Transportation Research Record 1834 ■
Paper No. 03- 4014
Effectiveness of Portland Cement
Concrete Curing Compounds
Nancy M. Whiting and Mark B. Snyder
Many different spray-on compounds are available for curing concrete,
including newer products that are intended to address the environmen-
tal concerns associated with high volatile organic compound (VOC)
contents. A laboratory study was conducted to examine the effectiveness
of different types of curing compounds in retaining water for hydration,
promoting concrete strength, and reducing permeability, relative to
classic curing techniques such as plastic sheeting and ponding and rel-
ative to the use of no curing treatment. Comparisons of moisture loss,
compressive strength, permeability, and capillary porosity were made
for samples representing three high-VOC curing compounds, three low-
VOC curing compounds, water curing, and plastic-sheet curing, and
for samples with no curing treatment after 3 days and 28 days of cur-
ing. The performance of the six compounds tested varied greatly, but
none of the compounds performed as well as the samples cured with
water or plastic sheeting. All compounds performed better than samples
with no curing treatment.
Curing of concrete and mortar is the process of maintaining the
proper temperature and moisture conditions to promote optimum
cement hydration immediately after placement. Proper moisture con-
ditions are critical, because water is necessary for the hydration of
cementitious materials. As cement hydrates, strength increases and
permeability decreases. When hydration stops, strength gain
ceases. Therefore, proper hydration of the cement is important in
the fabrication of strong, durable concrete.
Most concrete mixes contain an adequate amount of mixing water
for complete cement hydration. Some very low water-to-cement (w/c)
ratio mixes (e.g., w/c << 0.4) may require external moisture to prevent
desiccation (1 ), but these types of mixtures are not considered here.
The key is to prevent much of the mix water from leaving the sys-
tem through evaporation before optimum hydration can be achieved.
Many techniques have long been used successfully to help prevent
evaporation and provide a good cure, including covering the newly
placed concrete with water, wet burlap, or polyvinyl sheeting. These
curing methods, when properly executed, are reliable for retaining
hydration water during set and hardening of cement. Unfortunately,
these techniques are not well suited for high-production oper-
ations, such as paving and large floor placements. Today, many
contractors rely on curing compounds to help create the proper
environment needed for cement hydration and the development of
durable concrete.
Many popular curing compounds contain volatile organic com-
pounds (VOC), which recently have become the focus of envi-
ronmental regulations. Products containing lower levels of VOC
N. M. Whiting, Minnesota Department of Transportation, 1400 Gervais Avenue,
Maplewood, MN 55430. M. B. Snyder, Concrete Paving Association of Minnesota,
6300 Shingle Creek Parkway, Suite 325, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430.
59
(<350 g/L) are encouraged and may even be required under specific
circumstances. However, there is concern within the industry that
lower-VOC products may not be as effective in retaining moisture
as the higher-VOC compounds (350 g /L < VOC < 700 g/L) used
previously.
A research objective and work plan were developed in collabo-
ration with representatives from the Minnesota Concrete Council
(MCC) to address these concerns. The objective of this research was
to determine the effectiveness of selected low-VOC concrete-curing
compounds relative to that of high-VOC compounds, polyvinyl
sheeting, moist cure, and the use of no moisture retention device
(open-air curing).
RESEARCH APPROACH
The moisture-retention capacity of a curing compound is often
used to evaluate the effectiveness of the product. A modification of
ASTM 156-98, Standard Test Method for Water Retention by Con-
crete Curing Materials, was used to examine the effectiveness of six
curing compounds in preventing the evaporation of hydration water
from standard mortar specimens. To establish reference levels, sim-
ilar mortar specimens were subjected to the same testing environ-
ment but cured using ponded water, no treatment (air cured ), and
polyvinyl sheeting, which correspond to maximum, minimum, and
old-practice levels, respectively.
In addition to being tested for moisture loss, representative sam-
ples of hardened mortar were tested for strength and permeability
and were examined microscopically for capillary paste porosity, depth
of curing-compound penetration, and surface properties of specimens.
Additional work is under way to measure the porosity and examine
the hydration products of representative samples.
WORK PLAN
Experimental Matrix
