Statistical Analysis of Concrete Compressive Strengths

for California Highway Bridges

Christian Unanwa, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE1; and Mark Mahan, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KANSAS STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on 07/18/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: This investigation presents results of the statistical and probabilistic analyses of 3,269 normal weight concrete cylinder compression
tests used for recently constructed highway bridges in California. A new model for in-place strength of concrete structures is proposed as a func-
tion of the specified compressive strength, the normalized 28-day cylinder strength, and age of the structure based on a realistic strength–age
relation for hardened concrete. The model prediction indicates that concretes in cast-in-place bridge structures designed with specified
compressive strengths of 25 MPa (3.6 ksi), 28 MPa (4.0 ksi), and 35 MPa (5.0 ksi) reach their maximum strengths at about 40 years, with
approximately 98% of the maximum strength occurring during the first 10 years. Also, through significance testing on the 28-day cylinder
strengths, it was established that the California Department of Transportation practice of using an expected concrete strength instead of the
specified strength for seismic design of bridge components is justified. An expression for predicting the 28-day strength of concrete cylinders as
a function of the strength of companion cylinders, also proposed herein, could prove a useful tool for quality control of concrete during
construction. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000404. © 2014 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Concrete; Compressive strength; Concrete tests; Quality control; Statistics; Bridges; Probability; Concrete construction.

Introduction The cylinder samples analyzed in this investigation are based on

The compressive strength of concrete is often used as the basis for
making many decisions regarding the strength and serviceability of
a concrete structure. During the design stage, designers must proportion
the concrete members to resist the imposed loads based on some value
of compressive strength. Quality control of concrete during construc-
tion is usually assessed by the compressive strength of concrete cyl-
inders taken from the concrete batch used in the work or in some cases,
by the compressive strength of concrete cores taken from the structure.
Concrete structures in service may be tested for their in-place (i.e., in
situ) compressive strengths during forensic investigation of failures or
for other purposes, such as change of ownership or change of use.
The objectives of the present investigation are (1) to evaluate the
level of conservatism or unconservatism associated with use of
a minimum concrete compressive strength equal to the greater of
1:3fc9 or 35 MPa (5.0 ksi) by the California Department of Trans-
portation (Caltrans) for determining the capacity of concrete
members to resist seismic demands; (2) to develop a tool for pre-
dicting the in-place strength of a cast-in-place concrete structure that
can be used by construction engineers and contractors during concrete
construction as well as forensic professionals involved with failure
investigation of structures in service; and (3) to develop a tool for
quality control of concrete during construction that is capable of
predicting the 28-day cylinder compressive strength.
1 Pertinent data such as average cylinder compressive strength, test
Bridge Engineer, Office of Earthquake Engineering, California De-
partment of Transportation, 1801 30th Street, MS 9-2/5i, Sacramento, CA
95816 (corresponding author). E-mail: christian_unanwa@dot.ca.gov
2
Branch Chief, Office of Earthquake Engineering, California Depart-
ment of Transportation, 1801 30th Street, MS 9-2/5i, Sacramento, CA
95816.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on April 23, 2012; approved on
September 19, 2012; published online on September 22, 2012. Discussion
period open until July 1, 2014; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Performance of
Constructed Facilities, Vol. 28, No. 1, February 1, 2014. ©ASCE, ISSN
0887-3828/2014/1-157–167/$25.00.
recently constructed cast-in-place concrete highway bridges designed
with specified compressive strengths of 25 MPa (3.6 ksi), 28 MPa
(4.0 ksi), and 35 MPa (5.0 ksi) at 28 days. Concretes manufactured
with cements that attain the specified strengths in a matter of hours are
excluded from this investigation. Accordingly, conclusions reached
in this paper pertain to these grades of concrete used in cast-in-place
highway bridge construction. Findings from this investigation will
appeal to a broad range of concrete professionals, including bridge
designers, construction personnel, and forensic investigators.
Concrete Cylinder Data
Concrete cylinder strength data used in this investigation were ob-
tained from Caltrans Transportation Laboratory (Translab). The data
consist of 3,269 concrete cylinder test results for normal weight
concrete with specified compressive strengths of 25 MPa (3.6 ksi),
28 MPa (4.0 ksi), and 35 MPa (5.0 ksi) used in highway bridges
constructed in California between 2007 and 2011. Each cylinder test
result is the average compressive strength of at least two 150 3 300 mm
(6 3 12 in.) cylinders made from the same concrete sample and tested
at the same age in conformity with Caltrans Standard Specifications
(Caltrans 2010b). The concrete cylinders were sampled, made, field-
cured, and subsequently cured and tested at Translab by Caltrans
personnel in accordance with California Test Methods 539, 540, and
521 (Caltrans 2001a, b, 2005). Test ages ranged from 3 to 100 days.
age, bridge name, contract number, pour location, and mix design
were abstracted from forms maintained at Translab. The corre-
sponding specified 28-day compressive strengths, fc9, were obtained
from the contract plans. The distribution of cylinder test results with
fc9 is shown in Table 1.
Variation of Cylinder Strength with Early Age
Plots of the variation of cylinder strength with age for the three most
commonly specified concrete strengths used for bridge design in

JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2014 / 157

J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2014.28:157-167.

