ACI 548.

3R-95

State-of-the-Art Report on Polymer-Modified Concrete

Reported by ACI Committee 548

Jack J. Fontana* Larry J. Farrell

Chairman Secretary

Johan Alexanderson* David Fowler* Dah-Yinn Lee Sandor Popovics* Michael M. Sprinkel*
John Bartholomew* George Hoff* William Lee* Kenneth A. Poss Timothy L. Tache*
Mrinmay Biswas Craig W. Johnson V. M. Malhotra C. Scott Reece Cumaraswamy Vipulanandan
Douglas Boulton Albert O. Kaeding Stella Marusin* Wilfried R. Riesterer* Alan H. Vroom
* *
Barry Butler John Kane William C. McBee Willard C. Rowe Douglas G. Walters‡
Robert R. Cain Al Klail Charles R. McClaskey Borys F. Schafran Harold H. Weber, Jr.
Paul D. Carter Paul D. Krauss Peter Mendis Ernest Schrader* Richard E. Weyers
†
Joseph M. Daly Louis A. Kuhlmann John R. Milliron Surendra P. Shah David P. Whitney
Glenn DePuy* Lawrence E. Kukacka John A. Morrow Glenn W. Smoak Robert L. Yuan
Floyd Dimmick* Joseph A. Lavelle* Larry C. Muszynski Allan F. Soderberg Janet L. Zuffa
Wolfgang O. Eisenhut Jeffrey J. Laven Jerry R. Parra Joe Solomon

*Members of Subcommittee 548-A who prepared this report.

†Chairman, Subcommittee 548-A.
‡
Secretary, Subcommittee 548-A.
In addition to those listed above, the following members of Subcommittee 548-A contributed greatly to the preparation of this report: Arthur Dinitz, Richard
Galer, Gene Gerek, Brian Irvin, Ron Mayrbaurl, Joseph McElroy, Myles Murray, Thomas Nehil, Yoshihiko Ohama, Robert Rowen, Jr., Philip Seabrook, Scott Trom,
David Whiting.

Members of the committee voting on proposed revisions:

D. Gerry Walters* Paul D. Krauss

Chairman Secretary

John J. Bartholomew William T. Dohner Louis A. Kuhlmann† Larry C. Muszynski Joe Solomon
Gary Billiard Larry J. Farrell Henry N. Marsh Michael J. O’Brien* Michael M. Sprinkel*
W. Barry Butler* Jack J. Fontana* Stella L. Marusin Sandor Popovics* Cumaraswamy Vipulanandan
Robert R. Cain David W. Fowler Joseph A. McElroy Rockwell J. Scarpinato Harold H. Weber, Jr.
Paul D. Carter Arthur H. Gerber Peter Mendis* Ernest K. Schrader Ron P. Webster
Frank Constantino Albert O. Kaeding John R. Milliron Qizhong Sheng David P. Whitney
Glenn W. DePuy Mohammed S. Khan Richard Montani W. Glenn Smoak Yoga V. Yogendran
Floyd E. Dimmick

*Members of 548-A who prepared revisions to this report.

†Chairman of 548 Subcommittee which revised this report.
In addition to those listed above, the following persons contributed greatly to the revision of this report: Ron Mayrbaurl, Myles Murray, Philip Seabrook, David
Whiting.

Dispersions of polymers in water and redispersible polymer powders have
been in use for many years as admixtures to portland cement mortar and
concrete. These dispersions are commonly called latexes. The property
improvements from this family of admixtures includes increased bond
strength, reduced permeability, increased resistance to freezing and thaw-
ing, and increased flexural strength. The specific property improvement to
the modified mortar and concrete will vary with the type of latex used. The
proportioning of ingredients and mixing procedures are similar to unmodi-
fied mortars and concretes. Curing is different in that only 1 to 2 days of
moist cure are required. This is followed by air drying. Applications of
these materials include tile adhesive and grout, floor leveling, concrete
patching, and bridge deck overlays.

ACI Committee Reports, Guides, Standard Practices, and Com-
mentaries are intended for guidance in designing, planning, ex-
ecuting, or inspecting construction and in preparing
specifications. Reference to these documents shall not be made
in the Project Documents. If items found in these documents are
desired to be part of the Project Documents, they should be
phrased in mandatory language and incorporated in the Project
Documents.
Keywords: Acrylic resins; admixtures; bridge decks; concretes; construc-
tion; curing; epoxy resins; freeze thaw durability; latex (plastic); latex
ACI 548.3R-95 supersedes ACI 548.3R-91 and became effective January 1, 1995.
Copyright © 1995, American Concrete Institute.
All rights reserved including rights of reproduction and use in any form or by any
means, including the making of copies by any photo process, or by any electronic or
mechanical device, printed, written, or oral, or recording for sound or visual reproduc-
tion or for use in any knowledge or retrieval system device, unless permission in writ-
ing is obtained from the copyright proprietors.

548.3R-1
548.3R-2 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT

(rubber); mechanical roperties

p ; mix proportioning; mortars (material); 7.2—Test methods, practices, and specification for raw
parking facilities; patching; p avementsphysical
; properties; plastics, materials
polymers, and resins; polymer-portland cement-conc rete; redispers-
ible polymer powder s ; repairs; resurfacing s; tyrene-butadiene resins ; 7.3—Standard practices for specimen preparation
test methods. 7.4—Test methods for unhardened mortar and concrete
7.5—Test methods for hardened mortar and concrete
CONTENTS 7.6—ASTM documents
Chapter 1—Background of latexes, p. 548.3R-2
1.1—History Chapter 8—References, p. 548.3R-43
1.2—Latexes and their properties 8.1—Specified or recommended references
1.3—Test procedures for latex 8.2—Cited references
1.4—Principle of latex modification
INTRODUCTION
Chapter 2—Styrene-butadiene latex, p. 548.3R-8 Polymer-modified concrete (PMC) has at times been
2.1—Background called polymer-portland cement-concrete (PPCC) and latex-
2.2—Mixture proportioning modified concrete (LMC). It is defined as portland cement
2.3—Properties and aggregate combined at the time of mixing with organic
2.4—End uses polymers that are dispersed or redispersed in water. This dis-
2.5—Construction techniques persion is called a latex, and the organic polymer is a sub-
2.6—Limitations stance composed of thousands of simple molecules
2.7—Case histories combined into large molecules. The simple molecules are
known as monomers and the reaction that combines them is
Chapter 3—Acrylic latex, p. 548.3R-28 called polymerization. The polymer may be a homo-polymer
3.1—Background if it is made by the polymerization of one monomer, or a co-
3.2—Properties of acrylic polymers polymer when two or more monomers are polymerized.
3.3—Proportioning and properties In this report, the use of the general term “polymer-modi-
3.4—End uses fied concrete” includes both mortar and concrete. Where
specific mortar or concrete mixes are referenced, specific
Chapter 4—Epoxy polymer modifiers, p. 548.3R-34 terms are used; i.e., for concrete, latex-modified concrete
4.1—Background (LMC); for mortar, latex-modified mortar (LMM).
4.2—Properties of epoxies Polymer dispersion are added to the concrete to improve
4.3—Principle of epoxy modification the properties of the final product. These properties include
4.4—Mixture proportioning improved bond strength to concrete substrates, increased
4.5—Properties of epoxy-modified concrete flexibility and impact resistance, improved resistance to pen-
4.6—Safety etration by water and by dissolved salts, and improved resis-
4.7—End uses tance to frost action.
4.8—Construction techniques
4.9—Case histories CHAPTER 1—BACKGROUND OF LATEXES

Chapter 5—Redispersible polymer powders, p. 548.3R- 1.1—History

38 The concept of a latex-hydraulic-cement system is not
5.1—Background new. In 1923 the first patent of the system was issued to
5.2—Manufacture Cresson.1 This patent refers to paving materials with natural
5.3—Powder properties rubber latexes, where cement was used as a filler. The first
5.4—Mixture proportioning patent with the present concept of the polymer latex-modi-
5.5—Properties of unhardened mortar fied systems was published by Lefebure2 in 1924. Lefebure
5.6—Properties of hardened mortar appears to be the first worker who intended to produce a la-
5.7—End uses tex-modified mortar and concrete using natural rubber latex-
es by a mixture-proportioning method. This patent is
Chapter 6—Other polymers, p. 548.3R-40 important from an historical point of view. A similar idea
6.1—General was patented by Kirkpatrick3 in 1925. Throughout the 1920s
6.2—Other latexes and polymers and 1930s, latex-modified mortar and concrete using natural
6.3—Performance rubber latexes were developed. On the other hand, Bond’s
6.4—End uses patent4 which for the first time suggested the use of synthetic
rubber latexes for the latex-modified systems was issued in
Chapter 7—Test methods, practices, and specifications, 1932, and Rodwell’s patent5 which first claimed to apply
p. 548.3R-41 synthetic resin latexes (including polyvinyl acetate latexes)
7.1—Introduction to the modified systems, was issued in 1933.
 POLYMER-MODIFIED CONCRETE
In the 1940s, some patents on latex-modified systems with
synthetic latexes such as polychloroprene rubber (Neoprene)
latexes6 and polyacrylic ester latexes7 were published. Also,
polyvinyl acetate modified mortar and concrete were active-
ly developed for practical applications. Since the late 1940s,
latex-modified mortars and concretes have been used in var-
ious applications such as deck coverings for ships and bridg-
es, paving, floorings, anticorrosives, and adhesives. In the
United Kingdom, feasibility studies on the applications of
natural rubber modified systems were conducted by
Griffiths8 and Stevens.9 Also, a strong interest was focused
on the use of synthetic latexes in the latex-modified systems.
In 1953, Geist et al10 reported a detailed fundamental study
on polyvinyl acetate modified mortar, and provided a num-
ber of valuable suggestions for later research and develop-
ment of latex-modified systems.
1.2—Latexes and their properties
The following is a listing of the various latexes by type
that have been or are being used with hydraulic cements. The
materials that are underlined are the ones that are in general
use today.
Mixed latexes are blends of different types of latex, such
as an elastomeric latex with a thermoplastic one. Although
these blends are occasionally used for modifying cement, the
practice is limited.
Each type of polymer latex can and usually does impart
different properties when used as an additive to or modifier
of hydraulic cement mixtures. Also, it must be realized that
within each type of latex, particularly copolymer latexes,
548.3R-3
Table 1—Typical formations for emulsion polymeriza-
tion
Item Parts by weight
Monomers 100.0
Surfactant 1.0 - 10.0
Initiator 0.1 - 2.0
Water 80.0 - 150.0
Other ingredients 0 - 10.0
there can be many variations which can and do give different
properties to hardened mortar and concrete.
With few exceptions, the latexes currently used with hy-
draulic cements are produced by a process known as emul-
sion polymerization. The basic process involves mixing the
monomer(s) with water, a surfactant, and an initiator. The
initiator generates a free radical that causes the monomer(s)
to polymerize by chain addition. Examples of chain addition
polymerization are given in Fig. 1. A typical recipe for emul-
sion polymerization is given in Table 1.
One method of polymerization is to charge the reactor
with the water, surfactants, other ingredients, and part of the
monomers under agitation. When the temperature is raised to
a desired point, the initiator system is fed to the reactor, fol-
lowed by the remainder of the monomer. By temperature
control and possibly by other chemical additions, 90 to 99
plus percent conversion of the reaction normally occurs. Un-
reacted monomer is reduced to acceptable levels by a pro-
cess known as stripping.
The resultant latex may be concentrated or diluted, and
small levels of materials such as preservatives and surfac-
tants may be added.
Fig. 1—Typical chain addition polymerization
548.3R-4 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT

Table 2—Typical formulation for latexes used with sition has a major effect on the properties of the cured con-
portland cement crete or mortar, but it can also have an effect on the
Vinyl acetate, homo- and copolymer latexes properties of the wet mixture.
Item Parts by weight Variations in the properties of the cured concrete or mortar
Vinyl acetate 70.0 - 100.0 can be considerable, depending on the composition of the
Comonomer (butyl acrylate, ethylene, vinyl ester of ver- 0.0 - 30.0 polymer. A portland cement concrete modified with a vinyl
satic acid) acetate-homopolymer latex has poorer water resistance than
Partially hydrolyzed polyvinyl alcohol 6.0
Sodium bicarbonate 0.3
that of a similar unmodified concrete, while a concrete mod-
Hydrogen peroxide (35 percent) 0.7 ified with a styrene-butadiene-copolymer latex with a sty-
Sodium formaldehyde sulfoxylate 0.5 rene-butadiene ratio of 30/70 will give a modified concrete
Water 80.0 with a much lower compressive strength than a styrene-buta-
Acrylic copolymer latex diene-copolymer of similar molecular weight that has a sty-
Ethyl acrylate 98
A vinyl carboxylic acid 2
rene-butadiene ratio of 70/30. This effect can be complicated
Nonionic surfactant 6* by molecular weight. A modified portland cement concrete
Anionic surfactant 0.3† using a styrene-butadiene latex with a low molecular weight
Sodium formaldehyde sulfoxylate 0.1 will not give the same strength, adhesion and water resis-
Caustic soda 0.2 tance properties as that using a latex that has a higher molec-
Peroxide 0.1
Water 100.0
ular weight, even if the monomer composition and other
Styrene-butadiene copolymer latex ingredients are the same.
Styrene 64 Polymer-modified portland-cement concretes and mortars
Butadiene 35 exhibit improved strength properties, such as flexural
A vinyl carboxylic acid 1 strength, tensile strength, and abrasion resistance, over sim-
Nonionic surfactant 7*
Anionic surfactant 0.1†
ilar unmodified concretes and mortars. It should be noted
Ammonium persulfate 0.2 that these properties of polymer-modified mortars and con-
Water 105 cretes are measurably reduced when tested in the wet state.
*The nonionic surfactants may be nonyl phenols reacted with 20-40 molecules of The polymers used to modify hydraulic cement mixtures
ethylene oxide.
†The low levels of anionic surfactant are used to control the rate of polymerization. improve adhesion of the mix to various surfaces. However,
this adhesion can be improved by the use of monomers that
contain reactive groups such as unsaturated carboxylic acids,
Many other ingredients are used in the polymerization for example, methacrylic and acrylic acid. These monomers
process and are incorporated for many reasons, such as con- become part of the polymer and the reactive groups have the
trolling pH, particle size, and molecular weight. potential of chemically reacting with ingredients in the ce-
There are many latexes on the market but only about 5 per- ment mixture or with chemical groups in the surface to
cent of them are suitable for use with hydraulic cements. The which the mixture is being applied. There are reactive groups
other 95 percent lack the required stability, i.e., they will co- that have the potential of retarding or accelerating the hydra-
agulate when mixed with cement. tion of the cement.
Latexes can be divided into three classes according to the 1.2.2 Influence of surfactants—Surfactants (also referred
type of electrical charge on the particles, which is deter- to as stabilizers, soaps, and protective colloids) are chemical
mined by the type of surfactants used to disperse them. The compounds added during manufacture of the latex which at-
three classes are cationic (or positively charged), anionic (or tach themselves to the surface of the latex particles. By doing
negatively charged), and nonionic (no charge). In general, so, they affect the interactions of the particles themselves, as
latexes that are cationic or anionic are not suitable for use well as the interactions of the particles with the materials to
with hydraulic cements because they lack the necessary sta- which the latex is added. This is particularly true of the port-
bility. Most of the latexes used with portland cement are sta- land cement.
bilized with surfactants that are nonionic. Probably the surfactant’s main effect is on the workability
Typical formulations for three of the latex types used with of the mixture as it is a major contributor to the lower water-
portland cement are given in Table 2. cement ratios obtained in latex-modified concretes and mor-
The preservatives added to the latex after polymerization tars. However, if excess quantities are used, it can also have
provide protection against bacterial contamination and give an effect on the properties of the cured concrete by causing
improved aging resistance. Sometimes additional surfactants a reduction in water resistance and adhesion.
are added to provide more stability. Also, antifoaming agents 1.2.3 Influence of compounding ingredients—Compound-
may be added to reduce air entrainment when the latex is ing ingredients are the materials added after polymerization
mixed with the cement and aggregates. is complete. Their function is to improve properties of the
Not all latexes are made by emulsion polymerization. For product, such as resistance to chemical or physical attack.
these products, the polymer is made by another polymeriza- The most common compounding ingredients are bacteri-
tion process, and the resultant polymer is then dispersed in cides which protect the polymer and surfactants against at-
water by use of surfactants. tack by bacteria and the like. Antioxidants and ultraviolet
1.2.1 Influence of polymer composition—Polymer compo- protectors are added to provide protection against aging and
 POLYMER-MODIFIED CONCRETE
light attack. Also, surfactants can be added to improve work-
ability, provide stability to freezing and thawing, and reduce
the water-cement ratio. The levels of these added materials
are relatively low, ranging from parts per million for bacte-
ricides to a few percent for surfactants. Other ingredients that
may be added are defoaming or antifoaming agents. If the la-
tex does not contain such a material, one of these agents must
be added before use to avoid high air content in the hydraulic
cement mortar or concrete.
1.3—Test procedures for latex
The following test procedures for measuring colloidal and
polymeric properties of latexes are frequently used for qual-
ity control purposes to ensure supply of a consistent product.
The properties can also be used to assess the suitability of la-
texes for specific uses.
1.3.1 Nonvolatile or total solids content—Nonvolatile
content is the polymer content of the latex, together with any
ingredient that is nonvolatile at the temperature at which the
test is run. Nonvolatile content is important in that it is the
major factor in determining the cost of the product. It is de-
termined by weighing a small representative sample of the
latex, drying it under certain conditions, and weighing the
residue. The residue is expressed as a percentage of the orig-
inal weight. There are several acceptable published methods.
However, different values may be obtained by different test
methods. If these is a dispute, the generally accepted method
is ASTM D 1076. Table 3 shows three different nonvolatile
contents of the same latex using three different test methods.
The main difference is in the temperature and time used to
dry the latex.
1.3.2 pH value—The pH value of a material is a measure
of hydrogen ion concentration and indicates whether the ma-
terial is acidic or alkaline. The values of pH range from 1
(highly acidic) to 14 (highly alkaline). A value of 7 is neu-
tral. The scale is logarithmic so each increment of 1 on the
pH scale represents a ten-fold change in acid or alkali con-
centration (see ASTM D 1417).
1.3.3 Coagulum—Coagulum is the quantity of the poly-
mer that is retained after passing a known amount of the la-
tex through a certain sized sieve. The sieve sizes that are
used are 150 mm, 75 mm, or 45 mm (formerly No. 100, No.
200, or No. 325 mesh). The test is a measure of the quantity
of polymer that has particles larger than intended, usually
formed by particle agglomeration or skin formation.
1.3.4 Viscosity—Viscosity is the internal resistance to
flow exhibited by a fluid. There are many ways that the vis-
cosities are determined, and viscosity of a fluid can vary de-
pending on the method of test.
A method used with latex utilizes a viscometer made by
Brookfield (see ASTM D 1417). However, there are several
speeds, which can give different values. Also, the tempera-
ture at which the test is run can have a significant effect. A
combination of these effects can be dramatic as illustrated in
Table 4 showing the viscosity indications obtained on one la-
tex. When reporting Brookfield viscosity values it is impor-
tant to report the model number, spindle number and speed,
and temperature used in the test.
548.3R-5
Table 3—Effect of test method on nonvolatile content of
a latex
Test temperature 158 F (70 C) 221 F (105 C) 257 F (125 C)
Time of drying, 16.0 0.75 0.50
hrs
Nonvolatile con- 62.7 61.3 58.3
tent, percent
Table 4—Effect of test method on viscosity of a latex
Temperature, F
Brookfield model Speed, rpm Viscosity, cps
(C)
LVF 1.5 60 F (16 C) 8000
RVF 20 75 f (24 C) 1150
LVF 60 90 F (32 C) 0480
The styrene-butadiene and acrylic latexes used with hy-
draulic cements are very fluid, having viscosities of less than
100 cps. As a reference, the viscosity of milk is about 100
cps.
1.3.5 Stability—Stability is a measure of resistance to
change when subjected to a force or shock, and it has basi-
cally three forms; mechanical, chemical, and thermal.
a) Mechanical stability is determined by subjecting the
latex to mechanical motion, usually high-speed agi-
tation for a specific time, and then measuring the
amount of coagulum that is formed. A method is de-
scribed in ASTM D 1417.
b) Chemical stability may be assessed by determining
the amount of a chemical required to cause complete
coagulation, or by adding a quantity of the chemical
and then determining a mechanical-stability value. A
method is described in ASTM D 1076.
c) Thermal stability is determined by subjecting the la-
tex to specified temperatures for a specific period
and then determining the effect on another property.
A Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) re-
port11 describes a “freeze-thaw” stability test in
which the amount of coagulum formed after subject-
ing the latex to two cycles of freezing and thawing is
determined.
These stability properties are important for latexes used
with hydraulic cement mixtures. Mechanical stability is re-
quired because the latexes are frequently subjected to high
shear in metering and transfer pumps. Chemical stability is
required because of the extremely active chemical nature of
the various hydraulic cements. Thermal stability is required
because the latex may be subjected to wide variations in tem-
perature.
The surfactants used in the latex have a major influence on
its stability.
1.3.6 Weight per gallon—Weight per gallon is a measure
of the density of the latex. It is determined by weighing a
specific volume of latex under specified conditions (usually
83.3 mL at 25 C. The weight of this volume, in grams, divid-
ed by 10, is the weight, in pounds, per gallon.). This is an im-
portant parameter because similar to solids or nonvolatile
content, this indicates the polymer content of the latex. For
example, a gallon of styrene-butadiene latex does not usually
548.3R-6 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT

