In My

Judgment
by Adam Neville

W—A T E R
Cinderella Ingredient of Concrete

T
o say that water is a necessary accompaniment of
cement is to state the obvious: you cannot make
concrete or mortar without water; you cannot even
make neat cement paste. And yet, of all the ingredients of
concrete, water seems to have been treated like Cinderella:
it has been the subject of the least amount of study, and hardly
any of the studies are recent.
Not only is there a dearth of research data on the properties
of water for making concrete, there is also an absence of
standards or even serious guides on the properties of mixing
water. This situation is the background to this article, the
purpose of which is to collate our
knowledge of the influence of
mixing water on the properties of “There is no ACI document
concrete and, even more impor-
tantly, to stimulate work in this telling us what properties
area.
Strictly speaking, there are four mixing water must have or
uses of water that are of interest:
water put into the mixture; water
must not have. There exists
used in curing; water used to wash
out mixers, agitators, and other
no British standard either.”
equipment; and water used to wash aggregate. Although the
various uses present some requirements in common, they
are not identical. For the sake of clarity, I should add that
mixing water includes crushed ice and ice shavings, and also
the surface water on aggregate.
This article deals with water used in the mixture and for
curing. A future article will look at the whole spectrum of
relationships between water and concrete at various stages
in the life of concrete and under many circumstances.
Standards for mixing water
A search for standards for mixing water has proved all but
fruitless. There is no ACI document telling us what
properties mixing water must have or must not have. There
exists no British standard either. The nearest approach is an
appendix to a British standard. Let me explain this rather
feeble and timid effort.
There exists a document published by the British Standards
Institution under the number BS 3148: 1980, titled “Meth-
ods of test for Water for making concrete (including notes
on the suitability of the water).”1 The wording as well as the
use of capital letters are as in the original document, which
is 20 years old. So nothing much has happened during the
period: when the use of admixtures, especially high-range
water-reducing admixtures (or
superplasticizers), has burgeoned;
when high-performance concrete
as well as the use of silica fume
has become firmly established;
when ready-mixed concrete has
become a dominant material; and
when bigger, taller, and more
complex concrete structures have
been built.
The “notes” heralded in the title
of the British document are contained in Appendix A
(indeed, the only appendix).1 A “note” has, to my mind, a
distinctly noncommittal ring about it. Even though the Brit-
ish Standard puts the words “Guidance on the suitability of
the water, based on the initial setting time test, is given in
A.5” in parentheses, the wording lacks authority. “Guidance”
is less definite than “guide,” with the latter probably
indicating good practice.
Although there are various ASTM standards for cements
and cementitious materials, for aggregate, and for admix-
tures, there is no standard for mixing water for concrete in
general. What exists is a section on water in ASTM C 94-98c,
“Standard Specification for Ready-Mixed Concrete.” This

The opinions expressed in this point of view article are not necessarily those of the American Concrete Institute. Reader comment is invited.

66 Concrete International
section is brief and rather qualitative, being couched in terms
like “The mixing water shall be clear and apparently clean”
and expressions like “smell or taste unusual or objection-
able.” I shall consider these criteria in a general way in the
next section. The only quantitative requirements in ASTM
C 94-98c refer to compressive strength and setting time;
again, these are subjects of a full discussion later in this article.
I am aware of only one English-language standard —
Canadian Standard A23.1, whose latest version was published
in 2000 (in French as well as in English). This standard
contains a section on mixing water, but it is couched in very
general terms about the presence of harmful material; for
more specific information, reference is made to U.S.
publications in the 1960s and 1970s.
As for standards and codes in languages other than
English, they are not easy to find. All I have managed to
establish is that neither the German nor the Swiss codes
contains detailed requirements for the quality of mixing
water. In any case, unless they have been translated into
English and publicized, they are unlikely to be used in
English-speaking countries or in international construction.
There exists a German memorandum on mixing water. 2
This is not a standard of the DIN (Deutsche Norm) type.
This memorandum contains limit values on various ions and
other substances in the water. The memorandum also refers
to the test for the soundness of cement using the untried water;
the need for this is not obvious.
