[tC ) oO / INTERNATIONAL _/The Myth of CONCRETE cee aioy 28-day Concrete Strength Dr. Tam Chat Tim Vice Dean, fa peiche Department of Engineering Kuala ur . . . Malaysia University of Singapore6° NRMCAM INTERNATIONAL CONCRETE CONVENTION 2000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 3 & 4 May 2000 The Myth of 28-day Concrete Strength Tam Chat Tim BE, ME, PhD, PEng (M), PEng (S), CEng, CPEng, FIEM, FIES, FiStuctE, MICE, MiEAust, FACI, FCS, LSCI ‘SYNOPSIS Strength development of conerete due to continuing hydration is a natural process. The choice of testing for its value at the age of 28 days has been handed down from the Past. Its origin or rational is not known. However, its practice continues to this day. This paper sets out to consider the grounds for moving away from this traditional practice. The situations where an altemate age may be more appropriate are discussed. In the case of contractual requirements where 28-day strength is specified, the need for early age strength as feedback for the purpose of quality control in Concrete production is emphasized, The basis and methods for estimating 28-day strength from early age or accelerated strength testing are reviewed. Some simple and easy-to-apply techniques for this purpose are presented, Keywords: concrete, strength, age, accelerated strength, maturity, prediction model 1. INTRODUCTION The Oxford dictionary defines “Myth” as “story handed down from olden times, 9. explanations of natural events". The 28-day concrete strength is a good example of this definition. Under a moist environment, the strength of concrete develops with time. This is a natural process of chemical reaction between cement and water. The decision to measure this continuing process at a specific time may be based on factors of an empirical nature. The selection of a multiple of 7 days, €.9. 28 days, is likely to ensure that the mixing and testing fall on the same working day of the week. The fact that the strength has to be determined at 28 days is @ practice handed down from the early days of concrete production. However, the actual origin of this practice has not been established. It is aways the case that the specified strength is needed at the age of 28 days. For some applications, e.g. for stress transfer in prestressed concrete this is often at the age of 7 days. For a raft foundation, the service load may come on a year later. Under normal ambient temperatures, the rate of hydration after setting is very rapid in the first week and tends to be much slower after about three to four weeks. Curing at a higher temperature accelerates the rate of strength gain.Robert E Philleo [1976], a past president of the American Concrete Institute, in his paper with the provocative title of “Lunatics, Liars and Liability’ defined ‘lunacy’ as “behaviour characterised b intermittent exaggerated foolishness, wild folly, and senseless conduct.” Since such behaviour is often associated with changes of the moon, a 28-day cycle, he posed the question: “When we dogmatically insist that the strength of concrete may be determined only 28 days after casting and steadfastly refuse to consider results at any other age, may we Rot properly be accused of exaggerated foolishness, wild folly, and senseless conduct?” ARE WE LUNATICS? AGE FOR DETERMINING CONCRETE STRENGTH Traditionally, design of reinforced concrete structures has always been based on the 28-day strength together with the same specified age for concrete production testing for conformity verification. Specifications state this age of testing for the Purpose of acceptance of the quality of concrete and for payment. In the days when 1-storey per month is a common rate of building construction using tilting drum mixers on site, such a practice is in harmony with the pace of construction Fequirements. With the advance in conerete production technology, system formwork and mechanised methods of transportation and placing of large volume of concrete, the ready-mixed concrete industry is now the norm in most urbane Projects. The more common rate of building construction is now 1-storey per week. By the time the test results for the first storey are available, 3 or 4 more storeys have also been cast with the same mix design. The liability in case of inadequate concrete strength being used is far too high a cost to accept. Another possible scenario is that only the first storey is of unacceptable strength but the others already built over it are satisfactory. The risk for this type of scenario is too high to be comfortable. In terms of concrete production, the ideal time to know the strength of the mix batched is at the end of mixing. As current technology does not have a practical method for such early age evaluation with confidence, it is imperative that this evaluation be available at the earliest Possible time since ‘batching, using a method with satisfactory degree of confidence. In the case of thick raft foundations, 2,000 m? is often the minimum Pour size specified to minimise construction joints. Such large volume of placement is often completed within 20 to 30 hours. Subsequent