See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/282450118

Models for Prediction of 28-Day Concrete Compressive Strength

Article  in  Journal of Testing and Evaluation · May 2016

DOI: 10.1520/JTE20140139

CITATIONS READS

13 8,616

2 authors, including:

Muhammad Masood Rafi

NED University of Engineering and Technology, Karachi
89 PUBLICATIONS   839 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Performance of Hot Mix Asphalt Mixtures Made of Recycled Aggregates View project

Earthquake Model For Middle East Reigon View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Muhammad Murtaza Nasir on 20 April 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of
Testing and Evaluation
Muhammad Masood Rafi1 and Muhammad Murtaza Nasir2

DOI: 10.1520/JTE20140139

Models for Prediction of 28-Day

Concrete Compressive Strength
VOL. 44 NO. 3 / MAY 2016
 Journal of Testing and Evaluation
doi:10.1520/JTE20140139 Vol. 44
Manuscript received March 28, 2014;
accepted for publication November 13,
2014; published online February 2, 2015.
1
Professor, Department of Earthquake
Engineering, NED Univ. of Engineering
and Technology, Karachi-75270,
Pakistan, e-mail: rafi-m@neduet.edu.pk
2
Lecturer, Department of Civil
Engineering, Sir Syed Univ. of
Engineering and Technology,
Karachi, Pakistan,
e-mail: mmuhammad5790@hotmail.com
Copyright V
C 2015 by ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.
No. 3 / May 0000 / available online at www.astm.org
Muhammad Masood Rafi1 and Muhammad Murtaza Nasir2
Models for Prediction of 28-Day Concrete
Compressive Strength
Reference
Rafi, Muhammad Masood and Nasir, Muhammad Murtaza, “Models for Prediction of 28-Day Concrete
Compressive Strength,” Journal of Testing and Evaluation, Vol. 44, No. 3, 2016, pp. 1–12, doi:10.1520/
JTE20140139. ISSN 0090-3973
ABSTRACT
The design codes usually specify 28-day concrete compressive strength as design strength
for reinforced concrete (RC) structures. Concrete specimens are cast and tested at 28 days
to ensure compliance of concrete strength with the design requirements. Prediction of
concrete strength can help in reducing waiting time and can result in speeding up
construction activities. This paper presents prediction models for concrete compressive
strength up to 28 days. The data of experimentally tested concrete cylinders were employed
in the development of these models. The effects of cement chemical composition and
fineness were included by defining two parameters in the models. The predictions are based
on 7-day concrete strength. The proposed models provided good correlation with the
observed concrete strength data. The models were also validated using the strength results
of concrete mixes in the available literature. Generalized forms of the models have been
suggested for cement brands available in Pakistan.
Keywords
concrete, strength, cement, cylinders, cubes, prediction model
Introduction
Concrete is one of the popular construction materials around the world and is employed in both
structural and non-structural applications. It is a strong material in compression and is, therefore,
used to resist compressive stresses. The properties of concrete are generally co-related with its
compressive strength; better compressive strength implies enhanced concrete properties. The
theory of reinforced concrete (RC) design is based on the 28-day concrete compressive strength,
1
2 Journal of Testing and Evaluation
which is determined by testing the specimens in the laboratory.
ASTM C192/C192M-02 [1] recommends the use of cylindrical
specimens for this purpose.
In order to ensure that the concrete strength satisfies the
design requirements, several trial mixes are made in the labora-
tory and are tested at 28 days. This is a time-taking process,
which requires long waiting time and may cause delays in the
project execution. In addition, estimate of concrete strength at
different time intervals is required to plan the removal of form-
work and subsequent construction activities. Several attempts
have been made by the researchers to develop strength predic-
tion models for concrete to keep a check on its quality and its
conformity with the design specifications. The suggested models
were based on different approaches, which employ cement
chemical and compound composition [2–6], specified age of
concrete [7–9], empirical approach [10–15], or water-cement
(w/c) ratio [16–19]. Furthermore, studies related to prediction
models for concrete strength have also been based on computa-
tional modeling, statistical techniques and artificial neural net-
works [20–31]. However, most of these models have limited
application for the construction industry and are heavily
research oriented; these models employ several parameters and
coefficients that require separate efforts of determination. In
addition, the models are intended to determine the long-term
strength over several years and cannot be used directly to esti-
mate 28-day strength.
This paper presents the studies that were carried out to
develop analytical models for the prediction of 28-day concrete
compressive strength. Cylindrical concrete specimens were
experimentally tested in the laboratory, both in compression
and tension. Mortar cubes were also tested in compression to
supplement (qualitatively) results of concrete cylindrical
strength. The data of concrete compressive strength were
employed in the development of analytical models; these were
validated using the strength results from the presented study
and those available in the literature. Attempts were made to
keep the models simple so that these could be conveniently
used by the professionals and practitioners. The use of models
avoids waiting for 28 days to determine the concrete strength.
As a result, project managers and project engineers may become
able to better plan construction activities. Although the pre-
sented studies are in the context of cement brands available in
Pakistan, the proposed models are generic in nature and can be
applied in any region of the world.
Review of Previous Work
by Authors
The authors carried out studies to investigate the chemical and
physical properties of cements locally available in Pakistan.
The employed cement brands include: (1) Lucky cement
(2 brands), (2) Power cement, (3) Falcon cement, (4) Thatta
cement, (5) State cement, and (6) Pakland cement. All these
are Type-I ordinary Portland cements (OPC) [32]. These
brands were designated by letters from A to G, which were
randomly assigned to them to keep the data of testing anony-
mous. Tests for determining chemical composition and fine-
ness of grinding of cement were carried out in the laboratory
using the relevant ASTM standards. The results indicated that
cement brand A has the highest value of fineness compared to
the other brands, followed by cement brand B. On the other
hand, cement brand G indicated the lowest value of fineness. It
was noted that this brand also contains the least amount of sil-
icates (tri-calcium silicate (C3S) and di-calcium silicate (C2S))
(67 %). The silicates were found to be the highest in cement
brand B (75 %). All the aforementioned cement brands (A–G)
were also employed for casting and testing of concrete cylin-
ders and mortar cubes for the studies presented. The results of
chemical analysis and fineness were used to understand the
differences in the mechanical properties of the employed
cements. Note that the limitation on the identity of cement
brands does not affect the significance of presented studies, as
discussed in the forthcoming sections.
Experimental Program
The experimental program consisted of casting and testing of
concrete cylinders and mortar cubes. The cylinders were tested
both in compression and tension, whereas mortar cubes were
tested in compression. The details of these have been presented
in the following sections.
Materials
AGGREGATE
Normal weight crushed stone coarse aggregates (CA) (19 mm
(0.75 in.) size) and fine aggregates (FA) (sand) were used in the
concrete mix. The properties of aggregates were determined
using the relevant ASTM standards and are given in Table 1.
Sieve analysis was carried out for both aggregate types, which
complied with the requirements of ASTM C33-03 [37].
CEMENT
As mentioned earlier, seven locally available cement brands
were used in this study for preparing mortar and concrete
mixes. All these cements were equivalent ASTM C150 Type I
OPC [32]. Of the employed cement brands, Lucky cement
samples were provided by the manufacturer, whereas the rest
of the cement bags were purchased from the local market. The
cement bags were carefully stored and were covered by the
plastic sheets in the laboratory. The cement was inspected reg-
ularly to ensure that its quality is not compromised due to
lump formation.
 RAFI AND NASIR ON MODELS FOR CONCRETE STRENGTH 3