What is unusual is that the German memorandum, as well
as the German guide for the use of wash water, 3 gives
detailed information on the possible presence in water of
humins, which is that part of naturally occurring organic
matter that is not alkali-soluble. The reason for avoiding an
excessive amount of humins is that they interfere with the
hydration of cement. As the term humin is not common, it
may be helpful to quote its definition in Webster’s Dictionary:
“a bitter, brownish yellow, amorphous substance, extracted
from vegetable mold, and also produced by the action of
acids on certain sugars and carbohydrates.”
The quantity of humins in water is acceptable if the color
is lighter than yellowish brown and there is no smell of
ammonia. (Ammonia would be the product of putrefaction
of nitrogenous animal or vegetable matter.)
Almost as a curiosity, we can note that there exists a French
standard (Norme) NF P 18-303, unaltered since 1941. It is
limited to consideration of the quantity of solids and the
quantity of dissolved salts without differentiation in their
nature.
In anticipatory mode, we should look at a European
prestandard for mixing water that is in preparation. This is
prEN 1008, which is making its way through the European
system. If all goes well, the prestandard will appear in the
year 2001; assuming that this happens, it will take a few
more years before a formal standard comes into being. I, for
one, am not holding my breath.
The European standard will deal with a whole range of
waters, including acid waters, reused water, and seawater. 4
It is envisaged that the prestandard will contain, among
others things, a requirement for strength tests on standard
mortar cubes, and chemical and physical tests. Preliminary
testing is likely to be by smell (which should disappear upon
“Spending money on water of
the right quality is sometimes
frowned upon as extravagance.”
treatment by hydrochloric acid), color, foam stability, solids
in suspension, and organic matter (whose color should
disappear by treatment with caustic soda).
It is interesting that chemical tests are likely to include a
limit on sodium and potassium, taken together, of 1000 parts
per million (ppm) in cases where there is a risk of an
alkali-aggregate reaction. It is worth remembering that so-
dium and potassium salts are highly soluble.
The limits on the time of setting of mortar made with an
unknown water are expressed not only in terms of a
percentage variation from a sample made with good water,
but contain also an absolute minimum value of the time of
initial setting and an absolute maximum value of the time of
final setting.
ASTM advice on mixing water
Although I seem to deplore the absence of standards with
which mixing water must comply, I realize that we do not
live by standards and codes alone. Good, reliable, and
up-to-date scientific information would also enable us to
make correct and prudent decisions about the quality of an
untried mixing water. Before reviewing the relevant
publications, I would like to comment on what is probably
the most easily accessible handbook-style information: a
chapter in ASTM STP 169C, published in 1994.5 This is the
fourth version of ASTM STP 169, the first one having been
published in 1956. In that year, the chapter on mixing water
was written by Walter J. McCoy, who updated the
information for the 1956 edition. We are told that he made
only minor changes for the 1978 edition.
Now, the chapter in the 1994 edition of ASTM STP 169C
was written by James S. Pierce,5 who says about it: “This
current version is essentially Mr. McCoy’s (now retired)
chapter with minimal updating. There has been very little
new technology published regarding mixing and curing
water for concrete.” In this, probably the most recent, major
paper on mixing water, Pierce5 says that “most references
appear to be outdated”; indeed, they are all more than a
quarter of a century old.
I hasten to say that just because a publication is old, it
does not mean that its content is not valid. But what McCoy
wrote in 1956, as well as the very extensive test results of
Duff Abrams published by ACI in 1924,6 was based on
cements and mixtures of the day. Those cements were
substantially different from modern portland cements in their
chemical composition, fineness, and setting characteristics.
Moreover, nowadays there exists a whole range of different
cementitious materials. The mixture proportions, especially
the water content and the values of the water-cement ratio
(w/c), have changed, too. Furthermore, the parts of the world
in which large-scale concrete construction takes place have
extended enormously: in the various climates, and various
67
topographic areas, water is not the same as what comes out
of a tap in Farmington Hills!