pours of similar volume are often scheduled within less than four weeks of one another. The Need to know before repeating the production for subsequent pours is obvious in Practice. In prestressed concrete, the critical stage is at the time of stress transfer, which is often carried out at the age of 7 days. Hence, the 7-day ‘strength is more important than the 28-day strength. On the other hand, in the case of raft foundations, to permit the characteristic strength of concrete to be achieved at the age-of 56 days or later, not only allows a mix with less of hydration to be adopted, but is still satisfactory structurally as service loads are imposed even at a much later age. Even nearly 25 years ago, Philleo [1976], in his provoking paper, had given other relavant examples.With the increasing demand for high performance concrete, high strength concrete is gaining acceptance. The cost of such mixes can be significantly reduced if the age for conformity is shifted to 56 days provided the actual structural loading requirements and continuing hydration is expected (using proper curing membrane or due to large dimensions of the element). Price [1997], in discussing “The Four-Week Fallacy’, examined the purpose of concrete strength testing and listed project using such later age specification. It may be come as a surprise to some that BS 5328:Part 4 [1990] Clause 3.16.1 on curing for conformity states that specimens may be cured in one of the following ways: “(a) for 28 days as described in BS 1861:Part 111[1983); or (b) by any other regime of curing specified or agreed between the producer and purchaser [e.9. 7 days, normal curing or accelerated curing at an elevated temperature (see BS 1881:Part 112{1983})] that will enable the strength at 28 days to be predicted.” The choice lies with the "purchaser" who may specify the curing method or the “producer” may, by agreement with the purchaser, propose the curing method “that will enable the strength at 28 days to be predicted’. Thus both in term of specification and technology, the choice to wait for 28 days before finding out the quality of concrete or otherwise, is actually decided by the construction industry. The decision to remain in the traditional mode of acceptance is the high inertia in the industry towards innovation when 28-day cube strength is involved. In order to promote the shift in the paradigm, it is necessary to understand and assess the altemate methods for their usefulness and the degree of confidence they provide in comparison with the traditional 28-day strength approach. DEVELOPMENT OF CONCRETE STRENGTH The chemical reaction between cement and water is initiated when they are both batched into the mixer. If not for the addition of gypsum to prevent the violent and rapid reaction of the tricalcium aluminate, the concrete would have hardened before the end of mixing — flash set. Even though the hydration of cement goes through stages of setting and hardening, this process, once started, continues for many years during service, provided moisture is available in an adequate amount to promote reaction and the temperature is above that at which the reaction will take place. These conditions are around 30% relative humidity (Powers [1947]) and at a temperature of about -10°C to -12°C (Neville [1995]). Thus the concept of maturity considers the function of X(time interval x temperature) with the implied condition that sufficient moisture is present for continuing hydration34 3.2 However, with the availability of chemical admixtures, e.g. accelerators or retarders and mineral admixtures, e.g. pulverised fuel ash, ground granulated blastfurnace slag or microsilica, in formulating the models for strength-maturity relationship, it is necessary to include the effects of such admixtures. Both the setting and hardening processes are modified by the addition of chemical and/or mineral admixtures. ‘Setting and Hardening Setting and hardening are stages in the gradual stiffening of the hydrating cement. They can be modified by set-retarding admixtures on setting only or by accelerating admixtures that increases both the setting and hardening rates Mineral admixtures generally slow down the early hydration, unless the fineness is very high, e.g. microsilica, Particularly when early age strength is of importance, the effects of these admixtures have to be taken into consideration in the choice of age for testing as well as in the models for the strength-maturity relationship. In terms of strength development, the time from which hardening is deemed to begin is approximately indicated by the penetration resistance of 4,000 psi (27.6 MPa) by ASTM C 403 Method [1997]. Maturity Functions The assumption that rate of strength development is linear function of temperature leads to the simple concept of a maturity function as given in ASTM C 1074 [1998]: M(t) = Z(T.