TABLE 1 Summary of aggregate testing.

Coarse Aggregate Fine Aggregate

Property Observed ASTM Standard Observed ASTM Standard

Specific gravity 2.673 ASTM C127 [33] 2.653 ASTM C128 [35]
Absorption (%) 0.66 ASTM C127 [33] 2.67 ASTM C128 [35]
Dry roded density (gm/cm3) 1.83 ASTM C29 [34] 2.18 ASTM C29 [34]
Loose density (gm/cm3) 1.6 ASTM C29 [34] 2.078 ASTM C29 [34]
Fineness modulus — — 2.9 ASTM C136 [36]

Concrete Cylinders Mortar Cubes

Identical concrete mixes (identical cement content, W/C ra-
tio, CA, FA) were prepared using the employed cement
brands. Three concrete target strengths were considered to
test the cylindrical specimens made from each of the
employed cement brands. The target strengths of concrete in
compression were taken as 21, 34, and 48 MPa to represent
the typical concrete employed in different type of RC con-
struction in Pakistan. These will be referred to as concrete
mix types M21, M34, and M48, respectively, hereafter. Two
trial batches for each concrete strength were cast and tested
at an age of 28 days. Based on the results, the selected mix
proportions of concrete for each of the aforementioned con-
crete strength classes are given in Table 2. These were kept
the same for each cement brand. The exact amount of water
varied depending on the moisture contents of aggregates that
were calculated prior to casting. The slump of concrete for all
batches ranged 50–60 mm. In concrete mix M34 and M48,
admixture (ExpanPlast SP337 made by FOSPAK (Pvt) Ltd.)
was added to achieve the required slump of concrete in the
aforementioned range with a low w/c ratio. Note that
this admixture is chemically inert and does not influence the
chemistry of cement compound.
The cylinders were 100 mm in diameter and 200 mm in
height. A total of 16 cylinders were cast for every batch of
concrete. The cylinders were cast in molds made of steel and
fastened with nuts and bolts. Mixing of concrete was carried
out in a rotating mixer having a rotating speed of 40 rpm.
Vibrator of shaft diameter 16 mm was used for compacting
concrete in the molds. The specimens were removed from the
molds after 24 h of casting and were cured in a water tank.
The temperature of water in the tank varied 18 C–27 C. The
specimens were taken out of the tank approximately 3 h prior
to testing.
Cubical specimens of cement-sand mortar were cast with each
cement brand. The specimens were 50 mm cube in size. A
cement-sand ratio of 1:2.75 and w/c ratio of 0.485 was used in
the preparation of mortar. This work was carried out in accord-
ance with ASTM C109/C109M [38]. Eight cubes were cast for
each cement brand using standard ASTM sand.
Testing of Specimens
The compression tests on concrete cylinders and mortar cubes
were carried out in a universal testing machine (UTM). The
machine used is a Shimadzu make hydraulic type machine with
rigid loading head. Mortar cubes were tested at ages of 7 and 28
days, whereas concrete cylinders were tested at ages of 7, 14,
and 28 days. Four cylinders and cubes were tested on each of
these ages. The cubes and cylinders were tested in saturated sur-
face dry (SSD) condition.
Sulfur was used as a capping material for concrete cylin-
ders. The capped surfaces were checked using water level to
ensure that they are perpendicular to the major axis of cylinder
to avoid non uniform stress distribution during the test. The
surfaces of specimens and loading head of the machine were
properly cleaned with a piece of cloth to remove any particle
present that might cause stress concentration. The specimens
were aligned with care under the loading head of machine to
avoid eccentricity.
The rate of loading was varied for cylinders and mortar
cubes. For cylinders, it corresponded to the machine’s head
movement of 1 mm/min. For mortar cubes, the rate of loading
corresponded to the head movement of 0.5 mm/min. The speci-
mens were loaded until failure cracks were visible on the surface
and the load dropped off. An average value of strength of the
tested specimens was taken as compressive strength.

