ACI 318 Sub A - General Concrete and Construction

ACI 318 Sub A – General Concrete and Construction
[ACI 318 Chapters 1, 2, 3 (excluding 3.5), 4, 5, 6, and 22

Reorganized Chapters 5, 22, and 23]
Dallas Meeting
Tuesday, 20 March 2011, 1:30 PM to 6:00 PM, Meeting Room Moreno B
DRAFT MINUTES
1. Call to order at 1:30 pm.
2. Introductions and Membership changes. Sign up sheet is attached.
Brian Gerber of ICC-ES has joined Sub A
3. Approval of Agenda. Approved as presented.
4. Approval of Minutes: Cincinnati Meeting, 18 October 2011. Approved as presented.
5. Old Business: Please see the following Table for the agenda for the bulk of today’s meeting. Note that
the experiment allotting times for individual segments of the agenda failed miserably!
Item Description Responsible
5.1 General update from Steering Committee meeting Terry
The schedule for completing the code and commentary was discussed. It looks like we are back to looking at a 2014 document with
minimal new business items included. Sub A will work to include the most critical changes to our chapters.
5.2 Resolution of issues from 318 LB of CA 026 Terry
1. CA 026 ballot results were reviewed and minor changes were made. The final version was approved by Sub A by a vote of 12
affirmative and 1 not present.
2. CA026 was presented on the floor of the 318 meeting on Wednesday. All negatives were either withdrawn or found non
persuasive. There were additional changes made on the floor. CA 026 was approved by 318. A copy of this item, as approved by
318, is attached. The final responses as approved by 318 are also attached.
3. The changes resulting from CA 026 were incorporated into Chapter 22, and this chapter with commentary is on the 6 April 318 LB.
5.3a Chapter 5, Resolution of negatives and significant comments from Sub A ballot on Commentary Tony
1. The proposed responses to the ballot on the commentary of Chapter 5 were discussed. Changes were made to satisfy the
subcommittee. The final version was approved by Sub A by a vote of 12 affirmative and 1 not present. A copy of the final approved
responses is attached. Note that a number of new business items were developed during this review.
2. The responses have been incorporated into the chapter. The current target is to have Chapter 5 with commentary on the 6 May 318
LB.
5.3b Chapter 5, Recommendations for top 3 new business items Tony
Not discussed because of a lack of time.
5.4a Chapter 22, Resolution of negatives and significant comments from Sub A ballot on Commentary Nick
1. The proposed responses to the ballot on the commentary of Chapter 22 were discussed. Changes were made to satisfy the
subcommittee. The final version was approved by Sub A by a vote of 10 affirmative and 3 not present. A copy of the final approved
responses is attached.
2. The responses have been incorporated into the chapter. Chapter 22 with commentary is on the 6 April 318 LB.
5.4b Chapter 22, Recommendations for top 3 new business items Nick
Not discussed because of a lack of time.

5.5 Chapter 23, Comments from presentation at Steering Committee meeting Terry
1. The overall organization of Chapter 23, as approved by Sub A in Denver, was accepted by the Steering Committee.
2. Subs B and G agreed to take responsibility for their respective sections of the chapter. They will also look at t he section on
embedments to determine who should be responsible for this material.
3. It was agreed to keep a separate section on submittals as a part of the chapter.
4. All subs agreed to look at the “orphans” at the end of the chapter to determine where they should be located in the code.
5. Since the meeting, a copy of Chapter 23 as balloted by Sub A was sent to all of the subs. Additionally, the Sub A ballot comments
were provided for use by the other subs.
6. A target date of the May 318 LB was established for a 318 ballot on this chapter.
5.6 Chapter 23, Resolution of negatives and significant comments from Sub A ballot on Commentary Colin
1. Overall direction from the subcommittee was defined.

2. The chapter is to be a listing of items that are relevant to building officials and contractors. No separation of items directed at one
or the other.
3. There can be pointers as necessary to other chapter where information required in the construction documents may be located.
4. The Chapter 23 Task Group will work on addressing the comments from the Sub A ballot.
5.7 CA 104, Resolution of Negatives from last ballot Doug
Not discussed because of a lack of time. Further actions on this item will be handled electronically.
5.8 Formation of Task Group to review ASTM C 1600 cements Terry
The Task Group will be Kosmatka, Weiss, and Barth. Jason will be the chair. ASTM C 1600 will be made available to the
subcommittee for review. The goal of the task group is to make a recommendation s to whether C1600 should be added to the Code.
If the recommendation is to add this standard, are there any restrictions that need to be added?
5.9. Summary of all CA items. An updated list of all CA items was sent out after the Cincinnati meeting.
This list showed 17 active items. Many of these active items have been referred to the Chapter 5 and
Chapter 22 Task Groups to be included in the list of potential new business.
An updated list after the Dallas meeting is attached. There are currently 17 open items.
5.10. Code reorganization.
5.10.1 Task Groups for Code Reorganization. Following are the current Task Groups. Note changes
below to reflect that the work on the original Chapter 23 has been completed.
Chapter 5, Material Properties and Durability. Tony, CH, Fred, Doug, Jason
Chapter 22, Concrete Materials and Quality Assurance, Nick, CH, Ken B., Brian
Chapter 23, Construction Documents. Colin, CH, Steve, Ken H., Harry, Florian, Dean
5.10.2 Current Status: See the actions in the Table on page 2.
The following items will not be discussed during the Dallas meeting.
5.11. Use of 4 x 8 inch cylinders. Rachel Detwiler sent Sub A a copy of a paper that she has prepared.
Mike Bartlett has also provided comments on this paper. Colin Lobo also provided additional information
on this topic. The committee agreed that we would like to see data from additional labs before making any
changes to the requirement for testing three 4 x 8 in. cylinders. Harry Gleich reported that the precast
industry has converted to testing only two cylinders. Colin Lobo will forward additional test data. The
committee agreed to reopen this item. Steve Kosmatka and Colin Lobo were appointed to summarize
current data and to prepare a new b allot item for consideration. This item is assigned CA 105. Steve and
Colin will update references in CA 105 and send for a Sub A ballot. Status?
5.12. Performance specifications and implications for 318. Topic remains open for possible action during
this code cycle.
5.13. Adding alkali-silica reactivity (ASR) to the Code. Of all of the major durability issues with concrete,
only ASR is not addressed in the Code. After discussion, a Task Group of Folliard, Hooton, and Fiorato
was formed to review this issue and make a recommendation to the committee during the meeting in New
Orleans. In Chicago, Tony reported that ASTM C09 is preparing a specification for dealing with ASR.
Sub A agreed to put any action on hold until that document is completed. It was agreed that it is still
premature for Sub A to take any action here. This item will remain on the agenda until action is taken.
5.14. Determining Lambda. Carino had the following comment on Sub A Ballot A02-09:
I have some questions about the splitting tensile strength. First, fct is defined as the average
splitting tensile strength, so this is not a function of f'c, but a function of the average compressive
strength of the concrete. So it is not correct to say that fct is 6.7 sqrt(f'c). Second, I'd like an
explanation of how an engineer would determine lambda for the second alternative. The code
language is not clear. I think the fct in the equation should be measured average splitting tensile
strength. Maybe Fred or Ken can explain to us how the equation in 8.6.1 is supposed to be used to
choose lambda.
This issue is being addressed as a CA items that will be sent out with the ballot on Chapter 5 commentary.
The ballot item will clean up the method of calculating lambda. Further work remains on lambda versus
unit weight issues. Also, the question of whether the method of calculating lambda is actually used by
designers has bee raised as new business.
5.15. Sulfate resistance: The following email was sent to Cathy French. Colin Lobo responded as shown.
I hope your sabbatical is going well. I had a question for you when
> you have a minute. On our wind farm projects in some parts of the
> country we are running into situations where we have severe sulfate
> exposures and it seems that I am continually at odds with local
> concrete suppliers over the interpretation of the sulfate resistance
> portions of chapter 4 of ACI 318. Is this one of your fields of
> expertise or can you recommend someone I could talk to so I can make
> sure I am doing the right thing?
>
>
>
> The issue that I keep running into is that, the way I read section
> 4.3, for severe sulfate exposures, type V cement is required. Type I
> or II cement with the addition of class F fly ash can be used if the
> mixture meets the requirements of section 4.5 when tested according to
> ASTM C1012. The problem is that the test takes 6 months or a year to
> run and I have yet to run into a concrete supplier who has run it on
> any of their mixes. The suppliers that I talk to want to offer me a
> test result from ASTM C452 but I have found multiple references in the
> literature to the fact that this test is not accurate for mixes
> containing cement blended with pozzolans. I have continued to insist
> that the C1012 test be run if anything is to be substituted for the
> type V cement but I seem to be the only engineer that these suppliers
> are running into that is requiring them to do this.
Colin Lobo:
I will attempt a response. The sulfate provisions in the code are not
ideal for compliance in practice.
In the footnote to table 4.3.1 "The amount of the specific source of the
pozzolan or slag to be used shall not be less than the amount that has
been determined by service record..."
This note permits the LDP to use customary practice on mix composition
in lieu of test. It is realized the test duration is too long for mix
submittals. It is unlikely that concrete suppliers will have C1012 data.
It is more likely that blended cements by C595 or C1157 will have data
in their certifications, but S3 requires additional SCM.
In CA for instance the use of 25% fly ash in addition to a sulfate
resistant cement has been considered adequate for severe sulfate
conditions. I think it is accepted by CALTRANS. I am not sure of the
area of your projects, but slag as an SCM might be an option too. Slag
has been entering the CA market more recently and these suppliers (as
with the fly ash people) might have C1012 data but it wont be with the
specific cement for the project. What is important in the cement would be
the C3A used in the test relative to that used on the project. If that
on the project is equal to or less than that used in the test, it should
be OK.
ASTM C 452 is not an appropriate test - it is an optional test to
qualify Portland cements for sulfate resistance only.
You might consult with Eric Tolles who is a code official for the city
of Irvine in CA (if that's where you are operating). Eric is on 318 and
aware of these provisions.
Does Sub A need to take action here? This item was not discussed in New Orleans, Chicago, Pittsburgh,
Tampa, or Denver because of a lack of time. Status?
6. New Business:
Note that the following new business items are listed by title only because we will probably not have time
to address them. If time is available or if a topic is of interest to a member, we will address these items.
6.1. Core waiting period.
6.2. Add recycled aggregate to the Code.
6.3. Top bar effects in self-consolidating concrete.
6.4. Fix mixture proportioning flow chart in Commentary.
This item is now moot. It will be dropped from the agenda.
6.5. Various new work items resulting from review of Version 1 of the reorganized Code.
These items are being incorporated into the possible new work lists as chapters are adopted.
6.6. w/cm versus strength for durability.
6.7. Chloride ion restrictions in concrete containing aluminum embedments.
6.8. Request to add ASTM C 1600 Rapid hardening Hydraulic Cements to the Code.
See item 5.8 above. A task group has been formed to look into this issue.
6.9. Inquiry regarding appropriate strength for w/cm for durability.
6.10. Ward Malish issues regarding brackish water.
Note: Other than as indicated, these items have been addressed to date because of lack of time.
7. Adjourn
SUMMARY OF SUB A ITEMS -- AFTER DALLAS MEETING
Total Sub A items 48
Last CA Number Assigned CA 114
SOURCES Carryover from 2008 Code cycle 16

Added from public 2008 comments 11
Added during this Code cycle 20
Total 47
RESOLVED Adopted, 2011 Code 6

Not adopted, 2011/2014 Code 24
Adopted, 2014 Code 1
Active items 17
Total 48
ACTIVE ITEMS
NUMBER DESCRIPTION RESPONSIBLE COMMENTS