— To) At M(t) =the temperature-time factor at age t, (degree-days or degree-hours) At time interval, days or hours Ta erage temperature during time interval At, °C (or K = Kelvin) To = datum temperature, °C (or K = Kelvin = °C + 273°C) The datum temperature for ordinary Portland cement (ASTM Type 1) without admixtures and a curing temperature range from 0 to 40 °C may be taken as 0°C or determined experimentally in accordance with ASTM C 1074 [1998] for better accuracy, particularly for conditions other than those stated. The alternate function provides the equivalent age at a specified temperature, e.g. the standard curing temperature: te = Der8 (4-179)33 3.3.1 te equivalent age at a specified temperature, Ts Qa tivation energy divided by the gas constant, K Ta average temperature of concrete during time interval, At, K Te pecified temperature, K At ime interval, days or hours The value of Q may be taken as 5000K for ordinary Portland cement without any chemical or mineral admixtures. For other types of mixes, appropriate value should be determined experimentally in accordance with ASTM C 1074 [1998]. Strength to maturity relationship is experimentally derived in terms of either temperature-time factor or equivalent age of laboratory prepared specimens for estimating in-situ concrete cured under other temperature conditions. This approach provides good estimation of the values for application specific to a given combination of materials. Thus their validity during site application depends on the materials used do not change in their characteristic properties. A complete reliance on historical values remaining valid may not always lead to satisfactory application particularly due to variability of cement quality Strength - Maturity Relationship The above approach provides a sound basis for establishing the strength — maturity relationship. However, more approximate functions have been proposed that are based only on standard cured specimens tested at earlier ages. to estimate later age strength. This approach has the advantage that current performance of the materials forms part of the input. Thus variability of materials characteristics over time is monitored and used in the maturity function. Since early age testing before the specified 28-day strength is a common practice, some of these methods are presented below: Strength Ratio Method The simplest method is the ratio between the 28-day strength, fzs and another earlier age strength, e.g. 3-day strength. fs or 7-day strength, fr based on historical data, e.g. Tam [1968] showed that the ratio of fle! fr under tropical conditions is closer to 4/3 than 2/3 in temperature climate. Although this approach is simple but it relies on historical data, hence the precision depends ‘on the mix ingredients remaining similar in their characteristics. Variability in cement quality, in particular, has a major influence on if the ratio remains unchanged with time. In laboratory testing, a reasonable correlation is generally obtained, e.g. Das Gupta and Tam [1989] using 3-day strength and controlled tropical curing for 24 hours. Tam and Sri Ravindrarajah [1982] summarised this ratio for various ages and mixes. Tam and Poh [1988] reported on laboratory3.3.2 33.3 testing for quality control purposes using the controlled tropical curing method achieving 83% of estimated 28-day strength within +10% of the actual values. Semi-log Relationship ‘The may be expressed by a linear relationship, (Plowman [1956}}: S = A+B logio (maturity — °C h or °C day) Hence, a later age strength, S2 at maturity M2 can be expressed in terms of an earlier age strength, S; at maturity My in the form: S2— S1 = K (logio Me — logo Mi) where K is the slope of the straight line and may be established from historical data in the laboratory for the mix of interest. It can also be determined based on current data when at least two pairs of earlier strength and maturity values are available. For example, when standard specimens are tested at earlier ages of 3 and 7 days for estimating 28-day strength. Since testing errors are present, the number of specimens tested at each age and the number of pairs of data for establishing the best-fit line are important to improve confidence of the estimate. This concept has been developed into ASTM C 918 [1997] where interpretation of results and conformity requirements based on the variability of data in establishing the value of the slope and addition tests during application to check or to detect the change in the value of the slope. Hyperbolic Relationship The hyperbolic function has been used to represent a process that has a decreasing rate of increase with time and with a maximum long-term limit. Different forms of the same functions have been proposed (Chin [1971] and Tam [1974). The altemate forms of the simplest type are: S=M(AM+B)[Chin] or s=am(m+b) [Tam] where constants a = 1/A, b = B/A with S or s = strength and M or m = maturity. Strength 4 Mb Maturity3.3.4 The constants in the above have the following engineering interpretations: ()_@ (= 1/A)is the long-term value of strength (i)__bis the maturity (time) at which strength = a/2 (il) 1/B is the initial rate of strength development (at zero maturity) To obtain the two constants, at least two pairs of strength and maturity data are needed. They may both be from historical data or from current mix. For standard