TABLE 2 Concrete mix proportions for different strength classes.

Mix Type Cement (Kg/m3) Sand (Kg/m3) Coarse Aggregate (Kg/m3) w/c Ratio Admixture (Liters/m3)
M21 315 804 1135 0.53 —
M34 450 689 1098 0.40 2.25
M48 570 479 1098 0.40 2.17
4 Journal of Testing and Evaluation
Tensile strength of concrete was also determined by carry-
ing out splitting tests on concrete cylinders. Four cylinders were
tested at 28 days and an average value was used as concrete
tensile strength.
Discussion on Test Results
MORTAR CUBES
Figure 1 illustrates the results of compressive strength of mortar
cubes. The cubes were tested at 7 and 28 days. It is seen in Fig. 1
that the 28-day strength of mortar made with cement brand B
is larger than the other cement brands. On the other hand, the
7-day strength of cement brand A is larger compared to the rest
of the cement brands. The 7- and 28-day strengths of cement
brands C–F are close to each other. Cement brand G yielded the
lowest strength at both the aforementioned test ages.
Concrete Cylinders
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Figure 2illustrates the results of average compressive strength of
concrete made with each cement brand. A similar trend is
observed in Figs. 2(a)–2(c). The 7-day strength of concrete
made with cement brand A is higher. Beyond this age, concrete
made with cement brand B gains strength at a faster rate com-
pared to the other cement brands (similar to mortar cubes).
Note that this trend is similar for all the three concrete mix
types (M21, M34, and M48). Although the maximum strength
at 14 and 28 days was provided by cement brand B, the strength
of concrete made with cement brand A match closely at both
these ages. The curves of cement brands A–C are distinctly
separated from the rest of the cement brands. Cement brands
D–G provided similar results. The least strength at any age was
provided by cement brand G.
FIG. 1 Average compressive strength of cement-sand mortar cubes.
On a qualitative scale, the trend of 28-day strength of con-
crete cylinders corresponds to the mortar cube strength for all
the cement brands employed.
TENSILE STRENGTH
Direct tension tests are not reliable for predicting the tensile
strength of concrete, due to stress concentrations in the grip-
ping devices. Therefore, an indirect tension test, usually known
as splitting test, is performed. The splitting strength of concrete
(ft) can be related to its compressive strength; this is estimated
as 10 % of compressive strength up to 41 MPa and 9 % for
higher compressive strength of concrete [39].
Splitting cylinder tests were performed on the concrete
cylinders at an age of 28 days to determine concrete tensile
strength. Four cylinders were used for each of the concrete mix
employed in this study and an average strength was calculated.
The results of average tensile strength are plotted in Fig. 3 for
the three employed strength classes.
It is seen in Fig. 3 that, similar to compressive strength, the
tensile strength of concrete made with cement brand B is higher
than the concrete made with other cements, for each concrete
mix type. Furthermore, cement brand G has the lowest tensile
strength. As mentioned earlier, this cement also yielded the low-
est concrete compressive strength. This trend is the same for
M21, M34, and M48 concrete types. The percentage of tensile
strength in relation to compressive strength is similar for all the
concrete mix types and is close to 10 % of compressive strength
for all the cement brands.
It is seen in Figs. 1 and 3 that the results of cube compres-
sive strength and concrete tensile strength support the trends of
concrete compressive strength for the cement brands employed
(Fig. 2).
Analytical Modeling
Nasir [40] found that the locally available cements vary in
chemical and compound composition and fineness. Of the four
compounds of cement, C3S and C2S are important for cement
and concrete strength. C3S largely contributes to the early age
strength gain of cement and C2S contributes to the long-term
(3 months and onwards) strength of cement. Therefore, silicate
contents are the logical variables for the concrete strength pre-
diction model; other parameters may include cement content,
w/c ratio, CA, and FA. However, an approach based on age of
concrete has been employed for the prediction model in the
studies presented. The effects of chemical and compound
composition, and fineness of cement have been incorporated
implicitly in the model. Furthermore, in order to avoid use of
multiple variables and to keep the model simple only 7-day
compressive strength has been employed as a single variable to
predict concrete strength up to 28 days. This is owing to the
fact that the concrete strength is influenced by compound
 RAFI AND NASIR ON MODELS FOR CONCRETE STRENGTH 5

FIG. 2
Data of observed average concrete compressive
strength.

composition (in particular C3S) and fineness of cement largely The suggested model for prediction of concrete strength
up to 7 days and their influence becomes small at later ages. As beyond 7-day strength is based on Eq 1
a result, 7-day strength includes the effects of both the chemical
composition of cement and mix proportion of concrete. (1) fc ¼ a  fc;7  tnb ; f7 < tn  28g
6 Journal of Testing and Evaluation

FIG. 3
Tensile strength of concrete at 28 days.