The primary variable of interest for this research effort is the type of
moisture-retention treatment used for curing. A total of nine treatments
were used:
• Three low-VOC compounds (submitted by MCC),
• Three high-VOC compounds (submitted by MCC),
• Ponded water,
• Polyvinyl sheeting (submitted by MCC), and
• No treatment (air curing).
These nine treatments formed the basic experimental matrix for
the research. Five replicate specimens were prepared and tested for
60 Paper No. 03- 4014
each treatment: three for moisture-loss measurements and two for
strength, permeability, and capillary-porosity characterization tests.
Thus, the testing of nine treatments over the proposed conditions
required a total of 45 specimens.
Curing Compound Application
The application of the curing compound occurred under laboratory
conditions (i.e., no wind and relatively constant humidity and tem-
perature). Application rates were based on the minimum applica-
tion rate recommended by the manufacturer of each compound.
The curing compound was applied as soon as the bleed water had
disappeared, as specified in ASTM C156.
Specimen Type
ASTM C156 stipulates the use of a standard mortar mixture for this
type of testing. The use of concrete mixtures in lieu of or in addition
to the mortar mixtures was discussed. However, the potential for
moisture loss in a mortar mixture is greater, thereby enhancing the
ability to distinguish between effectiveness of the different treat-
ments. After thorough consideration, it was agreed that ASTM C156
mortar mixtures would be used for this research project.
Moisture Retention Testing
ASTM C156 requires that each specimen be placed in a test chamber
that maintains a specific temperature, relative humidity, and evapo-
ration rate. A walk-in environmental chamber with automatic tem-
perature control was fitted with shelves, fans, a humidifier, and a
dehumidifier. The chamber was thoroughly tested to establish and
maintain the required conditions before the test program was started.
The ability of each curing treatment to retain moisture was mea-
sured by monitoring the mass loss of each specimen. In accordance
with ASTM C156 requirements, initial specimen masses were re-
corded after the edges of the specimens had been sealed with wax
and the curing compound had been applied. As required, the mass
losses were determined after 72 h, and additional mass-loss mea-
surements were recorded at least six times throughout the 28-day
testing period (except for the specimens that were water cured).
Mortar Characterization
After 72 h, one specimen representing each treatment was removed
from the test chamber and subjected to strength and permeability
testing and microscopic examination. This procedure was repeated
after 28 days on another specimen from each treatment group.
Strength
Concrete or mortar strength can be related, in part, to the degree of
hydration and, therefore, to curing effectiveness. To examine this
characteristic, three 2-in. (50-mm) cubes were cut from each test
specimen retrieved and tested for compressive strength. The mea-
sured strengths were compared with the moisture loss, permeability,
and capillary porosity.
Transportation Research Record 1834
Permeability
Concrete and mortar durability are related, in part, to their permeabil-
ity, which is strongly affected by capillary porosity, which is, in turn,
related to curing effectiveness. A 4-in. (100-mm) core was cut from
each specimen and tested in accordance with ASTM C1202, Standard
Test Method for Electrical Indication of Concrete’s Ability to Resist
Chloride Ion Penetration (also known as the Rapid Chloride Perme-
ability Test) to provide an estimate of permeability. In this test, ions
move through a sample by three mechanisms: diffusion, migration,
and convection. Diffusion is the dominant mechanism (2).
Capillary Porosity
The capillary porosity of each specimen retrieved was examined
microscopically by using fluorescent dye epoxy-impregnated thin
sections and comparing the resulting images with other test results.
Curing-Compound Characterization
Several aspects of each curing compound were characterized:
• VOC. The VOC values provided by the manufacturer were used
in this study.
• Percent solids. The percentage of solids composing each
compound was determined.
• Infrared fingerprinting. Each curing compound was scanned
with infrared spectroscopy. The resulting pattern is unique for each
product tested and can be used to aid future researchers in matching
products and future research results with the results of this study.
This is important because the product names are not being released
in this or any other report.
PRESTUDY TESTING
To minimize variables, address some concerns, and minimize the
potential for unforeseen problems to arise during the full-scale testing,
three different prestudy tests were run. First, the proper environment
was established within the test chamber (i.e., proper temperature, rel-