CA 002 Curing issues, 5.6.4.1 and 5.11. New Hover 25 Mar 12, email to Hover regarding
Chapter 22 future of this item.
CA 056 Harmonize chloride limits. New Chapter 5 Weiss On hold, coordinate with ACI 201
and ACI 222
CA 065 Maximum size of aggregate between reinf Holland, CH 22 Passed Sub A. To CH 22 TG to
and forms. New 22.3.2.1 TG consider.
CA 069 Incorporate certified inspectors into the Holland and Sub A ballot 10-2006, DNP. Holland
Code. New Chapter 22. Carino to update and ballot.
CA 070 Cementitious materials for chlorides. New Lobo/Weiss On hold, coordinate with ACI 201
Chapter 5. and ACI 222
CA 077 Rewrite Ch 5, construction issues. New Hover Sub A ballot A01-2009, DNP, revise
Chapter 23. and reballot. Will be addressed once
CH 23 is available.
CA 088 2008 Code, PC 38, Gustafson 318 ballot Hooton, CH 5 TG Was on Sub A A04-2011, did not
comment. Table R.4.3.1, second sentence pass Sub A. To CH 5 TG to
below table. Delete sentence regarding consider.
epoxy and zinc coated bars. New Chapter
5.
CA 092 2008 Code, PC 69, Cunningham. 2.2 and Carino Passed Sub A -- 14 Oct 11 -- to Ch
5.6.2.4, add definition of strength test to Ch. 22 TG for inclusion in new business
2. New Chapters 2 and 22.
CA 093 2008 Code, PC 414, Green. R8.6.1, give Bondy/Meyer, CH Passed Sub A. To CH 5 TG to
justification for interpolation in values of 5 TG consider.
lamda. New Chapter 5.
CA 099 Clarify use of term f'c, various locations. Fiorato Passed Sub A -- 14 Oct 11 -- to Ch
New Chaapter 22. 22 TG for inclusion in new business
CA 101 Clarify requirements regarding measuring Hover, CH 5 TG Passed Sub A. To CH 5 TG to

air. New Chapter 5. consider.
CA 103 Add "and roofs" to 6.4.4 (misc Item #3) New Holland Passed Sub A. Will be addressed
Chapter 23 once CH 23 is available.
CA 104 Remove Exposure Cat. "Permeability" from Lobo/Hooton On Sub A ballot A06-2011, did not
Ch. 4; misc edits to Ch. 4 (misc item # 4); pass. Discuss in Cincy
includes clarification of Cats C and F. New
Chapter 5.
CA 105 Number of 4x8 inch cylinders required. Kosmatka Assigned at San Antonio meeting.
New Chapter 22. Waiting on additional documentation
CA 111 Additional lamda issues -- can lamda be Meyer Assigned in Pittsburgh. Meyer is
defined on basis of unit weight? New working on this.
chapter 5 and elsewhere.
CA 113 Combination of several definitions. Various CH 5 TG. CH 22 All have passed Sub A. To CH 5 and
locations. TG CH 22 TG to c0nsider
CA 114 Various editorial items in Chapter 22 Holland 318 LB with Commentary for this
chapter
ACI 318A January, 2012
CA 026
1 Subject: Revision of Section 22.4
2
3 Code sections: 22.4 and R22.4
4
5 Basis: CA 026 originated in a previous Code cycle. It is based on recommendations
6 from Holland that the detailed statistical requirements related to mixture proportioning
7 that are in the Code be deleted because these topics are beyond the scope of the Code and
8 the information is readily available in other ACI publications.
9
10 Reason for Change: To remove statistical requirements related to establishing mixture
11 proportioning from the Code because this information is not directed to the licensed
12 design professional and it is available elsewhere in ACI publications.
13
14 History: CA 026 was balloted on 318 LB 11-5 and received 27 comments of which 9
15 were negatives. Most of the negatives were resolved during discussions in Cincinnati.
16 However, because several changes were made to resolve negatives, it was necessary to
17 reballot this item at the Sub A level. CA 026 has now been reapproved by Sub A. Note
18 that this version also contains commentary. This commentary language was either
19 derived from existing commentary or was newly written for this version. Commentary is
20 shown in boxed text following the applicable code section.
21
22 Background: The provisions on mixture proportioning have been in the Code for many
23 years, but the Code has evolved and it is now understood that the Code addresses the
24 licensed design professional's responsibilities to ensure life safety. In this revision,
25 emphasis is placed on evaluation of documentation for verifying mixture characteristics
26 (22.4.2) and on the acceptance criteria for the concrete delivered to the project (22.5
27 which is 5.6 in the current code), not on how to proportion concrete mixtures. The
28 detailed statistical requirements for establishing the basis for selecting mixture
29 proportions are being removed from the Code because there are appropriate ACI
30 documents that cover these details. ACI 301 provides these instructions to the contractor,
31 and ACI 214R, which is referenced in the Commentary, is a resource for routine
32 statistical quality control analysis and for establishing the required average strength to
33 ensure a high likelihood of meeting the acceptance criteria. Also, many concrete
34 producers are capable of using their quality control processes to develop appropriate
35 mixtures without following the procedure currently called for in the Code. The Code
36 addresses the responsibilities of the design professional and these prescriptive
37 requirements on mixture proportioning are directed to the contractor. ACI 301 is the
38 proper document for these instructions to the contractor. The Code needs only to provide
39 the general performance requirements for concrete mixtures and the acceptance criteria
40 for the delivered concrete.
41
42 The requirement for the licensed design professional to review some mixtures has been in
43 the Code for a long time. ACI 318-89 contained the following provision:
44
45 5.4.1 – If data required by 5.3 are not available, concrete proportions shall be
46 based on water-cement ratio limits in Table 5.4, if approved by the engineer or
47 architect.
1
CA 026
48
49 This provision has been modified over the years and is still present in ACI 318-11.
50
51 5.4.1 — If data required by 5.3 are not available, concrete proportions shall be
52 based upon other experience or information, if approved by the licensed design
53 professional.
54
55 The Code lacks a requirement on what is supposed to be done with the mixture
56 proportioning documentation that is required to be developed. The proposed change
57 requires that this information be submitted to the LDP for review. This review is deemed
58 essential to ensure that the requirements, both for strength and durability, are met by the
59 proposed concrete mixture. However, nothing in this change proposal alters the
60 requirement that the concrete producer is ultimately responsible to provide concrete
61 meeting the acceptance criteria of 22.5.
62
63
64 Suggested Revisions to ACI 318-XX:
65
66 NOTE: The following section 22.4 is taken from the Approved Version of Chapter 22
67 (dated 11-07-28) as posted on the Reorganization web site.
68
69 CODE and COMMENTARY (Note that Commentary follows Code sections)
70
71 22.4 — Proportioning of concrete mixtures
72
73 R22.4 – Proportioning of concrete mixtures
74 The 2014 edition of the Code does not include the statistical requirements for
75 proportioning concrete that were in previous editions. The Committee believes that this
76 information does not belong in the Code because it is not a responsibility of the licensed
77 design professional to proportion concrete mixtures. Further, this information is
78 available in other ACI documents, such as ACI 301 and ACI 214R. Finally, the quality
79 control procedures of some concrete producers allow meeting the acceptance criteria of
80 the Code without following the exact process that has been included in previous editions
81 of the Code.
82
83 22.4.1 — Selection of concrete proportions
84
85 22.4.1.1 — Proportions of materials for concrete shall be established so that the
86 concrete is in accordance with (a), (b), and (c): <5.2.1> Concrete mixture
87 proportions shall be established so that the concrete satisfies (a) through (c):
88 (a) Provides workability and consistency to permit concrete to be worked
89 readily into forms and around reinforcement under conditions of placement to
90 be used, without segregation or excessive bleeding;
2
CA 026
91 (a) Can be placed readily without segregation into forms and around
92 reinforcement under placement conditions to be used;
93 (b) Meets requirements for applicable assigned exposure classes of Chapter
94 5;
95 (c) Conforms to strength test requirements of 22.5.

96
97
98 R22.4.1 – Selection of concrete proportions
99
100 R22.4.1.1 — This section provides requirements for developing mixture proportions. The
101 concrete has to have workability that is appropriate for the intended placement and
102 consolidation methods and it has to meet the durability and strength requirements of the
103 Code. The term "without segregation" is intended to provide for a cohesive mixture in
104 which aggregates remain well distributed until setting occurs. It is recognized that some
105 segregation in the form of bleeding will occur. The required workability will depend on
106 reinforcement congestion, member geometry, and the placement and consolidation
107 methods to be used. Requirements of the contractor should be considered in establishing
108 required workability of the concrete.
109
110 The Code does not include provisions for especially severe exposures, such as chemical
111 contact, high temperatures, temporary freezing and thawing conditions during the
112 construction period, abrasive conditions, alkali-aggregate reactions, or other unique
113 durability considerations pertinent to the structure. Also, the Code does not address
114 aesthetic considerations such as surface finishes. If applicable, these items should be
115 covered specifically in the contract documents.
116
117 22.4.1.2 -- Concrete mixture proportions shall be established in accordance with
118 Section 4 of ACI 301 or by an alternative method acceptable to the licensed
119 design professional. Alternative methods shall have a probability of meeting the
120 requirements of 22.5.3.2 that meets or exceeds the probability associated with
121 the method in ACI 301.
122
123 R22.4.1.2 – Section 4 of ACI 301 contains the statistical procedures for selecting the
124 required average strength that were included previously in the Code. The exception
125 allows the concrete producer to provide evidence that the concrete can be proportioned
126 by an alternative method to meet the project requirements and the acceptance criteria of
127 22.5. The Code presumes that the probability of failure to meet the acceptance criteria in
128 22.5.3.2 is not more than 1 in 100. Following the method of proportioning in ACI 301
129 will maintain this level of risk. A key factor in evaluating any proposed alternative
130 proportioning method would be its ability to preserve this presumed level of risk. Refer
131 to ACI 214R22.8 additional information.
132
133 22.4.1.2 3 — Cementitious Concrete materials used in the Work shall correspond
134 to those used in selecting to develop concrete mixture proportions. <3.2.2>
3
CA 026
135
136 22.4.1.3 4 — If different materials concrete mixtures are to be used for different
137 portions of proposed Work, each combination mixture shall comply with 22.4.1.1.
138 <5.2.2>
139
140
141 R22.4.1.4—If more than one concrete mixture is used for the project, each mixture is
142 required to satisfy Code requirements. A change in concrete constituents, such as sources
143 or types of cementitious materials, aggregates, or admixtures, is considered a different
144 mixture. A minor change in mixture proportions made in response to field conditions is
145 not considered a new mixture.
146
147 22.4.1.4 — Once f′c has been determined based on strength requirements or
148 durability, concrete mixture proportions for the required average compressive
149 strength, f'cr, shall be established in accordance with 22.4.2 or 22.4.3. <5.2.3>
150
151 22.4.1.5 — Requirements Verification that the requirements for f′c are satisfied
152 shall be based on tests results of cylinders made, cured, and tested as
153 prescribed in 22.5.3.
154 <5.1.2>
155
156 22.4.2 — Establishing f'cr based on field experience Delete this entire section
157
158 22.4.2.1 — Sample standard deviation
159
160 22.4.2.1.1 — If a concrete production facility has strength test records less than 12
161 months old, a sample standard deviation, ss, shall be established for determination of f'cr.
162 Test records from which ss is calculated shall be in accordance with (a) through (c):
163 <5.3.1.1>
164
165 (a) Represent materials, quality control procedures, and conditions similar to
166 those expected; and changes in materials and proportions within the test records
167 shall not have been more restrictive than those for proposed Work;
168
169 (b) Represent concrete produced to meet a specified compressive strength or
170 strengths within 1000 psi of f′c;
171
172 (c) Consist of at least 30 consecutive tests or two groups of consecutive tests
173 totaling at least 30 tests as defined in 22.5.1.1, except as provided in 22.4.2.1.2.
174
175 22.4.2.1.2 — If a concrete production facility does not have strength test records meeting
176 requirements of 22.4.2.1.1(c), but does have test records less than 12 months old based on
177 15 to 29 consecutive tests, ss shall be established as the product of the standard deviation
178 calculated from the smaller number of tests and the corresponding modification factor of
179 Table 22.4.2.1.2. To be acceptable, test records shall meet requirements (a) and (b) of
4
CA 026
180 22.4.2.1.1, and represent only a single record of consecutive tests that span a period of at
181 least 45 calendar days. <5.3.1.2> <Table 5.3.1.2>
182
183 Table 22.4.2.1.2 — Modification factor for sample
184 standard deviation if fewer than 30 tests
185 are available
Modification factor
No. of tests*
15 1.16
20 1.08
25 1.03
≥30 1.00
*Interpolate for intermediate numbers of tests.
186
187 22.4.2.2 — Required average strength
188
189 22.4.2.2.1 — Required average compressive strength, f′cr,used as the basis for selection
190 of concrete proportions shall be determined from Table 22.4.2.2.1 using the sample
191 standard deviation, ss, calculated in accordance with 22.4.2.1. <5.3.2.1> <Table 5.3.2.1>
192
193
194 Table 22.4.2.2.1 — Required average compressive strength if
195 data are available to establish a sample standard deviation
f′c, psi fcr′, psi
The greater of f′c + 1.34ss 22.4.2.2.1(a)