 California [i.e., 25 MPa (3,600 psi), 28 MPa (4,000 psi), and 35 MPa predictors of individual cylinder strengths. Normalizing the strength
(5,000 psi)] are shown in Figs. 1–3. Lines of best-fit for the data values predicted by Eqs. (1)–(3) by the respective 28-day predicted
points in Figs. 1–3 were obtained using regression analysis and the strengths, plots of the strength variation with age are shown in Fig. 4.
logarithmic model. The resulting cylinder strength–age relationships The ages of 3, 7, 14, 21, 28, 42, and 56 days used in the abscissa of
are shown in Eqs. (1)–(3) Fig. 4 correspond to the most frequently requested test ages for the
cylinder samples. Fig. 4 shows that the rate of strength gain of
25 MPa ½3,600 psi concrete: t
fc,cyl ¼ 8:763 ln ðtÞ þ 6:731 the cylinder specimens are similar for all three concrete strengths.
h i Therefore, a representative curve for cylinder strength gain in terms
t
fc,cyl ¼ 1,271 ln ðtÞ þ 976:26 (1) 28
of the 28-day strength, fc,cyl may be obtained using a best-fit line
through the predicted data points [Eq. (4)]
28 MPa ½4,000 psi concrete: t
fc,cyl ¼ 12:021 ln ðtÞ 2 0:309
t
¼ ½0:2752 lnðtÞ þ 0:083 fc,cyl
28
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KANSAS STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on 07/18/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

h i
t
fc,cyl ¼ 1,743:5 ln ðtÞ 2 44:81 (2)
35 MPa ½5,000 psi concrete: fc,cyl
t
¼ 13:0333 ln ðtÞ þ 3:248
h i
t
fc,cyl ¼ 1,890:3 ln ðtÞ þ 471:15 (3)
t
In Eqs. (1)–(3), fc,cyl 5 compressive strength of concrete cylinder
(in MPa or psi) at age t measured in days, where 3 # t # 56.
Because of the large scatter in the data points of Figs. 1–3,
Eqs. (1)–(3) are more relevant as predictors of cylinder compressive
strength gain with respect to early age (t # 56 days) rather than
fc,cyl (4)
Eq. (4) is most useful as a tool for predicting the 28-day cylinder
strength based on the strength of companion cylinders tested at an
earlier age. For example, Caltrans Standard Specifications (Caltrans
2010b) require that if the compressive strength at 7 days indicates to
the engineer that the concrete will not attain the strength specified at 28
days, the mix design or concrete fabrication must be corrected before
additional concrete is placed. In this case, Eq. (4) may be written as
1
28
fc,cyl ¼ ft (5)
½0:2752 lnðtÞ þ 0:083 c,cyl

Table 1. Summary of Concrete Cylinder Compressive Test Results

Statistics of 28-day cylinder strengths
95% confidence
limits on ( f c,cyl =fc9)
Number of Number of Mean strength, Standard Coefficient of
fc9 [MPa (ksi)] test results 28-day tests ( f c,cyl =fc9) Lower Upper deviation, (S=fc9) variation, V
25 (3.6) 1,474 673 1.45 1.43 1.47 0.28 0.19
28 (4.0) 1,502 529 1.45 1.43 1.47 0.27 0.18
35 (5.0) 293 118 1.33 1.30 1.36 0.17 0.13

Fig. 1. Variation of concrete strength with age for fc9 5 25 MPa (3,600 psi) (note: 1 psi 5 6.894757 kPa)

158 / JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2014

J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2014.28:157-167.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KANSAS STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on 07/18/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 2. Variation of concrete strength with age for fc9 5 28 MPa (4,000 psi) (note: 1 psi 5 6.894757 kPa)

Fig. 3. Variation of concrete strength with age for fc9 5 35 MPa (5,000 psi) (note: 1 psi 5 6.894757 kPa)

Construction engineers often rely on historical data or some rule of
thumb to obtain an indication of the likely 28-day compressive
strength, given the strength of companion cylinders tested at an earlier
age. One such rule of thumb for 100% portland cement concrete
mixes with 335–390 kg/m3 (564–658 lb/yd3) of portland cement and
a water/cement ratio of 0.5 was 65% of 28-day strength at 7 days and
80% of 28-day strength at 14 days (Caltrans 2011). This rule of thumb
is unarguably highly restrictive, especially with the increasing use
of supplementary cementitious materials in today’s projects. Also,
previous experience or historical data may not always be available
to the field engineer, especially when new mix designs are specified
for a project. Therefore, Eq. (5) would be a useful addition to the
tools available to a construction engineer for quality control of
concrete during construction.
Twenty-Eight–Day Cylinder Strength Results
Because the 28-day strength has historically been used as the basis
for concrete compressive strengths under 41 MPa (6 ksi) (AASHTO
2010), subsequent analyses of the cylinder data will be based on the
28-day strength. Accordingly, subsequent references to mean cyl-
inder strength would be taken as the 28-day mean cylinder strength.
Table 1 also shows summary statistics for the 28-day cylinder strength
data normalized by the respective specified strengths, fc9.
The dispersion of cylinder strengths about the mean values, as
indicated by the standard deviation (or coefficient of variation), is
attributable to batch-to-batch as well as within-batch variations (ACI
Committee 214 2011). Batch-to-batch and within-batch variations in
concrete cylinder results are the result of differing characteristics,

JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2014 / 159

J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2014.28:157-167.