ative humidity, and evaporation rates), as required for ASTM C156
moisture-retention testing. Next, a trial batch of five specimens was
prepared and tested using proposed study techniques, including mix-
ing, preparing, and measuring specimens for ASTM C156. Several of
the specimens were removed from their molds and cut for testing.
For the final pretest, several 2-in. (50-mm) cubes were tested
for compressive strength after various soak times to help establish
strength-testing procedures. This was done because it is known that
moisture gradients within samples can influence the measured com-
pressive strengths (3), and the moisture gradients created by the dif-
ferent curing treatments were expected to vary greatly (e.g., wet curing
compared with open-air curing). A uniform moisture gradient had
to be created for all samples tested to assure valid comparisons of
test results between treatments.
ASTM and the American Concrete Institute recommend soaking
concrete cores for a minimum of 40 h or air drying them for 7 days
before compressive-strength testing. Such long treatments would
influence the degree of hydration of the specimens (especially after
only 3 days of curing) and might make it difficult to distinguish
between the effects of the different curing treatments on strength
Whiting and Snyder
development. The pretest program of testing cube strengths after var-
ious soak times suggested that the amount of water absorbed after 1 h
was very similar to the amount of water absorbed after 12 h. The pre-
test results also suggested that after 24 h of soaking the absorbed
water was being bound into the system (i.e., contributing to further
hydration of the sample). Therefore, based on the results of this pre-
test, all cubes were soaked in a lime bath for 1 h before testing to
bring all cubes to similar moisture conditions while minimizing the
potential for additional hydration.
Detailed discussion of the conditions and results of these pretests
are presented elsewhere (N. M. Whiting, pending M.S. thesis, 2003).
CURING-COMPOUND PROPERTIES
Infrared Fingerprinting
The six curing compounds were fingerprinted using infrared spectro-
scopy (Figure 1). If the compound contained a pigment, it was
extracted before fingerprinting. Five of the compounds exhibited very
similar traces, suggesting that they were very similar in chemical com-
position. One compound, L-3 (Figure 1e), has an infrared fingerprint
significantly different from those of the other five compounds, which
suggests that it has a significantly different chemical composition.
Surface Coverage
All three of the low-VOC curing compounds (L-1, L-2, and L-3) are
water based and contain a white pigment, and all three of the high-
VOC compounds (H-1, H-2, and H-3) are solvent based and not pig-
mented. The viscosities of H-1 and H-3 were higher than those of the
other compounds; when shaken, the bubbles rose to the surface more
slowly. H-2 was not as thick but was slightly more viscous than water.
L-3 coated the sides of a glass jar evenly, leaving an opaque film on
the glass. L-1 temporarily coated the glass well but left a milky semi-
opaque film within a short time. L-2 had the lowest viscosity and did
not coat the glass well, leaving a very thin translucent white film.
If any free water is available at the surface of the specimen when
the curing compound is applied, there may be a problem with some
water-based curing compounds interacting with this free water,
resulting in inconsistencies in the surface coverage (T. Poole, per-
sonal communication, 2002). To examine whether this phenomenon
was occurring, the surface of one specimen representing each cur-
ing compound treatment was examined under a stereo binocular
microscope using magnifications ranging from 7.5× to 65×.
The integrity of the surfaces of treatments L-1 and L-2 was com-
promised. Cracks were common in the dried compound, and the
mortar was exposed in some areas because the compound layer was
thinner or because small pieces had flaked away. Treatments L-3 and
H-1 provided very uniform coverage and only a few microcracks
were observed in the compound surface. Treatments H-2 and H-3
exhibited a thicker, uniform, glossy coverage. There were micro-
cracks in the mortar surfaces under the compounds, but no cracks
were observed in the compound surfaces.
Percentage of Solids
The percentage of solids in each compound was approximated by
spreading a small mass of compound onto a pan, which was then
placed in a chamber with a temperature of approximately 133°F
Paper No. 03- 4014 61
(56°C), relative humidity of 6%, and fans to encourage evaporation.
The pans were cooled when weighed and, after approximately 1.5 h,
the masses of the pans had stabilized and the compounds were dry
to the touch. Some of the manufacturers provided literature that listed
a percentage of solids, and the percentage of solids for one com-