f′c ≤ 5000
(a) and (b): f′c + 2.33ss – 500 22.4.2.2.1(b)
f′c + 1.34ss 22.4.2.2.1(c)

The greater of
f′c > 5000
(c) and (d):
0.90 f′c + 2.33ss 22.4.2.2.1(d)
196
197 22.4.3 — Establishing f'cr without field experience Delete this entire section
198
199
200 22.4.3.1 — If a concrete production facility does not have field strength test records for
201 calculation of ss meeting requirements of 22.4.2.1, fcr′ shall be determined from Table
202 22.4.3.1 and documentation of average strength shall be in accordance with requirements
203 of 22.4.4.3. <5.3.2.2> <Table 5.3.2.2>
204
205 Table 22.4.3.1 — Required average
206 compressive strength if data are not available to
207 establish a sample standard deviation
f′c, psi fcr′, psi
5
CA 026
f′c < 3000 f′c + 1000 22.4.2.2.2(a)
3000 ≤ f′c ≤ 5000 f′c + 1200 22.4.2.2.2(b)
f′c > 5000 1.10 f′c + 700 22.4.2.2.2(c)

208
209 22.4.4 — Documentation of average compressive strength Delete this entire section
210
211
212 22.4.4.1 — Documentation that proposed concrete proportions will produce an average
213 compressive strength equal to or greater than required average compressive strength, fcr′,
214 shall consist of a field strength test record, several strength test records, or trial mixtures.
215 <5.3.3>
216
217 22.4.4.2 — If test records in accordance with 22.4.2.1 are used to demonstrate that
218 proposed concrete proportions will produce fcr′, such records shall comply with (a)
219 through (c): <5.3.3.1>
220 (a) Materials and conditions shall be similar to those expected. Changes in
221 materials, conditions, and proportions within the test records shall not have been
222 more restrictive than those for proposed Work;
223 (b) For the purpose of documenting average strength potential, test records
224 consisting of between 10 and 30 consecutive tests are acceptable, provided test
225 records encompass a period of time of at least 45 days;
226 (c) Required concrete proportions shall be permitted to be established by
227 interpolation between the strengths and proportions of two or more test records,
228 each of which meets the other requirements of this section.
229
230 22.4.4.3 — If an acceptable record of field test results to document f'cr is not available,
231 concrete proportions established from trial mixtures meeting (a) through (e) shall be
232 permitted: <5.3.3.2>
233
234 (a) Materials shall be those for the proposed Work.
235
236 (b) Trial mixtures shall include a range of proportions that will produce a range of
237 compressive strengths including f′cr;
238
239 (c) Trial mixtures shall have slumps within the range required for the proposed
240 Work. For air-entrained concrete, air content shall be within the tolerance
241 specified for the proposed Work;
242
243 (d) For each trial mixture, at least two 6 x 12 in. or three 4 x 8 in. cylinders shall
244 be made and cured in accordance with ASTM C192. Cylinders shall be tested at 28
245 days or at test age designated for f′c;
246
6
CA 026
247 (e) The compressive strength results, at designated test age, from the trial
248 mixtures shall be used to establish the composition of the concrete mixture proposed for
249 the Work.
250
251 22.4.5 — Proportioning without field experience or trial mixtures Delete this entire
252 section
253
254 22.4.5.1 — If data required by 22.4.2 are not available, and if f'c is not greater than 5,000
255 psi, concrete proportions shall be based on other experience or information, if approved
256 by the Licensed Design Professional. The required average compressive strength, fcr′, of
257 concrete produced with materials similar to those proposed for use shall be at least 1200
258 psi greater than f′c. <5.4.1>
259
260 22.4.6 — Reduction in required average compressive strength Delete this entire
261 section
262
263
264 22.4.6.1 — As data become available during construction, it shall be permitted to reduce
265 the amount by which the required average concrete strength f′cr must exceed f′c, provided
266 the durability requirements of 5.3 are met and (a) or (b) are satisfied. <5.5>
267
268 (a) Thirty or more test results are available and average of test results exceeds that
269 required by 22.4.2.2.1, using a sample standard deviation, ss, calculated in
270 accordance with 22.4.2.1.1;
271
272 (b) Fifteen to 29 test results are available and average of test results exceeds that
273 required by 22.4.2.2.1 using ss calculated in accordance with 22.4.2.1.2;
274
275 22.4.2 – Documentation of concrete mixture performance characteristics
276 22.4.2.1 – Documentation of concrete mixture characteristics shall be reviewed

277 by the licensed design professional before the mixture is used and before
278 making changes to mixtures already in use. Evidence of the ability of the
279 proposed mixture to comply with the requirements of 22.4.1.1 shall be included in
280 the documentation. The evidence shall be based on field test records or
281 laboratory trial batches. Field or laboratory data shall be based on materials
282 intended to be used in the proposed Work. Field test records shall represent
283 conditions similar to those anticipated during the proposed Work.
284
285 R22.4.2.1 – Review of the proposed concrete mixture is necessary to ensure that it is
286 appropriate for the project and meets all of the requirements as established by the
287 licensed design professional for strength and durability. The licensed design professional
288 typically reviews the documentation on a proposed concrete mixture to evaluate the
289 likelihood that the concrete will meet the acceptance requirements of 22.5 and includes
7
CA 026
290 acceptable materials. The statistical principles discussed in ACI 214R can be useful in
291 evaluating the likelihood that a proposed mixture will meet the requirements of 22.5.
292
293 22.4.5.1 2.2 – If field or laboratory data required by 22.4.2 are not available, and
294 f’c is not greater than 5,000 psi, concrete proportions shall be based on other
295 experience or information, if approved by the licensed design professional. If f’c
296 exceeds 5,000 psi, test data documenting the characteristics of the proposed
297 mixtures are required. The required average compressive strength, fcr′, of
298 concrete produced with materials similar to those proposed for use shall be at
299 least 1200 psi greater than f′c. <based on 5.4.1>
300 Note: This provision requiring the LDP to review the concrete mixture under the
301 cited circumstances has been in the Code since at least 318-89.
302 R22.4.2.2— If f'c is not greater than 5000 psi and test data are not available, concrete
303 mixture proportions should be established to produce a sufficiently high average strength
304 such that the likelihood that the concrete would not meet the strength acceptance criteria
305 would be an acceptably low probability. Guidance on an appropriate average strength is
306 provided in ACI 214R. The purpose of this provision is to allow work to continue when
307 there is an unexpected interruption in concrete supply and there is not sufficient time for
308 testing and evaluation or for a small project where the cost of trial mixture data is not
309 justified.
310
311 22.4.2.3.— As data become available during construction, it shall be permitted to

312 modify a mixture that consistently exceeds the acceptance criteria of 22.5,
313 provided that acceptable evidence is furnished to the licensed design
314 professional to demonstrate that the modified mixture will comply with the
315 requirements of 22.4.1.1. <based on 5.5>
316 R22.4.2.3 — Often, at the beginning of a project, concrete mixtures will be proportioned
317 conservatively to ensure passing acceptance criteria. As test data showing actual
318 variability become available, it may be appropriate to proportion the mixture to be less
319 conservative. See ACI 214 R22.8 for guidance.
320 22.5 – Evaluation and acceptance of concrete.
321 Note: This section and remainder of chapter are unchanged by this proposal.
322 Section 22.5.3 is provided for reference only.
323 22.5.3 — Acceptance criteria for standard-cured specimens

324
325 22.5.3.1 — Specimens for acceptance tests shall be in accordance with (a) and
326 (b):
327
8
CA 026
328 (a) Sampling of concrete for strength test specimens shall be in
329 accordance with ASTM C172; <5.6.3.1>
330
331 (b) Cylinders for strength tests shall be made and standard cured in
332 accordance with ASTM C31 and tested in accordance with ASTM C39.
333 Cylinders shall be 4 x 8 in. or 6 x 12 in. <5.6.3.2>
334
335 22.5.3.2 — Strength level of an individual class of concrete shall be acceptable if
336 (a) and (b) are satisfied: <5.6.3.3>
337
338 (a) Every arithmetic average of any three consecutive strength tests
339 equals or exceeds f′c;
340
341 (b) No strength test falls below f′c by more than 500 psi if f′c is 5000 psi or
342 less; or by more than 0.10 f′c if f′c is greater than 5000 psi.
343
344 22.5.3.3 — If the requirements of 22.5.3.2 are not satisfied, steps shall be taken
345 to increase the average of subsequent strength test results. <5.6.3.4>
346
347
9
ACI 318-14 Ballot LB12-2 Sorted Comments March 13, 2012
Issued: February 11, 2012 Due Date: Monday, March 12, 2012
Revised February 13, 2012
Sorted Comments for ACI 318 Ballot LB12-2

As of March 13, 2012
NOTE: This version contains FINAL responses as approved during the 318 meeting in Dallas.
Vote:
Y
Submittal Line
Last Name C* Comments
# #
N**
A
Becker CA026 0 N I reiterate my previous negative about any requirement that
the LDP has to review a concrete mix before it can be used. I
do not agree with the implication that this has been in 318
since at least 89. The reference to 5.4.1 can (and I believe
should) be interpreted as the LDP allowing a different
procedure. The current language does not require review of
the mix design or review of the documentation for a mix
design. Other than this, I would support the proposal.
Roger is concerned that on small and medium sized projects,
there should not be a requirement for submitting mixture
proportions. He would withdraw his negative if Sub A makes
the requirement to mix submittal as an optional for the LDP to
specify in Chapter 23.
Line 272.
Much discussion on recommended language. Only resolved
by returning to original and finding Roger NP. Found NP,
language remains same as balloted.
22.4.2.1 –Documentation of concrete mixture

characteristics shall be reviewed by the licensed
design professional before the mixture is used and
before making changes to mixtures already in use.
Documentation shall demonstrate the ability of the
proposed mixture to comply with the requirements
of 22.4.1.1.
Jirsa CA026 0 Y I appreciated the inclusion of the commentary material.