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KANSAS STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on 07/18/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 4. Concrete cylinder strength gain with respect to early-age
properties, and proportions of concrete constituent materials; mixing,
transporting, sampling, and climatic conditions; and the water/cement
ratio. The relatively large dispersion about the mean strengths ex-
hibited by the present data were expected because the tested concrete
cylinders were made from both the same and different concrete
batches that were used on various bridge projects. Because multiple
bridge projects are subject to more sources of strength variation
(e.g., use of multiple concrete batches, construction during differ-
ent climatic conditions, and varying characteristics and proportions
of concrete constituent materials) than an individual project or a struc-
tural component, the standard deviation and coefficient of variation
values shown in Table 1 may be considered representative of the upper
bound values of variability for a given bridge component or project.
It should also be noted that concrete in the bridge structure (i.e., in-place
concrete) is subject to additional strength variations relative to the test
cylinders because of differences in concrete placement, consolidation,
and curing methods.
Statistical Testing on the Mean Concrete Strengths
Caltrans practice for determining the capacity of concrete members
to resist seismic demands uses the most probable (i.e., expected)
material properties instead of nominal material properties (Caltrans
2010a). For concrete, the expected compressive strength, fce9 is
given as the greater of 1:3 fc9 or 35 MPa (5 ksi), that is, for 25 MPa
(3.6 ksi) concrete, fce9 5 35 MPa ð5 ksiÞ, whereas for 28 MPa
(4.0 ksi) and 35 MPa (5.0 ksi) concretes fce9 5 1:3 fc9. It is of interest
to bridge designers to evaluate the level of conservatism or
unconservatism associated with the use of such factors of safety in
the resistance variable. On the basis of the test results presented in
Table 1, the mean 28-day cylinder strengths exceed the respective
expected compressive strengths for all three concrete strengths
commonly used for bridge construction in California. It is, how-
ever, important to realize that the mean cylinder strengths being
greater than the expected compressive strength does not imply that
every cylinder test result is greater than the expected compressive
strength. The standard deviation, S and coefficient of variation, V of
the cylinder samples provide information regarding the dispersion
of cylinder strengths about the mean strengths. To properly qualify
the statement that the mean 28-day cylinder compressive strength,
f c,cyl exceeds the expected compressive strength fce9 entails deter-
mining the probabilities that the observed mean strength is greater
160 / JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2014
J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2014.28:157-167.
than fce9 . Statistical tests were conducted to aid in making this
determination.
The tests were carried out to test the null, H0 and alternative, H1
hypotheses shown in Eqs. (6) and (7), respectively
9
H0 : f c,cyl # fce (6)
9
H1 : f c,cyl . fce (7)
where fce9 5 1:39 fc9 for 25 MPa (3.6 ksi) concrete; and fce9 5 1:3 fc9
for 28 and 35 MPa (4.0 and 5.0 ksi) concretes.
Eq. (7) is the research hypothesis. If the null hypothesis is rejected
based on the concrete strength data, then the research hypothesis,
which states that the observed mean strength is greater than 1:3 fc9
or 1:39 fc9, as applicable, will be accepted. In doing so, it must be
ensured that the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis (H0 ),
when H0 is true (so-called type I error), is very small. The proba-
bility of committing a type I error, denoted by a, may be preset
(i.e., hypothesis testing) or determined based on the data and then
compared with the acceptable risk level (i.e., significance testing). In
this analysis, P values using significance testing will be determined.
For large samples and unknown population standard deviation,
as is the case in this investigation, the test statistic, T is given by the
usual expression
f c,cyl 2 fce
T¼ pffiffiffi (8)
ðS= nÞ
pffiffiffi
where ðS= nÞ 5 standard error; and n 5 sample size. If the dis-
tribution of cylinder strengths is Gaussian (i.e., normally distrib-
uted), the test statistic given in Eq. (8) follows a T distribution with
(n 2 1) degrees of freedom.
To verify that the concrete strengths are drawn from a normal
distribution, frequency histograms and the corresponding normal
frequency distribution curves of the 28-day cylinder strength data
were plotted in Figs. 5–7 for the three concrete strengths. Figs. 5–7
show that the concrete strengths are normally distributed; however,
fitting of the normal distribution curve for the 28 MPa (4 ksi) and
35 MPa (5 ksi) concrete strengths was better than that of the 25 MPa
(3.6 ksi) strength. Consequently, the lognormal distribution was also
investigated for the 25 MPa (3.6 ksi) concrete [Fig. 5(b)]. On the
basis of Figs. 5(a and b), it appears that the lognormal distribution
provided a better fit to the 25 MPa (3.6 ksi) concrete. Change of
probability distribution function from lognormal to normal distri-
bution as the specified strength of concrete increased was noted
previously (Stewart 1995; Tabsh and Aswad 1997), with the con-
sensus among researchers (Mirza et al. 1979; ACI Committee 214
2010; ACI Committee 228 2003; Bartlett and MacGregor 1995)
being that concrete strengths were normally distributed if control
was above average and lognormally distributed if control was below
average. However, because of its analytic tractability, the normal
distribution was used for all concrete strengths in the present in-
vestigation, except as noted in the section on Percent Low Tests.
Using Eq. (8) and the data of Table 1, the probabilities of making
a type I error were determined from the appropriate Tn21 distribution
using tables of Student’s t -distribution or computer-based statistical
analysis tools. The resulting P values are shown in Table 2. Because
the P values are small (relative to the standard a 5 0:05 significance
level), the null hypotheses must be rejected. Therefore, it was con-
cluded that the observed mean strengths were greater than the
expected compressive strengths, fce9 . This means that the use of the
expected strength (1:3 fc9) instead of the specified compressive strength
( fc9) for the seismic design of bridge components was justified.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KANSAS STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on 07/18/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 5. (a) Frequency distribution of cylinder strength data for fc9
5 3,600 psi and corresponding fitted normal distribution (note: 1 psi
5 6.894757 kPa); (b) frequency distribution of cylinder strength data
for fc9 5 3,600 psi and corresponding fitted lognormal distribution
curve (note: 1 psi 5 6.894757 kPa)
Fig. 6. Frequency distribution of strength data for fc9 5 4,000 psi and
corresponding fitted normal distribution curve (note: 1 psi 5 6.894757 kPa)
Percent Low Tests
Concrete cylinder strengths are generally used for controlling the
quality of the concrete as manufactured and for obtaining an in-
dication of concrete strength in the structure (in-place strength). The
former is useful in determining acceptability of the mix design,
whereas the latter is employed as a prerequisite for applying stresses
to a structure. Caltrans Standard Specifications (Caltrans 2010b) pro-
vide criteria for acceptance of concrete used in construction depending
on the percentage of the specified strength attained by concrete test
JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2014 / 161
J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2014.28:157-167.
Fig. 7. Frequency distribution of cylinder strength data for fc9 5 5,000 psi
and corresponding fitted normal distribution curve (note: 1 psi
5 6.894757 kPa)
Table 2. P Values for Significance Testing on Mean Cylinder Strengths
fc9 [MPa (ksi)] T P value
25 (3.6) 5.559 1:957 3 10208
28 (4.0) 12.778 4:552 3 10233
35 (5.0) 1.917 0.0288
cylinders at the specified age. A contractor is penalized if a single
compressive strength test result is below the specified strength, with
the severity of penalty depending on whether the cylinder test result
is at least 95 or 85% of the specified strength. If the cylinder com-
pressive test result is below 0:85 fc9, the concrete represented by the
test must be removed unless the contractor provides adequate proof
that the in-place strength is at least equal to 0:85 fc9.
28
The probability that a single compressive test result, fc,cyl , is
less than a value of strength, lfc9, where 0 , l # 1 is given by
 