pound was measured during the prestudy test phase by exposing the
compound to high evaporation rates for 3 days. Compounds L-1 and
L-2 contain approximately 18% solids, while compound L-3 con-
tains only about 9% solids. All the high-VOC compounds contain
approximately 30% solids. Details concerning the test results and
reported values are presented elsewhere (N. M. Whiting, pending
M.S. thesis, 2003) and in the project final report.
FULL-SCALE TESTING
Batching
The mix design was established, as required in ASTM C156, by
starting with a w/c ratio of 0.40 and adding enough sand to produce
the proper flow using a flow table. The resulting sand-to-cement
ratio was 2.3:1 by weight. The resulting mix was 138.0 lb of sand,
60 lb of cement, and 24 lb of water.
A 2-ft3 (0.057 m3) drum-type mixer was used. To minimize seg-
regation of the mix due to paste adhering to the dry insides of the
mixer, a “butter batch” of the same mix proportions was mixed
before mixing the full-scale batch.
The mortar for all 45 specimens was mixed in three different
batches of 15 specimens each. If the mortar for all 45 samples was
mixed at one time, the time lag between preparation of the first and
last samples may have introduced additional time-dependent vari-
ables to the process. Testing all the specimens within a tight time
frame so as not to introduce these time-dependent variables would
also have been difficult, if not impossible, given the limitations of
available equipment and operators. Therefore, a testing matrix was
established such that each batch was used to produce at least one
but no more than two specimens to represent each curing treatment.
The curing treatments were applied in random order to randomly
selected specimens within each batch.
Moisture-Loss Specimens
The procedures for ASTM C156 were followed, except for the batch
size and the specimen size. The standard procedure requires specimen
molds to be approximately 6 × 12 × 2 in. deep (150 × 300 × 50 mm
deep). Larger specimens were required for this study so that the needed
test samples could be cut from the same specimen [three 2-in. (50-mm)
cubes for strength testing and one 4-in. (100-mm) core for rapid chlo-
ride permeability (RCP) testing]. A mold 10-in. (250-mm) round by
2-in. (50-mm) deep was used to produce specimens sufficiently large
for providing the necessary test samples at an adequate distance from
the specimen edges to minimize possible edge effects.
For the specimens being treated with curing compound, the com-
pound was applied using manually pressurized garden sprayers, and
application rates were set to closely match each manufacturer’s min-
imum recommended application rate. For the plastic-sheeting treat-
ment, white polyvinyl sheeting was cut and held securely in place
with a rubber band. Initial mass measurements were taken immedi-
ately after treatment, and the specimens were then placed in the test
chamber. The specimens to be exposed to moist-cure conditions were
placed in a lime bath in a covered container in the test chamber.
FIGURE 1 Infrared spectroscopy fingerprints of curing compounds: (a ) L -1, ( b ) H-1, (c ) L-2, (d ) H-2, (e) L-3, and ( f ) H-3.
Whiting and Snyder
Specimens were weighed every 1 to 3 days while in the chamber to
monitor moisture loss. The position of each specimen (except for the
moist-cured ones) was rotated within the chamber after each mass
measurement to minimize potential for biased results due to possible
nonuniform evaporation rates at various locations within the chamber.
The fans in the chamber, which are needed to maintain a proper evap-
oration rate, caused enough air disturbance that the scale readings fluc-
tuated. To ensure accurate measurements, the scale was placed in a box
to protect it from the air turbulence during measurements.
Compressive-Strength and RCP Testing
At 3, 10, and 28 days, one sample from each curing treatment was
removed from the cabinet and demolded by injecting compressed air
through a small hole in the bottom of each mold. A 4-in. (100-mm)
diameter core and three 2-in. (50-mm) cubes were cut from each spec-
imen. All samples were cut at least 1 in. (25 mm) from the edge of the
specimen to avoid possible differences in the mortar characteristics
near the edges.
After cutting the cubes, their dimensions were measured to
±0.005 in. (±0.13 mm) using calipers and were marked with a unique
identifier. From the results of the pretest discussed earlier, all cubes
were soaked in a lime bath for approximately 1 h before strength test-
ing. Cubes were placed in the compression-test apparatus with the
original specimen’s top and bottom surfaces oriented perpendicular
to the direction of loading. A target load rate of 200 to 400 lb/s was
maintained throughout most, if not all, of the testing.
The relative permeability of each specimen was estimated by test-
ing a core 4-in. (100-mm) in diameter by 2-in. (50-mm) thick using