OK
Wyllie CA026 0 N My pervious negative vote on this issue was ruled Non
Persuasive by Sub A. See my comments on page 6330. I
am willing to work with Sub A, but I believe too many LDP’s
do not understand concrete mixture design and since they
only have ACI 318 on their desk that may be their only
reference. We need to maintain enough in code and
commentary to help this marginal LDP understand what a
LDP needs to know. My response to Sub A’s NP is a NP
back.
Found NP.
Corley CA026 54 N This gives no guidance to the LDP.

The line cited is an excerpt from the current Code that is
included in the Background statement. Negative withdrawn
French CA026 77 C Change to:
“This edition of tThe 2014 does not include…”
OK, make editorial change.
Wood CA026 81 C Suggest changing “available elsewhere in ACI documents” to
“available in other ACI documents.” Also suggest adding a
comma after “documents.”
OK, make editorial change
French CA026 84 C Change to “included previously in previous editions of the
Code.”
Wyllie CA026 84 N This commentary is a good start but let’s add a sentence that
this section will attempt to give guidance to LDP on preparing
specifications and review concrete mixture designs.
Find NP. Found NP
1. Code is not a textbook
2. LDP does not prepare concrete proportions
3. Specification exists – Section 4 of ACI 301
Rabbat CA026 96 N The LDP specifies an exposure class. An exposure category
is not sufficient. Change:
…assigned exposure categories classes…
Correct, editorial change. Negative withdrawn based on
changes.
Rabbat CA026 103 N Where are the general requirements listed?
Withdrawn based upon changes.
This section provides requirements …
French CA026 107 C Change to “remain well distributed until setting occurs.”
Otherwise it sounds like the aggregates just remain well-
distributed until setting and then they segregate.
Leave as is – aggregate won’t be moving around after
setting!
Parra CA026 107 C Change “The Code recognizes” to “It is recognized”
Wyllie CA026 110 N Delete this sentence that the contractor is in the best
position…. I have experienced too many contractors not in
that position who only want to add water so the concrete will
flow better in the forms.
Negative withdrawn based upon changes during
318 meeting.
The required workability will depend on

reinforcement congestion, member geometry, and

the placement and consolidation methods to be
used. Requirements of the contractor should be
considered in establishing required workability of
the concrete.
French CA026 113 N This sentence needs to be reworded so that the items are
parallel. When you list the examples of exposures rather than
saying “chemicals” – should it be “chemical contact”
“abrasion resistance” isn’t an example of exposure, it is a
quality of the concrete—should it be “abrasive conditions”?
Etc.
OK, make editorial changes. Negative withdrawn based on
changes.
Cook CA026 121 N The “shall be” reference to Part 4 of ACI 310 satisfies my
previous negative since that does give the same statistical
requirements for the concrete as in ACI 318-11 Chapter 5.
My problem is with the blanket statement “…or by an

alternative method acceptable to the licensed design
professional.” The current statistical requirement is fcr = f’c
+1.34s so basically the designer is insured that f’c = fcr –
1.34s. This nominal concrete strength goes hand in hand
with the ACI 318 values for φ. If the licensed design
professional decided to go with fcr = f’c +1.0s without
changing φ then I think the overall reliability of the design
decreases. I know in Appendix D we require alternative
methods to use the same 5% fractile as built into the
Appendix D equations and that a 5% fractile with 90%
confidence is the mean – 1.64s. I am not sure what fractile
fcr – 1.34s represents but any alternative method needs to be
required to maintain this or reduce φ accordingly.
My negative can be resolved any one of the following:

1. Deleting “…or by an alternative method acceptable to
the licensed design professional.”
2. Requiring that the LCD reduce φ factors if the
alternative method does not produce the same
fractile value for f’c as the ACI 301 method.
Show that the 22.5 field tests alone insure that the original
ACI 318 statistical requirements for f’c have been met
regardless of whatever “alternative method” is used.
Withdrawn upon change
22.4.1.2 -- Concrete mixture proportions shall be

established in accordance with Section 4 of ACI
301 or by an alternative method acceptable to the
licensed design professional. Alternative methods
shall have a probability of meeting the

requirements of 22.5.3.2 that meets or exceeds
the probability associated with the method in ACI
301.
R22.4.1.2 – Section 4 of ACI 301 contains the

statistical procedures for selecting the required average
strength that were included previously in the Code.
The exception allows the concrete producer to provide
evidence that the concrete can be proportioned by an
alternative method to meet the project requirements and
the acceptance criteria of 22.5. The Code presumes that
the probability of failure to meet the acceptance criteria
in 22.5.3.2 is not more than 1 in 100. Following the
method of proportioning in ACI 301 will maintain this
level of risk. A key factor in evaluating any proposed
alternative proportioning method would be its ability to
preserve this presumed level of risk. Refer to ACI
214R for additional information.
French CA026 121 C Should there be a year associated with ACI 310?
Actually ACI 301; year will be added in reference section.
Must not be worded that ACI 301 is adopted as part of this
Code.
French CA026 124 C Should there be a year associated with ACI 310?
Actually ACI 301; year will be added in reference section.
Must not be worded that ACI 301 is adopted as part of this
Code.
Rabbat CA026 124 C Provide on Line 129 the citation for ACI 301 to be listed in
Chapter 3, Referenced Standards.
ACI 301 will be added as a reference for both Code and
Commentary. In Code, must not be worded that ACI 301 is
adopted as part of this Code.
Wyllie CA026 124 N Good start. Add a long paragraph for my LDP who only
reads 318 about the process, experience data, test mixes,
etc, in the order they should be used.
Find NP – Found NP. Code is not a textbook. ACI 301
provides specification language to be used.
Wyllie CA026 130 N The term “Work” is not code language. Sounds like a
government specification. Rather than adding yet another
definition, change this “Work” to “structure” and the “work” on
line 134 to “project”.
Withdrawn upon discussion.
Dolan CA026 134 C As written the clause is not enforceable since it only says the
mixture has to be evaluated. I suggest adding “… in
accordance with 24.4.1.1” to provide an acceptance criterion.
Resolved. See Rabbat line 134

Rabbat CA026 134 N Some clarification is needed. Is each mixture evaluated or
reviewed and approved by the LDP per 22.4.2.1?
Withdrawn based upon changes.
If different concrete mixtures are to be used for

different portions of proposed Work, each
combination mixture shall be evaluated comply
with 24.4.1.1.
Rabbat CA026 140 N Define “minor change.”

Discuss. How about something along the lines of “A minor
change in mixture proportions, such as in the ratio of fine to
coarse aggregate or admixture dosages, made in response to
Withdrawn upon discussion

French CA026 274 N Can documents demonstrate?
Suggest changing to:
Evidence of the ability of the proposed mixture to comply with
the requirements of 22.4.1.1 shall be included in the
documentation. The evidence shall be based on field test
records or laboratory trial batches.
OK, make editorial changes. Negative withdrawn based on
chaanges.
French CA026 281 C Change to “Review of the proposed concrete mixture is
necessary to ensure that the mixture it …”
OK, make editorial changes
Rabbat CA026 290 N When field or laboratory data are not available, is review of
the mixes based on specified or required strength? R22.4.2.2
implicitly requires knowledge of the required strength that
was provided in the deleted Table 22.4.3.1.
Withdrawn after discussion.
Corley CA026 292 N This is too vague. Refer to 214R in code.
Withdrawn. Cannot refer to 214R in the Code
French CA026 295 C Change to “Documenting the characteristics of the proposed
mixtures…”
French CA026 303 C Reword “such that there will be a high likelihood that the
concrete will meet the strength acceptance criteria…”
“high likelihood” makes it sound like there is a big chance it
might not meet the criteria.
Consider turning the sentence around to say:
“such that the likelihood that the concrete would not meet the
strength acceptance criteria would be an acceptably low
probability…”
Wyllie CA026 315 N This proposed Commentary sentence says same as the
code. Can you be a bit more creative and helpful?
Agree. How about: “Often, at the beginning of a project,
concrete mixtures will be proportioned conservatively to
ensure passing acceptance criteria. As test data showing
actual variability become available, it may be appropriate to
proportion the mixture to be less conservative. See ACI 214
R for guidance.
Withdrawn based upon change
Wyllie CA026 346 N Too much has been deleted, I believe. We need to retain
most of old 5.6, requiring concrete to be tested, the
frequency, number of cylinders, what a standard-cured
specimen is, etc. etc… Maybe some of this is retained before
Sub A cleaned out Chapter 22 but these provisions must be
retained.
Withdrawn.
These items were not deleted. They now follow the revised
section on proportioning. They are included in the approved
Chapter 22 that is posted on the web site.
Ballot: A01a – 2012 [DRAFT RESPONSES TO NEGATIVES AND COMMENTS 4/8/12] Due Date: 29 February, 2012
No. Name Ballot Pg # Line # Y/C or Comment Proposed Response

Item N
We need to add the source of the commentary Agree that Terry should do this.
sections as was done for the code sections:
1. Holland 1 Y/C <x.x.x> I have identified most of the source
sections and will make my comments available
when this is prepared to go to 318.
R 2 33 C Retain original wording. The chapter does
Since this chapter no longer includes mixing,
5.2.1 provide requirements for the mixtures to be
consider:
2. Barth produced, and we are looking to remove
“Requirements for concrete
information on how the concrete should be
productionmixtures are based on…”
produced.
R 2 36 C Assume this refers to the first paragraph of the
Rest of old commentary (318-11) R 5.1 are
5.2.1 old commentary R5.1 (ACI 318-11). This
3. Barth missing and need to be in the code somewhere,
material would seem more appropriate for
could be good introduction to this chapter.
Chapter 1 and Chapter 22.
Delete "and 22.5" because only 22.4 deals with Agree that “and 22.5” should be deleted.
4. Carino 2 38 C
proportioning. Section 22.5 is on acceptance.
R 2 38 N The statement as written does not appear Persuasive. Revise as follows:
5.2.1 correct as we could use anything in design not
necessary linked with production of the “Concrete mixtures proportioned in accordance
concrete. The original text in R 5.1.1 is appears with 22.4 should achieve an average
better. compressive strength that exceeds the value of
Consider: fc′ used in the structural design calculations.”
5. Barth
“It is emphasized that tThe average
compressive strength of concrete as produced in
accordance with 22.4 and 22.5 willshould
always exceed the value of fc′ used in the
structural design calculations.”
Suggest the following revision. The strength See response to Barth comment on Line 38 (No.
target of the mix is as proportioned and not as 5)
produced.
6. Lobo 1 2 38 Y/C
The concrete mixture is proportioned to achieve
an average compressive strength in accordance
with 22.4 and 22.5 and will always exceed the
1 of 12

Item N
value of f’c used in the structural design
calculations.
Holland Not clear on this negative? The term “required
The “required average strength” is a term that is
average strength” is not used.
7. 39 N no longer used in the code. Need to rewrite this
sentence.
Negative Withdrawn.
Don’t understand the “will always exceed The existing language in R5.1 is “should always
comment” that has been inserted. Was this exceed.” See response to Barth comment on
8. Holland 39 Y/C existing language or was this something new Line 38 (No. 5)
that was inserted? Need to clarify what is
intended here.
Agree. Suggest the following wording:
Suggest the following revision. The value by
which the average strength of concrete exceeds
The amount by which the average strength of
f’c is based on probabilistic concepts. When
concrete exceeds f’c is based on probabilistic
concrete is designed to achieve this strength
concepts. When concrete is designed to achieve
9. Lobo 1 2 39 Y/C level, it ensures that the concrete strength tests
this strength level, it ensures that the concrete
will have a high probability of meeting the
strength tests will have a high probability of
strength acceptance criteria in 22.5 and
meeting the strength acceptance criteria in
provide the specified design strength in the
22.5.
member.
I don't agree with the statement as written. The Persuasive. See response to Lobo’s comment on
over strength is to ensure a high likelihood of Line 39. (No. 9)
passing the acceptance criteria. The end result
is that about 90 % of the concrete has to have a
strength in excess of f'c. Revise as follows:
10. Carino 2 40 N "The required excess strength is based on
probabilistic concepts, and is intended to ensure
a high likelihood that concrete strength test
results will meet the acceptance criteria in
22.5."
We could also refer to ACI 214R.
I think this sentence can also be changed to Persuasive. Change to read:
11. Carino 2 42 N
better reflect the intended meaning. We do not
2 of 12