28
P fc,cyl , lfc9 (9)
In terms of the standard normal variable Z, Eq. (9) becomes
" !#
  lfc9 2 f c,cyl
P fc,cyl , lfc9 ¼ P Z ,
28
¼ FðZÞ (10)
S
where f c,cyl and S 5 sample mean and sample standard deviation,
respectively; and FðZÞ 5 cumulative distribution function of Z.
For the concrete samples used in this investigation, f c,cyl and S are
given by the Gaussian functions, Nð1:45, 0:28Þ, Nð1:45, 0:27Þ,
and Nð1:33, 0:17Þ for fc9 5 25 MPa ð3:6 ksiÞ, 28 MPa ð4:0 ksiÞ,
and 35 MPa ð5:0 ksiÞ concretes, respectively (Table 1).
The probabilities that a single test result is less than fc9, 0:95 fc9,
and 0:85 fc9 were determined using Eq. (10), tables of cumulative
normal distribution, or computer-based statistical analysis tools, and
are shown in Table 3 to the nearest percent (see columns 3–5). The
actual percentage of test results falling below fc9 for the sampled
cylinder test results are also shown in Table 3 (column 2) to the nearest
percent.
The values with the superscripted letter a are the corresponding
expected percent low tests using the lognormal distribution for the
25 MPa (3.6 ksi) concrete. For lognormal distribution, the equiva-
lent equation for FðZÞ is
 Table 3. Expected Percentage of Low Test Results
Actual percentage of
fc9 [MPa (ksi)] results below fc9 28
Pð fc,cyl , fc9Þ (%)
25 (3.6) 2 5
3a
28 (4.0) 3 4
35 (5.0) 3 3
a
Values based on lognormal distribution.
8 2      3
9 of differences in concrete placement procedure, consolidation
< 9c 2 ln f c,cyl þ 0:5 ln 1 þ V 2 =
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KANSAS STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on 07/18/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
  ln lf
28
P fc,cyl , lfc9 ¼ P Z , 4 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 5
: lnð1 þ V 2 Þ ; However, the strength reduction in an actual structure relative to
where V 5 ðS=f c,cyl Þ 5 coefficient of variation.
The results show that the actual percentages of low tests for the
cylinder samples (column 2) are similar to the values obtained using
the fitted Gaussian distributions for 28 MPa (4 ksi) and 35 MPa
(5 ksi) concretes (column 3), indicating that the Gaussian functions
properly modeled the data. For the 25 MPa (3.6 ksi) strength con-
crete, Table 3 also shows that the lognormal distribution yielded
a better comparison with the actual percent low tests relative to the
normal model.
Columns 3 and 4 of Table 3 show the probability of a contractor
paying penalties for the given specified concrete strengths, whereas
column 5 shows the probability that concrete placed in the work will
be removed. For a given structural component, the percentages shown
in columns 3–5 should be regarded as the upper bound values of the
respective probabilities because of the effect of batch-to-batch var-
iations, as stated previously. The analysis shows that the maximum
probability that concrete supplied by the manufacturer will be re-
moved from the work for all three specified concrete strengths is 1%.
The percentage of low tests presented in column 3 of Table 3
were also compared with the limits specified by other design and
construction codes. For example, AASHTO (2010) specifies a max-
imum probability of 10% for an individual test result falling below
fc9, and ACI 318 (ACI 2008) requires a maximum probability of 1%
for the arithmetic average of any three consecutive tests falling
below fc9. Column 3 of Table 3 shows a maximum probability of 4%
for an individual test falling below fc9, which is within the limits
recommended by AASHTO (2010). The probability of the average
of any three consecutive tests ð f any 3 cyl Þ falling below fc9 is obtained
using the following equation:
" !#
  fc9 2 f c,cyl
P f any 3 cyl , fc9 ¼ P Z , pffiffiffi
S= 3
The results in column 6 of Table 3 show that the expected per-
centages of low tests for all three specified concrete strengths are
well within the ACI 318 (ACI 2008) recommended limit of 1%.
In-place Strength of Concrete
Previous investigations (Campbell and Tobin 1967; Petersons 1968;
Bloem 1968; Davis 1976) have established that the compressive
strength of concrete in a structure (i.e., the in-place or in situ
strength) is generally less than the compressive strength of the test
cylinder made from the same concrete batch used in the structure.
For a given structure (or structural member) and its corresponding
test cylinder, the principal causes of strength variation are because
162 / JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2014
J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2014.28:157-167.
28
Pð fc,cyl , 0:95 fc9Þ (%) 28
Pð fc,cyl , 0:85 fc9Þ (%) Pð f any 3 cyl , fc9Þ (%)
4 2 0.27
2a ,1a
3 1 0.19
1 ,1 0.04
received by the concrete, and the curing methods employed.
the test cylinder is also partially compensated by the gain in
(11) strength experienced by the concrete as it ages beyond 28 days.
In general, in-place strength of concrete is required in the follow-
ing situations: (1) as a backup method for determining acceptability
of concrete during construction in situations where cylinder test
results are unacceptably low; (2) to determine when to apply load or
posttensioning to a member; and (3) to evaluate the strength of an
existing structure. In California, a good percentage of the recently
constructed bridges are cast-in place, posttensioned structures in
which the structures must attain certain levels of strength before
posttensioning can be applied. A tool for predicting the in-place
strength of concrete as a function of the strength specified in the
design is therefore of interest to bridge designers. In view of the
foregoing discussion, it is proposed to determine the mean in-place
t
compressive strength of concrete at any age t, f c,in-place as a function
of the specified 28-day compressive strength, fc9 as follows:
t
f c,in-place ¼ f1 f2 f3 fc9 (13)
where
f1 ¼ f c,cyl =fc9 (14)
f2 ¼ f c,hard, 28-day =f c,cyl (15)
t
f3 ¼ f c,hard =f c,hard, 28-day (16)
In Eqs. (13)–(16), f1 5 ratio of the mean 28-day cylinder strength to
the specified 28-day compressive strength; f2 5 ratio of the mean
28-day strength of hardened concrete to the mean 28-day cylinder
strength; and f3 5 ratio of the mean strength of hardened concrete at
age t to the corresponding mean 28-day strength.
(12)