Received wisdom on mixing water
Despite all this, the received wisdom with respect to mixing
water remains as it was, and yet water is not just a
condiment added to the dish: in every cubic meter of
concrete, there are 130 to 200 L of water. Spending money
on water of the right quality is sometimes frowned upon as
extravagance. I have experience
of construction in a remote part
of the world where it was neces- “We definitely need to have an
sary to import cement, reinforce-
ment, and some of the aggregate, objective way of determining
but when it came to water,
economy prevailed, the attitude
whether the available water is
being that “any water will do.” It suitable as mixing water or
did not “do,” and the conse-
quences were very costly. I shall whether water has to be
discuss this in some more detail
in a future article dealing specifi-
imported.”
cally with seawater in the mixture. Here, I would like to
emphasize that water is a proper ingredient of concrete, and
it should be factored into costs.
This is distilled (no pun intended) in a PCA publication by
Kosmatka and Panarese,7 in the opening words of Chapter 4:
“Almost any natural water that is drinkable and has no
pronounced taste or odor can be used as mixing water for
making concrete. However, some waters that are not fit for
drinking may be suitable for concrete.” These statements may
be true, but they are a rough-and-ready approach.
The opening word “almost” is wisely inserted. For example,
mineral waters from springs, good for our health, can be
harmful in concrete. Specifically, some natural mineral
waters may contain alkali carbonates or bicarbonates that
could be conducive to alkali-aggregate reaction.
As far as piped water is concerned, on one of the Galapagos
Islands, I found the local drinking water to be distinctly
brackish and quite undrinkable (I had to make do with beer!)
even though the local people, who had no choice, routinely
drank the available water. I have also heard about a case in
the desert in Africa, where the specification laid down
“drinking water,” which, although drunk locally, turned out
to be bordering on saline and unsuited for concrete-making.
Likewise, water containing quite small quantities of sugar
may be potable, but sugar would upset the time of setting.
At the other extreme, waters not fit for drinking because
they are foul-smelling or have a disgusting taste may, in some
cases, be perfectly satisfactory as mixing water. In other cases,
if used to make concrete, they may create serious problems.
So there is no quick fix by determining the color or odor of
an untried water, or even by establishing the presence of
impurities: reliance on comparative tests is necessary.
Whereas strength and the time of setting can be readily
compared, longer-term effects are not easily established. In
any case, a purely comparative case-by-case approach is
rather primitive and not necessarily reliable. In particular,
“impure” waters may vary from time to time.
We definitely need to have an objective way of determining
whether the available water is suitable as mixing water or
68
whether water has to be imported. This information in a
reliable form is needed at the tender stage as the cost
differential to the contractor can be significant.
My remarks are by no means a criticism of the PCA. It is
simply that neither that organization, nor the rest of us, knows
any better. So let me review what we do know or, more
correctly, the views that have been published. I am using the
word “views” advisedly because the relevant papers or parts
of books rarely give test results demonstrating the limits of
properties of water that have
proved satisfactory or actual
experience with waters dem-
onstrating that exceeding
some limits has proved to be
unsatisfactory.
Paradoxically, water that
attacks hardened concrete
may, in some cases, be satis-
factory as mixing water. For
example, pure water, if flow-
ing over a surface of concrete,
would leach calcium hydroxide, but is good as mixing water.
Criteria for acceptance of mixing water
These criteria are of two kinds: performance requirements,
and physical and chemical requirements. The performance
requirements, which are purely comparative in nature, are
the time of setting and compressive strength. The physical
and chemical requirements refer to dissolved salts and
solids in suspension.
Time of setting
An untried water can affect the time of setting through salts
dissolved in it or through other impurities. ASTM C 94-98c
(and we should recall that it applies to ready-mixed concrete
only) requires the time of setting of cement made with the
untried water to be not more than 60 min earlier and not
more than 90 min later than when the test is performed on
the same cement using distilled water or tap water. Appendix A
to BS 3148:1980 (and we should remember that this is only
a note) has more stringent limits: 30 min earlier or
30 min later.