TABLE 3 Curve fitting parameters for cement brands.

a b

Cement Brand Eq 1 Eq 8 Eq 1 Eq 8

A 0.64 3.10 0.23 0.65

B 0.62 3.22 0.28 0.54
C 0.59 3.20 0.29 0.54
D 0.54 3.50 0.30 0.56
E 0.53 3.10 0.30 0.59
F 0.52 3.10 0.32 0.59
G 0.51 3.10 0.32 0.57

FIG. 4
Observed versus predicted strength of
concrete: (a) cement brand A, (b) cement
brand C, (c) cement brand E, and (d) cement
brand G.
 RAFI AND NASIR ON MODELS FOR CONCRETE STRENGTH 7

where:
fc,7 ¼ 7-day compressive strength of concrete, FIG. 5 Comparison of observed and predicted concrete strength using Eq 6.

tn ¼ age of concrete at which strength is to be predicted

(n ¼ 8, …, 28), and
a and b ¼ dimensionless factors.
The factors a and b have been taken as function of cement
type, which is represented by its chemical and compound com-
position, and fineness. Furthermore, the influence of cement
and aggregate contents and water–cement ratio on the concrete
mix strength has been accounted for by fc,7 in Eq 1. Of the two
aforementioned factors (a and b), a is sensitive to the early age
strength of concrete, whereas b is influenced by the slope of
strength versus age curve. As a result, a is taken as a function of
both fineness and C3S contents of cement, whereas b is depend-
ent on the total silicate contents of cement (C3S þ C2S). The
resulting expressions for a and b are given by Eqs 2 and 3,
respectively.

(2) a ¼ f ðFineness; C3 SÞ

(3) b ¼ f ðC3 S þ C2 SÞ

A regression analysis was carried out by using the method of

nonlinear least squares to determine the values of a and b for
each cement brand. The data from the experimental testing
(Fig. 2) were employed in the regression analysis. The method
of nonlinear least squares is the form of least squares analysis,
which is used to fit a set of m observations with a curve model
function as given by Eq 4.

(4) y ¼ f ðx; cÞ

where x is a variable and c is vector of n unknown parameters

(c ¼ (c1, c2, … … cn)), such that m  n. As n ¼ 2 for the pre-
sented studies, (a and b in Eq 1), the concrete strengths at 7, 14,
and 28 days have been employed in the analysis (m ¼ 3). In the
method of nonlinear least squares, the estimate of the vector of
parameters (c) yields a curve that best fits the given data in a
manner that the sum of squares of residuals is minimized. The
complete theory of this method is available in text books [41]
and can be reviewed by the readers.
The aforementioned regression analysis was carried out
using MATLAB; the analysis yielded three sets of a and b corre-
sponding to each of the concrete strength class (21, 34, and
41 MPa) for each cement brand. The concrete strength at 14
and 28 days of two strength classes were determined from Eq 1
using the set of a and b corresponding to the remaining third
The same process was repeated with all the three sets of a and
strength class and the percentages of error between the observed
b. The set of a and b that provided the minimum percentage
and predicted strengths were calculated using Eq 5.
error for all the three strength classes was selected by the inspec-
tion of results. The process was repeated for all the cement
Error ¼ ½ðObserved Strength  Predicted StrengthÞ= brands employed. The resulting values of a and b are given in
(5) ðObservedStrengthÞ  100 Table 3.
8 Journal of Testing and Evaluation

TABLE 4 Details of mixes from literature.

fc,28 (MPa)

Cement Brand Mixes Cement (kg/m3) FA (kg/m3) CA (kg/m3) W/C fc,7 (MPa) Reported (A) Predicted (B) A/B