contain the same weight of polymer as a gallon of acrylic la-
tex. The weight per gallon of styrene-butadiene latex is about
8.45 lb, while that of an acrylic is typically 8.9 lb. If both la-
texes have solids of 47 percent by weight, the styrene-buta-
diene latex contains about 3.97 lb of polymer per gallon,
while a gallon of acrylic latex contains 4.18 lb.
1.3.7 Particle size—Particle size is a measure of the size
of the polymer dispersed in the water. It will vary from 50 to
5000 nm.* There are several methods of determining particle
size, and it is possible that each method will give a different
result. The methods require the use of equipment such as
electron microscopes, centrifuges, and photo-spectrometers.
* One nanometer = 10-9 m.
Particle size is dependent to a large degree on the dosage lev-
els and types of surfactants.
1.3.8 Surface tension—Surface tension is related to the
ability of the latex to wet or not wet a surface. It is deter-
mined using a tensiometer. The FHWA report11 describes an
accepted procedure. The lower the value of surface tension,
the better the wetting ability of the latex. This property af-
fects the “workability” or “finishing” of a latex-modified
mixture. The surface tension is dependent to a large degree
on the dosage levels and types of surfactants.
1.3.9 Minimum film-forming temperature—Minimum
film-forming temperature (MFFT) is defined12 as “the low-
est temperature at which the polymer particles of the latex
have sufficient mobility and flexibility to coalesce into a

Fig. 2—Simplified model of formation of latex-cement comatrix13

 POLYMER-MODIFIED CONCRETE 548.3R-7

continuous film.” It is controlled by the type and level of

monomer(s) used to make the polymer, and may be reduced
by the addition of plasticizers.
Generally, for successful application of latex-modified hy-
draulic cement mixtures, the MFFT should be lower than the
application temperature. However, in some cases satisfacto-
ry performance has been obtained with latex-modified hy-
draulic cement mixture below the MFFT of the latex. It has
been postulated that the cement reduces the effective MFFT
of the latex.

1.4—Principle of latex modification

Latex modification of portland cement mortar and con-
crete is governed by two processes; cement hydration and la-
tex coalescence.
Generally, cement hydration occurs first and as the cement
particles hydrate and the mixture sets and hardens, the latex
particles become concentrated in the void spaces. Fig. 2 and
3 indicate the type of change that occurs during latex modi-
fication.13-15 With continuous water removal by cement hy-
dration, evaporation, or both, the latex particles coalesce into
a polymer which is interwoven in the hydrated cement giv-
ing a comatrix that coats the aggregate particles and lines the
interstitial voids.
During the initial stages, the latex-modified mortars and
concretes are more sensitive to plastic shrinkage cracking
than unmodified mortar or concrete because of the water-re-
ducing influence of the latex in the mixture. This phenome-
non is cause by water evaporation at the surface of the
mixture. Two things can happen, both of which contribute to
the problem. The latex may coalesce before noticeable ce-
ment hydration occurs, and the cement paste may shrink be-
fore sufficient tensile strength develops to restrain crack
formation. Care should be taken to restrict this surface evap-
oration by use of various cover systems.
Because latex particles are typically greater than 100 nm
in diameter, they cannot penetrate the very small capillaries
in the cement paste which may be as small as 1 nm. There-
fore it is in the larger capillaries and voids that the latex can
be most effective.
Some of the latexes used in portland cement mixtures con-
tain reactive groups which may react with calcium and other
metallic ions in the cement, and with the silicate and other
chemical radicals at the surface of the aggregates.16 Such re-
actions would improve the inter-particle bonds and hence,
the strength of the mixture.
Hardened cement paste is predominantly an agglomerated
structure of calcium silicates, aluminates, and hydroxide
bound together by relatively weak Van der Waal’s forces.
Consequently, microcracks are induced in the paste by
stresses such as those caused by evaporation of excess mix-
ing water (drying shrinkage). Latex modification helps in
two ways. Not only do the latex particles reduce the rate and
extent of moisture movement by blocking the passages, but
when microcracks form, the latex polymer film bridges the
cracks17 and restricts propagation (see Fig. 4). This results in
increased tensile strength and fracture toughness.
Fig. 3—Simplified model of formation of polymer film on
cement hydration15
The moisture-movement-blocking property naturally
works both ways and also restricts the ingress of most
fluids18 and so increases both chemical and frost resistance
of concrete.
The optimum degree of polymer modification is usually
achieved at 10 to 20 percent dry latex solids by weight of ce-
ment of the mixture. Lower percentages will not only signif-
icantly detract from the contribution of the polymer itself,
but also minimize the water-reducing effects of the latex and
thus, require more water in the mix for equivalent workabil-
ity (see Section 2.3.3.2 for more details on this.). The use of
excess latex solids is not economical, can cause excessive air
entrainment, and can cause the mixture to behave like a poly-
mer filled with aggregates and cement. Lower levels of latex
are detrimental in two ways: 1) less polymer is in the cement
matrix, and 2) the water-reducing properties decrease, thus
requiring more water in the mix to achieve equivalent work-
ability (see Fig. 10). This combination of less polymer and
more water will degrade the hardened properties of the mor-
tar and concrete.
Wagner16 studied the influence of latex modification on
the rate of surface area development of latex-modification
pastes. This work indicates that although latex modification
can either accelerate or retard the initial setting time, it has
little or no effect on the final cement hydration rate.
The pore structure of latex-modified systems is influenced
by the type of latex used and the latex-cement ratio. Accord-
548.3R-8 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT
Latex-modified concrete
Portland cement concrete
Fig. 4—Electron micrographs of latex-modified and port-
land cement concretes (magnification = 12,000x)17
ing to Ohama and Shiroshida,19 and Kasia et al, 20 the poros-
ity and pore volume of the latex-modified mortars differs
from unmodified mortar in that the former has a lower num-
ber of pores in the radius of 200 nm, but significantly more
in the smaller radius of 25 nm or less. The total porosity or
pore volume tends to decrease with increasing polymer-ce-
ment ratios. This can contribute to improvements in imper-
meability to liquids, resistance to carbonation, and resistance
to freezing and thawing.
CHAPTER 2—STYRENE-BUTADIENE LATEX
2.1—Background
The development of synthetic styrene-butadiene latex as
an admixture to portland cement mortar began in the United
States in the mid-1950s. Initial applications were in mortar
for patching kits, stucco, ship-deck coatings, floor-leveling
compounds, and tile adhesives. In 1956 application to bridge
decks as a protective mortar overlay began. The increased
use of deicing salts and the recognition of their destructive
effects paralleled the evolution of the modified mortar mixes
into concrete so that today styrene-butadiene latex-modified
concrete (LMC) is a widely used protection system for
bridge decks in the U.S.11 It is estimated that over 8000
bridges are protected with this system.21
Because parking garages suffer from the same deicing salt
deterioration problems as bridge decks, LMC is also used as
a protective overlay on the decks of parking garages.
Styrene-butadiene latex-modified mortars and concrete
are useful for a variety of applications with a variety of prop-
erty needs. For most of these applications, bond to substrate
and impermeability are most important. In outdoor applica-
tions, resistance to freezing and thawing is important. These
and other properties are discussed in the following sections.
2.2—Mixture proportioning
The inclusion of styrene-butadiene latex in portland ce-
ment mortar and concrete results in less water being required
for a given consistency. Components in the latex function as
dispersants for the portland cement and thus, increase flow
and workability of the mixture without additional water.
Therefore, the selection of the amount of latex will affect the
physical properties of the hardened system in two ways:
1. By the amount of latex included
2. By the amount of water excluded
The effects of the amount of latex on the properties of the
mortar and concrete are discussed in detail in the next sec-
tion.
A common value for latex addition is based on a latex sol-
ids-cement ratio of 0.15. using this ratio, the mixture propor-
tions shown in Table 5 are typical of what is in use.* Portland
cement Types I, II, and III are used in styrene-butadiene la-
tex-modified concretes and mortar. A minimum and maxi-
mum cement content has not been established for either
mortar or concrete mixes containing latex. The particular ce-
ment content used has been based on the application of the
modified mixes. For latex-modified concrete the most com-
mon use has been 658 lb/yd3. For mortar applications, ce-
ment content varies greatly with the end use. Most of the
reported data, however, are based on a sand-cement ratio of
3/1 and these are included in this report.
The particular fine to coarse aggregate ratio will vary with
the specific aggregate used, but with the above proportions,
a workable concrete having a slump of 4-8 in. and a maxi-
mum water-cement† of 0.40 should be possible. Trial mix-
tures, of course, are the appropriate method to properly
evaluate the effect of all the components on the mixture.
* Type I cement has typically been used in the applications reported in this docu-
ment. Recently, this mix was modified22 to include the use of Type III cement to
achieve early strengths where the work must accept service loads as soon as possible.
† When water-cement ratio of latex-modified mixes is used in this report, it
includes water in the latex and free water on the aggregate in addition to the water
added to the mix.
 POLYMER-MODIFIED CONCRETE 548.3R-9

2.3—Properties Unlike conventional concrete, the addition of air-entrain-

2.3.1 Film properties—To help understand what effect the ing agent is not required for resistance to freezing and thaw-
environment of freshly mixed portland cement might have ing. The latex itself apparently provides this protection.
on the latex addition, films of styrene-butadiene latex were However, some air is entrained by the latex and water during
immersed in saturated lime solutions and tested23 for tensile the mixing process so it is recommended that a specification
strength. Fig. 5 shows that the film is not weakened by expo- should include a maximum air content of about 6.5 percent,
sure to the lime solution, but in fact, increased in tensile but not a minimum.
strength after immersion. Fig. 6 indicates that during this im- 2.3.2.2 Workability—Mortar and concrete modified
mersion period, the film increased in weight by about 7 per- with styrene-butadiene latex provide improved workability
cent during the first 2 days, but gained no additional weight over conventional mortar and concrete. This is due to the dis-
thereafter. The pH of the lime solution remained nearly con- persing effect of components in the latex combined with the
stant during this immersion period.
2.3.2 Properties of unhardened mortar and concrete
2.3.2.1 Air content—Because of the surfactants used Table 5—Typical proportions for latex-modified con-
in the manufacture of latex, excessive amounts of air can be crete and mortar mixtures
entrained when latex is mixed into a portland cement system Mortar
unless an antifoamer is incorporated in the latex. For styrene- Ingredient Amount
butadiene latexes, these are usually silicone products and are Cement 100 lb (45.4 kg)
often added by the latex supplier. An example of the rela- Sand 290 lb (131.5 kg)
tionship of antifoam level and air content of mortar is shown Latex* 3.7 gal. (14.1 L)
in Fig.7.13 Water 2.6 gal. (10.0 L)
The relationship between percent air and antifoam content Yields approximately 3 ft3 (0.085 m3)
Concrete
will be a function of the specific latex and antifoam used.
Ingredient Amount
The trend, however, should always be the same. Also, field Cement 658 lb (299 kg)
experience has shown that the composition of the cement Sand 1710 lb (776 kg)
and the aggregates can affect air content so it is important to Coarse aggregate 1140 lb (517 kg)
Latex* 24.5 gal. (84.5 L)
evaluate the mixture prior to use.
Water 19.0 gal. (17.3 L)
Fig. 8 shows that the compressive strength of concrete de-
Yields approximately 1 yd3 (0.765 m3)
creases as the air content increases. The concretes of Fig. 8
* Assumed 48 percent solids, 52 percent water by weight.
were made with latexes having different antifoam contents.

Fig. 5—Tensile stress-strain curves of styrene-butadiene films23

548.3R-10 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT

Fig. 6—Effects of immersion in lime solution on styrene-butadiene films23

Fig. 7—Antifoam content versus mortar air content13

water and is evident from the data shown in Fig. 9 where
workability of latex mortar was measured on a flow table
(ASTM C 230). The data show that this dispersion effect is
not a function of latex content. Even at the lower latex solids-
cement ratio of 0.05, a significant increase in workability is
realized. It is clear that for all of the water-cement ratios test-
ed, the styrene-butadiene latex significantly improved work-
ability.
The same properties are evident in concrete. Fig. 10 shows
the relationship between water-cement ratio and latex con-
tent for concretes of constant slump. It is obvious that signif-
icant reductions of water-cement ratio can be achieved by
the inclusion of latex.
Slump loss has been reported by the FHWA,11 as shown
in Fig. 11. In this study, the change in slump of three latex-
modified concrete mixes was compared to a conventional
 POLYMER-MODIFIED CONCRETE 548.3R-11

Fig. 8—Air content of LMC versus compressive strength24

Fig. 9—Workability of latex-modified mortar13

548.3R-12 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT

Fig. 10—Parameters for constant slump mixes18

Fig. 11—Slump loss of concretes11

 POLYMER-MODIFIED CONCRETE 548.3R-13

Fig. 12—Setting time of LMC25,26

Fig. 13—Compressive strength and weight loss versus cure time for LMC26

concrete mix and reported as percent of initial slump for each tex-modified concrete mixes was similar to that of the con-
mix. The test demonstrated that the loss in slump of these la- ventional concrete.
548.3R-14 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT
Fig. 14—Dry curing period versus weight loss of latex-modified concretes27
In another study,24 aggregates from Michigan and Mary-
land were evaluated in LMC mixtures and produced work-
able concrete at low water-cement ratios. Both mixtures had
a latex solids-to-cement ratio of 0.15, fine-to-coarse aggre-
gate ratio of 1.20, and a cement factor of 658 lb/yd3. The ag-
gregate from Michigan yielded a slump of 8 in. at a water-
cement ratio of 0.33, while the aggregate from Maryland
produced a concrete with 6 in. slump at water-cement ratio
of 0.37.
2.3.2.3 Setting time—The setting time of concrete mod-
ified with styrene-butadiene latex as been reported to be ei-
ther equal to or slightly longer than conventional concrete.
Fig. 1225,26 contains data from two independent studies on
this property.
There is, however, a difference in the working time of
LMC that is not related to setting time. Whereas setting time
is a function of the hydration of the cement, working time is
influenced by the drying of the surface. If the surface of a la-
tex mixture becomes too dry before finishing is complete, a
“skin” or “crust” will form and tears may result. The time re-
quired to form this “crust” depends on the drying conditions,
i.e., air temperature and humidity, and wind speed (Preven-
tion of this phenomenon is discussed in Section 2.5.1.5).
Generally, the time available to work and finish the material
will be 15 - 30 min, after mixing and exposure to air. Since
the maximum recommended mixing time is 5 min, use of
transit mixers is not feasible.
Proper drying of LMC is, however, necessary to cure the
latex. Fig. 13 shows the relationship of weight loss during
dry curing to compressive strength for a LMC mix. Both in-
crease with time, indicating that drying occurs while strength
increases.
Ohama27 reports a similar loss in weight with curing time
(Fig. 14). This work includes concretes with varying latex
contents, and shows that weight loss decreased with in-
creased latex.
2.3.3 Properties of hardened concrete and mortar
2.3.3.1 Compressive strength—The accepted curing
procedure for styrene-butadiene LMC is 100 percent relative
humidity for the first 24 to 48 hr followed by air curing—50
percent relative humidity if in a laboratory. During this air-
curing period, any excess water evaporates and allows the
polymer film to fully form within the internal structure.
Many studies have been conducted on various aspects of
LMC. In these studies, compressive strengths have been re-
ported as a matter of course. Table 6 shows compressive
strength data from three reports.
Because of the influence of drying on curing of latex-mod-
ified concrete, several studies were conducted on the effect
of specimen size on compressive strength. Fig. 15 shows the
results of a study by Ohama.27 Fig. 16 is the result of work
by the FHWA.11 In both cases, the influence of specimen
size was negligible. Although in unmodified concrete, larger
specimens usually fail at lower average stress than small
ones, it is postulated that the smaller sized coarse aggregate
used in LMC, together with the better binding capability of
the polymer-cement matrix, provides specimens of more
uniform composition, irrespective of size.
2.3.3.2 Shrinkage—The addition of latex to concrete
does not increase its total shrinkage. This was demonstrated
by Ohama27 where three latex contents were used in con-
crete specimens of three different sizes. Slump was held con-
stant by adjusting the water-cement ratio. Shrinkage
measurements after various curing times indicated that
shrinkage was influenced by the water content, but did not
increase with the addition of latex. The mixture proportions
are given in Table 7, and the shrinkage results in Fig. 17.
 POLYMER-MODIFIED CONCRETE 548.3R-15