Item N
have a acceptance requirement on average "The durability requirements prescribed in
concrete strength. Table 5.3.2 are to be satisfied in addition to
"The durability requirements prescribed in meeting the minimum specified strength
Table 5.3.2 are to be satisfied in addition to requirements of 5.2.1."
meeting the minimum specified strength
requirements of 5.2.1."
R 2 46 C First sentence is unclear when it is difficult to Agree that the wording could be improved.
5.2.1 determine the w/cm.
Consider: Revise as follows:
12. Barth “ Because it is difficult to accurately determine
the w/cm of concrete at any time, the fc′ “Because it is difficult to accurately verify
specified should be reasonably consistent with determine the w/cm of concrete, …”
the w/cm required for durability.”
Through line 47: Why is it difficult to No change. This could require significant
determine the w/CM of concrete? Do we know additional wording. The Code is not a textbook.
13. Gleich 2 46 c
what reasonable w/cm to strength is? If so The existing wording makes the point.
should we tell the less knowledgeable?
Persuasive. Move section and coordinate with
Move the discussion on w/cm (46-60) to
14. Lobo 1 2 46 N Line 156. See response to Lobo negative on
commentary associated with durability – 5.3
Line 156 (No. 41).
Meyer Also on lines 49, 58 and 375, the formatting for Staff to handle.
15. 46 Y/C
fc' did not take.
16. Carino 2 47 C Delete "reasonably". It adds nothing. Agree. Delete “reasonably”
R 2 47 N The second sentence states that if you select an See response to Carino’s negative on Line 47
5.2.1 fc’ consistent with w/cm you will not exceed in (No. 18).
the field. That may not be true when water is
added in the field, hence the addition of “likely”
17. Barth Consider:
“Selection of an fc′ that is consistent with the
maximum permitted w/cm for durability will
help ensure that the maximum w/cm is likely
not exceeded in the field.”
I think we need more words to explain the Persuasive. Reword as follows:
18. Carino 2 47 N
intent of this sentence. The idea is to use
3 of 12

Item N
compressive strength evaluation as a surrogate “Selection of an fc′ that is consistent with the
for w/cm determination. maximum w/cm required for durability will
"Selection of an f'c that is consistent with the permit results of strength tests to be used as a
maximum permitted w/cm for durability will surrogate for w/cm, and thus help ensure that
help ensure that the results of strength tests can the maximum w/cm is not exceeded in the field.”
be used as indications that the maximum w/cm
is not exceeded in the field."
R 2 49 N Disagree with example! Designers always note Persuasive. See change made in response to
5.2.1 the required average compressive strength for Holland comment on Line 49 (No. 20).
19. Barth concrete and provide maximums limits w/cm.
Remove example or rewrite.
Holland Change “would” back to “should” as in current Agree. Change “would” to “should”
20. 49 Y/C
code.
I really don't understand how having test results Persuasive. This is current Code wording, but it
higher than the specified strength can result in is not clear. Delete the sentence.
concrete exceeding the w/cm limits. I have no
21. Carino 2 50 N
suggestion, because I don't know what we are
trying to say. Either revise the sentence so the
explanation is clear or delete it.
Holland The sentence starting with “Because” needs See response to Carino negative on Line 50
help. Consider an introductory portion: “If the (No. 21).
22. 50 Y/C
w/cm and f’c do not agree …” I think this is
what the original is trying to say.
Through line 60: I don’t understand why the
23. Gleich 2 55 C w/cm can’t be specified for lightweight New Business
concrete other then the foot note?
2 55 N I think this should be moved to R5.3.2. Section Nonpersuasive. Section 5.2.1 also references
5.2.1 is addressing the selection of specified durability. And this commentary language fits
24. Carino strength. with the discussion of strength and w/cm.
Negative Withdrawn
1 Suggest for consistency with the rest of the No change. Section 5.2.2.1 uses “modulus of
25. Bondy 82 Y/C
sentence, “R5.2.2 – The modulus of elasticity elasticity for concrete” so the existing wording
4 of 12

Item N
for of concrete…” seems consistent.
Holland Assume this refers to R8.5.1. Agree the omitted
sentence should be added back. It would read:
This commentary is from R8.5.2. Why was the “Studies leading to the expression for modulus
26. 82 Y/C first portion of that section omitted? It seems to of elasticity of concrete in 5.2.2 are summarized
provide useful information. in Reference 5.x where Ec was defined as the
slope of the line drawn from a stress of zero to
a compressive stress of 0.45f’c.”
Consider including information in first sentence Agree. See response to Holland comment on
27. Lobo 1 3 82 Y/C
of R8.5.1 Line 82 (No. 26).
28. Carino 3 83 C Insert "elastic" before "modulus". Agree. Insert “elastic”
Gleich Through line 84: I have seen lower measured
modulus of concrete and it has been verified No Change. New Business
29. 3 83 C
since 1976 to be as low as 60 percent of
calculated
Hooton 1 I am surprised that measurement of E modulus Nonpersuasive. This requires change in the
by ASTM C469 is only mentioned in the current Code. Take up as New Business.
Commentary R.5.2.2. Why isn’t there an option
30. 84 N
(c) in 5.2.2 that allows for direct measurement
of E, rather than only allowing calculation
options?
3 85 N We need to have more information to indicate Persuasive. See response to Holland comment
that Eq. 5.2.2.1.a is an approximation and does on Line 82 (No. 26). Also see response to
not account for all the factors that affect elastic Hooton negative on Line 84 (No. 30).
modulus. In situations where elastic modulus is
a critical design parameter, tests should be
conducted with the concrete materials similar
31. Carino those that might be used in construction to
verify that the estimated elastic modulus is
accurate. We should restore the reference to the
work by Pauw so we don't lose track of the
basis of this equation. Without such
information, Eq. 5.2.2.1.a is going to take on an
exactness that is not warranted.
5 of 12

Item N
Hooton 1 There is no option to measure modulus of Nonpersuasive. This would require a change in
rupture directly in this clause. So you are only the current Code. Take up as New Business.
allowed to estimate MOR by calculation? At (Note, it is not clear that ASTM C78 would
32. 89 N least a Commentary should be added to mention always be appropriate for determining MOR.)
ASTM C78 in a similar fashion to E modulus in
5.2.2.
Add commentary to indicate the reason for Nonpersuasive. Such language does not need to
estimating fr. Suggest: The modulus of rupture be located in this section. It does not impact the
33. Lobo 1 3 89 N is used in this Code to estimate immediate equation in 5.2.3.1. If added it should be located
deflection (provide code reference equivalent to where fr is used.
9.5.2.3)
Holland 106 N There is a note in the approved version of this Reinsert Note
chapter regarding 5.2.4.2. This note should be
included Until the issue is resolved. Are we The note states:
considering that the issue raised in the note has “Note: Sub A agrees with the voters for
been resolved by the commentary for 5.4.2? Comments 67 through 74 in 318 LB 10-1
regarding Section 5.2.4.2. A change is being
processed to address these issues. Because this
is a major change, we prefer to propose the
changes using the normal change process
showing proposed changes to the code and
34. commentary and the supporting background
information. In the interim, Subcommittee A
believes that the balloted wording is acceptable
and is an improvement of current provisions in
5.1.4 and 8.6.1 in ACI 318-08. Note that the
balloted wording in 5.2.4.2 does not present any
technical changes. It is simply an editorial
revision to combine the provisions of 5.1.4 and
8.6.1.”
35. Holland 115 N There is commentary at current R5.1.5 that Persuasive. Add the following:
6 of 12

Item N
should be added for 5.2.4.3. “R5.2.4.3 – Tests for splitting tensile strength of
concrete (as required by 5.2.4.2) are not
intended for control of, or acceptance of, the
strength of concrete in the field. Indirect control
will be maintained through the normal
compressive strength test requirements
provided by 22.5.”
R. 4 118 C Editorial, consider: See response to Carino comment on Line 118
5.2.4 A reduction factor, λ, must be used fFor the (No. 37).
design using lightweight concrete to reflect the
lower tensile strength of lightweight concrete
which can reducedue to it inherrent, shear
strength, friction properties, splitting resistance,
36. Barth bond between concrete and reinforcement, and
development length requirements compared
with normalweight concrete of the same
compressive strength.are not taken as
equivalent to normalweight concrete of the
same compressive strength. A reduction factor,
λ, must be used.
4 118 C Delete the last sentence on line 122, and revise Agree. Change last sentence to read:
as follows:
"The modification factor λ is used to account "The modification factor λ is used to account
37. Carino
for the lower tensile-to-compressive strength for the lower tensile-to-compressive strength
ratio of lightweight concrete compared with ratio of lightweight concrete compared with
normalweight concrete." normalweight concrete."
Gleich Through line 135: Can the answer for l be No change. Comment not clear. What is
38. 4 130 C
higher than 1? requested?
4 130 N In using Eq. 5.2.4.2, fct has to be the splitting Persuasive. Replace the sentence starting on
tensile strength corresponding to concrete with Line 130 with the following:
average compressive strength equal to the
39. Carino
specified strength. Revise as follows: "The second alternative to determine λ is based
"The second alternative to determine λ is based on laboratory tests of the lightweight concrete
on laboratory tests of the lightweight concrete having an average compressive strength
7 of 12

Item N
having an average compressive strength equal corresponding to the specified strength used in
to the specified strength used in the design." the design."
1 Eventually we are going to have to address the Agree. A proposed change is being processed as
40. Bondy 135 Y/C
incorrect use of f’c here. CA111.
As suggested consider including the discussion Persuasive. Change as follows:
on w/cm from lines 46-60 before 156. Also
suggest this wording as a lead in: Durability of Durability of concrete addressed in this Code is
concrete addressed in this Code is impacted by impacted by the resistance to fluid penetration.
the permeability and diffusion of chemicals in This is primarily affected by w/cm and the
water-saturated concrete. Reduced composition of cementitious materials used in
permeability and diffusion are primarily concrete. Use of fly ash, slag cement and silica
impacted by w/cm and the composition of fume improve these characteristics of concrete
cementitious materials used in concrete. Use of at the same w/cm compared to concrete made
fly ash, slag cement and silica fume improve with portland cement only. This Code places
41. Lobo 1 6 156 N
these characteristics of concrete at the same emphasis on w/cm for achieving low
w/cm compared to concrete made with portland permeability to meet durability requirements. A
cement only. This Code places emphasis on performance-based indicator of resistance to
w/cm for durability requirements. An fluid penetration of concrete is ASTM C1202.
alternative performance-based indicator of low
permeability of concrete is ASTM C1202, which
is more reliable in laboratory evaluations than Also add material from Lobo negative on Line
for field-based acceptance. 46 (No. 14).
Alternatively, this discussion and lines 46-60
can be included prior to line 242.
6 160 N Retain only the first sentence up to the word Persuasive. Change first sentence (Line 160) to
"temperatures". The rest of this deals with read:
mixture proportioning, which is Chapter 22.
The draft commentary in CA026 includes the “The Code does not include provisions for
42. Carino other information. especially severe exposures, such as acids or
high temperatures.”
Delete remainder of paragraph.
43. Holland 161 Y/C Editorial change: Change to read: See response to Carino negative on Line 160
8 of 12