Commercial OPC [30] 1 400 600 1200 0.45 24.50 34.01 34.00 1.00
2 390 588 1170 0.5 22.50 32.50 31.23 1.04
3 380 570 1140 0.55 21.60 32.50 29.98 1.08
4 370 555 1110 0.6 21.50 32.30 29.84 1.08
5 360 540 1080 0.65 21.10 30.50 29.28 1.04
6 350 525 1050 0.7 20.40 30.30 28.31 1.07
7 325 650 1300 0.45 20.30 29.21 28.17 1.04
8 320 640 1280 0.5 20.00 28.90 27.76 1.04
9 315 630 1260 0.55 18.50 27.70 25.68 1.08
10 310 620 1240 0.6 17.60 25.90 24.43 1.06
11 305 610 1220 0.65 17.30 24.50 24.01 1.02
12 300 600 1200 0.7 14.60 23.8 20.26 1.17
13 517 517 1034 0.45 31.01 44.01 43.03 1.02
14 504 504 1008 0.5 29.90 39.41 41.50 0.95
15 491 491 982 0.55 28.30 37.50 39.28 0.95
16 479 479 958 0.6 26.70 36.10 37.06 0.97
17 468 468 936 0.65 25.80 35.21 35.81 0.98
18 457 547 914 0.7 25.70 34.61 35.67 0.97
Ambuja cement [14] 1 370 781 1055 0.5 13.90 21.83 21.82 1.00
4 385 767 1056 0.48 14.44 23.07 22.67 1.02
5 356 797 1057 0.52 15.08 24.85 23.67 1.05
6 396 744 1056 0.48 15.72 25.58 24.66 1.04
8 396 744 1057 0.48 16.12 26.85 25.29 1.06
10 365 775 1056 0.52 16.94 25.98 26.59 0.98
12 356 825 1021 0.52 17.13 28.01 26.89 1.04
13 396 776 985 0.48 17.66 28.58 27.72 1.03
15 402 780 1023 0.46 19.23 28.56 30.17 0.95
16 365 808 1023 0.52 19.57 29.78 30.72 0.97
17 402 780 985 0.46 19.86 27.69 31.18 0.89
18 440 740 1021 0.42 19.86 27.69 31.18 0.89
19 396 776 1021 0.48 20.41 32.56 32.02 1.02
20 380 790 1021 0.5 20.41 32.56 32.02 1.02
OPC N [42] N7 270 900 900 0.7 24.70 31.60 30.54 1.03
N6 320 860 900 0.6 33.00 41.40 40.80 1.01
N5 380 810 900 0.5 41.90 50.50 51.80 0.97
OPC C [42] C7 270 900 900 0.7 20.20 27.80 27.15 1.02
C6 320 860 900 0.6 25.20 35.10 33.88 1.04
C5 380 810 900 0.5 34.50 46.90 46.38 1.01
OPC Type-I [43] C1 1:2:0 — — 0.86 15.52 21.10 23.19 0.91
C2 1:2:3 — — 0.86 9.10 13.66 13.61 1.00
C3 1:2:3 — — 0.86 11.38 16.55 17.01 0.97
C4 1:3:0 — — 0.86 12.28 18.48 18.34 1.01
C5 1:3:4.5 — — 0.86 8.76 14.21 13.09 1.09
Type-I Portland cement [44] Mix 1 310 800 1100 0.55 19.59 27.59 24.99 1.09
Mix 1 310 800 1100 0.55 22.00 25.86 28.08 0.98
Mix 1 310 800 1100 0.55 22.28 26.21 28.43 0.91
Mix 1 310 800 1100 0.55 20.83 26.34 26.58 0.99
Mix 2 310 800 1100 0.55 19.31 25.45 24.64 1.07
Mix 2 310 800 1100 0.55 18.83 23.52 24.03 1.06
Mix 3 310 800 1100 0.55 19.24 27.95 24.55 0.96
— — — — — 20.76 27.59 26.49 1.06
— — — — — 22.00 26.25 28.08 0.98
— — — — — 20.85 25.87 26.61 0.99
— — — — — 22.25 27.59 28.39 0.91

TABLE 5 a and b for cement brands reported in literature.
Cement Brand a b
Commercial OPC [30] 0.63 0.24
Ambuja cement [14] 0.53 0.33
OPC N [42] 0.76 0.15
OPC C [42] 0.69 0.20
OPC Type-I [43] 0.55 0.30
Type I Portland cement [44] 0.59 0.23
Figure 4 compares the observed and predicted strength
plots for some of the cement brands. The predicted strength
was calculated with the help of Eq 1 and values of a and b taken
from Table 3 were employed. It is seen in Fig. 4 that a good
correlation exists between the two data.
It is noted in Table 3 that the values of a and b are close for
the employed cement brands and may provide constant values
of these parameters for all the cement brands with a negligible
comprise on accuracy of results from Eq 1. This avoids the need
of identifying the cement brand for selecting a and b. The aver-
age values of a and b from Table 3 come out to be 0.56 and 0.29,
respectively. On substitution of these average values, Eq 1 can
be written as Eq 6. Figure 5 illustrates the results of observed
and predicted strengths using Eq 6. It is seen in Fig. 5 that the
two data match closely for most of the concrete ages; the maxi-
mum error for the majority of data is less than 10 %. As a result,
Eq 6 can be employed as a general expression to predict the
strength of concrete made with the cement brands manufac-
tured in Pakistan.
(6) fc ¼ ð0:56Þ  fc;7  tn0:29 ; f7 < tn  28g
In order to validate the model further, help was taken from the
data in the available literature. Table 4 shows the details of
mixes along with their 7-day and 28-day (fc,28) strengths and
cement brands employed for the data selected from literature.
The parameters a and b were determined for all the mixes in
Table 4 using the aforementioned procedure and are summar-
ized in Table 5. Table 4 provides the ratio of reported and pre-
dicted 28-day strengths. It is noted in Table 4 that the difference
between the reported and predicted strengths is within 10 %
and is insignificant. Note that in the absence of information, it
has been assumed that the data of observed strength in Ref. [30]
is based on cylindrical strength. If this is not the case, then a
and b values given in Table 5 will not apply.
Modification to ACI Code Equation
ACI 209R-92 [45] suggests Eq 7 to predict the strength of con-
crete (fc,t) at time (t) beyond 28 days.
(7) fc;t ¼ fc;28  t=ða þ bt Þ
RAFI AND NASIR ON MODELS FOR CONCRETE STRENGTH 9
where a and b are constants that range from 0.05 to 9.25 and
0.67 to 0.98, respectively
Equation 7 was modified to predict 28-day strength of con-
crete using fc,7. The modified expression is given as Eq 8.
(8) fc;t ¼ fc;7  t=ða þ bt Þ
The definitions of a and b in Eq 8 are the same as given by
Eqs 2 and 3, respectively. The values of these parameters in Eq
8 were determined by using the procedure mentioned earlier for
the cement brands employed in the presented studies and are
given in Table 3. It is seen in Table 3 that only the values of a are
within the aforementioned suggested range; the values of b
are less than those suggested by ACI code. This could be attrib-
uted to the use of fc,7 in Eq 8 instead of fc,28. Based on the val-
ues of a and b as given in Table 3, Eq 8 was employed to predict
the concrete strength for the three strength classes included in
the presented studies. The results were demonstrated in Fig. 4.
It is seen in Fig. 4 that the observed and predicted strengths
match closely and for the majority of data the difference is less
than 10 %.
Similar to Eq 1, it is noted in Table 3 that the values of a
and b are close for all the cement brands employed and may
lead to their constant values in Eq 8. The average values of a
and b for the cement brands in Table 3 come out to be 3.2 and
0.58, respectively. Equation 8 can, therefore, be written as Eq 9
using the average values of a and b. The results of predicted
strengths using Eq 9 are given in Table 6. A good correlation
between the observed and predicted strengths exists in Table 6.
(9) fc;t ¼ fc;7  tn =ð3:2 þ 0:58t Þ; f7 < tn  28g
Limitations of Models
Although a reasonably large data set of concrete mixes was
employed for the studies presented, there are certain limitations
that apply on the use of Eqs 1, 6, 8, and 9. The employed mixes
were made with OPC and normal weight aggregates; the con-
crete strength varies between 14–48 MPa. The concrete samples
were wet cured by immersing them in a water tank. Further-
more, only the workability increasing admixture was used in the
concrete. It is the responsibility of the reader to verify the results
of Eqs 1 and 8 (international readers), and Eqs 6 and 9 (Paki-
stani readers) for conditions differing than those mentioned
above.
Conclusions
This paper presented the results of analytical models that were
developed by using the data of concrete strengths from the
experimental testing of cylinders. The cylinders were tested in
compression at 7, 14, and 28 days. Compression tests on
cement–sand mortar cubes and tension tests on concrete
10 Journal of Testing and Evaluation