Design Values for In-place Strength Parameters
For the concrete samples analyzed in this investigation, the variable
f1 corresponds to the normalized mean 28-day cylinder strengths
shown previously in Table 1. It should be noted that, f1 is largely
dependent on concrete acceptance criteria, and therefore, varies
with the owner or design code. In situations where sample data are
unavailable, f1 may be estimated using the expressions for required
average strength recommended in Table 5.3.2.2 of ACI 318 (ACI
2008).
The mean 28-day compressive strength of a structure may be
obtained using methods that directly measure compressive strength
or obtained indirectly using methods (such as rebound number, ul-
trasonic pulse velocity, and penetration resistance) that measure
other properties that can be correlated to compressive strength. The
 most direct method for obtaining the in-place strength of concrete
consists of taking cores from the structure and testing them in the
laboratory (ACI Committee 214 2010; ACI Committee 228 2003).
The ratio of mean 28-day strength of hardened concrete to cyl-
inder strength, f2 , was obtained from experimental strength results
of concrete structures using both direct (concrete cores) and in-
direct (in-place testing) methods available from the technical
literature (Table 4). A review of the data from the literature
yielded the values listed in Table 4. From Table 4, the mean value of
parameter f2 will be taken as 0.81 for all three specified concrete
strengths.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KANSAS STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on 07/18/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Parameter f3 , the normalized mean strength of hardened con-
crete at age t, describes the rate of strength gain of in-place concrete
with respect to time. The long-term strength–age relationship of
concrete was obtained by analyzing and plotting the long-time data
from four studies initiated by the Portland Cement Association as
compiled by Wood (1991) (Fig. 8). The strength–age data were
based on mean values of compressive strengths of concrete cylinders
and cubes stored outdoors and tested at ages ranging from 3 days to
34 years. Although concretes from the long-term studies reported by
Wood (1991) were manufactured with pre-1957 cements, data from
more recent concretes (Lange 1994; Wood 1991) showed that both
concretes exhibited similar long-term trends in strength development.
Table 4. Values of Parameter f2 from the Literature
Author f2 5 ð f c,hard, 28-day Þ Remarks
Campbell and Tobin (1967) 0.88 Slabs
Bloem (1968) 0.67–0.82 Poorly to well
field-cured drilled cores
Petersons (1968) 0.804–0.84–0.88 Columns–slabs–walls
Davis (1976) 0.65 Columns and walls
ACI Committee 228 (2003) 0.89–0.94 Horizontal elements
and Bickley (1984)
Fig. 8. Strength development of hardened concrete with respect to time
JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2014 / 163
J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2014.28:157-167.
The experimental data were complemented by the predictions of
models for strength gain of hardened concrete used in creep and
shrinkage studies [ACI Committee 209 (1992); Gardner (2004)
[denoted as GL2000 in (Fig. 8)]. Based on the data of Fig. 8, the writers
propose the following equation to describe the strength variation with
respect to age of hardened concrete (see the fitted curve in Fig. 8):
f3 ¼ e l (17)
where
 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
l ¼ 0:3 1 2 28=t (18)
Note that the portion of the curve from 34 to 40 years was based on
the predictions of ACI Committee 209 (1992) and Gardner (2004).
Substituting Eq. (17) and the value of f2 into Eq. (13), the mean
in-place compressive strength of concrete at any age t, is
f c,in-place ¼ 0:81  e l f1 fc9
t
(19)
Eq. (19) describes the mean in-place strength of a cast-in-place
concrete structure as a function of time, the specified compressive
strength used in the design, and the applicable normalized mean
28-day cylinder compressive strength. It should be noted that the
form of in-place strength model in Eq. (19) is quite robust, enabling
it to be used by different owners with values of normalized mean
28-day cylinder strengths applicable to its practice or specific con-
crete mix design.
Using Eq. (19) and data for f1 from Table 1, the mean in-place
concrete strength at various ages for cast-in-place California bridge
structures were calculated and shown in Table 5 and Fig. 9 (labeled
as Author). Table 5 shows that the predicted mean 28-day in-place
strength of the bridge structures varied from 1:08 fc9 for 35 MPa
(5 ksi) concrete to 1:17 fc9 for 25 MPa (3.6 ksi) and 28 MPa (4 ksi)
concretes. Table 5 (column 2) shows that the maximum strength of
 the bridge structures designed with specified strengths fc9 of 25 MPa
(3.6 ksi) and 28 MPa (4.0 ksi) is 1:57 fc9 and is attained during the first
40 years, with 98% of the strength occurring during the first 10 years.
The maximum strength for the bridge structures designed with a
specified strength of 35 MPa (5 ksi) is 1:44 fc9 (see column 3) and is
also attained during the first 40 years, with approximately 98% of the
strength occurring during the first 10 years. In view of the foregoing
results, use of the in-place strength model for concrete ages greater
than 40 years is unwarranted. It should also be noted that the model
predictions are subject to the variabilities discussed in the section
titled Variability of In-place Concrete Strengths.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KANSAS STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on 07/18/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Model Prediction Comparisons with an Existing
Model and Core Strengths of a Structure
Two comparisons of the present model were made to compare its
predictions over the short term (i.e., within the first year) with an
existing predictive model and over the long term (i.e., at 28 years)
using cores taken from an actual bridge structure.
The model results were compared with the average in-place
strength versus age relationship proposed by Bartlett and MacGregor
(1996) during the first year of a structure [Table 6 and Fig. 9 (labeled
as B-M)]. Table 6 shows that the mean in-place strengths from the