Item N
“…temperatures, and the Code is not concerned (No. 42).
…”
R. 6 162 C The original wording fit better: See response to Carino negative on Line 160
44. Barth 5.3 “…..and should be covered (No. 42).
specificallyexplicitly in the project
R.5.3 6 164 C I am not sure if the word “any” is necessary. See response to Carino negative on Line 160
See old text without it. I am OK either way. (No. 42).
45. Barth
“….requirements stated in the Code and any the
additional requirements of contract documents.”
Holland 166 Y/C Delete the title “Exposure categories and OK. Delete title (although it would seem a title
46. classes.” There is no corresponding title in the makes the Commentary easier to follow).
code.
Gleich Agree. See response to Fiorato comment on
47. 6 174 C Table should 5.3.1 not 4.2.1
Line 174 (No. 48).
Suggest deleting the phrase “as defined in Table Agree. Delete “as defined in Table 4.2.1”
1 4.2.1” because it is not needed and it adds an
48. Fiorato 6 174 Y/C internal reference that must be tracked when
Code changes are made. Case in point, “Table
4.2.1” should read “Table 5.3.1.”
Holland 174 Y/C Delete “as defined in Table 4.2.1.” None of the Agree. See response to Fiorato comment on
49.
other categories have s similar reference. Line 174 (No. 48).
Hooton 1 I believe that columns and walls within 3 or 4 New Business?
feet of horizontal surfaces should be F2
exposure and not F1 as indicated. This is where
snow and ice accumulates in northern climates,
eg. around entrances where there may be a sub-
50. 189 Y/C level below and not soil. I think the term “in
contact with soil” should be replaced with
something like, “ in contact with soil or
horizontal surfaces where it may be in contact
with snow and ice accumulation”.
51. Carino 7 217 C Revise as follows: Agree. Change sentence to read:
9 of 12

Item N
"Examples of exposures to external sources of
chlorides include concrete in direct contact with “Examples of exposures to external sources of
deicing chemicals, salt, salt water, brackish chlorides include concrete in direct contact
water, seawater, or spray from these sources." with deicing chemicals, salt, salt water,
brackish water, seawater, or spray from these
sources.”
Holland 242 Y/C Delete the title: “Requirements for concrete by OK. Delete title (although it is not clear that
exposure class.” There is no corresponding title there needs to be a corresponding title in the
52.
in the code. Code, and a title makes the Commentary easier
to follow).
53. Carino 9 247 C Delete ", respectively." Agree. Delete “, respectively”
54. Carino 9 252 C Insert "specified" before "strength." Agree. Insert “specified”
9 265 C Revise as follows: Agree. Change to read:
55. Carino
"… and under ASTM C1157 it is Type MS." "… and under ASTM C1157 it is Type MS."
9 266 C Revise as follows: Agree. Change to read:
"For Exposure Class S2 (severe exposure), "For Exposure Class S2 (severe exposure),
56. Carino
Type V cement with a C3A content of up to 5 Type V cement with a C3A content of up to 5
percent is specified." percent is specified."
Consider whether line 275 to 279 needs to be No change.
57. Lobo 1 9 275 Y/C
addressed here or moved to R5.3.4.
Suggest including the following: ASTM C1012 The existing sentence clearly refers to
cannot be used to evaluate the improved sulfate “combinations of cementitious materials.”
58. Lobo 1 9 276 Y/C
resistance of mixtures containing only portland
cement. Consider addition as New Business.
I prefer not to delete this. This helps evolution Nonpersuasive. While this may help in the
to performance based requirements. I agree its evolution of performance-based requirements, it
not in the right place. Consider my comment 6 is informational and not a code requirement.
59. Lobo 1 10 295 N for moving this statement under a general What does the LDP do with this statement?
discussion onw/cm.
Negative Withdrawn. See response to Lobo
negative on Line 156 (No. 41).
60. Bondy 1 295 Y Approve the strikeout Agree
61. Fiorato 1 10 295 Y/C Agree that this sentence should be deleted. Agree
10 of 12

Item N
Holland 295 Y/C Agree with the proposed deletion regarding Agree
62.
C1202.
Gleich Nonpersuasive. Non-corrosive reinforcement is
Change the sentence to read epoxy or zinc not defined within the context of the types of
63. 10 303 N coated bars or non-corrosive reinforcement or reinforcement permitted by the Code.
cover greater than
New Business
Suggest this section title be changed to: Change title to “Chloride Limits for Exposure
64. Lobo 1 10 311 Y/C
Chloride Limits for Exposure Category C. Category C”
R. 10 331 C I notice no decimals if larger than one when The use of 1.00 is based on the precision of the
5.3.2 referring to percent. 1 percent looks awkward limit required in Table 5.3.2.
65. Barth
written as “1.00 percent” but if that is the rule I
am OK.
11 336 N Delete to line 346. This leads to ambiguity. It Persuasive. Delete Lines 336 through 346.
also outdated. ACI 222.1 has been replaced by
66. Carino
ASTM C1524, which deals only with testing
aggregate.
Hooton 1 Editorial: add “the” before “same as”. See response to Carino negative on Line 336
67. 346 Y/C
(No. 66).
68. Bondy 1 348 Y Approve the strikeout Agree
Browni Because it implies an exception to a Code
69. 348 Y/C Why delete?
ng requirement.
70. Fiorato 1 11 348 Y/C Agree that this sentence should be deleted. Agree
Holland 348 Y/C Agree with the proposed deletion regarding Agree
71. epoxy and zinc covered bars. If we believe this
to be true, it ought to be in the code.
I am fine with this deletion. However, a similar Point is well taken. However, Line 303 is not
statement is in line 303. quite as egregious because it does not imply an
exception to the Code. It does say it might be
72. Lobo 1 11 348 Y/C
desirable.
No change.
73. Carino 12 370 N Delete the sentence beginning with "Target Persuasive. Delete the following sentence:
11 of 12

Item N
values…" It adds nothing other than to state “Target values are provided for Exposure Class
that the table has values of target air contents. F1 (moderate) and both Exposure Classes F2
and F3 (severe) exposures depending on the
exposure to moisture or deicing salts.”
R. 13 375 C Reference is made to “1.0 percent” single The use of 1.0 is based on the precision of the
74. Barth 5.3.3. decimal….? limit required in Section 5.3.3.1.
1 (See comment page 10 line 331 above)
13 375 C Revise to: "…permits a 1.0 percentage point Agree. Change to "…permits a 1.0 percentage
75. Carino
lower…" point lower…"
13 389 N I suggest we explain why we have these limits. Persuasive. Change as follows:
"To mitigate surface scaling, Table 5.3.3.2
establishes limitations on the amount of fly ash, To reduce the risk of deicer scaling, …
76. Carino other pozzolans, silica fume, and slag cement
that can be included in concrete exposed to
deicing chemicals (Exposure Class F3) based
on research studies.4.10,4.11"
Hooton 1 I would add another sentence stating that the New Business?
limitations in Table 5.3.3.2 are mainly directed
77. 390 Y/C at flatwork, especially where hand finishing is
used.
12 of 12
Ballot: A02 – 2012 Approved Responses to Comments – Dallas Meeting Due Date: 7 March, 2012
No. Name Ballot Pg # Line # Y/C or Comment Task Group Response

Item N
We need to add the source of the OK Will be included for Main ballot.
commentary sections as was done for Terry will add them.
the code sections: <x.x.x> I have
1. Holland 1 Y/C identified most of the source sections
and will make my comments
available when this is prepared to go
to 318.
1 Suggest revising to read: OK, make changes as suggested.
“R22.3.1.1—Type IS (≥70) is a
blended cement under ASTM C595
that contains slag cement as an
2. Fiorato 2 43 N
interground component, or slag
cement as a blended component, in a
quantity equal to or exceeding 70
percent by mass.”
Hooton 61 Y/C R22.3.2.2 Comment: I would like to OK. See response to #4
see “long history” modified as
follows, “long documented history in
similar exposures”. If non-spec
3. aggregates have been used
successfully, this needs to be more
than a hand waving acceptance,
especially regarding freeze/thaw in
wet exposures, and ASR.
The wording can be improved. The OK, revise as follows:
word "long" leads to unnecessary Aggregates conforming to ASTM
ambiguity. specifications are not always economically
"Aggregates conforming to ASTM available and, in some instances,
4. Carino 2 62 C specifications are not always noncomplying materials have a long history
economically available and, in some of satisfactory performance may have a
instances, noncomplying materials documented history of satisfactory
may have a documented history of performance under similar exposure."
satisfactory performance."
5. Barth 1 2 63 Y/C General: I am unclear what the The 318 editorial guidelines are being used
1 of 16

Item N
steering committees directives are in making some these word changes.
regarding commentary. Is the
objective to edit and improve
language or import commentary
verbatim at this point to minimize
discussion at the main committee? I
am indifferent to some of the edits,
however, we have managed pass on
the message in the past and I wonder
whether some of the changes such as
the one here from “when” to “if” may
justify the possible main committee
discussion. Same hold true for line
65 the change from “whenever” to “if
possible” and many others…
Weiss 82 Y/C Should this talk about aggregates OK, make the following revision: (Line 83)
being screened by the rebar "The size limitations on aggregates are
provided to ensure proper encasement of
6.
reinforcement and to minimize
honeycombing due to blockage by closely-
spaced reinforcement."
Weiss 89 Y/C Should this talk about silt, algae or The commentary describes acceptable
sugars. Also should this talk about potable water. Some of these issues need to
reuse be addressed in C1602. Add mention of wash
water as an example of nonpotable water:
(line 97)
7. "ASTM C1602 allows the use of potable
water without testing and includes methods
for qualifying nonpotable sources of water,
such as from concrete production operations,
with consideration of effects on setting time
and strength."
R22.3.3 Propose revising sentence as follows: OK, make the following revision:
8. Gerber .1 3 90 Y/C
Excessive impurities in mixing water "Excessive impurities in mixing water may
2 of 16

Item N
may affect setting time, concrete affect not only setting time, concrete
strength, and volume stability (length strength, and volume stability (length
change), and may also cause change), butand may also cause
efflorescence or corrosion of efflorescence or corrosion of reinforcement."
reinforcement.
1 Suggest deleting the following OK, delete the sentence.
sentence: “Where possible, water Where possible, water with high
with high concentrations of dissolved concentrations of dissolved solids should be
9. Fiorato 3 92 Y/C
solids should be avoided.” It is avoided.
ambiguous and ASTM C1602 covers
this issue quantitatively.
R22.3.3 Is there a common understanding of See #9
10. Gerber .1 3 92 Y/C what is meant by “high
concentrations of dissolved solids”?
11. Carino 3 93 C Change "Where" to "If." See #9
Carino No change. The paragraph in line 94 deals
Move this paragraph to line 101
with admixtures and aggregates, not the
12. 3 94 C because it results in a more logical
added mixing water.
flow of ideas.
See #14
1 Prefer original text “additive” over No change. The word "additive" following
13. Barth 3 94 Y/C
revised “add” "admixture" can be confusing.
The current wording doesn't capture OK, revise as suggested:
the intent and is not written clearly.
We only need to convey the idea is "These additional amounts are to be
that these additional sources of considered in evaluating the acceptability of
impurities need to be considering in the total impurities that may be deleterious to
establishing the total impurities in the concrete or steel establishing the total
14. Carino 3 95 N concrete. We've already stated that impurities that may be present in the
these impurities may affect concrete."
reinforcement. Revise as follows:
"These additional amounts are to be
considered in establishing the total
impurities that may be present in the
concrete."
3 of 16