TABLE 6 Observed and predicted strengths (Eq 9) of mixes.

14-Day Strength (MPa) 28-Day Strength (MPa)

Cement Brand Mix Type Observed (A) Predicted (B) A/B Observed (C) Predicted (D) C/D
A M21 18.00 18.58 0.97 20.17 21.63 0.93
M34 32.74 36.06 0.91 35.68 42.00 0.85
M48 41.34 41.54 1.00 48.10 48.38 0.99
B M21 18.53 16.96 1.09 21.32 19.76 1.08
M34 34.18 34.80 0.98 36.28 40.53 0.90
M48 44.67 39.52 1.13 48.82 46.03 1.06
C M21 16.23 14.61 1.11 18.95 17.02 1.11
M34 28.06 28.60 0.98 32.50 33.31 0.98
M48 36.61 37.30 0.98 45.89 43.44 1.06
D M21 14.58 14.67 0.99 18.91 17.09 1.11
M34 24.27 26.14 0.93 31.49 30.45 1.03
M48 34.46 36.32 0.95 44.86 42.30 1.06
E M21 14.15 14.52 0.97 18.50 16.91 1.09
M34 23.82 25.53 0.93 31.10 29.73 1.05
M48 34.33 37.33 0.92 43.74 43.48 1.01
F M21 14.47 14.31 1.01 18.60 16.67 1.12
M34 23.94 25.60 0.94 31.48 29.81 1.06
M48 34.46 36.66 0.94 44.57 42.69 1.04
G M21 13.88 14.40 0.96 17.85 16.77 1.06
M34 23.17 24.44 0.95 30.47 28.46 1.07
M48 33.31 34.75 0.96 43.43 40.47 1.07

cylinders were also carried out. The conclusions drawn from the
presented studies are listed as under.
1. The compressive strength of concrete qualitatively corre-
sponded to the compressive strength of cement–sand
mortar for each cement brand. Therefore, the same
cement brand provided the highest strength in both the
concrete cylinders and mortar cube tests. This applied at
7 and 28 day ages of concrete and mortar, and all the
three concrete strength classes.
2. The splitting tensile strength of concrete cylinders fol-
lowed the trends observed for 28-day concrete compres-
sive strength. The cement with the highest compressive
strength yielded the highest tensile strength. The tensile
strength of concrete for all the cement brands employed
was found to be nearly 10 % of its compressive strength.
3. An analytical model to predict 28-day strength of con-
crete using its 7-day strength is suggested (Eq 1). The sug-
gested model is generalized to predict strength of concrete
made from the cements manufactured in Pakistan (Eq 6).
4. The suggested model (Eq 1) also provided satisfactory
results of strength for data of concrete mixes available in
the technical literature. It can, therefore, be employed in
any part of the world and shall require one-time determi-
nation of parameters a and b for a particular cement
brand.
5. A modification of ACI code equation is suggested to pre-
dict 28-day strength of concrete (Eq 8). This equation is
also based on the determination of parameters a and b
similar to Eq 1. The generalized form of Eqs 8 and 9 was
found to provide the strength results with sufficient accu-
racy for the cement brands available in Pakistan.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The writers wish to acknowledge the support provided for
this research by the laboratory technical staff members.
Financial assistance provided by Lucky Cement is gratefully
acknowledged.
References
[1] ASTM C192/C192M-02: Standard Practice for Making and
Curing Concrete Test Specimens in the Laboratory, ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2002, www.astm.org.
[2] Blaine, R. L., Arni, H. T., and Defore, M. R., “Compressive
Strength of Test Mortars. Interrelations Between Cement
and Concrete Properties,” Part 3, Building Science Series 8,
National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C., 1968,
pp. 1–65.
[3] Popovics, S., “Generalization of the Abrams Kaw-
predication of Strength Development of Concrete from
Cement Properties,” ACI J. Proc., Vol. 78, No. 2, 1981,
pp. 123–129.
[4] Popovics, S., “Extended Model For Estimating the Strength
Developing Capacity of Portland Cement,” Mag. Concr.
Res., Vol. 33, No. 116, 1981, pp. 147–153.