The German guide3 has different limits. With untried wa-
ter, the time of setting should not be less than 1 h or more
than 12 h, and should not differ from the time of setting of
cement mixed with “good water” by more than 25%
of that value.
It is interesting to note that when the times of setting vary
more than is acceptable, the German memorandum on
mixing water recommends that the causes of this behavior
be established.2 Such an approach is more rational than a
rejection of suspect water out of hand.
Compressive strength
ASTM C 94-98c requires the 7-day compressive strength of
standard mortar cubes made with the untried water to be not
less than 90% of cubes made with distilled water or tap
water. The German guide3 contains the same requirement.
The British note also gives 90%, but the test is performed on
concrete cubes at the age of 28 days.1 The note also states
that water that results in a strength reduction up to 20% can
Concrete International
be acceptable, but the mixture proportions should be adjusted An easy test is to determine the pH of the water, and it is
as appropriate. Given that we are not dealing with manda- generally thought that this should not be outside the range
tory documents, this makes good sense. 6.0 to 8.0. Test methods for this, as well as for chloride and
Chemical tests sulfate content and also the content of inorganic and organic
These tests are concerned with elements and ions present in material, are prescribed by AASHTO T26-79.8 The lower
an untried water. There is no difficulty in determining the limit on the value of pH is prescribed not because of concern
quantities of these by standard chemical methods. It is, with hydrogen but rather because of some of the associated
however, not obvious how much can be tolerated. One anions, such as chloride or sulfate. Also, an extremely low
approach is to compare the results for an untried water with value of pH can have health effects on workers.
values for waters supplied in American cities. Unfortunately, Overall, with respect to chemical aspects of water, I
the values readily available to concrete specialists (as cannot do better than to direct readers to References 4 and 5.
distinct from city water engineers) date back to 1944.7 There is, however, a specific comment that I would like
Moreover, in some cases, the range is enormous. As an to make about the presence of chloride ions in an
example, some actual extreme values of ions in city waters untried water. We know that chloride ions in the mixture,
in towns with a population of more than 20,000 are given in when present above a certain threshold, are conducive
Table 1, extracted from Reference 7. It is, therefore, very to corrosion of reinforcement or embedded metal. Alas,
difficult to say how much is too much, and to put specific there is no universally agreed value of the threshold,
values as requirements in a specification. Also, while any except that in prestressed concrete, an extremely low value
one solute at its maximum value may be satisfactory, when is necessary: 0.06% of water-soluble chloride ion by mass
several of them are present in large quantities, they may of cement.
interact with one another; we simply do not know what The difficulty in limiting the chloride ion content in water
limits are reliable and truly required, but not unnecessarily is that water is by no means the only source of chlorides in
overcautious. the mixture. Chlorides can be present on the surface of the
Furthermore, untried waters that require chemical tests are aggregate particles and also in portland cement (although
likely to be either natural waters from wells in less accessible the latter quantity is very small). What matters in practice is
areas, or industrial or mine waste waters. In either case, the the total quantity of chlorides per cubic meter of concrete,
quality of the water is likely to vary from time to time, being whatever their provenance. It follows that a certain water
affected by rainfall (wet or dry season) and other climatic may be acceptable for one kind of concrete but not for
changes, or by industrial operations that may influence the another. I intend to discuss the progress in our learning about
resulting waste water. It follows that periodic testing is likely the use of seawater (and this, of course, contains chlorides)
to be necessary. It is important to remember that water is a in the mixture in a separate article. At this stage, I shall point
powerful solvent and therefore is unlikely to be pure. out only the fact that seawater in the mixture can cause
efflorescence or dampness on the surface; these would mar
the appearance or even upset an applied finish.
Table 1 — Extreme values of selected To give a sense of proportion to the content of dissolved
impurities in city water7 salts in mixing water, it is useful to look at an example of the
quantities involved. If the content of a given salt is 2000
Content, ppm ppm and the water content is 150 L/m3 (30 gal./yd 3) of
Ion concrete, the content of the dissolved salt is 300 g/m3
Minimum Maximum (8 oz/yd3) of concrete.