Item N
Barth 1 Consider: “The presence of chloride See #18
15. 4 126 Y/C ion may cause produce corrosion of
embedded…..”
Barth 1 Code 22.3.4.3 includes limitations for See #18
prestressed concrete but the revised
16. 4 126 Y/C commentary sentence R 22.3.4.3
omitted reference prestressed
concrete?
Fiorato 1 Suggest rewording as follows: See #18
“R22.3.4.3—The presence of
17. 4 126 Y/C
chloride ions may produce promote
corrosion of embedded aluminum…”
Hooton 126 Y/C R22.3.4.3 Comment: This OK, add the following sentence:
commentary does not say anything "Corrosion of prestressing steel is of greater
about the effects of chloride on concern than corrosion of nonprestressed
corrosion of prestressing steels—the reinforcement because of the possibility of
main point of the Code clause. There local reduction in cross section and failure of
should be a sentence added stating the prestressing steel (ACI 222R)22.x. The
that prestressing steels have a lower presence of chloride ion may produce cause
chloride tolerance than rebars and corrosion of embedded aluminum (e.g.,
reference the corrosion document. conduit), especially if the aluminum is in
contact with embedded steel and the concrete
18. is in a humid environment. Protection
requirements for embedded aluminum are
given in 23.6."
Add to the reference list:

This will be the first reference that appears in
the Commentary.
22.x ACI Committee 222, “Protection of
Metals in Concrete Against Corrosion,”
American Concrete Institute, Farmington
Hills, MI, 2001, 41 pp.
19. Carino 4 128 C Change "23.X" to "23.6". OK See #18.
4 of 16

Item N
Fiorato 1 OK, make change as suggested.
Should the sentence read: “R22.3.4.4
"In some cases, the use of admixtures in
— In some cases,The use of
20. 4 136 Y/C concrete containing ASTM C845 expansive
admixtures in concrete
cements has resulted in reduced levels of
containing…”?
expansion or increased shrinkage values."
Hooton 145 Y/C R22.3.5.1 Comment: Why is there a Delete sentence because Code has no
concern with steel fibres used with requirements on the use of fibers in
stainless steel rebars? I am told that combination with other metals. Commentary
there is no concern with plain rebars cannot be used to imply a Code requirement.
being used in combination with Because data are not available on the
21.
stainless bars (and certainly being potential for corrosion problems due to
done by our highway Dept.). So why galvanic action, the use of deformed steel
are steel fibres thought to be fibers in members reinforced with stainless
different, regardless of lack of steel bars or galvanized steel bars is not
references? recommended.
Fiorato 1 Should the second sentence on See #21
galvanic corrosion be relocated?
22. 4 146 Y/C
Perhaps R22.3.4.3 or R5.3.2 or even
R6.X.X?
Hooton 294 Y/C R22.5.1.1 Comment: there is only While the title of the reference implies high-
one reference cited (22.4) regarding strength concrete, the 20 % figure is based
increased variation of 4x8 cylinders on review of past data presented in the
relative to 6x12 cylinders, and that source report for the SP paper. See attached
reference (in the title) is for 12,000 excerpts after this table. We have an agenda
psi high strength concretes. Other item on this topic.
23.
references, eg. R. Day 1994, Cement,
Concrete and Aggregates, Vol.16,
No.1 pp21-30 conclude that there is
no increase in variability for
strengths ranging from 3000 to
10,000 psi concretes.
Gerber R22.5.1 Propose revising sentence as follows: OK Revise as follows:
24. 8 300 Y/C Testing three instead of 4 by 8 in. "Testing three instead of two 4 by 8 in.
cylinders preserves the confidence level cylinders preserves the confidence level of
5 of 16

Item N
of the average strength because 4 by 8 the average strength because 4 by 8 in.
in. cylinders tend to have approximately cylinders tend to have approximately 20
20 percent higher within-test variability percent higher within-test variability than 6
22.4
than 6 by 12 in. cylinders. by 12 in. cylinders.22.4"
Carino The scope of C1077 states: This OK Make revision suggested:
practice identifies and defines the "ASTM C1077 identifies and defines the
duties, responsibilities, and minimum duties, responsibilities, and minimum
technical requirements of testing technical requirements and qualifications of
agency personnel and the minimum testing agency personnel and the technical
technical requirements for equipment requirements for equipment used in testing
utilized in testing concrete and concrete and concrete aggregates used in
concrete aggregates for use in construction."
construction. The wording in the
25. 8 309 N Commentary doesn't say exactly the
same thing. I suggest the following
revision:
"ASTM C1077 identifies and defines
the duties, responsibilities, and
minimum technical requirements of
testing agency personnel and the
technical requirements for equipment
used in testing concrete and concrete
aggregates used in construction."
Gerber R22.5.1 Delete the names, and add “evaluation
.2 authority” which is term used in C1077.
If we are going to give names, the "Agencies that test cylinders or cores to
International Accreditation Service determine compliance with Code
(IAS) needs to be added as a recognized requirements should be accredited or
26. 8 315 N agency. Or remove all agencies and refer inspected for conformance to the
to a “recognized accreditation body requirement of ASTM C1077 by a
conforming to the requirements of recognized evaluation authority agency such
ISO/IEC 17011” (taken from ACI 355.4) as the American Association for Laboratory
Accreditation (A2LA), AASHTO Materials
Reference Laboratory (AMRL), National
6 of 16

Item N
Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program
(NVLAP), Cement and Concrete Reference
Laboratory (CCRL), or their equivalent."
Gerber R22.5.1 Propose revising sentence as follows: OK Make revision
.3 Concrete testing laboratory personnel "Concrete testing laboratory personnel
should be certified in accordance with should be certified in accordance with the
the requirements of ACI Concrete requirements of ACI Concrete Laboratory
27. 8 324 Y/C
Laboratory Testing Technician, Concrete Testing Technician, Concrete Strength
Strength Testing Technician, the
requirements of ASTM C1077, or an
Testing Technician, or the requirements of
equivalent program. ASTM C1077, or an equivalent program.
28. Carino 8 326 C Add a comma after "1077." See #27
OK, revise as follows:
The term “required average strength” "A complete record of testing allows the
29. Holland 335 Y/C is no longer used in the Code. concrete producer to reliably establish the
Rewrite to eliminate. required average strength appropriate
mixture proportions for future work.”
9 348 C The commentary refers specifically OK, Change the section number as
30. Carino to 22.5.2.1(c), so revise to suggested.
"R22.5.2.1(c)"
Carino 9 357 C This commentary is general OK, Move as suggested. This will go before
information on the topic of sampling. the Commentary in line 348.
31. It is not specific to 22.5.2.2. This
should be moved to be commentary
for 22.5.2.1. Change to "R22.5.2.1."
Hooton 402 Y/C R22.5.3.3 Comment: We could add OK Add as suggested. But make it (c):
another item to the list. (g) improved "(a) An increase in cementitious materials
dispersion of cementitious materials content;
using water reducing admixtures. (b) Reduction in or better control of water
32. This is well known, and I assume that content;
most, but not all, suppliers use water (c) Using a water reducing admixtures to
reducers. It would be preferable to try improve the dispersion of cementitious
this option rather than, for example materials;
throwing more cement at it. (d) Other changes in mixture proportions;
7 of 16

Item N
(e Reduction in delivery time;
(f) Closer control of air content;
(g) An improvement in the quality of the
testing, including strict compliance with
ASTM C172, ASTM C31, and ASTM C39."
Browning 420 Y/C This may need to be added to This is a note for the Chapter 23 Task Group.
33.
Chapter 23.
Browning 422 Y/C 425 and 428 as well – Reverse the 4 OK
34.
& 6 in <5.6.4.1>
35. Fiorato 1 10 422 Y/C Replace <5.4.6.1> with <5.6.4.1> OK
Hooton 430 Y/C R22.5.4.1 Comment: One of the big OK Add a new paragraph as follows:
issues with using field cured The Code provides a specific criterion in
cylinders is that large structural 22.5.4.2 for judging the adequacy of field
elements that will generate curing. For a reasonably valid comparison to
temperature rise during curing. Test be made, field-cured cylinders and
cylinders will not mimic the strength companion laboratorystandard-cured
gain of such elements. A warning cylinders are made from the same sample.
statement related to this needs to be Field-cured cylinders are cured under the
added. same conditions as the structure. If the
structure is protected from the elements, the
cylinders should be protected.
38.
Cylinders related to members not directly
exposed to weather should be cured adjacent
to those members and provided with the
same degree of protection and method of
curing. The field cylinders should not be
treated more favorably than the elements
they represent.
In evaluating test results of field-cured
cylinders, it should be recognized that even if
cylinders are protected as the structure they
may not experience the same temperature
8 of 16

Item N
history as the concrete in the structure. This
is because heat of hydration may be
dissipated differently in a cylinder compared
with the structural element.
Weiss 430 Y/C I have been confused about what is See #38 and #41 We need to change all
meant by lab cured. occurrences of "laboratory-cured" to
39. "standard-cured" in the following provisions
of the approved version of Chapter 22:
22.5.4.1.(a), 22.5.4.2, 22.5.6.1
Fiorato 1 11 434 Y/C Should the two instances of the word The word "are" is used because the
“are” be replaced with “should be” in Commentary cannot relieve Code
40.
this line (two different sentences). requirements. "Should" implies an option is
acceptable.
11 445 C Some changes are suggested to OK Make suggested changes:
tighten up the language: Positive guidance is provided in the Code
"R22.5.4.2—Positive guidance is concerning the interpretation of tests of field-
provided in the Code concerning the cured cylinders. Research has shown that the
interpretation of tests of field-cured strength of cylinders protected and cured to
cylinders. Research has shown that simulate good field practice should be at
the strength of cylinders protected least about 85 percent of standard-cured
and cured to simulate good field cylinders, if both are tested at the age
practice should be at least about 85 designated for f'c. This percentage has been
percent of the strength of standard- set as a rational basis for judging the
41. Carino cured cylinders, if both are tested at adequacy of field curing. The comparison is
the age designated for f'c. This made between the measured strengths of
percentage has been set as a rational companion field-cured and standard
basis for judging the adequacy of laboratory-cured cylinders, not between the
field curing. The comparison is made strength of field-cured cylinders and the
between the measured strengths of specified value of f'c. However, test results
companion field-cured and for the field-cured cylinders are considered
laboratory-cured cylinders, not satisfactory if the strength of field-cured
between the strength of field-cured cylinders exceed the f'c by more than 500
cylinders and the specified value of psi, even though they fail to reach 85 percent
f'c. However, test results for field- of the strength of companion laboratory
9 of 16

Item N
cured cylinders are considered standard-cured cylinders.
satisfactory if the strength of field- The 85 % percent criterion is based on the
cured cylinders exceed f'c by more assumption that concrete is maintained above
than 500 psi, even though they fail to 50 °F and in a moist condition for at least the
reach 85 percent of the strength of first 7 days after placement, or high-early-
companion laboratory-cured strength concrete is maintained above 50 °F
cylinders. and in a moist condition for at least the first 3
days after placement.
The 85 percent criterion is based on
the assumption that concrete is
maintained above 50 °F and in a
moist condition for at least the first 7
days after placement, or high-early-
strength concrete is maintained above
50 °F and in a moist condition for at
least the first 3 days after placement."
Browning 453 Y/C Is this new commentary? I did not This is new Commentary based on the
find it in 318-11. current "R5.11.4 — In addition to requiring a
minimum curing temperature and time for
42.
normal- and high-early-strength concrete, the
Code provides a specific criterion in 5.6.4 for
judging the adequacy of field curing."
Fiorato 1 11 457 N Not sure what to recommend here. Tony is right. This commentary should be
The sentence “If the tests indicate a paired with 22.5.6.1. The provisions on field-
possible serious deficiency in cured cylinders are intended to apply to the
strength of concrete in the structure, Contractor responsible for protection and
core tests may be required, with or curing and is an acceptance of the concrete in
without supplemental wet curing, to the structure as opposed to acceptance of the
43.
check the structural adequacy, as concrete delivered to the project. The use of
provided in 22.5.6.” is confusing. these tests is at the option of the LDP or
Does it imply acceptance of concrete building official.
based on field curing? What 22.5.6.1 — If any strength test of laboratory-
supplemental wet curing are we cured cylinders falls below f′c by more than
talking about? Is this sentence in the the values given in 22.5.3.2(b) or if tests of
10 of 16