curing conditions, the temperature is kept constant, the value for M may be simplified to time alone. In order to cater for the situations when a long delay before hardening begins, the maturity M needs to be modified. It is replaced by the form (M — Mc) where M. has been found to be best represented by the time to reach penetration resistance of 27.6 MPa (4,000 psi) in the ASTM C 403 [1997] test method (Carino and Tank [1992]. Hence, the value of M, is expected to be generally not more than a few hours. For the purpose of estimating standard 28- day strength, the error in ignoring this factor (by taking M. = 0) is generally negligible. Accelerated Curing Accelerated curing is another application of the maturity concept. In order to reduce the physical time, an elevated temperature above the ambient can be used to achieve the selected maturity. In practice, it is seldom possible to develop the equivalent maturity of standard curing, i.e. 28 days at 26°C. However, it is convenient to achieve the equivalent of a few days of standard curing by accelerated curing. Amongst the several methods in BS 1881 Part 112 [1983] or ASTM C 684 [1996], the 55°C curing method is an optimal choice to achieve a high maturity within reasonable time and using cost-effective equipment with simple operating techniques. A brief summary of this method is as follows: (@) Standard specimens (cubes) are allow to stand between 1 h 30 min and 3 h 30 min at ambient conditions before being placed into the elevated temperature bath (b) Fitted a cover plate to prevent contact with the bath water, the immersion is between 19 h 50 min and 20 h 10 min at water temperature of 5542°C (c) Remove from bath and demould before cooling in water at ambient temperature for 1h to 2h (4) Test for compressive strength at 24:1% h with maturity equivalent to about 2 days of standard curing. The method can be used directly to estimate 28-day strength, but the strength- maturity relationship has to be established based on previously (historical) data.3.3.5 ACI Committee 214 [1994] recommended acceptance criteria for the correlation between the standard 28-day strength and the accelerated strength as follows: “A minimum of 30 sets of test data covering a wide strength range are needed to establish an adequate correlation equation; for a single strength requirement, the strength range should include the specified strength and should equal to at least 75 per cent of the specified strength. It should be achieved by the use of not fewer than 3 water-cement ratios. A correlation coefficient of less than 0.80 should be regarded with suspicion." Tam [1979] and Das Gupta and Tam [1989] have reported examples of accelerated test methods for local concrete making materials. Philleo [1976] already showed that the variability in strength determination is similar for both standard curing and accelerated strength curing, Combined Data The use of a single pair of current data to estimate the expected 28-day strength is dependent on the correlation based on historical data, remaining valid for the current materials. The influence of testing error from the single current data on the precision of the estimated 28-day strength is significant. A cufrent correlation requires at least two pairs of current data. These may be from one of the following combinations: (a) __ standard specimen strength from two early ages, e.g. 3 days and 7 days (b) 24h controlled tropical curing and standard 3-day strength (c) 24h controlled tropical curing and 55°C curing method Except for the case of combination (c), there is generally a time lack between obtaining the first and second pairs of current data, as maturity difference is based on time alone. However, for the hyperbolic relationship, one of the two constants may be based on historical data and the other derived from the current mix: (a) _ the constant ‘a’ is based on historical data and constant “b” derived from current mix — this is approximately represent the case when the rate of strength development is changed due to a change in the amount of tricalcium silicates and dicalcium silicates in cement; or a smalll change in the fineness of the cement; or a change in the delay of setting due to high dosage of retarders. (b) the constant “b’ is based on historical data and constant ‘a’ derived from current mix — this is approximately represent the case when there is a change in the quality of cement; or a small change in the replacement percentage of pozzolans in a blended cement.With the readily available computational facilities, multiple estimations by the various methods and different combinations of historical and current mix data can be easily handled with customised computer software. The various estimated 28- day strengths for the same mix provide supporting confidence when they are within a small range or to decide on rejecting the odd ones as probably due to testing errors. Estimation models for one or two current data pairs of strength at different maturities, (S1, M1) and (Sz, Mz) to predict the 28-day strength, fep is as follows: (a) with only (S;, My): Model Relationship 4 