM workshop reported
that “creep and shrinkage kinetics
arise from the same mechanisms in
the calcium silicate hydrates.”7 And
yet, as far back as 1970, I showed
that concrete made with high-
alumina cement has a similar pattern
and magnitude of creep—and also of
creep recovery—as concrete made
with portland cement.8 Given that
high-alumina cement does not
produce calcium silicate hydrates, I
suggested that creep is related to the
grosser structure of the hydrated
cement paste. 8
Each of the various expressions
canvassed within ACI 209 has wide
confidence limits: to know that the
“true” (that is, most probable) value
of creep has a 95% probability of
being within 25% or even more of the
predicted value is not very useful.
Moreover, the various expressions
deal with the simple situation of
creep under a single sustained
stress. It is a long way from there to
creep effects in prestressed concrete,
where stresses and strains vary all
the time. I am sorry to sound so
strident and, if I am wrong, letters to
the editor expressing contrary views
will certainly pour in.
Nevertheless, I am not being
negative or pessimistic, and I believe
that we can live with the present
situation. We should acknowledge
that, for the present, no reliable
and useable data in the form of
mathematical expressions can be
produced because we are dealing
with a composite material, consisting
both of manufactured and of
natural ingredients and partly
processed in a semi-industrial
manner. So, we should accept that
this is the reality of “concrete life.”
For most concrete structures this
is tolerable. For complex, sensitive,
and special structures, an experi-
mental determination of creep
is necessary.
What really worries me are offers
of “quickie” solutions. I recently
received one of these from someone
whom I do not know. It came as an
unsolicited fax offering “an evaluation
of creep and shrinkage strains and
creep coefficient according to the
recently developed B3 model… the
evaluation is instantaneous and
requires no special qualification.”
The fax advertisement also said:
“The task does not even require a
qualified engineer. The possibility of
error is excluded.” It is a brave
person, or a well-insured one, who
dares to offer such an off-the-shelf
design. For myself, I would not wish
to enter an important and creep-
sensitive structure, the design of
which relied on someone other than
“a qualified engineer.”
CONCLUSIONS
My intention in writing this
article, and the previous part, was
to point out the interrelation
between the structural design and
the properties of concrete, using
creep as an example. As I said at the
outset, a good knowledge of concrete
technology is just as important as a
good knowledge of structural
analysis and design. At one extreme,
the designer must have a knowledge
of properties of concrete; at the
other, the materials specialist must
understand the structural aspects of
what is being built.
I chose creep as my example
because of my interest in the
properties of concrete developed
when, during my final undergradu-
ate year (1949-50), I made prestressed
concrete beams and measured the
loss of prestress due to creep.
Prestressed concrete was still very
new in England. But a similar
argument could be woven for other
properties of concrete. For example,
corrosion of steel in reinforced
concrete jetties in the sea is affected
significantly by the geometry of the
structure in that a beam-and-slab
construction promotes the presence
of wet and dry areas conducive to
the development of electrochemical
cells. On the other hand, flat slabs
lead to better durability.
Those involved in designing and
building structures can be justly
proud of their works. But creating
structures is an art as well as a
scientific process. So perhaps it is
appropriate to conclude by quoting
E. H. Brown who, in his book Structural
Analysis published in 1967, defined
structural engineering as follows:
“the art of moulding materials we do
not really understand, into shapes
we cannot really analyze, so as to
withstand forces we cannot really
assess, in such a way that the public
does not really suspect.” It is time to
remove my tongue from my cheek
and stop.
References
1. Neville, A., “Creep of Concrete and
Behavior of Structures, Part I: Problems,”
Concrete International, V. 24, No. 5,
May 2002, pp. 59-66.
2. Alexander, S., “Axial Shortening of
Concrete Columns and Walls,” Concrete,
March 2001, pp. 36-38.
3. Daye, M.; Neville, A.; and Ghosh, S. K.,
“Concrete Creeps into the Future,” Concrete
International, V. 13, No. 7, July 1991, pp. 58-59.
4. Brooks, J. J., and Neville, A. M.,
“Predicting Long-Term Creep and Shrinkage
from Short-Term Tests,” Magazine of
Concrete Research, V. 30, No. 103, 1978,
pp. 51-61.
5. Neville, A., Foreword in The Adam
Neville Symposium: Creep and Shrinkage—
Structural Design Effects, SP-194, Akthem Al-
Manaseer, ed. American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, Mich., 2000, pp. V-VI.
6. Young, P., “Advances in Real-Time
Flood Forecasting,” in Flood Risk in a
Changing Climate, Philosophical Transac-
tions: Mathematical, Physical, and Engineer-
ing Sciences, The Royal Society, London,
17 pp. (to be published)
7. Al-Manaseer, A.; Espion, B.; and Ulm, F.
J., “ACI-RILEM Workshop on Creep and
Shrinkage in Concrete Structures,” Concrete
International, V. 21, No. 3, Mar. 1999, pp. 25-27.
8. Neville, A. M., (with chapters 17 to 20
written in collaboration with W. Dilger),
Creep of Concrete: Plain, Reinforced, and
Prestressed, North-Holland Publishing Co.,
Amsterdam, 1970, 622 pp.
Selected for reader interest by the editors.
ACI Honorary Member Ad Adamam Nev
Nevii l l e has
been contributing to CI articles on various
topics, all aimed at facilitating the use of
scientific knowledge to make better
concrete in practice. He is the recipient of
several awards from ACI and other
organizations, as well as Commander of
the Order of the British Empire awarded
by the Queen for his contribution to
science and technology.
Concrete international / JUNE 2002 55