Solids in suspension and algae
Calcium 1.3 96 Some waters contain silt or clay particles in suspension. These
very fine particles can affect some properties of concrete,
Magnesium 0.3 27 possibly aggregate bond. The adverse effect of excessive
amounts of very fine particles upon compressive strength is
Sodium 1.4 183 small, but they can increase the water demand. The use of
settling basins is an effective way of reducing the content of
Potassium 0.2 18 such particles, but it requires appropriate space and
pumping facilities. There remains, of course, the question of
Bicarbonate 4.1 334 disposal of the waste, and modern legislation on waste
disposal generally precludes dumping.
Sulfate 2.6 121 Algae may entrain air, with a concomitant reduction in
strength, but quantitative data are lacking. This is not
Chloride 1.0 280 surprising, given the variety of algae and the difficulty of
quantifying their presence.
Nitrate 0.0 2
Wash water
Total dissolved
19.0 983 In the past, when mixers or agitators were washed out, wash
salts water was just water down the drain, so to speak, finding its

69
way into a stream or a lake. Nobody cared about the
ultimate disposal of wash water and, at the same time, fresh
water was plentiful and cheap. In the last two decades, the
situation has changed dramatically, and there now exists, in
many parts of the world, legislation controlling the discharge
of polluting waters, including wash water.
Moreover, when water is scarce or expensive — and there
is no doubt that it will be increasingly so in the future —
there is an economic incentive to reuse the wash water. Such
water can generally be used as mixing water, preferably if
blended with fresh water. In this manner, the limit on total
solids of 50,000 ppm, optionally recommended by ASTM C
94-98c, can be satisfied. The water should not produce films
or coatings on the surface of aggregate that could interfere
with its bond, nor should the water contain admixtures. It
can be useful to point out that the wash water has to be of
good quality in the first place.
The section in ASTM C 94-98c on the use of wash water
as mixing water, while helpful, is not highly prescriptive.
The German Committee on Reinforced Concrete3 offers
much more detailed guidelines. They deal with wash water
arising from various operations connected with fresh
concrete, as well as sawing and grinding hardened concrete.
The guidelines deal also with wash water from cement-lime
mortar because of the consequences of introducing sulfates
from that source. The sulfates originating from lime can
affect setting and hardening; furthermore, by their presence
in the hardened concrete, they can influence the durability
of concrete.
Although this article does not purport to give detailed
information on assessing the suitability of an untried water
as mixing water, some of the German guidelines3 are worth
quoting. In addition to considering color (at most, pale
yellowish), they refer to oil and grease (traces only); oil need
not be harmful, but it can affect the bond of aggregate. The
guidelines also consider chlorides and detergents (small,
unstable foam formation); they can entrain air and therefore
reduce strength.
If the wash water fails to satisfy the various criteria, it can
still be used when blended with “good” water to such an
extent that the resulting water conforms to the values in the
guidelines.3 Specific rules on the frequency of testing are
given.3
The German guidelines3 contain an ingenious, yet simple,
approach to determining the content of solids: the density of
the wash water. To facilitate the calculation of the blend
proportions, there is a table that interprets the density of wash
water in terms of the solids content as a function of the amount
of wash water per cubic meter of concrete. When blending
wash water with “good” water, it is important that the solids
are uniformly dispersed.
As wash water contains alkalies from the washed-out
cement, the German guidelines3 give specific advice on the
use of wash water with potentially alkali-reactive aggregates.
When the cement content is higher than 400 kg/m 3
(675 lb/yd3), it seems best not to use wash water at all.
If any cleansing agents are added to the wash water, it is
essential that they do not interfere with setting or
hardening.3
There is one other respect in which the use of wash water
70
is of particular importance: the influence of hardness of
water on the efficacy of air entrainment. Water is said to be
hard when it contains a significant amount of calcium ions.
Pierce5 states that there is no effect, but the data were
published in 1946 and have not been verified since then. More
recently, Gaynor9 advised that air-entraining admixtures
should not be allowed to come into contact with hard water,
so that they should be batched into the mixer with clean
water or with sand; my view is that the latter procedure may
not lead to a uniform dispersal of the admixture. The
German guidelines3 simply forbid using wash water in
air-entrained concrete. This seems unduly restrictive for
American usage.