Fig. 15—Compressive strength versus cylinder size27

Table 6—Compressive strength of LMC from various studies

Compressive strength, psi (MPa)
Cement
factor, Air content, Slump, in.
Reference bags/yd3 Water/cement percent (cm) 3 days 7 days 28 days
28 7.0 0.31 2.1 3.5 (9) N.R. N.R. 5345 (36.18)
32 7.0 N.R. 3.9 4.7 (12) 3400 (23.94) 4110 (28.34) 5620 (38.74)
11 7.0 0.37 4.0 3.9 (10) N.R. 4025 (27.75) 5005 (34.52)

Table 7— Mixture proportions of concretes used in shrinkage study*

Cement content, Fine/coarse
Type of concrete lb/yd3 (kg/m3) Latex/cement Water/cement aggregate Slump, in. (cm)
Unmodified 505 (300) 0 0.67 0.45 6.3 (16.0)
Latex modified 505 (300) 0.05 0.58 0.45 6.3 (16.0)
0.10 0.50 0.45 6.1 (15.5)
0.20 0.41 0.45 6.3 (16.0)
* From reference 27, see also Fig. 17.
548.3R-16 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT

Fig. 16—Effect of cylinder size on compressive strength of LMC11

Fig. 17—Shrinkage versus curing time of LMC27

 POLYMER-MODIFIED CONCRETE 548.3R-17

Fig. 18—Drying shrinkage versus time28

Table 8—Mixture proportions for concrete used in linear shrinkage study*

Compressive
Type of Slump, in. WR, AEA, Air content, strength, 28 days psi
concrete Cement (cm) percent percent percent Water/cement (MPa)
LMC I 5.5 (14) — — 5.0 0.33 6005 (41.5)
I 7.9 (20) — — 4.7 0.37 5510 (38.1)
I 9.8 (25) — — 3.7 0.42 5210 (36.0)
III 3.9 (10) — — 4.5 0.37 7400 (51.5)

Conven- I 1.6 (4) 0.42 0.05 9.2 0.42 5170 (35.7)

tional† I 8.7 (22) 0.42 0.05 8.5 0.42 6475 (44.7)
I 3.9 (10) 0.20 0.03 5.8 0.42 7170 (48.5)
* From reference 28, se also Fig. 18. Conventional mixtures containing a water reducer (WR) and air entraining agent (AEA)
are by weight based on cement.
† All mixtures had fine to coarse aggregate ratio of 1.5/1.0, and cement factor of 658 lb/yd3; latex solids to cement of latex-
modified concretes ratio was 0.15.

In another shrinkage study,28 latex-modified and conven-
tional concretes of similar water-cement ratios were com-
pared. The properties of each mixture are shown in Table 8
and the shrinkage results in Fig. 18. These data show that the
shrinkage of concrete does not increase with the addition of
styrene-butadiene latex, although latex-modified concrete is
more sensitive to plastic shrinkage initially if not properly
cured (see Section 1.4 and footnote to Section 2.5.5 for fur-
ther information about shrinkage).
2.3.3.3 Bond—The adhesion qualities of styrene-buta-
diene modified mortar and concrete have been shown for
many years in applications such as stucco, metal coatings,
and overlays on bridge decks. Recent laboratory studies29-32
have measured this adhesion. Some of the test results are
shown in Fig. 19 and 20.
The results of mortar modified with styrene-butadiene la-
tex and tested for adhesion in tension18 are shown in Fig. 19.
The specimens were tensile briquettes of conventional mor-
tar made according to ASTM C 190, cut in half, with the
mortar being tested cast against the cut face. More details are
given elsewhere.29
The tensile bond strength of LMC has been measured by
the tensile splitting test33 using halves of conventional con-
crete cylinders as substrate material. These halves were pre-
pared by splitting 6-in. diameter by 12-in. long cylinders of
conventional concrete in the axial direction. Test samples
were then prepared by placing one of these halves in a mold,
and filling the other half with LMC. The LMC with 0.15 la-
548.3R-18 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT

Fig. 19—Tensile bond strength of mortar28

Fig. 20—Tensile bond strength of latex-modified concrete34,35

 POLYMER-MODIFIED CONCRETE
Fig. 21—Water absorption of latex-modified mortar with various latex contents13
Table 9—Test results of bond study of LMC to reinforcing steel*
Nominal yield
Steel reinforcing bar strength, lb Bar condition
No. 4 12,000 Plain
No. 4 12,000 Epoxy coated
No. 5 18,600 Plain
No. 5 18,600 Epoxy coated
* From Reference 36.
tex solids-cement ratio was cured for 28 days. All six speci-
mens failed throughout the aggregate, at an average of 525
psi tensile splitting strength.
Another test that measures adhesion by a direct tensile
method has been used on LMC.34,35 These data, shown in
Fig. 20, indicate that the bond strength of LMC exceeds 200
psi at 2 days, and 300 psi at 28 days.
The shear bond strength of LMC has been measured
frequently17 in the U.S. using a guillotine-type device to
shear a cap of LMC off a cylinder of conventional concrete.
In one laboratory the average values of tests conducted over
several years were 256 psi after 7 days cure, and 469 psi at
28 days. The LMC was made with a 0.15 latex solids-cement
ratio and cured 1 day at 100 percent R.H., the remainder of
time at 50 percent R.H., all at 72 F.
The bond of LMC to reinforcing steel has also been eval-
uated.36 In this study, epoxy-coated and uncoated steel bars,
18 in. long, were embedded 1.5 in. deep in a 2-in. thick LMC
overlay, on a conventional concrete base. Both No. 4 and No.
5 deformed bars were tested. The results, shown in Table 9,
indicate that the design capacity of the bars was achieved in
the LMC overlays.
548.3R-19
Average of maximum
Number of tests applied load during test, lb
8 13,000
8 13,700
4 20,000
7 19,800
Since latex-modified mortar and concrete have such good
adhesion qualities, it is important that the surface receiving
these materials be thoroughly cleaned. Proper techniques for
surface preparation are described in Section 2.5.2.
2.3.3.4 Permeability—The structure of latex-modified
mortar and concrete is such that the micropores and voids
normally occurring in portland cement systems are partially
filled with the polymer film that forms during curing.13 This
film is responsible for the mixture’s reduced permeability
and water absorption. These properties have been measured
by several tests, including water vapor transmission, water
absorption, carbonation resistance, and chloride permeabili-
ty. There are indications that the permeability of LMC reduc-
es significantly with age beyond the normal 28 days.37
Results of water absorption tests13 of mortar modified
with styrene-butadiene latex are shown in Fig. 21. These
data show the significant reduction of water absorption of
mortar containing latex, compared to the control, with an in-
creasing improvement in this property as latex content in-
creases.
Water vapor transmission of latex-modified mortar has
been measured13 and is shown in Fig. 22. Here again, the ef-
 548.3R-20 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT

gram/ft2 hr.

Fig. 22—Effect of latex/cement on water vapor transmission of latex-modified mortar13

Fig. 23—Soaking period in sodium bicarbonate solution versus carbonation depth of LMC38

fect of increasing latex content is obvious.
The carbonation resistance of latex-modified concrete has
been measured38 and found to be superior to the unmodified
control. Ohama studied latex-modified concrete exposed to
carbon dioxide gas, as well as carbon dioxide in solution
(carbonic acid). After exposure the samples were split open
and the cross sections tested for carbonation depth using a
phenolphthalein solution. The results, shown in Fig. 23 and
24, indicate that for both types of exposure, carbonation is
significantly reduced by the inclusion of latex in the mortar.
The chloride permeability of latex-modified concrete has
been measured by several tests. The FHWA reported11 on
results from a 90-day ponding test. These are shown in Fig.
25. Ohama conducted a soaking test39 where cylinders were
submerged in salt solutions for 28 and 91 days. The penetra-
tion of chloride was measured with an indicator solution on
 POLYMER-MODIFIED CONCRETE 548.3R-21

Fig. 24—Exposure time to carbon dioxide versus carbonation depth of LMC38

Fig. 25—Chloride permeability by 90-day ponding test11

the concrete surface after the cylinders were split. The results
are shown in Fig. 26.
Several studies using the Rapid Permeability Test (AASH-
TO T-277)40 have been conducted. Kuhlmann and Foor in-
vestigated air content versus permeability24 and found that
even at high air contents, the air voids were small and well
distributed, and permeability did not increase. Table 10 sum-
marizes these results. Another study37 looked at the effect of
curing time on the permeability of latex-modified concrete
and found that permeability was significantly reduced with
time. These samples were taken from field placed LMC at
three different locations in the United States using different
aggregates and cement but the same specification. They
were cured for the first day at 72 F, 100 percent RH, and the
548.3R-22 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT

Fig. 26—Latex solids/cement versus chloride penetration30

Table 10—Total coulombs for experimental LMC having various air contents*
Air content, percent Age, days Total coulombs†
3.0 63 650
69 740
4.5 28 520
35 455
91 240
5.6 28 935
29 870
7.5 16 1105
24 835
63 530
70 780
12.0 41 760
50 510
15.0 35 705
37 650
91 425
* From Reference 23.
† Reference 40 provides the following comparisons for this test:

Chloride Charge passed,

permeability coulombs
High 4000
Moderate 2000 - 4000
Low 1000 - 2000
Very low 100 - 1000
Negligible 100
 POLYMER-MODIFIED CONCRETE 548.3R-23

Table 11—Permeability of field placed LMC*

Overlay
Permeability
Type of project Location Date of placement Thickness, in.† Age coulombs‡ Test by
Bridge Indiana 11/83 3
1 /8 5 months 524 FHWA
13/4 5 months 302 FHWA
17/8 5 months 346 FHWA
13/8 5 months 257 FHWA
11/2 5 months 214 FHWA
11/4 5 months 323 FHWA
13/4 5 months 285 FHWA
11/2 5 months 274 FHWA
11/2 5 months 419 FHWA
5 months 310 FHWA
Bridge Pennsylvania 1978 17/8 6 years 243 Dow
17/8 6 years 215 Dow
13/4 6 years 366 Dow
15/8 6 years 160 Dow
17/8 6 years 249 Dow
2 6 years 104 Dow
17/8 6 years 269 Dow
Parking garage Pennsylvania Summer 1985 2 4 months 619 Dow
2 4 months 538 Dow
Bridge Washington — 2 5 months 260 Dow
2 5 months 260 Dow
Bridge Illinois 1982 2 4 years 287 Dow
2 4 years 277 Dow
Bridge Illinois 1982 2 3 years 433 Dow
2 3 years 441 Dow
Stadium Illinois 1981 2 3 years 48 Dow
2 3 years 65 Dow
2 3 years 43 Dow
2 3 years 65 Dow
2 3 years 26 Dow
Parking garage North Dakota unknown 2 2 years 397 Dow
2 2 years 379 Dow
* From Reference 31.
† All samples were 2 in. thick when tested; therefore, some samples contained conventional deck concrete.
‡ Reference 40 provides the following comparison for this test:

Chloride permeability Charge passed, cou-

lombs
High 4000
Moderate 2000 - 4000
Low 1000 - 2000
Very low 100 - 1000
Negligible 100

remainder at 72 F, 50 percent R.H. Even though the perme-
abilities of the three concretes differed significantly after 28
days of curing, after 90 days of curing they were all ap-
proaching a similar low value. Fig. 27 contains these data.
Permeability data on field-placed, field-cured LMC31 are
shown in Table 11. Here again, the very low permeability
properties of LMC are evident in a variety of projects at dif-
ferent locations throughout the United States.
2.3.3.5 Resistance to freezing and thawing—The resis-
tance of LMC to damage from freezing and thawing has been
demonstrated both in the laboratory18,26 and in the field.41
One study26 compared the deicer scaling resistance, accord-
ing to ASTM C 672, of LMC and unmodified concrete and
reported, “The scaling resistance of LMC slabs at 50 cycles
was excellent, with all receiving an ASTM C 672 rating of
‘0,’ while the air entrained conventional concrete control
block received a rating of ‘2.‘These ratings indicate ‘no scal-
ing’ and ‘light to moderate scaling,’ respectively.” Air void
determinations of the LMC, according to ASTM C 457, in-
dicated that “none of the samples examined contained an ad-
equate air void system, according to standards developed for
durable conventional concrete by the Portland Cement Asso-
ciation. The properties of the air void system are primarily of
academic interest for two reasons; one, LMC is not required
to meet any specification regarding air content except that it
be less than 6.0 percent in the plastic state. Two, no free-
thaw durability related problems have been experienced to
date with LMC.”
It has been presumed that the excellent performance of
LMC is the result of the resistance of the paste to water pen-
etration. With little or no water in the concrete matrix, dam-
548.3R-24 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT

Fig. 27—Effect of age of LMC on permeability of field samples32

Fig. 28—Creep strain and creep coefficient18

 POLYMER-MODIFIED CONCRETE 548.3R-25

age by freezing and thawing cannot occur. Therefore,

deliberate air entrainment is not required. It should be noted,
however, that until the paste has been properly dry cured, air
entrainment will improve resistance to the expansive forces
of freezing. The minimum air content required for resistance
to freezing and thawing is not known. One study19 showed
that when cured only 13 days in air and exposed to ASTM C
666 Procedure A, LMC with 4.5 percent air did not perform
as well as samples with 6.0 percent air. In the field, however,
LMC has frequently been placed during the season when
freezing temperatures occurred before 28 days of curing,
with no apparent harm. It is theorized that the relatively dry
conditions of cool weather are beneficial, since latex-modi-
fied concrete cures by drying. Fig. 29—Mobile mixer
2.3.3.6 Creep—Little work has been conducted on the
creep characteristics of latex-modified mortar and concrete.
One study by Ohama,18 showed that both the creep strain
and creep coefficient of styrene-butadiene latex-modified
concrete are lower than those of unmodified concrete (Fig.
28). The work also showed that the relationship between
loading time t and creep strain ε c fits the same general ex-
pression as that for unmodified concrete, i.e., ε c = t/(A + Bt),
where A and B are constants. The same was true for the creep
coefficient Φ .

2.4—End uses
Styrene-butadiene latex has been used in a variety of ap-
plications with portland cement mixtures, ranging from con-
crete bridge deck overlays to thin mortar coatings on Fig. 30—Pumping LMC
swimming pools. The properties most desired are bond
strength and impermeability, although toughness and dura-
bility are also frequently important. ture proportioning is needed to do this.
Some of the applications that have used styrene-butadiene For small projects, the use of on-site drum mixers is ac-
latex-modified portland cement concrete and mortar mixes ceptable. The size of batch mixers should be limited to insure
are: placement before the working time of the concrete is exceed-
ed. The use of transit-mixing trucks should be avoided due
Mortar Concrete to limits in handling the additions of latex and water accu-
tile grout overlays for bridges rately at the site, the difficulty of adequately cleaning the
tile adhesive overlays for parking decks drums, and insuring acceptable air contents.
stucco pavement centerline repair 2.5.2 Surface preparation—The proper preparation of the
pipeline liner stadium repair conventional concrete substrate is extremely important, to
skid resistant grout for pavement patching fully develop the bonding capabilities of LMC.
pavement Concrete slabs should be clean and have coarse aggregate
swimming pool coating exposed. All weakened surface material, dirt, and contami-
floor leveling nants such as oil should be removed. Other bond-breaking
skid resistant coating for ship decks materials such as polymer concrete and mortar, should also
concrete patch be removed. Cleaning may be done by mechanical scarifica-
cementitious coatings tion, chipping, hydrodemolition, sandblasting, shotblasting,
waterblasting, or any other method suitable for concrete sur-
2.5—Construction techniques face preparation. This is to be followed by thorough cleaning
2.5.1 Mixing—Most latex-modified concrete used today is with vacuum, air, or water.
mixed in a mobile mixer (Fig. 29). The equipment is de- The prepared surface should then be thoroughly wetted for
signed for accurate proportioning of ingredients with contin- prefereably1 hr before placement. However, all standing wa-
uous mixing at a rate of 8 to 60 yd3/hr. Jobsite mixing ter should be removed prior to placing the LMC.
eliminates most of the problems with setting time since con- 2.5.3 Finishing—Self-propelled roller finishers (Fig. 31)
crete is mixed only when it is needed. have proven to be the most popular method of screeding and
In cases such as parking garages and building repairs, finishing LMC on bridge decks. The auger, rollers, and vi-
LMC can be pumped, as shown in Fig. 30. No change in mix- brating pan combine to provide the proper thickness of over-
548.3R-26 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT
Fig. 31—Double roller finisher
Fig. 32—Damp burlap being placed on LMC
lay. Prior to placement the finisher is “calibrated” to assure
that the proper thickness will be applied to the deck. Where
a burlap drag or broom finish is desired, this is accomplished
by an attachment on the machine. If a grooved finish is re-
quired, a worker with a rake is positioned on a workbridge
directly behind the finishing machine. In either case, the fin-
ishing operation should be completed before the surface of
the LMC overlay begins to form a “skin,” or “crust.”
In projects such as parking garages, building floors, or
projects of limited size and access, vibrating screeds or hand
operated screeds may be applicable. The limiting factor in
selection of equipment is the need to complete placement,
compaction and finishing of surfaces in a continuous opera-
tion before the LMC forms a crust on the surface.
2.5.5 Curing—Almost immediately after the surface is
textured, wet burlap is applied (Fig. 32), followed by white
or clear polyethylene film.* The intent is to keep the surface
damp for 24 - 48 hr.† This maintains a high enough relative
humidity at the surface of the mixture to prevent the latex
from forming a skin or crust before the mixture reaches its
* Experimental latexes for curing LMC42-45 have recently been introduced by two
latex manufacturers. These have been successfully applied at several installations and
evaluation continues.
† Recent research46 on the effect of curing schedule on shrinkage of LMC indicates
that during the initial wet-cure period, slight expansion of the concrete occurs, and
that by extending the wet cure beyond 1 day there is potential to offset shrinkage
stresses that occur during the dry-cure period. Several highway departments have
adopted 2 days of wet cure for their LMC overlays.
initial set. If this skin or crust is allowed to form, the surface
may exhibit plastic shrinkage cracking. The burlap should be
fully wet but not dripping, and the polyethylene film should
be held down at the edges with suitable weights to prevent it
from being blown off. After this initial damp period, the film
and burlap should be removed to allow air drying until de-
sign strength is achieved. It is during the air-curing period
that LMC gains most of its physical properties.
2.5.6 Cleanup—The latex is water dispersible in its initial
state, and cleanup of equipment is done with water immedi-
ately after use. Latex begins its set within 15 min after expo-
sure to air and readily adheres to most objects and surfaces.
Latex and LMC, which is allowed to accumulate due to poor
housekeeping, are difficult to remove.
2.6—Limitations
Although a versatile and useful material, latex-modified
concrete has some limitations that should be considered.
2.6.1 Weather—Latex-modified concrete hydrates at
about the same rate as conventional concrete. Initially, how-
ever, it will form a “skin” or “crust” on the surface if exposed
to dry air for prolonged periods, even though the concrete
underneath is still quite plastic. This phenomenon is caused
by rapid evaporation of moisture from the surface layer and
can result in tearing during the finishing operation. This con-
dition is aggravated by hot, dry, sunny, windy weather, and
can be minimized by following ACI 305R (see also Refer-
ence 47). A maximum evaporation rate of 0.10 lb/ft2/hr is
recommended.
LMC may be less sensitive to low temperatures than con-
ventional concrete. Although there are research data which
indicate that in 4 days at 40 F, LMC will gain the same com-
pressive strength as at 72 F, most state highway department
specifications have either adopted a 45 F minimum for plac-
ing LMC, or follow procedures outlined in ACI 306R (see
also Reference 48).
2.6.2 Underwater—Because latex-modified systems
achieve their final cure by air drying, placement of LMC un-
derwater is not recommended.
2.6.3 Chemical resistance—LMC has demonstrated good
impermeability and water resistance, but only moderate
chemical resistance. Generally, LMC is only suitable for low
to moderate chemical exposure. Other materials should be
considered for severe chemical exposure.
2.7—Case histories
Since the inception of latex-modified portland cement for
bridge repair in 1957, thousands of projects have been com-
pleted using styrene-butadiene latex. Some of these are listed
in Tables 12 and 13. Four have been selected for highlighting
in this section. The first two are bridge projects; one new
construction, the other a repair project. The third is a parking
garage repair project at the Polyclinic Medical Center in
Pennsylvania while the fourth is the restoration of a concrete
stadium in Chicago, Ill.
Glenn L. Jackson Bridge—Completed in the fall of
1982, this 2-mile long, segmental bridge was overlaid with
LMC to provide grade correction, as well as a bonded wear-
 POLYMER-MODIFIED CONCRETE 548.3R-27