ASTM 1202 standard test procedures. The curing compound was
removed from the surface of the core through dry grinding with a
120-µm diamond-impregnated disk. Each core was vacuum satu-
rated and sealed into a test cell with one surface of the core exposed
to a 3% solution of NaCl and the opposite surface exposed to 0.3 N
NaOH and a current applied to the cell for 6 h. Coulomb and amper-
age measurements were recorded automatically every 30 min. If the
coulomb measurements exceeded approximately 7,000 C, then the
current was turned off to avoid overheating the apparatus.
DATA ANALYSES
Abbreviations are used in the following discussion and plots to dis-
tinguish between curing treatments. As note earlier, the specimens
treated with low-VOC compounds are designated L-1, L-2, and
L-3, and those treated with high-VOC compounds are designated
H-1, H-2, and H-3. The specimens cured in a lime bath (water cured)
are designated as Treatment W; those cured using polyvinyl sheet-
ing are designated as Treatment P; and those cured with no treatment
(air cured) are designated Treatment N.
Uncontrolled Variables
In most experiments, it is difficult to control all the variables that
may influence the results. To address this concern, several variables
were compared to the moisture-loss data to identify possible trends.
These variables included (a) the influence of a precise amount of
curing compound applied (it varied slightly, although all applica-
tions were made within the recommended ranges), (b) the batch from
which the specimens were cast, (c) the delay time between casting
the specimen and applying the treatment or placing the specimen in
Paper No. 03- 4014 63
the chamber, and (d ) the total mass of the specimen (which influ-
ences the total amount of moisture available for evaporation). No
single variable examined appeared to be correlated with the 3-day
moisture-loss measurements. To determine whether there is a com-
plicated combination of these uncontrolled variables that affected
the moisture losses, a full-scale study that specifically considers these
variables would be required.
Moisture Loss
The mass-loss data were adjusted to account for the loss of evap-
orables in the curing compound, so that the reported losses reflect the
amount of moisture lost from the mortar. Figure 2 shows the mass
loss over time for all the samples (multiple specimens) except for the
Treatment W samples, which actually gained mass.
Although there is some variability among replicate specimens
treated with the same compound, the shapes of the moisture loss-
time curves are very similar for the different treatments. Some of the
observed variability may be caused by the inconsistent coverage that
resulted from the development of cracks in the compound, the use of
low-tech sprayers, or both.
There appear to be some similarities between the behavior of the
specimens treated with curing compound (Figure 2a to f ) and the
Treatment N (Figure 2h) specimens, as depicted by the general shapes
of the curves. The most dramatic mass losses occurred within the first
24 h, after which the rate of mass loss eventually stabilized (after
approximately 7 days). Unlike the Treatment N specimens and all the
specimens treated with curing compounds, the Treatment P (Figure 2g)
specimens had a very low and very steady rate of mass loss.
ASTM, the Minnesota Department of Transportation, and others
recommend the use of a curing compound that has a 3-day mass loss
of no more than 0.55 kg/m2. That translates into a mass loss of 27.8 g
for the specimen size used in this study. Treatment P was the only
treatment that consistently met this criterion, with 3-day mass losses
ranging from 2.6 to 12 g. Improved moisture retention capabilities
might have been observed for all compounds if higher application
rates, more than one application of the compounds, or both were used.
Comparing the results of all treatments (Figure 3), all the curing
compounds decreased the moisture loss when compared to Treat-
ment N, but none of the compounds retained moisture as well as
Treatment P. All the high-VOC compounds retained moisture bet-
ter than did the low-VOC compounds; however, Treatment L-3 did
perform better than Treatments L-1 and L-2 and almost as well as
the high-VOC compounds.
Moisture-Retention Capacity
To more quantitatively evaluate the relative ability of each treatment
to retain moisture, a representative specimen moisture loss for each
treatment was compared with the moisture loss for the extreme con-
ditions (i.e., no moisture loss and the moisture lost with Treatment N).
The following formula was used and, for the purposes of this study,
the result has been termed % Effectiveness:
Mn − Ms
% Effectiveness = (100)
Mn
where
Mn = average moisture loss of specimens from Treatment N and
Ms = average moisture loss of specimens from treatment being
considered.
64 Paper No. 03- 4014 Transportation Research Record 1834