Hardness of water is also of potential interest because of a
possible interaction with some admixtures — something that
is not easily determined a priori. I believe that the issue of
the influence of hard water on air entrainment should be
properly investigated.
Use of domestic waste water
Domestic waste water need not just be water wasted.
Admittedly, biological treatment to reduce the content of
pathogenic bacteria and viruses is essential before the water
can be handled by humans, and a reduction in the content of
organic material is also desirable. Such treated water is used
in various parts of the world to irrigate trees and grass, and
also for street washing. Warnings are posted to prevent
accidental ingestion of this water, especially by children.
There is little doubt that an appropriate use of domestic waste
water will continue to grow. Will this include mixing water
for concrete?
So far, there is very little experimental evidence on the
use of biologically treated domestic waste water as mixing
water. Cebeci and Saatci10 showed in laboratory tests that
such use is feasible. Some support for this was found in
laboratory tests in Qatar.11
At the present time, a generalization is not possible,
especially in view of a variability in the domestic waste water
in consequence of differences in water consumption (and
therefore dilution of sewage) and of the actual water
treatment used. Nevertheless, there is bound to be an
increased economic and ecological pressure to reuse more
waste water. Compromises are possible by way of a more
appropriate water treatment. In addition, as shown in the
laboratory,11 blending biologically treated domestic waste
water with good water can be a way forward. In my opinion,
the use of recycled domestic waste water is bound to
increase not only in the production of concrete, but within a
few years, also for human consumption.
Water for curing
It might be thought that the requirements for mixing water
should also apply to curing water and that water suitable as
mixing water is also satisfactory for curing purposes.
However, this is not always so. For example, pure water is
entirely satisfactory as mixing water but, as already
mentioned, if flowing over or in prolonged contact with
concrete, such water would leach some of the calcium
hydroxide. Conversely, water containing excessive solid
matter or water containing alkali carbonates or a residue of
Concrete International
admixtures is harmless when used for curing.
Moving away from a comparison with the requirements
for mixing water, it is obvious that curing water should be
free from substances that attack hardened concrete or
embedded reinforcement.
There is one warning that I would like to add on the basis
of my experience. If a reinforced or prestressed concrete
structure intended for immersion in seawater is built onshore,
it is vital that the concrete is not cured by seawater until it
has matured substantially. Premature exposure to seawater,
especially if the concrete has been allowed to dry out, will
result in imbibition of seawater with the associated risk of
corrosion of the reinforcement.
A specific requirement for curing water is that it does not
contain substances that will cause staining or discoloration
of surfaces to be exposed or to be subsequently treated and
visible. A performance test for the purpose of assessing the
risk of staining is prescribed by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.12
Conclusions
This article was not intended, and does not purport, to be a
state-of-the-art guide on the requirements for the quality of
mixing water. Relying on what we know today, it is not
possible to establish safe, but not uneconomic, limits on the
properties of mixing water: much work needs to be done.
My aim was to indicate the relevant criteria and say enough
about them in order to show how tentative and fragmentary
our knowledge is. Worse than that: much of it is old, and it
has been handed down the years and quoted again and again.
But, in the intervening years, the world of concrete has
changed quite significantly: not only have the properties of
portland cement evolved, but we use a number of other
cementitious materials as well. The range of water-
cementitious materials ratios (w/cm) has been extended
downwards, and the use of powerful water-reducing
admixtures (that is, superplasticizers) has greatly altered the
volumetric proportion of mixing water in concrete.
We could ask: what improvements in our knowledge of
the required or desirable properties of mixing water have
taken place? The answer is: almost none. At first sight, this
situation is surprising in its contrast with advances in our
knowledge of all the other ingredients of concrete, but there
is an explanation. It is this: no single firm, nor even a trade
association, has a commercial interest in tackling the
problem and in preparing a standard, or even a serious guide,
for mixing water. To achieve this would require undertaking
extensive testing and research evaluation. No one has to gain
by it, so no one does it. Amongst all the advances in
concrete, improving our knowledge of requirements for
mixing water is treated like Cinderella.