foaa = KS; where K; is the historical ratio of fax/S; 2 frag = Sy + K (I [28 x 28] — logio [M1] with K from historical data fase = a(28)/(b + 28) with historical value of “a” and “b” derived from 3__| current data, S; = aMi/(b +M:) faeo = a(28)/(b + 28) with historical value of *b” and “a” derived from 4 current data, S; = aMi/(b + My) Based on judgement, some or all the four estimates may be used to provide the best estimate of the 26-day strength, fase. Subsequently, when the actual value of the 28-day strength fe is obtained, a CUSUM analysis is performed for each of the above methods (BS 5703:Parts 1 to 4: [1980 to 1982}) for assessment and adjustment. (b) with both (S1, M1) and (S2, Mz): Model Relationship 1 | fax = KaS2 where Ke is the historical ratio of fzx/S2 fm = Ki2S1 where Ki2 is the historical ratio of S2/S; and (fra is the estimated strength at Mz for comparison with Sz) 2 | foes = [S2]* + K (logio [28 x 28] — logio [Mz]) with K from historical data and [S;]* is the best estimate by considering fz and S2 foac = [S1] + K (logo [28 x 28] - logio [Mx]) or [S2] and [M2] 3___| with k= [S2— Ss} (logo [Ma] — logo [Ms]) from current data ‘oan = a(28)((b + 28) with historical value of “a” and *b” derived from 4 current data, Sz = aMz/(b + Mz) tose = a(28)/(b + 28) with historical value of “b" and “a” derived from 5__| current data, Sp = aMa/(b + Mz) toer = a(28)/(b + 28) with values of both “a” and “b” derived from 6 _| current data, Sj = aMj/(b + My) and S2 = aMz/(b + Mp) [Examples of approach are given in Appendix A]The same approach in exercising judgement with some or all the seven estimates may be used to provide the best estimate of the 28-day strength, fzep. Similarly, when the actual value of the 28-day strength fz: is subsequently obtained, a CUSUM analysis is performed for each of the above methods for assessment and adjustment. With accumulated experience, not only the best estimate can be selected but also the needed mix adjustment will be better implemented Limited past experience indicates that the Semi-log model tends to provide closer estimates at above or below actual values. On the other hand, the hyperbolic relationship tends to under-estimate compared to actual values. A CUSUM analysis provides an. indication of the average difference for feedback to production control. CONCLUDING REMARKS The choice of 28-day strength for concrete does not adequately indicate the later age performance of concrete but is often too late for meaningful acceptance and far too late for control feedback in concrete production. The time for determining concrete strength must be considered with the purpose at hand. The present practice in assessing conformity of characteristic strength of concrete is no long satisfactory for the much faster rate of placing concrete. The potential liability of 2 large volume of concrete already produced and placed into the structure should the strength results at 28-day fail to conform is often unacceptable. To minimise such risk, @ shift in the paradigm to earlier assessment of predicted 28-day strength is needed. Some possible approaches are examined and the methods of application presented. They require only currently available equipment and standard techniques. The adoption of such measures and the experience in their operation will in due course, lead to better and earlier decision making as feedback for production adjustment. It is timely to place production of concrete on a similar footing as a controlled manufacturing process, adopting information technology and knowledge-based strategy for quality control and quality assurance. This enables the optimal use of cement in harmony with the goal of sustainable development. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The author wishes to acknowledge the contributions of his colleagues and industry associates for their parts in some of the works reported in this presentation. The opinions expressed, however, are entirely the responsibility of the author.APPENDIX A (Examples of Hyperbolic Model) The production data for a period of five months consisted of 247 sets of 1-day, 7-day and 28-day strengths, with 3 cubes tested at each age. The ratio of 7-day strength, f; to 1-day strength, f; (Kr:), the ratio of 28-day strength fas to 1-day strength f, (Kzax), and the ratio of 28-day strength, fas to 7-day ‘strength f;, (Kaan) are found to be: Kra= ti Kear fof Mean. 1.858 1.255 ‘Standard deviation 0.214 0.0.73 Maximum, 2.586 . 