Table 12—Representative bridge projects that used latex-modified concrete

Year overlay
installed Project Location
1973 Rip Van Winkle Bridge over Hudson River Catskill, N.Y.
1972 University Ave. Bridge, I-676 over Schuylkill River Philadelphia, Pa.
1981-1985 Chicago Skyway Chicago, Il.
1975 Floating Bridge, Hwy. 520 over Lake Washington Seattle, Wa.
1980 I-480 over Rock River — 1500 ft long Cleveland, Oh.
1980 Mile Long-Bensonville Street Bridge Chicago, Il.
1979 Clark’s Summit Bridge — Pennsylvania Turnpike Pennsylvania
1978 New River Gorge Bridge West Virginia
1982-1988 Delaware Memorial Bridge I-295 over Delaware River Wilmington, De.
1984 Newburgh-Beacon Bridge I-84 over Hudson River New York
1985 Reedy Point Bridge over Chesapeake-Delaware Canal Delaware
1982 Columbia River Bridge Portland, Or.
1983 Marquham Street Bridge Portland, Or.
1983 Wicasset Bridge Wicasset, Me.
1980 Denny Creek Bridge Snoqualmie Falls, Wa.
1980 Sandusky Bay Bridge Sandusky, Oh.
1978 O’Hare Departure Ramp Chicago, Il.
1987 Chesapeake Bay Bridge Maryland

Table 13—Parking garage projects that used latex-modified overlays

Year overlay
installed Project Location
1979 Church St. Garage, University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Mi.
1977-1980 City County Bldg. Indianapolis, In.
1979 General Motors Executive Parking Garage Detroit, Mi.
1979 Dayton St. Parking Garage Madison, Wi.
1977 Gateway Shopping Center Lincoln, Ne.
1979 City of Saginaw Saginaw, Mi.
1976-1980 Grant St. Parking Garage, Purdue University West Lafayette, In.
1981 City of Madison Madison, Wi.
1981 State Securities Bldg. Lincoln, Ne.
1982 Larned St. Parking Garage Detroit, Mi.
1982 Cobo Hall Detroit, Mi.
1981 Grand Circus Parking Garage Detroit, Mi.
1980-1981 Crown Center Kansas City, Ks.
June 1980 City Parking Garage Des Plaines, Il.
1979 New York City Bus Terminal Ramps New York, N.Y.
1982 Center St. Parking Facility Rochester, Mn.
1983 Hinsdale Hospital Hinsdale, Il.
City of Lansing Mason Bldg. Lansing, Mi.
1983 Catherine St., University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Mi.
U.S. Post Office* Grand Rapids, Mi.
1983 Wisconsin Natural Gas Racine, Wi.
1983-1985 O’Hare Parking Garage Spiral Ramps Chicago, Il.
1984 U.S. Post Office* Detroit, Mi.
1985 Grant Park Chicago, Il.
1985 McCormick Place Chicago, Il.
1984 Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.* Kansas City, Mo.
1985 Polyclinic Medical Center Harrisburg, Pa.
* Includes cathodic protection system.

ing course for traffic. The structure consists of twin bridges,
each 68-ft wide, carrying four lanes of traffic and two 10-ft
shoulders. The overlay was proportioned to be 2-in. thick,
and was used on 7500 ft of the bridge. The contractor over-
laid the 125,000 yd2 with 9800 yd3 of LMC in 40 working
days. Because of the magnitude of the project, the bid price
for the LMC came in under $250/yd3. Several innovations
were introduced by the contractor on this job. For surface
preparation, a water blaster was designed and built that auto-
matically traversed the width of the bridge while it traveled
longitudinally on the finishing machine rails. For the curing
operation, the burlap and polyethylene film were on separate
rolls, also riding on the rails, so they could both be unrolled
as needed behind the finisher.
Since opening to traffic, this bridge has had an average
daily traffic of 60,000 to 70,000 vehicles during the rush
hour on I-205 between Portland and Vancouver.
Marquham Street Bridge
Description—The Marquham Bridge, Portland, Or., is a
major link in the north-south I-5 freeway. It also is part of the
I-5/I-405 inner city freeway loop. The bridge was opened to
traffic in 1966 and after 17 years service had a badly worn
548.3R-28 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT
deck, and numerous deck expansion joints in need of repair.
To correct these problems a contract was awarded in May
1983 for a latex-modified concrete overlay and joint repair.
The average daily traffic of approximately 77,000 vehicles
presented a significant problem. The plans permitted closing
the bridge during nighttime and by staging, leaving it open
during daytime. In addition, horizontal curvatures up to 8
deg, 10 percent superelevation, and vertical grades up to 6
percent raised the question of finishing the overlay and get-
ting an acceptable riding surface.
Construction—Specifications for the overlay mixture pro-
portioning were prepared after a number of trial batches. It
was found that Type III cement would work best for placing
on the steep slopes. Placing the overlay was limited to 4
months beginning in mid-June, which required careful plan-
ning of the work. Joint repairs and deck preparation preceded
the overlay. The usual mobile mixers and a double drum
deck finisher furnished and placed the latex-modified con-
crete. The Type III cement presented no special problem and
a satisfactory surface was obtained.
Performance—Three years after completing the repairs,
an evaluation of surface water were was made on individual
lanes. Wear rates of the individual lanes varied greatly due
to different traffic patterns in each lane. Based on these rates,
a minimum life for the overlay was projected to be 16 years.
Narrow lanes, 10.5 ft wide, on the east approach ramps
were found to have a higher wear rate than the 12-ft lane
width of the west ramps. When compared to the original
deck, the latex-modified concrete appeared to wear as well
or better than the original.
Polyclinic Medical Center—This multilevel parking ga-
rage was built in 1973, using a protective membrane system
on the decks. After extensive patching over a number of
years, it was decided in the spring of 1985 to restore the up-
per two levels with an overlay of latex-modified concrete.
Scarifying was done with a 12,000-lb milling machine.
Jackhammers were used where necessary to remove con-
crete below steel reinforcement. For blast cleaning, both shot
and sand were used.
Because the deck could not take the extra load of equip-
ment, the LMC was mixed at ground level in a mobile mixer
and pumped to the top levels using a concrete pump. Finish-
ing was done with a double roller finisher, and hand trowel-
ing at the edges. Burlap and polyethylene were used for
curing on the first day and then removed for final air cure.
The overlay was nominally 2 in. thick.
Soldier Field Stadium, Chicago—In 1981, the 58-year
old concrete stadium in downtown Chicago was structurally
restored using latex-modified concrete. Using the old tread-
and-riser system as the form for the new surface, steel rein-
forced latex-modified concrete was bonded to the old con-
crete to pick up part of the weight of the existing deck
structure below, as well as part of the live load.
Structural testing of Soldier Field began in 1970. The Chi-
cago Park District found that instead of spending an estimat-
ed $200 million for a new structure, the old stadium could be
restored using LMC, for a total cost of about $3 million.
Forty-eight hours before the scheduled placement of the
latex-modified concrete, the top surface of the existing con-
crete was sandblasted. The night before placement, the rein-
forcing steel and the forms for the vertical risers were
positioned.
Work began early in the morning by wetting the existing
concrete that was to be overlaid that day. The LMC was
mixed on site using a continuous mobile mixer, which dis-
charged directly to a concrete pump. This project marked the
first time that latex-modified concrete had been pumped in
large quantities over long distances. The pressure head on
the pump was 56 ft — the vertical distance from the level of
the field to the upper level of the stadium. The total length of
pipeline and hose was as much as 160 ft. The mixture was
pumped at a rate of 1 yd3 every 90 sec.
Three inches of latex-modified concrete were placed on
the horizontal treads, and 6 in. against the vertical risers. Im-
mediately behind the hose discharging the mixture was a
crew with a vibrator, while behind them another crew fol-
lowed to trowel finish the mixture.
Specified minimum strength of the LMC was 4000 psi at
28 days. Tests showed that the concrete met this specifica-
tion after only 4 to 5 days. Compressive strength averaged
6000 psi after 28 days.*
CHAPTER 3—ACRYLIC LATEX
3.1—Background
Acrylic latexes have been used for modifying hydraulic
cement mixtures for more than 30 years. These polymers are
designed to improve specific properties of cement mixtures
such as adhesion, abrasion resistance, impact strength, flex-
ural strength, and resistance to permeability.
Acrylic latex-modified portland cement mortars retain
their strength and adhesion under wet and dry conditions, as
well as their resistance to weathering and ultraviolet expo-
sure.50
Acrylic latex-modified hydraulic cement mortars are used
primarily in thin coatings for concrete restoration.
3.2—Properties of acrylic polymers
Acrylics are defined as a family of polymers resulting
from the polymerization of derivatives of acrylic and meth-
acrylic acids, such as butyl acrylate and methyl methacry-
late, respectively.
An example of each type is shown in Fig. 33. The proper-
ties of each type are strongly influenced by various factors,
however, the two critical factors are:
1. Presence of CH, or H on the alpha carbon.
2. Length of the ester side chain.
The acrylate polymers are characterized by having an al-
pha hydrogen adjacent to the carbonyl group, and therefore,
have more rotational freedom than “meth”-acrylates. The
substitution of methyl (CH3) for the hydrogen atom, produc-
ing a methacrylate polymer, restricts the freedom of rotation
* At the time of printing this document, the four case history projects were in ser-
vice and functioning as designed.
 POLYMER-MODIFIED CONCRETE 548.3R-29

of the polymer (steric hindrance) and thus, produces a harder

polymer having higher tensile strength and lower elongation
than the acrylate counterpart. The length of the ester side
chain group also affects the polymer’s properties; as the side
chain becomes longer, the tensile strength of the polymer de-
creases and elongation increases. These features are summa-
rized in Table 14 for a series of acrylate polymer films
showing that methacrylates have higher tensile strengths and
lower elongations than the corresponding acrylate of equal
side chain length. These trends continue until chain lengths
of about twelve carbon atoms are reached. Beyond these
lengths, other factors such as crystallinity begin to influence
properties. The information in Table 14 shows that merely
describing a polymer as acrylic without providing some ad-
ditional specific information about it does not adequately de-
scribe the polymer. Obviously, properties can vary widely
within the family. In addition, since one considers that most
commercially available acrylic polymers are usually copoly-
mers of several monomers, it is obvious that a wide range of
strength and flexibility can be achieved.
3.2.1 Polymerization—Acrylic monomers are polymer-
ized in bulk, by solution, suspension or emulsion polymer- Fig. 33—Derivatives of acrylic and methacrylic acids
ization, to form a latex. The modification of portland cement
mixtures primarily utilizes emulsion polymerized acrylic co-
polymers. The basic fundamentals of emulsion polymers are Table 14—Film properties of polymethacrylates and
discussed in detail in Chapter 1, but it is worthwhile to repeat polyacrylates using Test Method ASTM D 41250
that the properties of a polymer are greatly influenced by the Tensile strength, psi Elongation, percent
conditions of polymerization, such as variations in catalyst Polymethacrylate
level, reaction time, temperature, and monomer concentra- Methyl 9000 4
tion. All of these can be adjusted to alter the molecular struc- Ethyl 5000 7
ture of the polymer, and consequently, the polymer Butyl 1000 230
Polyacrylates
properties. Methyl 1000 750
3.2.2 Typical physical properties of acrylic latex—Table Ethyl 33 1800
15 lists some properties of an acrylic latex used with portland Butyl 3 2000
cement. Although individual acrylic latexes from various
suppliers may differ somewhat, in general, they are charac- Table 15—Typical physical properties of acrylic latex-
terized as relatively high-solids latexes having film forma- cement admixture52
tion below room temperature. They are generally supplied
Appearance White, milky liquid
without antifoam, which is added by the formulator or user. Solids content, percent 46.0 - 48.0
pH value, when packed 8.8 - 10.0
3.3—Proportioning and properties Specific gravity 1.06
Depending on the particular application, a variety of mix- Weight per gallon, lb 8.83
Resistance to freezing and thawing,53 cycles 5
ture proportions is possible with acrylic latexes. The formu-
Minimum-film-formation temperature 50 - 54
lation in Table 16 is typical for a mortar containing a ratio of (MMFT), F (ASTM D 2354)
polymer-cement ratio by mass of 0.1. Special purpose for-
mulations are shown in Tables 17 and 18.
Higher polymer-cement ratios by mass can be used de- Table 16—Typical formulation for acrylic latex-
pending on the properties desired. Performance properties as modified cement mortar50
a function of polymer-cement ratio by mass are covered in a Ingredient Parts by mass
later section. Fine aggregate 300.0
3.3.1 Variables affecting acrylic latex-modified mortar Portland cement, Type I 100.0
Acrylic latex (47 percent solids)* 21.0
properties—The resultant physical properties of a latex-
Antifoam 0.1
modified cement mortar are affected to an extent by the same Water 29.0
variables that affect unmodified portland cement mortars Water-cement ratio 0.4†
and concrete. The type of aggregate and cement and their Aggregate-cement ratio 3.0
proportions, as well as the amount of water used have effects Polymer-cement ratio by mass 0.1
similar to those observed in unmodified cement mortars. It is * Latex as described in Table 15.
† Includes water in latex
recommended that clean, washed, graded aggregates be
548.3R-30 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT

Table 17—Formulation for a sprayable textured, acrylic

latex-modified cement mortar50
Ingredient Parts by mass
White portland cement 100.0
XO limestone cement* 100.0
Acrylic latex (47 percent solids) 21.0
Antifoam 0.1 - 0.2
Water As required
Aggregate-cement ratio 1.0
Polymer-cement ratio 0.1
* XO limestone aggregate available from Georgia Marble Co., Tate, GA
30177:
Specific gravity 2.71
Particle size distribution
Percent retailed on #16 sieve 10
Percent passing #40 sieve 15