[5] Popovics, S. and Popovics, J. S., “Ultrasonic Testing to
Determine Water–Cement Ratio For Freshly Mixed
Concrete,” Cem. Concr. Aggr., Vol. 20, No. 20, 1998,
pp. 262–268.
[6] Alexander, K. M., “The Relationship Between Strength and
the Composition and Fineness of Cement,” Cem. Conc.
Res., Vol. 2, No. 6, 1972, pp. 663–680.
[7] Popovics, S., “Analysis of the Concrete Strength Versus
Water–Cement Ratio Relationship,” ACI Mater. J., Vol. 87,
No. 5, 1990, pp. 517–529.
[8] Mehta, P. K. and Monteiro, P. J. M., Concrete–Structure,
Properties and Materials, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
NJ, 1993.
[9] Creskoff, J. J., “Estimating 28-Day Strength of Concrete
From Earlier Strengths—Including the Probable Error of
the Estimate,” ACI J. Proc., Vol. 41, No. 4, 1945,
pp. 493–512.
[10] Neville, A. M., “A General Relation for Strengths of
Concrete Specimens of Different Shapes and Sizes.” ACI J.
Proc., Vol. 63, No. 10, 1966, pp. 1095–1109.
[11] Popovics, S., “Discussion of ‘General Relation for Strengths
of Concrete Specimens of Different Shapes and Sizes’ by
A. M. Neville,” ACI J. Proc., Vol. 64, No. 6, 1967, pp.
1566–1568.
[12] Voellmy, A., “Strength Control of Concrete Pavements,”
Betonstrasse–Jahrbuch, Vol. 3, Fachverband Zement, Koln
S., 1958, pp. 179–204.
[13] Zain, M. F. M. and Abd, S. M., “Multiple Regression Model
for Compressive Strength Prediction of High-Performance
Concrete,” J. Appl. Sci., Vol. 9, No. 1, 2009, pp. 155–160.
[14] Hasan, M. M. and Kabir, A., “Prediction of Compressive
Strength of Concrete from Early Age Test Result,”
presented at the 4th Annual Paper Meeting and 1st Civil
Engineering Congress, Dhaka, Bangladesh, Dec 22–24,
2011, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA (to be
published).
[15] Onwuka, D. O., Okere, C. E., Arimanwa, J. I., and Onwuka,
S. U., “Prediction of Concrete Mix Ratio Using Modified
Regression Theory,” Comput. Methods Civ. Eng., Vol. 2,
No. 1, 2011, pp. 95–107.
[16] Hobbs, D. W., “The Compressive Strength of Concrete: A
Statistical Approach to Failure,” Magn. Concr. Res.,
Vol. 24, No. 80, 1972, pp. 127–138.
[17] Zielinszki, S., “The Development of the Setting of Roman
and Portland Cements in Pastes, in Mortars, and in
Concrete,” Proceedings of the International Association for
Testing Materials, Copenhagen, Denmark, ASTM Interna-
tional, West Conshohocken, PA, 1990, pp. 1–55.
[18] Zielinszki, S., and Zhuk, J., “Comparative Investigation of
Roman Cements,” presented at the Third International
Congress of the Association for Testing Materials, Budapest,
Hungary, 1901, ASTM International, West Conshohocken,
PA (to be published).
[19] Popovics, S., “Factors Affecting the Relationship Between
Strength and Water–Cement Ratio,” Mater. Res. Standard,
MTRSA, Vol. 7, No. 12, 1967, pp. 527–534.
[20] Tsivilis, S. and Parissakis, G., “A Mathematical Model for
the Prediction of Cement Strength,” Cem. Concr. Res.,
Vol. 25, No. 1, 1995, pp. 9–14.
[21] Kheder, G. F., Al-Gabban, A. M., and Suhad, M. A., “A
Mathematical Model for the Prediction of Cement
RAFI AND NASIR ON MODELS FOR CONCRETE STRENGTH 11
Compressive Strength at the Ages of 7 and 28 Days Within
24 Hour,” Mater. Struct., Vol. 36, No. 264, 2003, pp.
693–701.
[22] Sang, H. H., Jin, K. K., and Yon, D. P., “Prediction of Com-
pressive Strength of Fly Ash Concrete by New Apparent
Activation Energy Function,” Cem. Concr. Res., Vol. 33,
No. 7, 2003, pp. 965–971.
[23] Snell, L. M., Roekel, J. V., and Wallace, N. D., “Predicting
Early Concrete Strength,” Concr. Int., Vol. 11, No. 12,
1989, pp. 43–47.
[24] Zelic, J., Rusic, D., and Krstulovic, R., “A Mathematical
Model for Prediction of Compressive Strength in
Cement–Silica Fume Blends,” Cem. Concr. Res., Vol. 34,
No. 12, 2004, pp. 2319–2328.
[25] Akkurt, S., Tayfur, G., and Can, S., “Fuzzy Logic Model
For Prediction of Cement Compressive Strength,” Cem.