300 300 300

280 280 280

260 260 260

240 240 240

220 220 220

200 200 200

Mass Loss (g)

Mass Loss (g)

180 180

Mass Loss (g)

180

160 160 160

140 140 140

120 120 120

100 100 100

80 80 80

60 60 60
40 40 40
20 20
20
0 0
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (days) Time (days) Time (days)
(a) (b) (c)

300 300 300

280 280 280

260 260 260

240 240 240

220 220 220

200 200 200

Mass Loss (g)

Mass Loss (g)

Mass Loss (g)

180 180 180

160 160 160

140 140 140

120 120 120

100 100 100

80 80 80

60 60 60

40 40 40

20 20
20
0 0
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (days) Time (days) Time (days)

(d) (e) (f)

300 300

280 280

260 260

240 240

220 220

200 200
Mass Loss (g)

180
Mass Loss (g)

180
160
160
140
140
120
120
100
100
80
80
60
60
40
40
20
20
0
0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (days)
Time (days)
(h)
(g)

FIGURE 2 Moisture loss over time for each treatment: (a ) H -1, (b) H-2, (c) H-3, (d ) L-1, ( e ) L-2, ( f ) L-3, ( g ) P, and ( h ) N.
Whiting and Snyder Paper No. 03- 4014 65

300 10000
High VOC Low VOC
250

Strength (psi)
8000
Mass Loss (g)

200
6000
150
4000
100

50 2000

0 0
H-1 H-2 H-3 L-1 L-2 L-3 N P
H-1 H-2 H-3 L-1 L-2 L-3 P N W
Specimen Type
(a)
FIGURE 3 Moisture loss ranges and averages at 3 days and
28 days for all treatments. 10000

Strength (psi)
8000

In this analysis, the average moisture loss for Treatment N is con-

6000
sidered to represent 0% effectiveness, while a 0.0 g moisture loss rep-
resents 100% effectiveness. Figure 4 summarizes the % Effectiveness 4000
over time for all treatments except Treatment W, the samples for
which were submerged in the lime-water bath and lost no moisture. 2000
As expected, % Effectiveness decreased with time for all treatments
analyzed, with Treatment P having the highest % Effectiveness. 0

The % Effectiveness of the six compounds is fairly well distributed H-1 H-2 H-3 L-1 L-2 L-3 P N W
between the two extremes, with the high-VOC compounds generally (b)
exhibiting higher % Effectiveness values than the low-VOC com-
pounds. However, one of the low-VOC compounds, L-3, had a sig- 10000
nificantly higher % Effectiveness than the other low-VOC compounds
8000
(L-1 and L-2).
Strength (psi)

6000

4000
Compressive Strength
2000
Figure 5 summarizes the average compressive-strength values for the
2-in. (50-mm) cubes tested at 3, 10, and 28 days. These plots illustrate 0
the following: H-1 H-2 H-3 L-1 L-2 L-3 P N W
(c)
• All mortar samples treated with curing compounds devel-
oped higher strengths than the samples cured without any curing, FIGURE 5 Average compressive strengths of 2-in. mortar cubes
cut from specimens cured using nine different treatments at
Treatment N.
(a ) 3 days, (b ) 10 days, and (c ) 28 days.
• Mortars cured with compounds containing high-VOC com-
pounds gained strength more quickly than mortars cured with
low-VOC compounds, as evidenced by the 3- and 10-day strengths. • Some curing compounds had early-age strengths (3- and 10-day)
that were nearly the maximum possible (when compared with water-
or plastic-cured specimens).
100 • Curing method had a greater impact on long-term strength
development (i.e., 28-day strength) than early-age strength.
80 • The lowest-strength development at all stages was associated
% Effectiveness

H-1
H-2
with Treatment N. The air-cure process allowed for moderate 28-day
60
H-3 strength development, but this strength was only 54% of the strength
L-1 developed in moist-cured specimens.
40
L-2 • Moist curing provided the best 28-day strengths.
20
L-3 • Cure using plastic sheeting provided the second highest 28-day
N-1 strengths, at 81% of the values obtained with a moist cure.
0
P-1
• The 28-day strengths of mortars cured using curing compounds
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 ranged from 55% to 75% of the strengths developed in moist-cured
Time (days) specimens.
• The weakest of the high-VOC compound samples (H-1) had
FIGURE 4 Relative effectiveness versus time for each 28-day strengths only slightly higher than the strongest samples
curing treatment. treated with a low-VOC compound (L-1).
66 Paper No. 03- 4014 Transportation Research Record 1834

Comparing Moisture Loss to changes slightly. Therefore, the percentage of solids appears to be a
Strength Development good indicator of how well the compound will influence strength
development and retain moisture for the six compounds tested,
The expected relationship between specimen moisture loss and com- especially if they are chemically similar.
pressive strength of mortar is verified in Figure 6, which compares
values of moisture loss to strength development after 3 and 28 days
of curing. The trend lines shown in each of these plots have R2 val- RCP Test Results
ues of 0.6314 and 0.7558 for 3 days (Figure 6a) and 28 (Figure 6b)
days of curing, respectively. The relative permeability of the specimens prepared using each treat-
ment was estimated using the RCP test. The charge passed through
a specimen is reported in coulombs and is related to the permeabil-
Comparing Moisture Loss and Strength ity of the specimen (i.e., the higher the coulombs, the higher the per-
Development to Percent Solids meability). ASTM suggests the following qualitative interpretations
of the RCP test results:
Strong correlations were also observed between average moisture
loss and the percentage of solids in the various compounds. R 2 val- Coulombs Permeability
ues of 0.6819 and 0.53 were observed for 3- and 28-day data, respec- >4,000 High
tively. Treatment L-3 had a relatively low percent solids content and 2,000 – 4,000 Moderate
1,000 –2,000 Low
is chemically very different from the other five compounds (as dis- 100 –1,000 Very Low
cussed previously). When the results for treatment L-3 are removed <100 Negligible
from the analysis, then the correlation improves considerably, with
R 2 values of 0.9122 and 0.8935 for the 3- and 28-day data, respec- This is not a highly precise test. ASTM reports that test results by a
tively. Supporting data and graphs for these analyses are presented single operator on samples of the same size and from the same batch
elsewhere (N. M. Whiting, pending M.S. thesis, 2003) and in the should not vary by more than 42%.
project final report. The results of RCP testing are presented in Figure 8. Tests of
There is a clear trend between percent solids in the curing com- the 3-day specimens for Treatments L-1, L-2, L-3, and N and the
pound and the development of compressive strength (Figure 7 ). If 10-day specimen for Treatment N were discontinued early because,
the data point for Treatment L-3 is removed (Figure 7b), the trend in each of these tests, the charge exceeded 7,000 C (as discussed