Table 18—Typical proportioning for an acrylic latex-

modified cementitious coating50
Ingredient Parts by mass
White portland cement
XO limestone aggregate*
Acrylic latex (47 percent solids)
Antifoam
Water
Aggregate-cement ratio
Polymer-cement ratio
Water-cement ratio
* XO limestone aggregate available from Georgia Marble Co., Tate, GA
30177:
Specific gravity 2.71
Particle size distribution
Percent retained on #16 sieve 10
Percent passing #40 sieve 15
used. The type and source of aggregates can influence
strength and performance.
Blending aggregates of different particle sizes to maxi-
mize packing (minimize void volume) will increase the mix
density and improve strength properties. Different aggre-
gates also have varying moisture contents, different densi-
ties, and varying water requirements depending on their
fineness. Very fine aggregates such as silica flour or marble
dust will have a higher water requirement because of their
higher surface area/volume ratio. Portland cements (Types I,
II, and III) meeting ASTM C 150 are most commonly rec-
ommended. Water should be the lowest amount needed to
achieve a workable consistency. Maximum density and
strength can be achieved from both latex-modified and un-
modified mixes when minimal water is used. Higher water
contents result in greater drying shrinkage, and therefore,
greater susceptibility to cracking. Most of the practices used
with normal portland cement mortar apply to latex-modified
mortars, but there are at least two important differences. The
first applies to mortar density, and the second to curing.
3.3.2 Mortar density—An important requirement for ob-
taining the maximum strength properties from a cement mor-
tar is to obtain the highest density. The use of acrylic latex
increases air entrainment and consequently, lowers the den-
sity of the resulting mortar. An appropriate amount of anti-
foam is required to minimize air entrainment. The
formulation in Table 16 indicates the presence of such anti-
foam. Fig. 34 shows that tensile strength of the mortar in-
Fig. 34—Tensile strength versus density of acrylic latex-
100.0
modified mortar54
100.0
42.6 creases as density increases. The compressive, flexural,
0.2 impact, and adhesive strength can be improved by increasing
7.5 the mortar density. The wet density of an acrylic latex-mod-
1.0
0.2
ified mortar should be similar to that of an unmodified mor-
0.3 tar.
3.3.3 Curing conditions—To obtain maximum physical
properties, acrylic latex-modified cement mortars should be
cured in air. This procedure is in contrast to unmodified mor-
tar for which optimum strength properties are achieved by
continuous wet-curing. The reason for this difference is that
in order for the latex to beneficially modify the properties of
the mixture, it must be allowed to coalesce and form a film.
A detailed discussion of the film formation process is pre-
sented in Section 1.4. The removal of water is the key step in
this film formation process. Fig. 35 and 36 show flexural and
tensile strength properties of latex-modified mortar, wet-
cured (1 day at 95 percent relative humidity plus 6 days im-
mersion in water) versus air cured. Note that the properties
of the air-dried specimens are significantly higher. When la-
tex-modified specimens that were wet cured were eventually
allowed to dry, full strength was achieved as illustrated. As
the latex is allowed to undergo proper film formation, the
full potential of increasing the properties of the mortar is
achieved. Subsequently, under moist curing, the strength
generally increases as for conventional concrete and mortar.
While air curing is recommended for acrylic latex-modi-
fied mortars, care must be taken to avoid rapid dehydration
during the first 24 hours to avoid surface cracking. When
high evaporation rates are experienced, appropriate mea-
sures should be taken to retard dehydration. Covering the
mortar surface with wet burlap, straw, tarpaulin, or polyeth-
ylene will help to reduce evaporation. In cases of porous sur-
faces, sealing with a coat of diluted latex immediately before
mortar application will retard water loss from the mortar.
3.3.4 Strength properties—Table 19 summarizes typical
strength properties of acrylic latex-modified mortars versus
unmodified mortar. These data show that acrylic-latex mod-
ification improves abrasion resistance, adhesion, flexural
 POLYMER-MODIFIED CONCRETE 548.3R-31

strength, impact strength, and tensile strength. These data

show that water-cement ratio is reduced with increasing
polymer-cement ratio by mass, but recent work51 has shown
that property improvement is due not only to the reduced wa-
ter-cement ratios, but also to the incorporation of polymer
3.3.5 Durability—Acrylic polymers are recognized for
their durability. They resist discoloration when exposed to
elevated temperatures and attack by acids or bases. The
backbone of the polymer is composed entirely of carbon-car-
bon single bonds that are not susceptible to hydrolysis. Even
though the ester side chains can be hydrolyzed, such action
does not result in the breakdown of the polymer backbone.
The rate of hydrolysis of these ester side chains is signifi- Fig. 35—Effect of curing conditions on flexural strength
cantly less than that of an acetate group. of acrylic latex-modified mortar50
Cementitious mortars which require long-term durability
under wet conditions can be obtained with acrylic latexes.
The acrylic polymer imparts a significant degree of water re-
sistance when exposed to wet conditions in the presence of
the high alkalinity (about pH12) of portland cement paste.
The strength and adhesion properties of acrylic latex-modi-
fied cement mortar, both dry and after total immersion in wa-
ter, are summarized in Table 19. Studies have shown that
thin cementitious coatings modified with acrylic latex main-
tain adhesion over many years of exposure to sunlight, rain,
and snow, resulting in resistance to surface degradation, blis-
tering, and cracking.50
Fig. 37 shows the resistance of acrylic latex-modified
mortar to penetration by chloride ion. These measurements
were carried out by ponding the concrete surface with 3 per- Fig. 36—Effect of curing conditions on tensile strength of
cent sodium chloride solution for sixty days. The samples acrylic latex-modified mortar50
Table 19—Typical physical strength properties of portland cement mortar versus
acrylic latex-modified mortars50
Acrylic polymer-cement ratio by mass 0.00 0.10 0.15 0.20
Water-cement ratio by mass 0.48 0.40 0.37 0.35
Wet density, lb/US gal 16.7 16.7 16.7 16.7
Tensile strength, psi (ASTM C 190)
28 days air cure 235 530 615 855
28 days wet cure 535 — — —
28 days air cure + 7 days water soak 310 330 350 490
Compressive strength, psi (ASTM C 109)
28 days air cure 2390 5450 5715 5690
28 days wet cure 5795 — — —
28 days air cure + 7 days water soak 4420 4700 5125 5460
Flexural strength, psi (ASTM C 348)
28 days air cure 610 1355 1585 5690
28 days wet cure 1070 — — —
28 days air cure + 7 days water soak 735 950 1020 1050
Shear bond adhesion, psi53
28 days air cure 45 >500 >650 >550
(A) (C) (C) (C)
28 days wet cure 185 — — —
(A)
28 days air cure + 7 days water soak 140 290 300 330
(A) (C) (C) (C)
Impact strength, in.-lb53
28 days air cure 6 12 16 22
28 days wet cure 7 — — —
28 days air cure + 7 days water soak 9 11 13 18
Abrasion resistance, percent weight loss53
28 days air cure 23.8 1.70 1.15 1.57
28 days wet cure 5.07 — — —
C = Cohesive failure in substrate of test patch; A = adhesive failure at surface of patch interface.
548.3R-32 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT
Fig. 37—Chloride ion penetration of unmodified and
acrylic latex-modified portland cement concretes54
Fig 38—Durability of unmodified and acrylic latex-modi-
fied portland cement concretes exposed to freezing and
thawing
Fig. 39—Flexural modulus versus acrylic polymer-
cement ratio of portland cement mortars50
were then sectioned and analyzed for chloride as a function
of depth.
Fig. 38 shows the surfaces of concrete blocks after sixty
cycles of freezing and thawing using ASTM C 291 test meth-
od as modified by the Illinois Department of Transportation
using rock salt. After cycling, the acrylic latex-modified
mortar (polymer-cement ratio by mass of 0.10) was margin-
Fig. 40—Strain versus acrylic polymer-cement ratio of port-
land cement mortars50
ally spalled, whereas the unmodified control was severely
pitted and eroded. These results suggest very low penetration
of water and salt into the acrylic latex-modified mortar.50
3.3.6 Flexibility—Modification of cement mixtures with
such latex, as described in Table 15, results in increased flex-
ibility of the hardened mortar and concrete. Fig. 39 shows
the flexural modulus (ASTM D 790) of latex-modified mor-
tars (3/1 sand/cement after 28 days’ curing) as a function of
the polymer-cement ratio by mass. Fig. 40 shows the in-
crease in strain with respect to polymer-cement ratio by
mass.
3.3.7 Resistance to weathering—Acrylic polymers resist
discoloration because they do not absorb ultraviolet (UV) ra-
diation and are transparent in the spectral region between
350 to 300 nanometers, the most photochemically active re-
gion of the solar spectrum. Consequently, modification of
acrylics with other comonomers or polymers that absorb UV
radiation invariably reduces the exterior durability of acrylic
systems. Fig. 41 shows that poly(methyl methacrylate) is es-
sentially transparent to UV light down to the 300 nanometer
wavelength range. These durability features of acrylic poly-
mers are carried over to acrylic latex-modified cement mix-
tures.
A field study50 was conducted on the adhesion and flexur-
al strength of portland cement mortars modified with two
different acrylic polymers and exposed outdoors for five
years. These exposures were carried out in the northeastern
part of the U.S.A. The specimens were subjected to at least
70 cycles of freezing and thawing per year and 50 in. of rain
per year.
The results, shown in Fig. 42 and 43, indicate that adhe-
sion and flexural strength were not degraded by exposure
and actually showed some increase. In Fig. 43, the latexes A
and B differ in monomer composition, but have similar glass
transition temperature. It is noted that all adhesion tests
showed cohesive failure (failed in the concrete substrate) for
the latex-modified systems, but adhesive failure (at bond
line) for the unmodified mixture.
Similar exposure studies50 have shown that substantial
improvements in tensile strength are achieved by acrylic la-
 POLYMER-MODIFIED CONCRETE 548.3R-33

Fig. 43—Flexural strength versus years of exposure of

unmodified and acrylic latex-modified cement mortars50

Fig. 41—Strain versus acrylic polymer-cement ratio of

portland cement mortars50

Fig. 44—Adhesion strengths of acrylic latex-modified mor-

tar versus unmodified brick mortar50

Fig. 42—Adhesion versus years of exposure of unmodified

and acrylic latex-modified cement mortars50

Table 20—Tensile strength* (ASTM C 190) changes of

acrylic latex-modified and unmodified mortars with
exposure50
Exposure
time 26 days 1 year 2 years 3 years 4 years
Polymer-
cement ratio Tensile strength, psi
0.00 310 655 654 643 780
0.10 665 789 780 736 867
Fig. 45—Durability of acrylic latex-modified cement coat-
0.15 820 1027 1092 913 1172
ings
0.20 980 1332 1311 1122 1523

years of weathering.50 Unmodified controls within the series

tex modification of portland cement mortars (Table 20). In a
study50 of adhesion of brick mortar modified with acrylic la-
tex, the results of an 11-year exterior exposure demonstrated
retention of bond strength (Fig. 44). The control mortar in
this study was an ASTM C 270 Type S masonry mortar.
Fig. 45 shows an acrylic latex-modified cement coating
(using white portland cement) applied to cement asbestos
board and subjected to 18 years of exterior weathering (as of
1986) in the northeastern U.S.A. This panel was oriented so
as to face south at a 45 deg angle to the perpendicular (typi-
cal coating exposure condition) and is still intact after 18
failed in the first three months. When the surface dirt was
washed off, the coating showed no color loss and no crack-
ing or spalling.
3.4—End uses
It should be noted that sound application practices must al-
ways be followed when using an acrylic latex-modified mor-
tar or concrete. For example, as in any unmodified concrete
or mortar installation, the substrate must be sound. An un-
sound substrate will continue to deteriorate regardless of the
quality of the repair materials. If necessary, prepare the sub-
548.3R-34 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT
Fig. 46—Sprayed, acrylic latex-modified cement coatings
Fig. 47—Spalled concrete restored with an acrylic latex-
modified patching mortar
strate by removing all loose and disintegrated material. Oil,
grease, or other chemicals must be removed with a detergent,
and the detergent must be removed by several washings with
water.
3.4.1 Flooring—Acrylic latex-modified cement mixtures
are used for the repair of industrial and commercial floors
that are subject to deterioration from abrasion, vibration,
spillage, and detrimental conditions. The bond strength and
abrasion resistance of acrylic latex-modified cement mortars
produce better performance in the presence of these condi-
tions.
3.4.2 Marine decks—Coatings of acrylic latex-modified
portland cement mixtures have been applied to decks of
ships in order to provide a skid resistant and protective sur-
face to the steel. The adhesion properties of these mixtures
to steel make them particularly applicable for this use.
3.4.3 Spray coatings—Cementitious coatings modified
with acrylic latex have been formulated (Table 17) to be
spray-applied over a variety of surfaces. Wood, concrete and
masonry surfaces have been coated with these materials in
order to improve appearance, as well as performance. Be-
cause of the adhesion property of the acrylic latex, these
coatings can be relatively thin (approximately 1/8 in.) and still
provide weather resistance and long-term performance. Fig.
46 shows a building that was reconditioned with an exterior
coating of this material while retaining the original architec-
tural integrity.
3.4.4 Finish systems for exterior insulation—Exterior in-
sulation systems provide another application for acrylic la-
tex-modified cement mixtures. In this application insulating
materials such as expanded polystyrene foam are attached to
the outside walls of buildings. The insulating material may
be attached to the substrate with an acrylic latex-modified
cement mixture. The insulating foam is then covered with an
acrylic latex-modified cementitious layer reinforced with fi-
berglass scrim to provide the foam with integrity and protec-
tion from the moisture and sunlight. This basecoat is
normally covered with an acrylic latex-modified decorative
finish. These systems offer the combined benefits of energy
efficiency and enhanced appearance.
3.4.5 Patching—The increased strength and adhesion con-
tributed to cement mixtures by acrylic latex modification
have particular significance in concrete patching applica-
tions. Fig. 47 shows where spalled concrete was restored
with an acrylic latex-modified cement patching compound
that had a 0.1 polymer-cement ratio by mass. The entire area
was top-coated with a pigmented acrylic latex-modified ce-
ment mixture for top finishing. First and second coats were
brushed, then floated to a sand finish.
3.4.6 Basement waterproofing—Basement waterproofing
represents another application for acrylic latex-cement coat-
ings. Acrylic latex-cement coatings (Table 18) offer impor-
tant features such as ease of application (brush or spray) and
clean up, low odor, and nonflammability.
A laboratory procedure used to test the waterproofing
properties of latex/cement paints is based closely on Federal
Specification TTP-001411. Two coats of the material are ap-
plied to a specified hollow concrete block that, after curing 7
days, is filled with water. An external pressure of 4 psi is ap-
plied to the water in the block (equals approximate hydro-
static pressure on a basement wall eight feet below ground
level) and maintained for a fixed time, then loss of adhesion,
softening of the coating and pressure drop are recorded. The
apparatus is shown in Fig. 48. A comparison of an unmodi-
fied commercial coating versus an acrylic latex-modified
coating for resistance to hydrostatic pressure is presented in
Table 21.
CHAPTER 4—EPOXY POLYMER MODIFIERS
4.1—Background
The production of polymer-modified concrete using ep-
oxy resins differs from other types of polymer-modified
 POLYMER-MODIFIED CONCRETE 548.3R-35

Table 21—Summary of performance properties of an

acrylic latex-modified cementitious waterproofing paint
versus commercial basement waterproofing coatings50
Water
resistance,
Federal
Sample Weight/gal, Coverage, Coating Specification
identification pounds ft2/gal properties TTP-00141
Commercial 11.7 130 Chalky; sur- Fail
waterproof face cracking
cement paint upon curing
Acrylic latex- 17.5 75 No defects Pass
modified cemen-
titious water-
proof paint

Table 22—Typical properties of uncured epoxy82

Component A Component B Mixed
Property (resin) (hardener) system*
Viscosity at 77 F, ASTM D 3600 700 2000
445, cps
Weight per gallon, ASTM D 9.65 8.20 9.20
1475, lb
Specific gravity 1.15 0.98 1.10
Color (Gardner Holt), ASTM 3 12 10
D 1544
Molecular weight per epoxide 200 — —
Amine content† — 500-550 —
Storage stability, year >1 >1 —
* Combined in ratio of 100 parts A and 35 parts B by mass.
† Milligrams of potassium hydroxide equivalent in 1 gram of hardener.

mixtures in that the polymer is formed after the components

of the epoxy are added to the hydraulic cement mixture. Po-
lymerization occurs concurrently with the hydration of the
cement.
The incorporation of the epoxy components does not re-
quire significant changes in the process technology. The ad-
vantages of epoxy modification are similar to those of other
polymer-modified concretes; include increases in flexural
strength, tensile strength, and adhesion, with reductions in
modulus of elasticity and permeability as compared to un-
modified hydraulic cement concretes and mortars.55-59
4.2—Properties of epoxies
4.2.1 Characteristics of epoxy modifiers—Epoxies used to
modify hydraulic cement are formulated to polymerize be-
tween 50 and 80 F in a highly alkaline environment. The
components:
• are dispersible or soluble in water
• moderately reduce the degree of hydration of cement
• are available as liquids with no volatile solvents
• do not generate by-products during curing
• have low shrinkage after curing
• are resistant to weathering, moisture, acids, alkalies,
and most common chemicals after curing
Epoxy resin systems for cement modification contain dis-
persing agents and are used in emulsified form or are capable
of forming emulsions when mixed with water. The modifier
is supplied as a two-part system, one containing the epoxy
resin and the other containing the hardener or curing agent.
Fig. 48—Acrylic latex-modified cement coating resistance
to hydrostatic pressure54
Typical properties of uncured epoxies are presented in Table
22. When the two parts are mixed, the resin combines with
the hardener to form the polymer.60
4.2.2 Chemistry of epoxy resins—Most epoxy resins are
synthesized by combination of one molecule of bisphenol
(derived from acetone and phenol) with two molecules of ep-
ichlorohydrin. This process forms the epoxy resin compo-
nent, which contains both epoxide and hydroxyl functional
groups. In polymerization, the resin molecules react with a
hardener chemically combining to form the polymer. The
hardener commonly contains amine groups that react with
the epoxide group.
When the epoxy and hardener are combined in optimum
proportions (usually stoichiometric amounts), the cured ep-
oxy will have a high softening point with a heat deflection
temperature of greater than 212 F, and a good balance of
strength properties. Epoxy curing or polymerization is irre-
versible. The polymer is thermosetting and may soften when
548.3R-36 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT

heated above 200 F, but will not liquefy. The properties of a Table 23—Typical properties* of undiluted cured
polymerized epoxy are largely dependant on the functional- epoxy62
ity of the monomer molecule, that is, the density of its Tensile strength, psi 9200
crosslinking sites, and the degree of polymerization. Tensile elongation, percent 4
4.2.3 Properties of epoxy resins—Methods for measuring Flexural strength, psi 14,100
the general properties of an epoxy resin have been specified Flexural modulus, psi 0.46 x 106
in standards.61,62 Viscosities and suggested mixing rates Izod impact strength, ft-lb/in notch 0.51
Compressive yield strength, psi 12,600
vary with the manufacture of the epoxy resin. Percent mass change
Typical properties of the cured epoxy resins are summa- 24 hr in water 0.20
rized in Table 23. 24 hr in 5 percent aqueous acetic acid 0.81
* Properties determined on 1/8 in.-thick casting cured for 2 weeks at 77 F.