Concr. Res., Vol. 34, No. 8, 2004, pp. 1429–1433.
[26] Hwang, K., Noguchi, T., and Tomosawa, F., “Prediction
Model of Compressive Strength Development of Fly–Ash
Concrete,” Cem. Concr. Res., Vol. 34, No. 12, 2004, pp.
2269–2276.
[27] Mehta, P. K. and Monteiro P. J. M., Concrete, Microstruc-
ture, Properties and Materials, McGraw-Hill, New York,
2006.
[28] Hamid-Zadeh, N., Jamil, A., Nariman-Zadeh, N., and
Akberzadeh, H., “A Polynomial Model for Concrete Com-
pressive Strength Prediction Using GMDH-Type Neural
Networks and Genetic Algorithm,” presented at the 5th
WSEAS International Conference on Systems Science and
Simulation in Engineering, Canary-Island, Spain, Dec
16–18, 2006, ASTM International, West Conshohocken,
PA (to be published).
[29] Akbarzadeh, H., Hamidzadeh, N., and Ranjbar, N. M.,
“Study on the Relations Between Compressive Strength of
Concrete at Different Ages Using 165 Case Studies,” pre-
sented at the 7th International Congress on Civil Engineer-
ing, Tehran, Iran, May 8–10, 2006, ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA (to be published).
[30] Zain, M. F. M., Suhad, M., Abd-Hamid, R., and Jamil, M.,
“Potential for Utilizing Concrete Mix Properties to Predict
Strength at Different Ages,” J. Appl. Sci., Vol. 10, No. 22,
2010, pp. 2831–2838.
[31] Jee, N., Sangchun, Y., and Hongbum, C., “Prediction of
Compressive Strength of In-Situ Concrete Based on Mix-
ture Proportions,” J. Asian Arch. Build. Eng., Vol. 3, No. 1,
2004, pp. 9–16.
[32] ASTM C150-04: Standard Specification for Portland
Cement, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA,
2004, www.astm.org.
[33] ASTM C127-12: Standard Test Method for Density, Rela-
tive Density (Specific Gravity), and Absorption of Coarse
Aggregates, ASTM International, West Conshohocken,
PA, 2012, www.astm.org.
[34] ASTM C29/C29M-09: Standard Test Method for Bulk
Density (“Unit Weight”) and Voids in Aggregates,
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2009,
www.astm.org.
[35] ASTM C128-12: Standard Test Method for Density, Rela-
tive Density (Specific Gravity), and Absorption of Fine
Aggregates, ASTM International, West Conshohocken,
PA, 2012, www.astm.org.
12 Journal of Testing and Evaluation
[36] ASTM C136-06: Standard Test Method for Sieve Analysis
of Fine and Coarse Aggregates, ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 2006, www.astm.org.
[37] ASTM C33-03: Standard Specification for Concrete Aggre-
gates, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA,
2003, www.astm.org.
[38] ASTM C109/C109M-02: Standard Test Method for Com-
pressive Strength of Hydraulic Cement Mortars (Using
2-in. or [50-mm] Cube Specimens), ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA, 2002, www.astm.org.
[39] Hassoun, M. N. and Al-Manaseer, A., Structural
Concrete, Theory and Design, John Wiley & Sons,
New York, 2008.
[40] Nasir M. M., 2013, “Investigation of Properties of
Cements Manufactured in Pakistan,” M. Eng. thesis, NED
University of Engineering and Technology, Karachi,
Pakistan.
View publication stats
[41] Montgomery, D. C. and Runger, G. C., Applied Statistics
and Probability for Engineers, John Wiley and Sons,
New York, 2003.
[42] Ben-Bassat, M., Nixon, P. J., and Hardcastle, J., “The Effect
of Differences in the Composition of Portland Cement on
the Properties of Hardened Concrete,” Magn. Concr. Res.,
Vol. 42, No. 151, 1990, pp. 59–66.
[43] Gilkay, H. J., “Water Cement Ratio Versus Strength—
Another Look,” J. Am. Conc. Inst., Vol. 2, No. 58, 1961, pp.
1851–1878.
[44] Naseer, K. W. and Al-Manaseer, A. A., “It’s Time for a
Change From 6 x 12 to 3 x 9-in. Cylinders,” ACI Mater. J.,
Vol. 84, No. 3, 1987, pp. 213–216.
[45] American Concrete Institute, “Prediction of Creep, Shrink-
age and Temperature Effects in Concrete Structures,” ACI
209R-92 (Reapproved 1997), ACI Committee 2011 Detroit,
MI, 1997.