present investigation for 25 MPa (3.6 ksi) and 28 MPa (4 ksi)

concretes are close to those furnished by Bartlett and MacGregor
(1996) for shallow elements, but are less than those for tall elements
Table 5. Predicted Values of Mean in-place Concrete Strength by a maximum of 12%. For the higher 35 MPa (5 ksi) concrete
Mean in-place strength in terms of fc9 grade, the present model yielded lower predictions than that of
Bartlett and MacGregor (1996), with maximum differences of ap-
Concrete age 25=28 MPa (3:6=4:0 ksi) 35 MPa (5.0 ksi) proximately 14 and 22% for shallow and tall elements, respectively.
28 days 1.17 1.08 The relatively large difference for the 35 MPa (5 ksi) concrete could
1 year 1.46 1.34 be attributed to the fact that the model by Bartlett and MacGregor
10 years 1.54 1.42 (1996) assumed that the normalized mean 28-day cylinder strength
25 years 1.56 1.43 f1 was independent of the specified concrete strength. As a result of
40 years 1.57 1.44 better control standards in the production of higher strength con-
41 years 1.57 1.44 crete, the value and coefficient of variation of f1 are inversely
proportional to the concrete strength (Tabsh and Aswad 1997;

Fig. 9. In-place strength of concrete

Table 6. Comparison of In-place Strength Predictions

Mean in-place strength in terms of fc9
Bartlett and MacGregor
Present Model (1996) Percent difference in predictions
Age 25/28 MPa 35 MPa Shallow Tall
(days) [1] (3.6/4.0 ksi) [2] (5.0 ksi) [3] elements [4] elements [5] [2] versus [4] [2] versus [5] [3] versus [4] [3] versus [5]
28 1.17 1.08 1.21 (1.11) 1.31 (1.20) 2.6 11.8 11.8 (2.8) 21.9 (11.1)
180 1.41 1.29 1.44 (1.32) 1.55 (1.42) 2.1 9.7 11.3 (2.3) 19.6 (10.1)
365 1.46 1.34 1.53 (1.40) 1.63 (1.50) 4.6 12.0 14.0 (4.5) 22.1 (11.9)

164 / JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2014

J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2014.28:157-167.


Mirza et al. 1979). Using the data from this investigation, the value of
factor f1 for 25/28 MPa (3.6/4.0 ksi) concrete is greater than that of 35
MPa (5.0 ksi) concrete by a factor of 1.09. The predictions by Bartlett
and MacGregor (1996) compared with the present model’s pre-
diction for 35 MPa (5.0 ksi) concrete could therefore, have been
overestimated by a factor of 1.09. If the predictions of Bartlett and
MacGregor (1996) were adjusted accordingly (see the numbers in
parentheses in Table 6), the resulting predictions for shallow ele-
ments would be close to those predicted by the present model. The
resulting predictions for tall elements would show a maximum
difference of approximately 12% relative to the present model’s
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KANSAS STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on 07/18/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Vc,in-place ¼ Vf21 þ Vf22 þ Vf23 (20)
Eq. (20) assumes that f1 , f2 , and f3 are statistically independent
variables. It has been argued that the quality of concrete delivered by
the producer is not correlated with the other factors that influence
in-place strength, such as consolidation, curing practices, or the age
of concrete (Bartlett and MacGregor 1996). Although this argument
is essentially correct, it should also be noted that the assumption of
statistical independence would err on the side of safety in calculating
variability. Therefore, Eq. (20) is adjudged to be reasonable from
a practical standpoint.

prediction for 35 MPa (5.0 ksi) concrete. Also, because the predi-
ctions of the present model for all three concrete strengths are in As stated previously, values of Vf1 as given in Table 1 were
better agreement with that for shallow elements than tall elements, affected by batch-to-batch as well as within-batch variations, and
it is indicative that the effect of member height on in-place strength, therefore, are more representative of the upper bound values. Batch-
represented by the indicator variable in the model by Bartlett and to-batch variations in the standard deviation estimates are those
MacGregor (1996), may have been overestimated. attributable to constituent material suppliers and the concrete pro-
The prediction of the present model was also compared with in- ducer, whereas those resulting from sampling of the batch sample,
place strength data obtained using drilled cores for the seismic ret- specimen preparation, curing, and testing constitute within-batch
rofit of San Diego-Coronado Bay Bridge in California (Table 7). The variation (ACI Committee 214 2011). For a given structure, and
approximate age of the bridge was 28 years. The core strengths were considering the data used in the present investigation, a better
converted to the equivalent in-place strengths using modification representation of the variability may be estimated using the lower
factors for the effects of length-to-diameter ratio (Fl=d ), diameter limit of the confidence interval for the standard deviation. Hindo
(Fdia ), moisture condition (Fmc ), and damage sustained during and Bergstrom (1985) suggested values of confidence levels of 75%
drilling (Fd ), in accordance with ACI Committee 214 (2010), as for ordinary structures, 90% for very important buildings, and 95%
follows: Fl=d (dried specimen) (Table 7), Fdia 5 1:0 [100-mm (4-in.) for crucial parts of nuclear power plants. However, in the present
diameter cores used], Fmc 5 0:96 (air-dried), and Fd 5 1:0 (un- investigation for bridges, the 95% confidence limit is used to maintain
damaged cores used). Table 7 lists the data. The average in-place consistency with the definition of other variables used in this study.
strength was calculated as 1:57 fc9 (Table 7). The lower limit of the 95% confidence interval on the standard
Assuming a value of normalized mean 28-day cylinder strength deviation, SL was calculated using the following equation
equal to 1.45, the predicted average in-place strength using Eq. (19) qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
is SL ¼ ðn 2 1ÞS2 =x2a=2 (21)
28-yr
f c,in-place ¼ 0:81  el f1 fc9 ¼ 0:81  1:329  1:45 fc9 ¼ 1:56 fc9 where x2a=2 5 appropriate point on the x2 distribution with (n 2 1)
degrees of freedom. x2a=2 may be read off tables of cumulative x 2
This value is close to 1:57fc9 obtained by taking cores on the bridge distribution or determined using computer-based statistical tools.
in-place. Although this result is promising, a larger number of in-place The resulting values of Vf1 are shown in Table 8. The small decrease
test results will be required to further verify the model predictions. in the Vf1 values was the result of the large sample size used in this
investigation. This should, however, not detract from the general
applicability of the proposed procedure. For example, for the
Variability of In-place Concrete Strengths 25 MPa (3.6 ksi) data and a sample size of 50, Vf1 decreases from 0.19
to 0.05 instead of 0.18 obtained for the current sample size of 673.
The variability associated with in-place strength of concrete, The mean value of the variability in the ratio of 28-day hardened
Vc,in-place may be calculated by considering the variability in the strength to cylinder strength, Vf2 was obtained from the experi-
variables f1 , f2 and f3 , denoted by their coefficients of variation, Vf1 , mental test data of Bickley (1984), Davis (1976), Drysdale (1973),
Vf2 and Vf3 . Following the general principles for calculating vari-
ability (Ang 1973; Ang and Cornell 1974), Vc,in-place is given by
Table 8. Lower Limits of 95% Confidence Interval on Variability Vf1
Lower limit of Coefficient of variation
Table 7. in-place Strength of San Diego-Coronado Bridge at 28 Years Standard 95% confidence based on lower limit of
Using Drilled Cores deviation, interval on 95% confidence interval
As-built Equivalent fc9 [MPa (ksi)] (S=fc9) standard deviation on standard deviation
specified Core in-place In-place 25 (3.6) 0.28 0.27 0.18
Pier/core strength, strength, strength, strength 28 (4.0) 0.27 0.26 0.17
location MPa (psi) MPa (psi) L/D Fl=d MPa (psi) /fc9 35 (5.0) 0.17 0.15 0.11
2–3 22.5 (3,250) 42.1 (6,100) 1.8 0.995 40.2 (5,826) 1.79
20–1 28.0 (4,000) 43.4 (6,300) 1.9 0.999 41.7 (6,040) 1.51 Table 9. Values of Coefficient of Variation Vf2
20–2 28.0 (4,000) 35.2 (5,100) 1.4 0.954 32.2 (4,669) 1.17
References Vf2 Remarks
36–2 22.5 (3,250) 35.2 (5,100) 2.0 1.0 33.8 (4,896) 1.51
36–3 22.5 (3,250) 36.5 (5,300) 2.0 1.0 35.1 (5,088) 1.57 Bickley (1984) 0.09 Horizontal elements
28–1 22.5 (3,250) 43.4 (6,300) 2.0 1.0 41.7 (6,048) 1.86 Drysdale (1973) 0.15 Columns
28–2 22.5 (3,250) 37.9 (5,500) 1.4 0.954 34.8 (5,037) 1.55 Tso & Zelman (1970) 0.11 Columns
Mean in-place strength 1.57 Davis (1976) 0.11 Columns

JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2014 / 165

J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2014.28:157-167.

 approximately 4%, whereas the maximum probability of concrete
used in the work being removed is 1%.

Acknowledgments

The writers wish to thank the following coworkers for their assis-
tance in collecting concrete cylinder and core test data: Rosme Aguilar,
Branch Chief , Concrete Materials Testing Laboratory; Jaro Simek,
Office of Earthquake Engineering (OEE), and Jeremiah Jackson,
Volunteer at OEE. Thanks are also due to Dr. Kyoung Lee for his as-
sistance in reviewing the final paper. The contents of this paper reflect
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KANSAS STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on 07/18/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

the views of the authors and not necessarily the official views of
the California Department of Transportation.

Fig. 10. Coefficient of variation of hardened concrete versus time Notation

The following symbols are used in this paper:

fc9 5 specified 28-day compressive strength of
and Tso and Zelman (1970). The data are presented in Table 9. On concrete used in design;
the basis of these literature data, the mean value of Vf2 will be taken fce9 5 expected compressive strength of
as 0.11. unconfined concrete;
The coefficient of variation of parameter f3 , Vf3 was estimated 28
fc,cyl 5 28-day cylinder compressive strength for
using the long-term data from four studies initiated by the Portland a concrete cylinder test result;
Cement Association and compiled by Wood (1991). Data for the t
fc,cyl 5 compressive strength of concrete cylinder at
coefficient of variation with respect to time for concrete specimens age, t;
stored outdoors were plotted in Fig. 10. Fig. 10 shows that Vf3 does f1 , f2 , and f3 5 mean in-place concrete compressive
not appear to be affected by concrete age or cement type. The mean strength parameters;
value of Vf3 will be taken as 0.07. f any 3 cyl 5 mean of any three consecutive cylinder
Substituting the mean values of Vf1 (from Table 8), Vf2 (from compressive strength results;
Table 9), and Vf3 into Eq. (20), the mean value of coefficient of f c,cyl 5 mean 28-day concrete cylinder compressive
variation of in-place strength for the bridge structures are com- strength;
puted as 0.22, 0.21, and 0.17 for 25 MPa (3.6 ksi), 28 MPa (4.0 ksi), f c,hard,28-day 5 mean 28-day strength of hardened concrete;
and 35 MPa (5.0 ksi) concretes, respectively. t
f c,hard 5 mean strength of hardened concrete at any
age, t;
Conclusions t
f c,in-place 5 mean in-place (or in situ) compressive
strength of concrete at any age t;
A model for in-place strength prediction of cast-in-place concrete
structures was proposed as a function of the specified compressive n 5 sample size;
strength, the normalized 28-day cylinder strength, and concrete age S 5 sample standard deviation;
based on a realistic strength–age relation of hardened concrete. The t 5 concrete age, measured in days;
model prediction was compared with that determined from concrete V 5 sample coefficient of variation;
cores taken from an actual bridge at 28 years and found to agree Vc,in-place 5 variability of in-place concrete strength in
reasonably well. The model prediction shows that concretes in cast- terms of coefficient of variation;
in-place California bridge structures designed with specified com- Vf1 , Vf2 , Vf3 5 coefficient of variation of in-place concrete
pressive strengths of 25 MPa (3.6 ksi), 28 MPa (4.0 ksi), and because of parameters f1 , f2 and f3 respectively;
35 MPa (5.0 ksi) reach their maximum strengths at about 40 years, Z 5 standard normal variable of concrete
the maximum strength being 144 and 157% of the 28-day specified cylinder compressive test result;
strength for 35 MPa (5 ksi) and 25/28 MPa (3.6/4.0 ksi) concretes, a 5 the probability of committing a type I error;
respectively, with about 98% of the maximum strength occurring FðZÞ 5 cumulative distribution function of standard
during the first 10 years. normal variable Z; and
An expression for predicting the 28-day compressive strength of x2a=2 5 point on the x2 distribution for determining
concrete cylinders as a function of the strength of companion cyl- the lower confidence interval.
inders tested at an earlier age, was proposed. The proposed ex-
pression would prove a useful tool for control of concrete quality
References
during construction.
The analysis established, through significance testing on con-
crete strengths used in recently constructed California highway AASHTO. (2010). AASHTO LRFD bridge construction specifications,
3rd Ed., American Association of State Highway and Transportation
bridges, that use of the most probable concrete strength instead of
Officials, Washington, DC.
the specified concrete strength, as practiced in California for seismic American Concrete Institute (ACI). (2008). “Building code requirements for
design of bridge components, is justified. structural concrete and commentary.” ACI 318, Farmington Hills, MI.
The probabilities of supplying concretes that do not meet current American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 209. (1992). “Prediction of
Caltrans specifications were reported. The maximum probability of creep, shrinkage, and temperature effects in concrete structures.” ACI
a single strength test result being less than the specified strength is 209R-92, Farmington Hills, MI.