H-1 45 3-day
H-2 40
300 10-day
35
H-3
250 30
Moisture Loss (g)

28-day
%Solids

L-1 25
200
L-2 20
2
150 L-3 15 R = 0.8061
10 R2 = 0.6049
100 P
5 2
N R = 0.8173
50 0
W 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
0
Strength (psi)
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
(a)
Strength (psi)
(a)
45
3-day
40
300 H-1 10-day
35
H-2 30 28-day
250
Moisture Loss (g)

%Solids

H-3 25
200 L-1 20 2
R = 0.8353
150 L-2 15
2
R = 0.7649
100 L-3 10
2
R = 0.7940
P 5
50
N 0
0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
W
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Strength (psi)
Strength (psi) (b)
(b)
FIGURE 7 Comparison of percent solids in treatment and
FIGURE 6 Moisture loss versus compressive strength for all compressive strength at 3, 10, and 28 days for (a ) all treatments
treatments at (a ) 3 days and ( b) 28 days. except plastic and water cure and ( b) after removal of L-3.
Whiting and Snyder Paper No. 03- 4014 67

12000 After 10 days of curing (Figure 8b), four specimens were selected
H-1 to represent high-VOC and low-VOC treatments and the two extreme
10000 conditions (Treatments W and N). Again, all samples exhibited rel-
H-2
H-3
atively high RCP test results, but Treatment N samples exhibited the
8000
Coulombs

highest, with projected 6-h values of more than 10,000 C. Treatment

L-1
6000 L-3 had the next highest value, with Treatments W and H-2 having
L-2
similar, lower values.
4000 L-3 After 28 days of curing (Figure 8c), all RCP test results ranged
P from moderate to high permeability. There was a problem with the
2000 W first set of 28-day RCP test samples (Treatments N, L-1, and H-2).
0 N The results from this round of tests were uncharacteristically low
0 100 200 300 400 and a bright blue precipitate coated the specimens at the end of the
Time (min) test. These specimens were cleaned and retested several months
(a) later (as described in the project final report and in N. M. Whiting,
pending M.S. thesis, 2003), but the results were inconclusive. The
12000 remaining low-VOC samples (Treatments L-2 and L-3) had the high-
est 28-day values (exceeding 6,000 C). The remaining high-VOC
10000 samples (Treatments H-1 and H-3) had lower values, but Treatment
8000 H-2 H-3 was still considered high (5,100 C) and treatment H-1 was con-
Coulombs

sidered moderate (3,800 C). The water-cured sample (Treatment W)

6000 L-3
and the sample curing using plastic sheeting (Treatment P) had the
4000 W lowest permeability values (but were still considered moderate, with
N values of 3,500 and 3,400 C, respectively).
2000

0
0 100 200 300 400 Capillary Paste Porosity
Time (min)
(b) The w/c ratio, use of admixtures, and other mix design parameters
can dramatically affect the capillary porosity of the paste. All of
these factors were held constant in this study, yet there was still a
12000
H-1 measurable difference in the capillary porosity of samples using var-
10000 H-2* ious curing treatments. The samples cured with no treatment had the
highest capillary porosity while the samples cured using polyvinyl
Coulombs

8000 H-3
sheeting had the lowest capillary porosity at both 3 and 28 days. The
6000 L-1* capillary porosity of the moist-cured samples fell midway between
L-2 these two extremes. The capillary porosity of samples at 3 days var-
4000 ied only slightly, with very little difference observed between curing-
L-3
2000 compound treatment effects at this early age. The variability of the
P capillary porosity of samples at 28 days was slightly more signif-
0 icant, with two of the low-VOC compounds having higher capil-
0 100 200 300 400
W
lary porosity than two of the high-VOC compounds. Details and
Time (min) N*
further analyses are presented elsewhere (N. M. Whiting, pending
(c) M.S. thesis, 2003).