Item N
correct location? Should it be field-cured cylinders in accordance with
somewhere in 22.5.6? 22.5.4 indicate deficiencies in protection and
curing, steps shall be taken to ensure that
structural capacity of the structure is not
jeopardized. <5.6.5.1>
Move the two sentences to Commentary to
R22.5.6.1
"If the strength of field-cured cylinders do
not conform to 22.5.4.2 provide satisfactory
strength by this comparison, steps need to be
taken to improve the curing. If the
supplemental in-place tests (see R22.5.6)
confirm a possible serious deficiency in
strength of concrete in the structure, core
tests may be required, with or without
supplemental wet curing, to check the
structural adequacy, as provided in 22.5.6.
Barth 1 What is “possible serious See #43
44. 11 457 Y/C deficiency”? Revised and provide
clear guidance.
Browning 461 Y/C It would flow/read better if 22.5.5 Comment withdrawn
came after 22.5.6 Note: Remove hyphen from title
45.
22.5.6 Investigation of low strength test
results (no hyphen needed)
12 504 C The word "safe" is not needed. OK Make suggested changes:
Revise as follows: "For cores, if required, conservatively safe
"For cores, if required, conservative acceptance criteria are provided in 22.5.6.4
46. Carino acceptance criteria are provided in that should ensure structural adequacy for
22.5.6.4 that should ensure structural virtually any type of construction.22.9-22.12"
adequacy for virtually any type of
construction.22.9-22.12"
OK Make suggested changes:
I would make the discussion of cores
47. Holland 504 Y/C "…the same structure rather than as
a new paragraph.
quantitative estimates of strength.
11 of 16

Item N
For cores, if required, conservatively…"

Carino 12 508 C Improve the wording as follows: OK Make suggested changes:
"If the strength of cores obtained in "If the strength of cores core tests performed
accordance with 22.5.6.3 fail to obtained in accordance with 22.5.6.3 fail to
comply with 22.5.6.4, it may be comply with 22.5.6.4, it may be practical,
48.
practical, particularly in the case of particularly in the case of floor or roof
floor or roof systems, for the building systems, for the building official to require a
official to require a load test (Chapter load test (Chapter 24)."
24)."
Carino 13 543 C The word "common" has multiple OK Make suggested changes:
meanings and its use in this sentence Thus, to provide reproducible moisture
is ambiguous. Change "common" to conditions that are representative of in-place
49. "standard". conditions, a common standard moisture
conditioning procedure that permits
dissipation of moisture gradients is
prescribed for cores.
50. Browning 547 Y/C At the end of 22.5.6.4 add <5.6.5.4> OK
Carino 13 554 N Improve the wording: OK Make the suggested changes:
"An average core strength of at least Core tests having aAn average core strength
85 percent of the specified strength is of at least 85 percent of the specified strength
realistic.22.10 It is not realistic, are is realistic.22.10 To expect core tests to be
however, to expect the average core equal to f'c is not realistic, It is not realistic,
strength to be equal to f'c , because of however, to expect the average core strength
51.
differences in the size of specimens, to be equal to f'c, because of differences in
conditions of obtaining specimens, the size of specimens, conditions of
degree of consolidation, and curing obtaining specimens, samples, and
conditions. procedures for degree of consolidation, and
curing conditions., do not permit equal
values to be obtained.
I realize this wording is the same as 318- See #51
11, but “…do not permit equal values to
52. Bondy 1 13 556 Y/C be obtained” is pretty all-encompassing.
Do we really want to say that? How
12 of 16

Item N
about softening it a bit, “…and
procedures for curing, do not permit
equal values to be obtained generally do
not result in equal values being
obtained.”
1 Suggest adding this statement to OK Add the following:
cores because of concern out there "The acceptance criteria for core strengths
that age of cores is later than age for have been established with consideration that
f’c and therefore should be at a cores for investigating low strength test
53. Lobo 13 556 Y/C higher level than permitted: results will typically be extracted at an age
These criteria for core strengths are later than specified for f'c. The Code does not
established with consideration that intend that core strengths be adjusted for the
cores will typically be extracted at an age of the cores."
age later than that specified for f’c.
Fiorato 1 14 571 N Suggest rewording as follows: OK See also #57. Make the following
“Past success experience with grout changes:
for bonded tendons has indicated that "Past success Experience with grout for
portland cement can be successfully bonded tendons has been with indicates that
used. A blanket endorsement of all portland cement can be used successfully. A
cementitious materials for use with blanket endorsement of all cementitious
this grout is inappropriate because of materials for use with this grout is
There is a lack of experience or tests inappropriate because of There is a lack of
with cementitious materials other experience or tests with cementitious
than portland cement and a concern materials other than portland cement and a
54.
that some cementitious materials concern that some cementitious materials
might introduce chemicals that are might introduce chemicals that are harmful
harmful to tendons. Therefore such to tendons. Therefore, such systems are not
systems are not currently permitted in permitted in the Code.
the Code.
Use of finely graded sand in the grout should
Use of finely graded sand in the grout only be considered with large ducts having
should only be considered with large large void areas. Neat cement grout is used
ducts having large void areas. in almost all building construction.
Guidance can be found in xxx.”
13 of 16

Item N
Guidance on materials for grout and grout
properties can be found in ACI 423.8R22.y
and the PTI grouting specification.22.x"
Add these references:

22.y 423.8R, 2010, Report on Corrosion and
Repair of Grouted Multistrand and Bar Tendon
Systems
22.x PTI Committee on Grouting Specifications,
2003, “Specification for Grouting of Post-
Tensioned Structures,” second edition, Post-
Tensioning Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 60
pp.
Hooton 571 Y/C R22.6.1 Comment: I am surprised We are waiting on Sub G to update 22.6.
that only Portland cement is still
recommended for grouting. Our
highway dept. has used silica fume
55.
modified PT grouts for at least 20
years to improve resistance to
corrosion and I know that fly ash is
used in other areas for PT grouts.
Fiorato 1 14 591 Y/C Is the statement “Aluminum powder Delete sentence. Code has no provision
or other expansive admixtures, if related to expansive components. See #54.
approved, should produce an "Substances known to be harmful to tendons,
unconfined expansion of 5 to 10 grout, or concrete are chlorides, fluorides,
56. percent.” a Code provision in sulfites, and nitrates. Aluminum powder or
disguise? New Business? other expansive admixtures, if approved,
should produce an unconfined expansion of 5
to 10 percent. Neat cement grout is used in
almost all building construction."
Fiorato 1 14 592 N Suggest deleting “Neat cement grout OK Move sentence to R22.6.1. See #54.
is used in almost all building
57.
construction.” How does it help the
LDP? Part of the problem may be the
14 of 16

Item N
fact that this sentence is no longer
“connected” to the sentence on use of
finely graded sand (see Comment
11).
Fiorato 1 15 599 N Suggest rewording to read: “The OK Revise as follows:
handling and placing properties of "The handling and placing properties of
grout are usually given more grout are usually given more consideration of
58.
consideration of more concern than more concern than strength when
strength when designing grout proportioning designing grout mixtures."
mixtures.
15 of 16
Background report for statement in Ref. 22.4
16 of 16

ACI 318 Sub A - General Concrete and Construction

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ACI 318 Sub A - General Concrete and Construction

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ACI 318 Sub A – General Concrete and Construction

[ACI 318 Chapters 1, 2, 3 (excluding 3.5), 4, 5, 6, and 22

1. Call to order at 1:30 pm.

2. Introductions and Membership changes. Sign up sheet is attached.

Brian Gerber of ICC-ES has joined Sub A

3. Approval of Agenda. Approved as presented.

4. Approval of Minutes: Cincinnati Meeting, 18 October 2011. Approved as presented.

5.2 Resolution of issues from 318 LB of CA 026 Terry

5.3b Chapter 5, Recommendations for top 3 new business items Tony

Not discussed because of a lack of time.

Not discussed because of a lack of time.

1. Overall direction from the subcommittee was defined.

5.7 CA 104, Resolution of Negatives from last ballot Doug

5.8 Formation of Task Group to review ASTM C 1600 cements Terry

5.10. Code reorganization.

5.10.2 Current Status: See the actions in the Table on page 2.

6.1. Core waiting period.

6.2. Add recycled aggregate to the Code.

6.3. Top bar effects in self-consolidating concrete.

6.4. Fix mixture proportioning flow chart in Commentary.

This item is now moot. It will be dropped from the agenda.

6.6. w/cm versus strength for durability.

6.7. Chloride ion restrictions in concrete containing aluminum embedments.

6.9. Inquiry regarding appropriate strength for w/cm for durability.

6.10. Ward Malish issues regarding brackish water.

SOURCES Carryover from 2008 Code cycle 16

RESOLVED Adopted, 2011 Code 6

NUMBER DESCRIPTION RESPONSIBLE COMMENTS

CA 101 Clarify requirements regarding measuring Hover, CH 5 TG Passed Sub A. To CH 5 TG to

95 (c) Conforms to strength test requirements of 22.5.

The greater of f′c + 1.34ss 22.4.2.2.1(a)

f′c + 1.34ss 22.4.2.2.1(c)

f′c < 3000 f′c + 1000 22.4.2.2.2(a)

3000 ≤ f′c ≤ 5000 f′c + 1200 22.4.2.2.2(b)

f′c > 5000 1.10 f′c + 700 22.4.2.2.2(c)

276 22.4.2.1 – Documentation of concrete mixture characteristics shall be reviewed

311 22.4.2.3.— As data become available during construction, it shall be permitted to

323 22.5.3 — Acceptance criteria for standard-cured specimens

Sorted Comments for ACI 318 Ballot LB12-2

22.4.2.1 –Documentation of concrete mixture

Jirsa CA026 0 Y I appreciated the inclusion of the commentary material.

Corley CA026 54 N This gives no guidance to the LDP.

The required workability will depend on

reinforcement congestion, member geometry, and

My problem is with the blanket statement “…or by an

My negative can be resolved any one of the following:

22.4.1.2 -- Concrete mixture proportions shall be

shall have a probability of meeting the

R22.4.1.2 – Section 4 of ACI 301 contains the

Resolved. See Rabbat line 134

Withdrawn based upon changes.

If different concrete mixtures are to be used for

Rabbat CA026 140 N Define “minor change.”

Withdrawn upon discussion

No. Name Ballot Pg # Line # Y/C or Comment Proposed Response

No. Name Ballot Pg # Line # Y/C or Comment Proposed Response

No. Name Ballot Pg # Line # Y/C or Comment Proposed Response

No. Name Ballot Pg # Line # Y/C or Comment Proposed Response

No. Name Ballot Pg # Line # Y/C or Comment Proposed Response

No. Name Ballot Pg # Line # Y/C or Comment Proposed Response

No. Name Ballot Pg # Line # Y/C or Comment Proposed Response

No. Name Ballot Pg # Line # Y/C or Comment Proposed Response

Delete remainder of paragraph.