166 / JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2014

J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2014.28:157-167.

 American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 214. (2010). “Guide for
obtaining cores and interpreting compressive strength results.” ACI
214.4R-10, Farmington Hills, MI.
American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 214. (2011). “Guide to eval-
uation of strength test results of concrete.” ACI 214R-11, Farmington
Hills, MI.
American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 228. (2003). “In-place
methods to estimate concrete strength.” ACI 228.1R-03, Farmington
Hills, MI.
Ang, A. H.-S. (1973). “Structural risk analysis and reliability-based design.”
J. Struct. Div., 99(9), 1891–1910.
Ang, A. H.-S., and Cornell, C. A. (1974). “Reliability bases of structural
safety and design.” J. Struct. Div., 100(9), 1755–1769.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KANSAS STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on 07/18/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Bartlett, F. M., and MacGregor, J. G. (1995). “Equivalent specified concrete
strength from core data.” Concr. Int., 17(3), 52–58.
Bartlett, F. M., and MacGregor, J. G. (1996). “Statistical analysis of the
compressive strength of concrete in structures.” Mater. J., 93(2), 158–
168.
Bickley, J. A. (1984). “The evaluation and acceptance of concrete quality
by in-place testing.” In-situ/nondestructive testing of concrete, SP-82,
V. M. Malhotra, ed., American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
MI, 95–109.
Bloem, D. (1968). “Concrete strength in structures.” J. Am. Concr. Inst.,
65(3), 176–187.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). (2001a). “California
test method 521: Method of test for compressive strength of molded
concrete cylinders.” Transportation Laboratory, Division of Engineering
Services, California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CA
Æhttp://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/ctms/CT_ChooseVersion.htmlæ (Jan. 24,
2012).
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). (2001b). “California
test method 539: Method of sampling fresh concrete.” Transportation
Laboratory, Division of Engineering Services, California Department
of Transportation, Sacramento, CA Æhttp://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/
ctms/CT_ChooseVersion.htmlæ (Jan. 24, 2012).
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). (2005). “California
test method 540: Method for making, handling, and storing con-
crete compressive test specimens in the field.” Transportation Lab-
oratory, Division of Engineering Services, California Department of
JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2014 / 167
J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2014.28:157-167.
Transportation, Sacramento, CA Æhttp://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/ctms/
CT_ChooseVersion.htmlæ (Jan. 24, 2012).
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). (2010a). “Seismic de-
sign criteria.” Version 1.6, California Department of Transportation,
Sacramento, CA.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). (2010b). “Standard
specifications.” California Department of Transportation, Sacramento,
CA.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). (2011). “Concrete
technology manual.” Offices of Structure Construction, California
Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CA.
Campbell, R. H., and Tobin, R. E. (1967). “Core and cylinder strengths of
natural and lightweight concrete.” J. Proc., 64(4), 190–195.
Davis, S. G. (1976). “Further investigations into the strength of concrete in
structures.” Technical Report 42.514, Cement and Concrete Associa-
tion, Slough, U.K.
Drysdale, R. C. (1973). “Variation of concrete strength in existing build-
ings.” Mag. Concr. Res., 25(85), 201–207.
Gardner, N. J. (2004). “Comparison of prediction provisions for drying
shrinkage and creep of normal strength concretes.” Can. J. Civ. Eng.,
31(5), 767–775.
Hindo, K. R., and Bergstrom, W. R. (1985). “Statistical evaluation of the in-
place compressive strength of concrete.” Concr. Int., 7(2), 44–48.
Lange, D. A. (1994). “Long-term strength development of pavement con-
cretes.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(1994)6:1(78),
78–87.
Mirza, S. A., Hatzinikolas, M., and MacGregor, J. G. (1979). “Statistical
descriptions of strength of concrete.” J. Struct. Div., 105(ST6), 1021–1037.
Petersons, N. (1968). “Should standard cube test specimens be replaced
by test specimens taken from structures?” Materiaux et Constructions,
1(5), 425–435.
Stewart, M. G. (1995). “Workmanship and its influence on probabilistic
models of concrete compressive strength.” Mater. J., 92(4), 361–372.
Tabsh, S. W., and Aswad, A. (1997). “Statistics of high-strength concrete
cylinders.” Mater. J., 94(5), 361–364.
Tso, W. K., and Zelman, I. M. (1970). “Concrete strength variation in actual
structures.” J. Proc. 67(12), 981–988.
Wood, S. L. (1991). “Evaluation of the long-term properties of concrete.”
Mater. J., 88(6), 630–643.