FIGURE 8 Rapid chloride permeability test results for all

treatments after (a ) 3 days, (b) 10 days, and (c) 28 days.
(Asterisk indicates testing problems and questionable results.) CONCLUSIONS

The performance of all six curing compounds varied. Of the com-

previously). In the plots representing these data, dashed lines were
used to extend the observed trends, predicting what the observed
coulomb values might have been if the testing had been allowed to
continue.
After 3 days of curing (Figure 8a), the estimated permeability of
all specimens is considered high. Treatment N specimens and the
specimens treated with low-VOC compounds had similarly high
permeability values, exceeding 7,000 C (with projected 6-h values
of 11,000 to 12,000 C). The specimens treated with high-VOC com-
pounds had the lowest 3-day permeability values, but with values
exceeding 5,000 C, were still considered to exhibit relatively high
permeability.
pounds tested, all performed better than the air-cured Treatment N,
but none performed as well as water-cured specimens. Specimens
treated with high-VOC compounds tended to have less moisture loss,
higher strengths, and lower permeability than the specimens treated
with low-VOC compounds. However, the worst-performing high-
VOC curing compound tested performed only slightly better than the
best-performing low-VOC compound tested.
Specimens cured using plastic sheeting retained more moisture
and had better long-term strength development and lower perme-
ability than any of the curing compounds. Early strengths were higher
in some specimens cured with a high-VOC compound than in speci-
mens cured with plastic sheeting, but long-term strength was higher
68 Paper No. 03- 4014
when plastic sheeting was used. For optimum long-term strength
and durability, water-cured specimens performed best.
For compounds of similar chemical composition, the percent solids
content seems to be a good predictor of curing performance. The
VOC content does not appear to be the best indicator of how a cur-
ing compound will perform, although it is frequently correlated with
percent solids content (i.e., of the compounds tested, compounds
with high-solids contents tended to have higher VOC contents as
well). Compounds with dissimilar chemical composition may have
very different curing potential, even when the VOC contents are
similar.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUTURE WORK
There are many aspects about curing and curing compounds that
this study did not address and other aspects that could be examined
more thoroughly with additional work. The results of this study sug-
gest that there are many differences between curing compounds, and
this study examined only six of the many curing products available.
Additional testing of other products may help to more precisely
define the ranges of products and performances available. Any
additional work in comparing various compounds should include
a quantitative measure of the compounds’ viscosity. Application rate,
timing of application, application method, environmental effects of
field applications, and the number of applications may also influence
the results.
The relationship between moisture loss and strength in these sam-
ples was very good. Refining this comparison and expanding the data-
base may provide a strong correlation between data on early moisture
loss and 28-day strengths.
Transportation Research Record 1834
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the Minnesota Concrete Coun-
cil (MCC) for funding this study and thank Terry Swor and Mike
Ramerth of MCC for soliciting and acquiring study compounds and
for providing technical oversight. The University of Minnesota
Department of Civil Engineering and the Minnesota Department of
Transportation provided facilities for performing this work. Special
thanks are also offered to Rebecca Embacher and Trevor Odden for
all their assistance in the laboratory testing and to Catherine French
for her technical advice.
REFERENCES
1. Bentz, D. P., K. A. Snyder, and P. E. Stutzman. Hydration of Portland
Cement: The Effects of Curing Conditions. Proc., 10th International
Congress on the Chemistry of Cement, Vol. 2, Gothenburg, Sweden,
June 2–6, 1997, ii078.
2. Aldea, C.-M., S. P. Shah, and A. Karr. Effects of Cracking on Water
and Chloride Permeability of Concrete. Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, Vol. 11, No. 3, Aug. 1999, pp. 181–187.
3. Bartlett, M. F., and J. G. MacGregor. Effect of Moisture Condition on
Concrete Core Strengths. ACI Materials Journal. May–June, 1994,
pp. 227–236.
The contents of this paper reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible
for the facts and accuracy of the data. The contents do not necessarily reflect
the views or policies of the Minnesota Department of Transportation at the time
of publication.
Publication of this paper sponsored by Committee on Concrete Materials and
Placement Techniques.