1.588 ‘Minimum 4.103 4.321 1.073, Based on ail data for f= ami(6+m), the best value of "a" = 70.0 and “b"= 1.322 Example 1 — For the production of next 25 batches based on (Kz) oF (Koa) Method ean ‘Standard Maximum Minimum deviation Actualfs(Kon xf.) 1022 0.094 1176 0.895 Actual Kean X fea) 7.039 0.085 1215 0.852, ‘Actual fg - MPa 67.5 26 725 63.0 NOTE: 15% TO 20% OVER OR UNDER ESTIMATION LIKELY Example 2— For the production of next 25 batches based on historic value of estimated long-term ‘strength “A” = 70.0 and the current value of rate constant “b;" based on f;, or historical value of the rate constant “B” and the current value of “a;" based on f; or using f, with fre (predicted value of f,) in the hyperbolic relationship f = ami(o+m): Method Mean ‘Standard Maximum Minimum] deviation ‘Actual fey and by) 1014 0.038 7,083 0.054 ‘Actual fa¢/(@ and a,) 7.091 0.100) 1.276, 0.895 Actual fay(f,and fre) 1.018 0.043 7.095) 0.913 NOTE: (“A AND “by) OR (f; AND frp) PROVIDES 5 TO 10% OVER OR UNDER ESTIMATION Example 3 ~ For the production of next 25 batches based on both actual values of f; and f; with various combinations of historical values of the long-term strength “A” and rate constant “8” or current values of long-term strength “a;" and rate constant “b;* based of f; as well as current values of both long-term strength ‘a" and rate constant “b" based on actual f, and f; in the hyperbolic relationship f= amv(b+m): Method ‘Standard ‘Maximum Minimum deviation ‘Actualfog/ (Kaan xf) TOT 0.043 7084 os12 Actual fa9/(A and by) 1.040 0.033 1.106 0.989 } Actual fz9/(B and a;) 0.972 0.089 1.119 0.804 Actual fze/(a and b) 4.132 0.061 1.270 1.008 NOTE: USING 2 EARLY AGE DATA SETS LEADS TO UNDER ESTIMATION (CONSERVATIVE) COMBINATIONS OF METHODS MAY INDICATE THE MORE LIKELY ESTIMATE "REFERENCES ae ACI Committee 214-86, [1994], “Use of accelerated strength testing’, Manual of Conerete Practice, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1994. ASTM C 403-97, [1997], “Test method for time of setting of concrete mixtures by penetration resistance”, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol 04.02, American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, 1999. ASTM C 684-96, [1996], “Test method for making, accelerated curing, and testing concrete compression test specimens’, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol 04.02, American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, 1999. ASTM C 918-97, [1997], “Test method for developing early-age compression test values and projecting later-age strengths”, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol 04.02, American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, 1999. ASTM C 1074-93, [1996], “Practice for estimating concrete strength by the maturity method”, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol 04.02, American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, 1996. BS 1881: Part 111: 1983, [1983], “Method for normal curing of test specimens”, British Standards Institution, London, 1983. BS 1881: Part 112: 1983, [1983], “Methods for accelerated curing of test cubes’, British Standards Institution, London, 1983. BS 5328: Part 4: 1990, [1990], “Specification for the procedures to be used in Producing and transporting concrete’, British Standards Institution, London, 1990. BS 5703:Parts 1 to 4:1980 to 1982, [1980, 1982], “Guide to data analysis and quality control using CUSUM techniques’, British Standards Institution, London, 1980 to 1982. Carino, NJ and Tank, RC, [1992], Maturity functions for concretes made with various cements and admixtures, ACI Materials Journal, V89, N2, pp188-196. Chin, FK, [1971], ‘Relationship between strength and maturity of concrete”, Journal, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, March 1971, pp 196-203. Das Gupta, NC and Fam, CT, (1989), “Controlled tropical curing method for accelerated concrete strength’, International Journal of Cement Composites & Lightweight Concrete, V11, N1, Feb 1989, pp 29-36.19. 21 22. 23. Neville, AM, [1996], “Properties of Concrete’, 4" Edition, Longman, London, 1995, pp 304-308. Philleo, RE, [1976], “Lunatics, Liars and Liability’, Journal, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, V73, N4, April 1976, pp181-183. Plowman, JM, [1956], Maturity and the strength of concrete, Magazine of Concrete Research, V8, N22, pp 13-22. Powers, TC, [1947], “A discussion of cement hydration in relation to curing of fete, Poceedings, Highway Research Board, Washington DC, 27. pp 178-188. j Price, B, [1997], “The four-week fallacy’, Conerete, Concrete Society, London, V31, N10, November/December, 1997, pps-9 Tam, CT, [1968], "The relationship between strength and maturity of concrete in Meet Conditions’, Journal, Department of Civil Engineering. University of Malaya, Vol 7, 1968, pp 60-74. Tam, CT, [1973], “The ratio of 7-day strength to 28-day strength of concrete”, Journal, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Malaya, Vol 12, 1973, Pp 6-10. Tam, CT, [1974], “a quick method to predict 28-day ‘strength of concrete”, Bulletin, Institution of Engineers, Malaysia, April 1974, pp 11-16 Tam, CT, [1979], ‘Modified BS 1881 accelerated strength testing method”, 4" Conference on Our World in Concrete and Structures, Singapore, Cl-Premier, August 1979, pp TCT/01-TCT/O05. Tam, CT and Poh, K, [1 }988], “Application of maturity concept in quality control of concrete — a Singapore’ experience’, Proceedings, 2" International Colloquium (on Conerete for Developing Countries, Bombay, Jan. 1988, pp 22.32, Tam. CT and Sri Ravindrarajah, R, [1982], “Age factor for compressive strength Of concrete’, Proceedings, Asian Regional Conference on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, August 1982, pp 7/41-7/47. (200-04.09)