4.3—Principle of epoxy modification

The principle of epoxy modification of a hydraulic cement Table 24—Typical mixture proportioning of epoxy-
mixture is similar to, although not identical to, that described modified concrete
in Section 1.3. Two processes are involved which occur si- Ingredient Parts by mass
multaneously, cement hydration and polymerization of the Portland cement 100.0
epoxy system. Fine aggregate 275.0
Coarse aggregate 200.0
The two-part system contains a surfactant, such as abiatic
Water 042.0
acid, which disperses the epoxy resin throughout the cement Epoxy resin (Part A) 017.4
mixture, and an antifoam to prevent excessive entrainment Epoxy hardener (Part B) 002.6
of air.
The epoxy resin system is added to the fresh concrete in Table 25—Comparison of workability of epoxy-modified
liquid form, either premixed of as separate components, near and conventional concrete*
the end of the mixing of the concrete. Polymerization takes
Epoxy-modified Unmodified
place in the mixture along with cement hydration. The cured
Slump, ASTM C 143, in. 6 4
epoxy forms small spherical particles in the hardening ce-
Working life, m
ment paste that are interconnected with thin epoxy layers, at 75 F 90 80
giving an irregular, but coherent three-dimensional network at 100 F 50 35
interwoven throughout the cement paste, as can be seen in * Of similar water, fine and coarse aggregate-cement ratios.
scanning electron microscope pictures.63-65 This network
acts as a secondary cementing material and contributes to the freezing and thawing.
increased flexural strength, tensile strength, and abrasion re- Epoxy-modified concrete may contain chemical or miner-
sistance, and decreased permeability of the modified system. al admixtures. The use of such admixtures should be based
It also coats the surfaces of the interstitial voids.66 The inter- on trial mixes. Addition of fly ash and silica fume are report-
nal structure is similar to that of a styrene-butadiene latex- ed to increase the strengths of epoxy-modified concretes.68
modified concrete (Fig. 4). Generally, high cement contents are used in epoxy-modi-
Popovics et al67 have shown that the addition of epoxy to fied concrete, with typical mixture proportioning being giv-
portland cement mixtures produces a decrease in the degree en in Table 24.
of hydration of the cement, probably due to coating the ce- Curing of epoxy-modified concretes and mortars is similar
ment particles and reducing their contact with water. There to that of other polymer-modified materials (Section 2.5.5).
is no indication of a chemical reaction between the epoxy
resin system and components of the portland cement. The ce- 4.5—Properties of epoxy-modified concrete
ment may influence the cure of the epoxy. A method for 4.5.1 Properties of fresh epoxy-modified mortar and con-
checking the effect of the epoxy system on the hydration of crete—There are no American standard methods for testing
portland cement is silylation.67 epoxy-modified concretes and mortars. There are foreign
standards and ASTM is in the process of creating one. Japan
4.4—Mixture proportioning has standards for preparing specimens and measuring prop-
The mixture proportioning of epoxy-modified concrete is erties. These are usually modifications of standards for un-
similar to that of other polymer-modified concretes, and modified cement concrete and mortar.
should be based on the requirements of the specific applica- Compared to an unmodified conventional concrete mix,
tion. The usual dosage varies from polymer-cement ratios by an epoxy-modified concrete may be expected to give in-
mass of 0.10 to 0.20. The use of higher levels is uneconom- creased workability, reduction in segregation and bleeding,
ical for the benefits obtained. An epoxy-modified concrete and increased setting times. See Table 25.69
mix will require less mixing water for the same slump as a 4.5.2 Properties of hardened epoxy-modified mortar and
comparable nonmodified mixture and will be easier to con- concrete
solidate. The amount of mixing water needed in a given case 4.5.2.1 Compressive strength—The compressive
should be determined by trial mixes. strength of epoxy-modified concrete is not significantly dif-
Air entrainment is not required to provide resistance to ferent from that of properly cured, unmodified concrete at a
 POLYMER-MODIFIED CONCRETE 548.3R-37

similar water-cement ratio. It can be higher when the slump Table 26—Comparison of strength properties of epoxy-
is kept constant, rather than the water-cement ratio. modified and conventional concrete*69
4.5.2.2 Flexural and tensile strengths—Epoxy modifi- Epoxy-modified† Unmodified†
cation increases flexural and tensile strengths compared to Tensile strength, psi
similar unmodified mixtures by as much as 100 percent. dry 820 440
Typical values determined by Popovics are given in Table wet‡ 730 460
26. Others have reported similar increases.64,70,71 Flexural strength, psi
4.5.2.3 Other properties—The modulus of elasticity of dry 1650 850
an epoxy-modified concrete is less than that of similar un- wet‡ 1620 860
modified mixtures, even if the epoxy-modified concrete has Compressive strength, psi
dry 7500 5500
higher strength (see Table 26). The ductility of epoxy-modi- 7000 6100
wet‡
fied systems is also increased.72,73 Modulus of elasticity, psi 2.7 x 106 3.1 x 106
Epoxy modification reduces permeability and chloride ion Coefficient of linear thermal expan- 8.0 x 106 6.0 x 106
penetration.64,74-76 sion, in./in./F
Shrinkage is also reduced by epoxy modification. Under Salt scaling resistance
dry curing conditions (68 F/60 percent relative humidity), 20 cycles Pass Fail
50 cycles Pass
shrinkage reduction of up to 40 percent was reported at the Acid resistance, 15 percent hydro- Some Complete
end of 28 days.77,78 chloric effervescence disintegration
Resistance to freezing and thawing is increased by epoxy Wear resistance,§ passes for 3/8 in. of 7700 2400
modification. Lezy found that the strength of epoxy-modi- wear
* Of similar water, fine and coarse aggregate-cement ratios.
fied mortars remained unchanged after 50 cycles of freezing † Epoxy-modified concrete cured for 28 days at 77 F and 50 percent relative
and thawing, whereas the strength of the control specimens humidity. Unmodified cured for 28 days at 77 F and 95 percent relative humidity.
was reduced by 30 to 40 percent.77 ‡ After an additional 28 days in water at 77 F.
§ A loaded 15/ -in. wide steel wheel with total mass of 400 lb.
Thermal expansion, salt scaling resistance, acid resistance, 8

and wear resistance of epoxy-modified concretes are im-

proved. Data are presented in Table 26. Hinsche also report-
ed significant improvement in chemical resistance of epoxy-
modified mortar.79
4.6—Safety
Most epoxy systems are not considered to be dangerously
toxic materials. However, the materials should be handled in
accordance with guidelines provided by the supplier in Ma-
terial Safety Data Sheets and other literature.80 Skin irrita-
tion and sensitization have been reported by users of epoxy
systems in ACI 548.1R.
4.7—End uses
Epoxy-modified mortar and concrete are used in applica-
tions where adhesion or low permeability, or both are re-
quired. These applications include: grouts, stuccos, liners,
protective coatings, skid-resistant coatings, and the repair of
concrete structures including overlays for bridges and park-
ing decks.
4.8—Construction techniques
4.8.1 Materials—Specifically formulated epoxy systems
for cement modification should be used. It is inadvisable for
inexperienced contractors to attempt to make such formula-
tions.
4.8.2 Surface preparation—The same techniques used to
prepare concrete structures in Section 2.5.2 should be used
for epoxy-modified concrete.
4.8.3 Mixing procedures—The recommended procedure
is to mix the two parts of the epoxy system in a separate con-
tainer to form the epoxy emulsion. The components should
be stirred, preferably mechanically, until uniformly mixed,
and set aside. Then the cement, aggregates, and half of the
water should be loaded into the concrete mixer and blended.
The premixed epoxy systems should be added along with the
remainder of the mix water, and thoroughly mixed, which
usually takes two to five minutes. Overmixing can cause ex-
cessive air entrainment and should be avoided.
4.8.4 Placement, finishing, and curing—These procedures
are similar to those described in Sections 2.5.3, 2.5.4, and
2.5.5, respectively.
4.8.5 Clean up—Water will effectively clean mixers and
tools, unless the epoxy binder has partially reacted and thick-
ened. All ungelled binder can usually be dissolved in glyco-
lether. Cleaning of the fully reacted epoxy is difficult.
4.8.6 Quality control—Most common test procedures for
quality control of concrete such as slump, air content, and
compressive strength, are applicable to epoxy-modified con-
cretes.
4.9—Case histories
4.9.1 Overlay on a water-storage tank81—The tank was
built about 1924 with a rectangular deck of 15,000 ft2, and
had been coated with a modified cement mixture in 1976.
The coating had been damaged and not longer provided pro-
tection. A 1-in. thick epoxy-modified concrete overlay was
chosen for repair because a 2-in. thick overlay of unmodified
concrete would have exceeded the allowable design dead
load.
A clean concrete surface was obtained by use of chipping
hammers and sandblasting. The mixture proportioning was
as follows:
Cement 705. lb
Sand 1940 lb
Pea gravel (3/8) in. 1460 lb
Water 22 gal
Epoxy (Parts A and B) 15 gal
548.3R-38 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT
The cement and aggregates were delivered to the site in
ready-mixed concrete trucks containing 4 yd3 of concrete.
The epoxy system was added to the trucks at the job site,
with the two parts being added separately and mixed for an
additional five minutes. The concrete was placed by pump-
ing and after being given a broom finish, it was coated with
a resin-based curing compound applied at a rate of 100
ft2/gal, which was twice the normal rate. The air content was
3 percent, and the slump between 4 and 6 in. The overlay av-
eraged 1 in. in thickness. Compressive strengths of 6000 to
8000 psi were obtained.
Although this epoxy-modified concrete overlay exhibits
plastic- and drying-shrinkage cracks, they do not appear to
have caused any bond failures and there was no evidence of
any damage caused by freezing and thawing.
4.9.2 Overlay on a deck of a lightweight concrete parking
garage81—The deck, originally constructed in the early
1960s, had been repaired in 1982 by topping it with an as-
phalt sealer. Freeze-thaw damage occurred, including
delamination in the concrete. A 1-in. thick epoxy-modified
concrete overlay was chosen for repair because a 2-in. thick
overlay of unmodified concrete would have exceeded the al-
lowable design dead load.
After identifying delaminated areas with a chain drag, the
surface was prepared using chipping hammers, scabblers,
sandblasting, wire brushing, and water blasting.
The mixture proportioning of the epoxy-modified con-
crete was the same as described in Section 4.9.1. A bond coat
was applied using the same proportions of cement, sand, and
epoxy as in the overlay mixture. The concrete was delivered
by buggies. A resin-based curing compound was applied as
soon as the concrete surface was finished. Due to expected
ambient temperatures being above 80 F and below 50 F, the
surface was covered with polyethylene-backed wet burlap as
soon as the curing compound was dry.
Some delaminations were noticed within the first year in
areas where there was a delay in applying the curing com-
pound.
4.9.3 Strengthening of a prefabricated concrete deck81—
A concrete deck in an automobile shop, consisting of prefab-
ricated elements, was several years old when the owner de-
cided to increase its load-bearing capacity by adding a 2- to
3-in. concrete cover. In addition to requiring adequate
strength and abrasion resistance, bond strength in tension
was specified as 260 psi minimum.
After preparing the surface, a three-part bonding agent
was used between the old and fresh concrete. This agent was
a blend of two-part epoxy and portland cement, which was
applied by use of a stiff brush. An epoxy-modified concrete,
with a cement content of 583 lb/yd3 and a two-part epoxy
system, was pumped into place. Cores had bond strengths in
excess of 290 psi, with the fracture occurring in the old con-
crete rather than at the bond interface.
4.9.4 Bridge deck overlays—Three bridge overlays were
installed successfully at the following locations:
1. Triborough Bridge, New York City, in 1973
2. Wayne County, Michigan, in 1974
3. Indiana, in 1979
The installation method was the same for all three
projects.
The deck surfaces were prepared by removing all unsound
concrete. The cement, aggregates, and one-half of the water
were first added to the mixer. The two-part epoxy was pre-
mixed and added, followed by the balance of the water. The
bridge deck was primed with paste of the epoxy-modified
concrete using hard-bristle brooms. Immediately after prim-
ing, the overlay was spread using standard mechanical
screeds.
The concrete mixture proportioning was:
Cement (Type I) 658 lb/yd3
Concrete sand 1579 lb/yd3
3
/8 in. aggregate 1600 lb/yd3
Epoxy modifier 14 gal/yd3
Water 22 gal/yd3
CHAPTER 5—REDISPERSIBLE POLYMER
POWDERS
5.1—Background
This chapter discusses polymers in powder form that are
used to modify hydraulic cement mixtures. Such powders
are referred to as redispersible, in that they convert to a latex
on mixing with water.
Like latexes, these polymers are made by emulsion poly-
merization and the resultant latex is converted to powder
form, usually by a process known as spray drying.
Currently, the commercially available redispersible pow-
ders are vinyl acetate homopolymers, vinyl acetate copoly-
mers and acrylic copolymers.
These powders impart similar properties to hydraulic ce-
ment mixtures and are used for similar applications as their
latex predecessors (see Chapters 3 and 6), but give the con-
venience and accuracy of premixing with the cement, aggre-
gates, and other possible powder components.
5.2—Manufacture
Redispersible powders are manufactured by using two
separate processes. The latex polymer is made by emulsion
polymerization and is then spray-dried to obtain the powder.
The emulsion polymerization is similar to that described in
Chapter 1.
After polymerization, but before spray drying, the latex is
formulated further by the addition of several ingredients
such as bactericides, spray-drying aids, and application
chemicals. The latter can include such materials as super-
plasticizers, anti-sag agents, and antifoams which increase or
decrease such parameters as workability or air content of the
cement mixtures.
Spray drying of vinyl acetate-ethylene copolymers has
been described in the literature.83 Acrylic copolymers are
made by a similar process. Anti-blocking aids are introduced
into the powder during or shortly after spray drying. These
aids are incorporated to prevent “caking” of the powder dur-
ing storage. Clay, silica, and calcium carbonate are used for
this purpose. Application chemicals may also be added dur-
 POLYMER-MODIFIED CONCRETE 548.3R-39

ing or after spray drying. The powders are packaged in bags Table 27—Comparison of polymer-modified mortars
(25 to 50 lb) or in bulk form in containers known as totes. using VAE latex and powder83
Mortar Latex Powder
5.3—Powder properties Mixture proportioning Parts by mass
Redispersible powders are usually free-flowing, white Portland cement 100 100
powders with ash contents of 5 to 15 percent. The ash con- Graded silica sand 300 300
VAE latex (55 percent solids) 018 —
tent that primarily comes from the anti-blocking aid, will
VAE powder (9 percent ash) — 011
vary depending on the type of material. Calcium carbonate Water 039 049
and clay give lower ash contents than equivalent amounts of Mortar properties
silica. The bulk density of the powder is quite low, being less Water-cement ratio 0.47 0.49
than 25 percent that of portland cement. The particular size Flow, ASTM C 230, 25 drops 0110 0110
Flexural strength, psi 1590 1320
of the powder averages about 80 microns. However, these
Compressive strength, psi 5140 5040
particles are agglomerates which break up on redispersing in Permeability, coulombs 1130 1370
water to give typical latex-particle sizes (1 to 5 microns). Adhesion, psi 0300 0260
The glass-transition temperature (Tg) of powders will vary
depending on the polymer make-up.
fied mortars exhibit freeze-thaw durability similar to that of
5.4—Mixture proportioning latex-modified mortars.
Mixture proportioning of redispersible-powder, polymer-
In a recent study, Bright et al88 compared the physical
modified cement mixtures is similar to that of other polymer-
properties of various polymer types, including vinyl acetate-
modified systems, except that no water is contributed by the
ethylene, styrene-butadiene, and acrylic copolymer latexes
polymer. Where these powder-modified mixtures are prima-
and vinyl acetate-ethylene redispersible copolymer powders,
rily used for improvement in adhesion, the normal polymer-
when used in cementitious patching compounds. It was con-
cement ratio by mass is about 0.10 (about 0.11 powder-ce-
cluded that the vinyl acetate-ethylene redispersible copoly-
ment ratio). In floor applications, the polymers are used also
mer powders appear to be at least equal to the latexes in
to increase strain capacity, abrasion resistance and resistance
formulations prepared at equivalent water-cement ratios.
to shrinkage. The polymer-cement ratio by mass then de-
Hackel et al89 also concluded that the properties of mortars
pends on whether the application is an underlayment or a
prepared with vinyl acetate-vinyl ester of versatic acid co-
wearing surface, and varies between 0.05-0.20. If the powder
polymer powders met the requirements for concrete restora-
does not contain an antifoam system, one (as a powder) is
tion. Lambe et al85,86 describe the physical properties of
normally incorporated into the mixture. Like latexes, these
concrete repair mortars containing redispersible polymer
polymer powders act as water-reducing agents.
powders. These mortars show low diffusion properties to
Mixture proportions and water-cement ratios differ with
chloride ions, oxygen, and carbon dioxide,85 and also low
the end use. Typical mixtures have been described by
shrinkage.86
Walters.83 In proprietary materials such as self-leveling
floors84 and concrete repair mortars, the polymer powder
5.7—End uses
represents a key component of the formulation. Once the
polymer is selected, balancing of the formulation is required The uses of powder polymer-modified cementitious mix-
to achieve the desired performance.85,86 Nevertheless, it is tures are those where the convenience of prepackaged mix-
worth mentioning that powder-polymer modified mixtures tures is paramount. Bright et al88 state that the use of
rarely use aggregates larger than 1/4 inch. redispersible polymer powder in prepackaged mixtures
avoids the storage and transport of five-gallon buckets
5.5—Properties of unhardened mortar (which are normally used for containing the latex). The dis-
Unhardened properties of the powder-polymer modified posal of these buckets is increasingly becoming an environ-
mortars are similar to those obtained with latexes of similar mental concern. Also, preblending of the polymer powder at
composition, except that a marginally higher water-cement the factory stage should ensure the correct polymer level in
ratio is required to obtain similar flow. the final product.
The three major end uses are:
5.6—Properties of hardened mortar • Ceramic tile adhesives and grouts
Properties of the hardened powder-polymer modified • Underlayments and industrial floor toppings
mortars are marginally reduced compared to those obtained • Concrete repair and patching mortars
with latexes of similar composition. Table 27 gives a com-
parison of the properties of polymer-modified mortars using As these end used require some degree of water resistance,
the same vinyl acetate-ethylene copolymer (VAE) in latex copolymers of vinyl acetate with ethylene, the vinyl ester of
and powder form, respectively. The mortars were cured in versatic acid (VEOVA) or an acrylic ester are preferred to vi-
the mold for 16 to 24 hrs followed by storage in laboratory nyl acetate homopolymers.90
air (about 50 percent relative humidity and 75 F) for 27 days. Also, these powders are used to a limited degree in the Ex-
Afridi et al87 have shown that redispersible polymer-modi- terior Insulating Finishing Systems (EIFS) which are de-
548.3R-40 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT
scribed in Chapter 4 (Acrylics).
Ohama18 has reported that polymer-modified mortars
made using these redispersible powders are inferior to simi-
lar mortars using styrene-butadiene latexes, which indicates
that the former should not be used where a high degree of
water resistance is required (as on bridge decks).
Ceramic tile adhesives and grouts
Cement, sand, cellulosic thickener, and polymer powder
are premixed and sold by formulators to contractors and ho-
meowners. Such mixtures usually comply with the applica-
tion requirements of the American National Standard
Specifications for Properties of Latex-Portland Cement
Mortar, A 118.4.
Underlayments and industrial floors
This end use for powder-polymer modified mortar is prob-
ably the largest. It has been described in some detail by Al-
exanderson.84
Prepackaged patching mortars
Polymer powders are used in prepackaged mortars which
may be basic patching compounds or more sophisticated
mortars for use as part of a system for the repair and protec-
tion of damaged reinforced concrete. These materials are
proportioned and packaged by a formulator and sold to con-
tractors and homeowners. The user then completes the pro-
portioning by adding the amount of water required to give a
workable consistency.
The basic patching mortar may consist of sand, cement,
and polymer only. The concrete repair mortars may be re-
quired to meet more stringent requirements such as low
shrinkage and low permeability to chloride ions and carbon
dioxide.85,86 Meeting these requirements may require use of
other additives. The adjustment of the levels of the various
components in these formulations is necessary to achieve the
desired performance specification with a polymer-modified
mortar.
CHAPTER 6—OTHER POLYMERS
6.1—General
The polymers most widely used for modification of hy-
draulic cements have been described in previous chapters.
Other polymers in latex or powder form are being used or
have been used in the past, but there is little published infor-
mation on their performance.
This chapter deals with the latexes and powders not previ-
ously addresses in this report. They are not as widely used as
those polymers described previously because of cost or per-
formance deficiencies. These materials are primarily used in
mortars rather than concretes.
6.2—Other latexes and polymers
A list of latex types used with hydraulic cements is pre-
sented in Chapter 1. Those not previously discussed include
natural rubber latex, copolymers of butadiene and acryloni-
trile, polymers and copolymers of chloroprene, polymers
and copolymers of vinyl acetate, copolymers of vinylidene
chloride, polymers and copolymers of vinyl esters and alco-
hol, and bituminous latexes.
The materials that are most widely used or were most
widely used, are natural rubber latex, polymers and copoly-
mers of vinyl acetate, and copolymers of vinylidene chlo-
ride.
The prominent published work in this area is by Ohama.18
6.3—Performance
The performance of these materials is similar in many re-
spects to those described in previous chapters; for example,
mixture proportioning, relationship between performance
and polymer-cement ratio, and effect on mix workability.
6.3.1 Properties of unhardened mixtures—All materials
appear to exhibit similar-shaped performance curves versus
polymer-cement ratios.
Water reduction is obtained with most of these materials
that were designed for use with hydraulic cements, butadi-
ene-acrylonitrile latexes have a greater water-reducing effect
than polyvinyl acetate latexes.
Most of these materials increase setting times, with the
largest increases being observed with chloroprene polymers,
while that of vinyl acetate-ethylene or ethylene-vinyl acetate
copolymers being intermediate.
Entrained air contents of the polymer-cementitious mix-
tures will be higher than similar unmodified mixtures unless
antifoams are used.
Water reduction, increase in setting times and entrained air
contents are all affected by the type and level of surfactant
used in manufacture of these polymers and latexes.
6.3.2 Properties of hardened mixtures—All of these mate-
rials appear to exhibit similar-shaped performance curves
versus polymer-cement ratios with respect to adhesion, abra-
sion resistance, tensile and flexural strength. But the degree
of change with polymer-cement ratio can be significantly
different depending on the polymer type; for example, co-
polymers of vinylidene chloride exhibit much higher flexur-
al strength than that of bituminous latexes.18
Drying shrinkage tends to decrease with increasing poly-
mer-cement ratio, but it varies significantly with polymer
type, with polymers and copolymers of vinyl acetate having
greater shrinkage than butadiene-acrylonitrile and vi-
nylidene chloride copolymers.18
Durability of these polymer-modified cementitious mix-
tures can be very limited. The use of copolymers of vi-
nylidene chloride has been virtually discontinued because of
their tendency to release chloride ions, which can cause cor-
rosion problems where steel reinforcement is used. Also, it
has been recommended90 that polyvinyl acetate latexes
should not be used in cementitious mixtures that are liable to
be exposed to moisture because this type of polymer is de-
graded by hydrolysis in wet, alkaline environments.
Most of these polymers do reduce water permeability of
cementitious systems. Ohama18 has shown the relative per-
formance of some latex-modified and unmodified mortars
with respect to water absorption and amount of water perme-
ation.
As with most polymer-modified mixtures, these mortars
 POLYMER-MODIFIED CONCRETE 548.3R-41