Establishing the requisite knowledge will make it possible
to widen the safe use of waste water, both domestic and
industrial. This will contribute to the economy of making
concrete and thus to extending its use.
In the meantime, it seems well worthwhile for ACI to
publish (with an appropriate permission) an English
translation of the German documents listed in References 2
and 3; together they are only 16 pages long but their content
is really valuable.
By remaining largely ignorant, we are likely to be losers
through not being able to use the most economic sources of
water at one extreme, and at the other, avoiding problems
with concrete that, unbeknownst to us, can be the
consequence of some undesirable property of water that
has been used as “good mixing water.”
Realizing this situation is perhaps not quite half the battle,
let me be realistic and say: it is a quarter of the battle. The
remainder of the battle still to be won is for someone to start
the appropriate research. That someone could be the PCA,
which 80 years ago sponsored the historic and splendid work
of Duff Abrams.6 It could be a cooperative undertaking,
which would be particularly appropriate for studying
various waters and various cementitious materials as well as
types of admixtures. I do not believe that the work will be
very difficult, but it will be time-consuming. With luck, the
work will be accomplished before water shortage begins to
bite in many parts of the world and before fiscal measures
impinge seriously on a profligate use of high-quality pure
water (needed to accompany whisky). Let battle commence!
References
1. British Standard BS 3148: 1980, “Methods of Test for Water for Mak-
ing Concrete (including Notes on the Suitability of the Water),” British
Standards Institution, London, 1980, 3 pp.
2. Deutscher Beton-Verein, “Zugabewasser für Beton,” Merkblatt, 1996,
12 pp.
3. Deutscher Ausschuss für Stahlbeton, “Richtlinie für Herstellung von
Beton unter Verwendung von Restwasser, Restbeton und Restmörtel,” 1995,
6 pp.
4. Plumat, M., “L’eau de Gâchage,” Les Bétons, Eyrolles, Paris, 1996,
pp.143-150.
5. Pierce, J. S., “Mixing and Curing Water for Concrete,” Significance
of Tests and Properties of Concrete and Concrete-Making Materials, ASTM
STP 169C, West Conshohocken, Pa., 1994, pp. 473-477.
6. Abrams, D. A., “Tests of Impure Waters for Mixing Concrete,” ACI
JOURNAL, Proceedings, V. 20, 1924, 44 pp.
7. Kosmatka, S. H., and Panarese, W. C., “Mixing Water for Concrete,”
Design and Control of Concrete Mixtures, 6th Canadian Edition, Portland
Cement Association, 1995, pp. 32-35.
8. AASHTO T 26-79, “Standard Method of Test for Quality of Water to
be Used in Concrete,” AASHTO, 1979, p. 27.
9. Gaynor, R. D., “Ready-Mixed Concrete,” Significance of Tests and
Properties of Concrete and Concrete-Making Materials, ASTM STP 169C,
West Conshohocken, Pa., 1994, pp. 511-521.
10. Cebeci, O. Z., and Saatci, A. M., “Domestic Sewage as Mixing Wa-
ter in Concrete,” ACI Materials Journal, V. 86, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1989, pp.
503-506.
11. El-Nawawy, O. A., “Use of Treated Effluent in Concrete Mixing in
an Arid Climate,” Cement and Concrete Composites, V. 13, 1991,
pp. 137-141.
12. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, “Method of Test for the Staining
Properties of Water,” CRD-C 401, Vicksburg, Miss., 1975.
Selected for reader interest by the editors after independent expert
evaluation and recommendation.
ACI Honorary Member Adam Neville is the author of Prop-
erties of Concrete, which has been translated into 12 lan-
guages; the fourth edition appeared in 1996. He acts as an
expert witness in the U.S. and other countries. From his prac-
tical experience combined with research, he has recently
published a number of articles in Concrete International with
the aim of encouraging the production of better concrete.
71