show marked strength reduction between dry and wet test a. Nonvolatile or total solids content ASTM D 1417
conditions, but butadiene-acrylonitrile copolymers may be b. pH value ASTM D 1417
an exception.18 c. Specific gravity ASTM D 1417
d. Density ASTM D 1417
6.4—End uses e. Particle size Clear et al11
There appears to be little published information on the use f. Freeze-thaw stability Clear et al11
of hydraulic cement mixtures using these other latexes and g. Mechanical stability ASTM D 1417
powders. Their increased adhesion over similar unmodified h. Chemical stability ASTM D 1076
formulations is the most common reason for use of these i. Coagulum content ASTM D 1417
polymer-modified mixtures. Repair and patching of plaster, j. Surface tension ASTM D 1417
stucco, mortar, and concrete appear to be the most common 7.2.1.2 Polymeric properties
use. However, polymers and copolymers of vinyl acetate are a. Glass transition temperature ASTM D 3418
used widely as bonding agents between fresh and hardened b. Minimum film forming tempera-
hydraulic cement admixtures, or for plastering over gypsum ture ASTM D 2354
board. 7.2.2 Redispersible powders
a. Ash content ASTM D 1278
CHAPTER 7—TEST METHODS, PRACTICES AND b. Moisture content ASTM C 566
SPECIFICATIONS b. Minimum film forming
temperature ASTM D 2354
7.1—Introduction 7.2.3 Portland cement ASTM C 150
Applications of polymer-modified mortar and concrete 7.2.4 Aggregates ASTM C 33
(PMC) are not limited to a single industry. For example, la- 7.2.5 Water ASTM C 94
tex-modified cementitious coatings are used in decorative
applications such as paint and stucco, and in swimming 7.3—Standard practices for specimen preparation
pools. Polymer-modified mortars may be either troweled or 7.3.1 Preparation of mortar specimens ASTM C 305
sprayed. They are also used on foamed insulation, construc- 7.3.2 Preparation of concrete specimens
tion siding or as protective barriers for steel. Because of the a. In the field ASTM C 31
ability of a polymer to impart superior adhesion, durability, b. In the laboratory ASTM C 192
and flexibility compared to similar unmodified cementitious
mixtures, PMCs are often used as concrete repair and reha- 7.4—Test methods for unhardened mortar and concrete
bilitation products. 7.4.1 Mortar properties
As a result of the many types of polymer-modified mortar a. Shrinkage ASTM C 157
and concrete in commercial use, there is a variety of different ASTM C 596
PMC standards. These standards cover the material systems, b. Air content ASTM C 175
installation, performance criteria and testing for different c. Consistency ASTM C 177
mixtures and applications. The intent of this chapter is to cat- d. Time of setting ASTM C 191
alogue the test methods, practices and specifications that are ASTM C 266
in common use today. These documents are referenced e. Flow ASTM C 230
throughout this report. f. False set ASTM C 359
Special attention must be given to curing polymer-modi- 7.4.2 Concrete properties
fied mixtures. Standard moist curing conditions defined in a. Unit weight ASTM C 138
ASTM Standard Practices C 31 and C192 should NOT be b. Slump ASTM C 143
used. Continual moist curing will inhibit the polymer-film c. Air content ASTM C 173
formation necessary to gain the full benefit of polymer mod- ASTM C 231
ification. Curing recommendations of polymer-cement mix- d. Shrinkage ASTM C 157
tures vary depending on applications and manufacturers. e. Temperature ASTM C 1064
Where possible, curing of test specimens should closely sim-
ulate the appropriate application curing conditions. For most 7.5—Test methods for hardened mortar and concrete
applications, the general practice is to cure the specimens in 7.5.1 Mortar properties
their molds for 24 hrs covered with wet cloths and plastic a. Density ASTM C 185
sheeting, followed by storage in ambient laboratory condi- b. Compressive strength ASTM C 109
tions of about 73 F and 50 percent relative humidity until ASTM C 348
time of testing. c. Change in length ASTM C 157
d. Tensile strength ASTM C 190
7.2—Test methods, practices, and specifications for raw e. Dynamic properties ASTM C 215
materials f. Flexural strength ASTM C 349
7.2.1 Latexes ASTM C 580
7.2.1.1 Colloidal properties g. Coefficient of thermal expansion ASTM C 531
548.3R-42 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT

h. Modulus of elasticity ASTM C 580 ASTM C 190 Test Method for Tensile Strength of Hy-
7.5.2 Concrete properties draulic Cement Mortars
a. Unit weight ASTM C 642 ASTM C 191 Test Method for Time of Setting of Hydrau-
b. Compressive strength ASTM C 39 lic Cement by Vicat Needle
c. Flexural strength ASTM C 78 ASTM C 192 Practice for Making and Curing Concrete
ASTM C 293 Test Specimens in the Laboratory
d. Tensile strength ASTM C 496 ASTM C 215 Test Method for Fundamental Transverse,
e. Modulus of elasticity ASTM C 469 Longitudinal and Torsional Frequencies of
f. Abrasion resistance ASTM C 418 Concrete Specimens
g. Creep ASTM C 512 ASTM C 230 Specification for Flow Table for Use in
h. Coefficient of linear expansion ASTM C 157 Tests of Hydraulic Cement
i. Dynamic properties ASTM C 215 ASTM C 231 Test Method for Air Content of Freshly
j. Chloride content ASTM C 114 Mixed Concrete by the Pressure Method
k. Resistance to freezing and thawing ASTM C 666 ASTM C 266 Test Method for Time of Setting of Hydrau-
ASTM C 671 lic Cement Paste by Gillmore Needles
ASTM C 672 ASTM C 293 Test Method for Flexural Strength of Con-
ASTM C 682 crete (Using Simple Beam with Center-
l. Carbonation resistance ASTM C 856 Point Loading)
Ohama et al91 ASTM C 305 Practice for Mechanical Mixing of Hydrau-
m. Skid resistance ASTM E 274 lic Cement Pastes and Mortar of Plastic
n. Electrical half-cell potential ASTM C 876 Consistency
o. Permeability ASTM C 1202 ASTM C 349 Test Method for Flexural Strength of Hy-
p. Adhesion ASTM C 900 draulic Cement Mortars (Using Portions of
ASTM C 1042 Prisms Broken in Flexure)
Clear et al11 ASTM C 359 Test Method for Early Stiffening of Port-
Kuhlmann30 land Cement (Mortar Method)
Knab et al31 ASTM C 418 Test Method for Abrasion Resistance of
Knab et al32 Concrete by Sandblasting
ASTM C 469 Test Method for Static Modulus of Elastici-
7.6—ASTM documents ty and Poisson's Ratio of Concrete in Com-
ASTM C 31 Practice for Making and Curing Concrete pression
Test Specimens in the Field
ASTM C 496 Test Method for Splitting Tensile Strength
ASTM C 33 Specification for Concrete Aggregates
of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens
ASTM C 39 Test Method for Compressive Strength of
ASTM C 512 Test Method for Creep of Concrete in Com-
Cylindrical Concrete Specimens
pression
ASTM C 78 Test Method for Flexural Strength of Con-
ASTM C 531 Test Method for Linear Shrinkage and Co-
crete (Using Simple Beam with Third-Point
efficient of Thermal Expansion of Chemi-
Loading)
cal-Resistant Mortars, Grouts and Mono-
ASTM C 94 Specification for Ready-Mixed Concrete
lithic Surfacings
ASTM C 109 Test Method for Compressive Strength of
Hydraulic Cement Mortars (Using 2-in. or ASTM C 566 Test Method for Total Moisture Content of
50-mm Cube Specimens) Aggregate by Drying
ASTM C 114 Test Methods for Chemical Analysis of Port- ASTM C 580 Test Method for Flexural Strength and
land Cement Modulus of Elasticity of Chemical-Resis-
ASTM C 138 Test Method for Unit Weight, Yield and Air tant Mortars, Grouts and Monolithic Sur-
Content (Gravimetric) of Concrete facings
ASTM C 143 Test Method for Slump of Hydraulic Cement ASTM C 596 Test Method for Drying Shrinkage of Mor-
Concrete tar Containing Portland Cement
ASTM C 150 Specification for Portland Cement ASTM C 642 Test Method for Specific Gravity, Absorp-
ASTM C 157 Test Method for Length of Change of Hard- tion and Voids in Hardened Concrete
ened Hydraulic-Cement Mortar and Concrete ASTM C 666 Test Method for Resistance of Concrete to
ASTM C 173 Test Method for Air Content of Freshly Rapid Freezing and Thawing
Mixed Concrete by the Volumetric Method ASTM C 671 Test Method for Critical Dilation of Con-
ASTM C 185 Test Method for Air Content of Hydraulic crete Specimens Subjected to Freezing
Cement Mortar ASTM C 672 Test Method for Scaling Resistance of Con-
ASTM C 187 Test Method for Normal Consistency of Hy- crete Surfaces Exposed to Deicing Chemi-
draulic Cement cals
 POLYMER-MODIFIED CONCRETE 548.3R-43

ASTM C 682 Practice for Evaluation of Frost Resistance C 157 Test Method for Length Change of Hardened
of Coarse Aggregates in Air-Entrained Hydraulic-Cement Mortar and Concrete
Concrete by Critical Dilation Procedures C 190 Test Method for Tensile Strength of Hydraulic
ASTM C 856 Practice for Petrographic Examination of Cement Mortars
Hardened Concrete C 230 Specification for Flow Table for Use in Tests of
ASTM C 876 Test Method for Half-Cell Potentials of Hydraulic Cement
Uncoated Reinforcing Steel in Concrete C 231a Test Method for Air Content of Freshly Mixed
ASTM C 900 Test Method for Pullout Strength of Hard- Concrete by the Pressure Method
ened Concrete C 270 Specification for Mortar for Unit Masonry
ASTM C 1042 Test Method for Bond Strength of Latex C 348 Test Method for Flexural Strength of Hydraulic
Systems Used with Concrete Cement Mortars
ASTM C 1064 Test Method for Temperature of Portland- C 457 Practice for Microscopic Determination of Air-
Cement Concrete Void Content and Parameters of the Air-Void
ASTM C 1202 Test Method for Electrical Indication of System in Hardened Concrete
Concrete's Ability to Resist Chloride Ion C 531 Linear Shrinkage and Coefficient of Thermal
Penetration Expansion of Chemical-Resistant Mortars,
ASTM D 1076 Specification for Rubber — Concentrated, Grouts, and Monolithic Surfacings
Ammonia, Preserved, Creamed and Cen- C 666 Test Method for Resistance of Concrete to Rap-
trifuged Natural Latex id Freezing and Thawing
ASTM D 1278 Standard Methods for Rubber From Natu- C 672 Test Method for Scaling Resistance of Concrete
ral Sources — Chemical Analysis Surfaces Exposed to Deicing Chemicals
ASTM D 1417 Standard Methods of Testing Rubber Lati- C 685 Specification for Concrete Made by Volumetric
ces — Synthetic Batching and Continuous Mixing
ASTM D 2354 Test Method for Minimum-Film-Forma- D 412 Test Methods for Rubber Properties in Tension
tion Temperature (MFT) of Emulsion Ve- D 790 Test Methods for Flexural properties of Unrein-
hicles forced and Reinforced Plastics and Electrical In-
ASTM D 3418 Test Method for Transition Temperatures sulating Materials
of Polymers by Thermal Analysis D 1076 Specification for Rubber — Concentrated, Am-
ASTM E 274 Test Method for Skid Resistance of Paved monia Preserved, Creamed and Centrifuged
Surfaces Using a Full-Scale Tire Natural Latex
D 1417 Methods of Testing Rubber Latices — Synthet-
ic
CHAPTER 8—REFERENCES
D 2354 Test Method for Minimum Film Formation
Temperature (MFFT) of Emulsion Vehicles
8.1—Specified or recommended references
E 518 Test Method for Flexural Bond Strength of Ma-
The documents of the various standards-producing organi-
sonry
zations referenced in this report are listed below with their
serial designation.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO)
American Concrete Institute T26 Method of Test for Quality of Water to be Used
305R Hot Weather Concreting in Concrete
306R Cold Weather Concreting
548.1R Guide for Use of Polymers in Concrete Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
FHWA- Styrene-Butadiene Latex Modifiers for Bridge
ASTM RD-78-35 Deck Overlay Concrete
C 31 Practice for Making and Curing Concrete Test
Specimens in the Field
C 33 Specification for Concrete Aggregates The above publications may be obtained from the follow-
C 109 Test Method for Compressive Strength of Hy- ing organizations:
draulic Cement Mortars (Using 2-in or 50-mm
Cube Specimens) American Concrete Institute
C 125 Terminology Relating to Concrete and Concrete P.O. Box 19150
Aggregates Detroit, MI 48219
C 127 Test Method for Specific Gravity and Absorp-
tion of Coarse Aggregate
C 143 Test Method for Slump of Hydraulic Cement ASTM
Concrete 1916 Race St.
C 150 Specification for Portland Cement Philadelphia, PA 19103
548.3R-44 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT
Federal Highway Administration
Offices of Research and Development
Washington, D.C. 20590
8.2—Cited references
1. Cresson, L., British Patent 191, 474, Jan. 12, 1923.
2. Lefebure, V., British Patent 217, 279, June 5, 1924.
3. Kirkpatrick, S.M., British Patent 242, 345, Nov. 6,
1925.
4. R. Critchley, Ltd. and Bond, A.E.; British Patent 369,
561, Mar. 17, 1932.
5. Rodwell, A.G., German Patent 680, 312, Aug. 29, 1939.
6. Cooke, G.B., U.S. Patent 2,227533, Jan. 7, 1941, as-
signed to Crown Cork and Seal Co., Inc.
7. Jaenicke, J.; Knoop, H.; Miedel, H.; and Schweitzer, O.,
U.S. Patent 2,311,233, Feb. 16, 1943, assigned to American
Lurgi Corp.
8. Griffiths, L.H., “Floor Surfacings for Food Processing
Plants,” Food Manufacture, V. 26, No. 9, 1951, pp. 369-372.
9. Stevens, W.H., “Latex Processes and Potentialities,”
Rubber Developments, V. 1, No. 3, 1948, pp. 10-13.
10. Geist, J.M.; Amagna, S.V.; and Mellor, B.B., “Im-
proved Portland Cement Mortars with Polyvinyl Acetate
Emulsions,” Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, V. 45,
No. 4, 1953, pp. 759-767.
11. Clear, K.C., and Chollar, B.H., “Styrene-Butadiene
Latex Modifiers for Bridge Deck Overlay Concrete,”
FHWA-RD-78-35, Apr. 1978 (National Technical Informa-
tion Service, PB 283945).
12. “Polymer Concrete,” Technical Report No. 9, The
Concrete Society, London, p. 85.
13. Ohama, Y., “Study on Properties and Mix Proportion-
ing of Polymer-Modified Mortars for Buildings,” (in Japa-
nese), Report of the Building Research Institute, No. 65,
Tokyo, Japan, Building Research Institute, 1973.
14. Schwiete, H.E.; Ludwig, V.; and Aachen, G.S., “The
Influence of Plastics Dispersions on the Properties of Ce-
ment Mortars,” Betonstein Zeitung, V. 35, No. 1, 1969, pp.
7-16.
15. Wagner, H.B., and Grenley, D.G., “Interphase Effects
in Polymer-Modified Hydraulic Cements,” Journal of Ap-
plied Polymer Science, V. 22, No. 3, 1978, pp. 813-822.
16. Wagner, H.B., “Polymer-Modified Hydraulic Ce-
ments,” Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, Product Re-
search and Development, V. 4, No. 3, 1965, pp. 191-196.
17. “A Handbook on Portland Cement Concrete and Mor-
tar Containing Styrene/Butadiene Latex,” Dow Chemical
Co., Midland, Mich., 1985.
18. Ohama, Y., Chapter 7, “Polymer-Modified Mortars
and Concretes,” Concrete Admixtures Handbook, Edited by
Ramachandran, V. S., Noyes Publications, Park Ridge, NJ,
1984, pp. 407-410.
19. Ohama, Y., and Shiroishida, K., “Freeze-Thaw Dura-
bility of Polymer-Modified Mortars” (in Japanese), Nihon-
Kenchiku-Gakkai Tohoku-shibu Kenkyo-Hoko-kushu, V. 41,
1983, pp. 165-168.
20. Kasai, Y.; Matsui, I.; and Fukushima, Y., “Physical
Properties of Polymer-Modified Mortars,” Third Interna-
tional Congress on Polymers in Concrete, V. 1, Koriyama,
Japan, 1982, pp. 178-192.
21. Kuhlmann, L.A., “Performance History of Latex Mod-
ified Concrete Overlays,” Applications of Polymer Con-
crete, SP-69, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, pp. 123-
144.
22. Sprinkel, M.M., “High Early Strength Latex Modified
Concrete Overlay,” Transportation Research Board, Session
195, Jan. 14, 1988.
23. Shah, S.P., and Frondistou-Yannas, S.A., “Polymer
Latex Modified Mortar,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings, V. 69,
No. 1, Jan. 1972, pp. 61-65.
24. Kuhlmann, L.A. and Foor, N.C., “Chloride Permeabil-
ity Versus Air Content of Latex Modified Concrete,” Ce-
ment, Concrete, and Aggregates, CCAGDP, V. 6, No. 1,
Summer 1984, pp. 11-16.
25. Ohama, Y.; Miyake, T.; and Nishimura, M., “Proper-
ties of SBR-Modified Concrete,” (in Japanese), Nihon-
Kenchiku-Gakkai Kanto-shibu Kenkyu-Hokokushu, 1980,
pp. 289-292.
26. Smutzer, R.K., and Hockett, R.B., “Latex Modified
Portland Cement Concrete — A Laboratory Investigation of
Plastic and Hardened Properties of Concrete Mixtures Con-
taining Three Formulations Used in Bridge Deck Overlays,”
Indiana State Highway Commission, Feb. 1981.
27. Ohama, Y., and Kan, S., “Effects of Specimen Size on
Strength and Drying Shrinkage of Polymer-Modified Con-
crete,” The International Journal of Cement Composites and
Lightweight Concrete, V. 4, No. 4, Nov. 1982.
28. Michalyshin, J.J., “Shrinkage of Latex Modified Con-
crete versus Conventional Concrete Containing Water Re-
ducers,” Dow Chemical Co., Midland, Mich., May 1983.
29. Ohama, Y; Demura, K.; Nagao, H.; and Ogi, T., “Ad-
hesion of Polymer-Modified Mortar to Ordinary Cement
Mortar by Different Test Methods,” RILEM Technical
Committee 52 Symposium, Paris, France, Sept. 16-19, 1986.
30. Kuhlmann, L.A., “Test Method for Measuring the
Bond Strength of Latex-Modified Concrete and Mortar,”
ACI Materials Journal, V. 87, No. 4, July-Aug. 1990, pp.
387-394.
31. Knab, L.I., and Spring, C.B., “Evaluation of Test
Methods for Measuring the Bond Strength of Portland Ce-
ment Based Repair Materials to Concrete,” Cement, Con-
crete, and Aggregates, CCAGDP, V. 11, No. 1, 1989.
32. Knab, L.I.; Sprinkel, M.M.; and Lane, O.J., “Prelimi-
nary Performance Criteria for the Bond of Portland-Cement
and Latex-Modified Concrete Overlays,” NISTIR 89-4156,
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithers-
burg, Md., Nov. 1989.
33. Pfeifer, D.W., “Utilization of Latex-Modified Con-
crete for Restoration of Seats in Soldier Field for Chicago
Park District,” Wiss, Janney, Elstner and Assoc., Inc., North-
brook, Ill., Sept. 1978.
34. Walters, D. Gerry, “Latex Hydraulic Cement Addi-
tives,” Transportation Research Board, Session 195, Jan. 14,
1988.
 POLYMER-MODIFIED CONCRETE
35. Kuhlmann, L.A., “Using Styrene/Butadiene Latex in
Concrete Overlays,” Transportation Research Board, Ses-
sion 195, Jan. 14, 1988.
36. “Bond Pullout Test Program Report,” Carl Walker and
Associates, Inc., Kalamazoo, Mich., June 1982.
37. Kuhlmann, L.A., “The Effect of Cure Time on Chlo-
ride Permeability of Latex Modified Concrete,” Dow Chem-
ical Co., Midland, Mich., 1984.
38. Ohama, Y.; Moriwaki, T.; and Shiroishida, K.,
“Weatherability of Polymer-Modified Mortars through Ten-
year Outdoor Exposure,” 4th International Congress of Poly-
mers in Concrete, Darmstadt, West Germany, Sept. 1984.
39. Ohama, Y.; Notoya, K.; and Miyake, M., “Chloride
Permeability of Polymer-Modified Concretes,” Transac-
tions, Japan Concrete Institute, 1985.
40. Whiting, D., “Rapid Determination of the Chloride
Permeability of Concrete,” FHWA RD 81/119, Aug. 1981.
41. Bishara, A.G., “Latex Modified Concrete Bridge Deck
Overlays — Field Performance Analysis,” Report No. FH-
WA/OH/79/004, 1979.
42. Walters, D.G., “Cover System for Concrete,” U.S.
Patent 4,732,816, Mar. 22, 1988.
43. Sprinkel, M.M., “Use of Liquid Membrane Curing
Material to Cure Latex Modified Concrete Overlays,” pre-
sented at Performance of Concrete, Transportation Research
Board, Committee A2E01, Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 1989.
44. Kuhlmann, L.A., “Curing Latex Concrete with a Liq-
uid Membrane,” Presented at the Twenty-Second Annual
Quality Assurance Workshop, Williamsburg, Va., Feb. 15,
1989.
45. Soroushian, P., and Tlili, A., “Evaluation of Different
Curing Techniques for Latex-Modified Steel Fiber Rein-
forced Concrete (LMSFRC),” Department of Civil and En-
vironmental Engineering, Michigan State University, 1989.
46. Kuhlmann, L.A., “Styrene-Butadiene Latex-Modified
Concrete: The Ideal Concrete Repair Material?,” Concrete
International, V. 12, No. 10, Oct. 1990, pp. 59-65.
47. “Recommended Practice for Hot Weather Concreting
(ACI 306-77) (Revised 1982),” American Concrete Insti-
tute, Detroit, 1982.
48. “Recommended Practice for Cold Weather Concreting
(ACI 306-78) (Revised 1983),” American Concrete Insti-
tute, Detroit, 1983.
49. Riddle, E. H., “Monomeric Acrylic Esters,” Reinhold
Publishing Company, Inc., New York, 1954. N. H. Brendly,
Paint and Varnish Production, 1963, July, 1973.
50. Lavelle, J. A., “Acrylic Latex Modified Portland Ce-
ment,” ACI Materials Journal, V., 85, No. 1, January-Febru-
ary 1988, pp. 41-48.
51. Walters, D. G., “The Effect of Polymer Variables and
Other Parameters on the Properties of Polymer-Modified
Cement Mixtures,” Polymer-Modified Hydraulic-Cement
Mixtures, ASTM STP 1176, Louis A. Kuhlmann and D. Ger-
ry Walters, Eds, American Society for Testing and Materi-
als, Philadelphia, Dec., 1992
52. Rohm and Hass Product Bulletin RC-72, “Rhoplex®
E-330 Cement Mortar Modifier,” Aug. 1974, Philadelphia
PA.
548.3R-45
53. Rohm and Haas Product Bulletin 83D2, “Test Meth-
ods for the Evaluation of Cement Modifiers,” May 1989,
Philadelphia PA.
54. Lavelle, J. A., “Acrylic Modified High Solids Cemen-
titious Coatings,” presented at the Water-Borne and Higher
Solids Coatings Symposium (New Orleans, LA) Feb. 17-19,
1982.
55. ACI Committee 548, Polymers in Concrete, Publica-
tion SP-40, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1973.
56. ACI Committee 548, Polymers in Concrete — Interna-
tional Symposium, Publication SP-58, American Concrete
Institute, Detroit, 1978.
57. Dikeou, J. T. and Fowler, D. W., Eds. Polymer Con-
crete Uses, Materials and Properties, Publication SP-89,
American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1985.
58. Fowler, D. W., Ed., Polymer-Modified Concrete, Pub-
lication SP-99, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1987.
59. Schulz, H. Ed., Polymers in Concrete, Fourth Interna-
tional Congress, Institut fur Spanede Technolgie und
Werkzeugmaschinen, Technische Hochschule Darmstadt,
Sept. 19-21, 1984.
60. Popovics, S., “Principles of Epoxy and Epoxy Modifi-
cation of PC Concrete,” American Concrete Institute's Fall
Convention, Philadelphia, PA 1990.
61. Schutz, R. J., “On New ASTM Standards — Epoxy
Resins,” Concrete International, V. 1, No. 1, pp. 33-37, Jan-
uary 1982.
62. Okada, K. and Ohama, Y., “Standardization of Testing
Methods for Concrete-Polymer-Composites in Japan,” Poly-
mers in Concrete, Institut fur Spanede Technolgie und
Werkzeugmaschinen, Technische Hochschule Darmstadt,
Sept. 19-21, 1984.
63. Lohaus, L, “Significant Differences in the Properties
of Hardened Polymer-Cement Concrete,” (In German), In-
stitut fur Spanede Technolgie und Werkzeugmaschinen,
Technische Hochschule Darmstadt, Sept. 19-21, 1984.
64. Conrad, K. H., “ECC-Mortar Properties and Interac-
tion of Epoxy Resin with Hardened Cement Paste, Mechan-
ical Behavior under Confining Pressure,” (In German),
Institut fur Spanede Technolgie und Werkzeugmaschinen,
Technische Hochschule Darmstadt, Sept. 19-21, 1984.
65. Schwarz, S., “Research of Structures of Polymer-Mod-
ified Mortar,” (In German), Institut fur Spanede Technolgie
und Werkzeugmaschinen, Technische Hochschule Darms-
tadt, Sept. 19-21, 1984.
66. Boue, A. and Kwasny, R., “Polymer-Modified Cement
Mortar — Influence of Strength of Mortar and the Structure
of Cement-Stone by adding Water-Emulsified Epoxy Resin;
Experience about Long Term Properties of Deformation,”
(In German), Institut fur Spanede Technolgie und
Werkzeugmaschinen, Technische Hochschule Darmstadt,
Sept. 19-21, 1984.
67. Popovics, S. and Tamas, F., “Investigation on Portland
Cement Pastes and Mortars Modified by the Addition of Ep-
oxy,” Polymers in Concrete — International Symposium,
Publication SP-58, American Concrete Institute, Detroit,
MI, 1978, pp. 357-366.
548.3R-46 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT
68. Popovics, S., “Modification of Portland Cement Con-
crete with Epoxy as Admixture,” Dikeou, J. T. and Fowler,
D. W., Eds. Polymer Concrete Uses, Materials and Proper-
ties, Publication SP-89, American Concrete Institute, De-
troit, 1985, pp. 207-229.
68. Popovics, S., “New Results with Epoxy Modification
of Portland cement Concrete,” Institut fur Spanede Tech-
nolgie und Werkzeugmaschinen, Technische Hochschule
Darmstadt, Sept. 19-21, 1984.
69. Popovics, S., “Polymer Cement Concretes for Field
Construction,” Journal of the Construction Division, ASCE,
V. 100, No. C03, Proc. Paper 10806, Sept. 1974, pp. 469-
487.
70. Kreijger, P. C., “Improvements of Concretes and Mor-
tars by Adding Resins (Topic Ia),” Materials and Structure
Testing Research, V. 1, No. 3, Paris, May-June, 1968, pp.
187-217.
71. Popovics, S., “Cement-Mortar Experiments Concern-
ing the Addition of Water-Dispersible Epoxy or Furfuryl Al-
cohol Systems,” Polymers in Concrete, Proceedings of the
First International Congress of Polymer Concretes, paper
2.7, London, May 5-7, 1975, The Construction Press, Ltd.,
London, 1976, pp. 64-70.
72. Raff, R. A. V., and Austin, H., “Epoxy Polymer Mod-
ified Concretes,” Polymers in Concrete, Publication SP-40,
American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1973, pp. 339-354.
73. Nawy, E. G., Ukadike, M. M., and Sauer, J. A., “High-
Strength Field Polymer Modified Concretes,” Journal of the
Structural Division, ASCE, V. 103, No. ST12, Proc. Paper
13404, Dec. 1977, pp. 2307-2322.
74. Marusin, S., “Microstructure, Pore Characteristics,
and Chloride Ion Penetration in Conventional Concrete and
Concrete Containing Polymer Emulsions,” Fowler, D. W.,
Ed., Polymer-Modified Concrete, Publication SP-99, Amer-
ican Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1987, pp. 135-150.
75. Perenchio, W. F. and Marusin, S. L., “Short-Term
Chloride Penetration Into relatively Impermeable Con-
cretes,” Concrete International, V. 5, No. 4, April 1983, pp.
37-41.
76. Pfeifer, D. W. and Perenchio, W. F., “Sealers or Over-
lays?,” Concrete Construction, May 1984, pp. 503-508.
77. Lezy, R. and Paillere, A., “Concrete, Mortars and
Grouts. Improvements by Addition of a Resin,” (in French),
Synthetic Resins in Building Construction, V. 1, RILEM
Symposium, Paris, September 4-6, 1967.
78. Valenta, O. and Kucera, E., “What Properties of Ep-
oxies are Important When Used as Admixture to Concrete,”
(in French), Synthetic Resins in Building Construction, V. 1,
RILEM Symposium, Paris, September 4-6, 1967, Editions
Eyrolles, Paris, 1970.
79. Hinsche, F., “Synthetic Resin Modified Hydraulic Ce-
ment Mortars for Industrial Buildings,” (in German), Schulz,
H. Ed., Polymers in Concrete, Fourth International Con-
gress, Institut fur Spanede Technolgie und Werkzeugm-
aschinen, Technische Hochschule Darmstadt, Sept. 19-21,
1984, pp. 381-386.
80. Fowler, D. W., Kukacka, L., Paul D. R., Schrader, E.
K., and Smoak, W. G., “Safety Aspects of Concrete-Polymer
Materials,” Polymers in Concrete — International Sympo-
sium, Publication SP-58, American Concrete Institute, De-
troit, 1978, pp. 123-138.
81. Murray. M. A., “Application of Epoxy-Modified Con-
crete Toppings,” Concrete International, V. 9, No. 12, Dec.
1987, pp. 36-38.
82. Celanese Coatings Co., “Epi-Top PC-10 Epoxy Port-
land cement Concretes,” Technical Bulletin, Louisville KY
March 1, 1972
83. Walters, D. G., “VAE Redispersible Powder Hydrau-
lic Cement Admixtures,” Concrete International, V. 14, No.
4, April, 1992, pp. 30-34.
84. Alexanderson, J., “Self-Smoothing Floors Based on
Polymer Cement Concrete,” Concrete International, V. 12,
No. 1, 1990, pp. 49-51.
85. Lambe, R. W., Humphrey, M. J., and Watkins, T. F.,
“Development of Materials for Repair and Protection of Re-
inforced Concrete,” Proceedings, Third International Sym-
posium on Corrosion of Reinforcement in Concrete
Construction, UK, May 21-24, 1990, Eds., Page C. L.,
Treadaway, K. W. J, and Bamforth, P. B., pp. 471-485.
86. Decter, M. H. and Lambe, R. W., “New Materials for
Concrete Repair — Development and Testing,” Proceed-
ings, RILEM International Conference on Rehabilitation of
Concrete Structures, Melbourne, Australia, Aug. 31-Sept. 2,
1992, Eds, Ho, D. W. S. and Collins, F.
87. Afridi, M. U. K.; Ohama, Y.; Demura, K., and Iqbal,
M. Z., “Freeze-Thaw Durability of Powdered and Aqueous
Polymer-Modified Mortars and Effects of Freezing-and-
Thawing Cycles on Their Pore Structure,” Proceedings of
the 6th International Congress of Polymers in Concrete
(ICPIC), Shanghai, China, Sept. 1990, pp. 253-260.
88. Bright, R. P., Mraz, T. J., and Vassallo, J. C., “The In-
fluence of Various Polymeric Materials on the Physical
Properties of a Cementitious Patching Compound,” Poly-
mer-Modified Hydraulic-Cement Mixtures, ASTM STP
1176, Louis A. Kuhlmann and D. Gerry Walters, Eds, Amer-
ican Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Dec.
1992.
89. Hackel, E., Beng, P., and Horler, S., “The Use of Re-
dispersible Polymer Powders in Concrete Restoration,” Pro-
ceedings of the Fifth International Congress of Polymers in
Concrete (ICPIC), Brighton, UK, Sept. 22-24, 1987, pp.
305-308.
90. Walters, D. G., “A Comparison of Latex-Modified
Portland Cement Mortars,” ACI Materials Journal, V. 87,
No. 4, July-August 1990, pp. 371-377.
91. Ohama, Y., and Miyake, T., “Accelerated Carbonation
of Polymer-Modified Concrete,” Transactions of the Japan
Concrete Institute, V. 2, 1980, pp. 61-68.
APPENDIX 1—CONVERSION FACTORS, INCH-
POUND TO SI UNITS
1 ft = 0.3048 m
1 gal = 3.785 L
1 in. = 25.4 mm
1 mile = 1609 m
 POLYMER-MODIFIED CONCRETE 548.3R-47

1 lb (force) = 4.448 N 1 yd3 = 0.7645 m3

1 lb (mass) = 0.4536 kg (deg F -32)/1.8 = deg C
1 psi = 6895 Pa
1 lb/ft2 = 4.882 kg/m2
1 lb/yd3 = 0.5933 kg/m3
This report was submitted to letter ballot of the committee and was approved
1 yd2 = 0.8361 m2 according to Institute balloting procedures.