Materials and Structures (2011) 44:1219–1231
DOI 10.1617/s11527-010-9694-5
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Probabilistic evaluation of conformity criteria
for concrete families
Robby Caspeele • Luc Taerwe
Received: 9 February 2009 / Accepted: 18 November 2010 / Published online: 1 December 2010
 RILEM 2010
Abstract When only a limited number of test results
are available, compressive strength results of concrete
family members can be combined in order to enable
conformity control on a sufficient number of test
results. The principles behind the conformity control of
concrete families are explained and an original prob-
abilistic evaluation of conformity criteria for concrete
families is introduced. For the calculation of the
corresponding operating characteristics, some approx-
imate formulae are presented. Additionally, Monte
Carlo simulation techniques are used for more exact
calculations. In this way, also autocorrelation between
consecutive test results can be taken into account, using
an autoregressive process. The current guidelines and
conformity criteria for concrete families in EN 206-1
are evaluated and discussed, based on the AOQL
concept. Different conformity criteria and transforma-
tion methods are described, evaluated and discussed.
Keywords AOQL  Concrete families 
Conformity control  Monte Carlo simulations 
Operating characteristics
R. Caspeele (&)  L. Taerwe
Magnel Laboratory for Concrete Research,
Department of Structural Engineering, Ghent University,
Technologiepark-Zwijnaarde 904, Ghent 9052, Belgium
e-mail: Robby.Caspeele@UGent.be
URL: http://www.labomagnel.ugent.be
L. Taerwe
e-mail: Luc.Taerwe@UGent.be
1 Introduction
When concrete is produced, one or more performance
characteristics are specified depending on the field of
application and the environmental conditions. It has
to be verified whether the produced concrete com-
plies with the specified properties. This verification is
called conformity control. In case of concrete with
product certification or production control certifica-
tion, a more or less continuous production process
takes place and conformity control is based on the
compressive strength, which is the most commonly
specified concrete property.
Concrete factories are asked to supply a very wide
range of concrete mixes, with different strengths,
consistencies, admixtures, aggregate sizes, etc. As a
result of this largely differentiated request, a plant
does often not produce enough of certain concrete
mixes in order to apply the conformity criteria
applicable to an individual concrete according to
EN 206-1 [4]. The family concept allows to combine
strength results of multiple family members in order
to obtain a sufficiently high number of strength
results and thus, this concept allows a more contin-
uous control of the production process and conse-
quently a more rapid detection of significant changes
in quality level.
Conformity control is always based on a sample of
limited size, from which inferences are made for the
whole population. Hence, there is always a risk of
taking the wrong decision. This means that in some
1220 Materials and Structures (2011) 44:1219–1231

cases high quality concrete will be rejected and low • Full range of slump classes
quality concrete will be accepted. The associated • Concretes of a few strength classes.
risks are called respectively the producer’s risk and
Furthermore, concretes containing a Type II
the consumer’s or client’s risk. The producer’s risk is
addition (i.e. a pozzolanic or latent hydraulic addi-
the probability that a good lot will be rejected by the
tion) or a high range of water reducing/super-
sampling plan. A sampling plan should have a low
plasticizing, retarding or air entraining admixtures
producer’s risk for quality which is equal to or better
should be put into a separate family or treated as an
than the acceptable quality limit (AQL). In some
individual concrete [8, 9].
plans the producer’s risk is fixed at 5%, in other plans
In order to check whether the concrete production
it varies from about 1–10% [15]. The consumer’s risk
complies with the specified properties, conformity
is the probability that a ‘‘non-conforming’’ lot will be
criteria are used. For the application of the family
accepted by the sampling plan. This risk is stated in
concept, the strength results of the family members are
conjunction with a numerical definition of low
transformed into an equivalent value of a reference
quality such as the limiting quality (LQ) that should
concrete, which is most often the member with the
be rejected by the sampling plan. A consumer’s risk
highest number of test results or the concrete type
of 10% is common [15].
closest to the average strength of the family [2]. This
Theoretically, conformity control based on the
larger group of transformed data is then used to check
concrete family concept leads to a smaller con-
the family conformity criteria for compressive strength.
sumer’s and producer’s risk in comparison to the
An alternative definition for the reference concrete,
conformity control of individual family members
which will be used and discussed further in this article, is
with less data [10, 11, 15], because a higher number
given by (1), which states that the reference concrete is
of test results can be used to perform the conformity
the concrete whose sample mean is the lowest compared
assessment. However, this effect is reduced due to
to its specified characteristic strength, thus enabling an
additional uncertainties which arise, i.e. on the one
improved detection of low quality concrete members.
hand the transformation relation between the strength    
results of family members and the reference concrete, xn;ref  fck;ref  min xn;i  fck;i ð1Þ
i
and on the other hand the favourable or unfavour-
able effect of combining strength results of several with
concrete lots with different quality. In order to
xn;ref the sample mean of the test results from the
evaluate the influence of these effects, an original
reference concrete,
probabilistic evaluation methodology is presented in
fck,ref the specified characteristic strength of the
the following, in order to compare and evaluate
reference concrete,
conformity criteria for concrete families.
xn;i the sample mean of the test results from the
ith family member,
fck,i the specified characteristic strength of the ith
2 Multiple conformity control of concrete families family member.
In order to transform the test results of the family
2.1 Principles
members to test results of the reference concrete,
different transformation methods can be used. In [5]
Concretes that can be reliably related to each other can
the following methods are mentioned:
be grouped into families and the combined data from
the family can be used for conformity control. As a • Strength method based on the difference between
suitable starting point for a basic family description, the test results and the specified characteristic
the following guidelines are available [8, 9]: concrete strength
• Strength method based on a proportional effect
• Cement of one type, strength class and source
• W/C ratio method.
• Similar aggregates
• Concretes with or without a water reducing/ The last two methods are not frequently used [9]. In
plasticizing admixture the first method, the difference in strength between the
Materials and Structures (2011) 44:1219–1231 1221

specified characteristic strength of the family member lref the actual mean strength of the reference
and each individual strength result is determined and concrete,
this difference is then applied to the characteristic _
li the estimated mean strength of the ith family
strength of the reference concrete to obtain the member based on the strength prediction model,
equivalent strength [5]. This yields Eq. 2, which can li the actual mean strength of the ith family
be translated into the transformation rule (3). member,
xi;j  fck;i ¼ xi;j  fck;ref ð2Þ eD,i the prediction error for the ith family member,
  assumed to be normally distributed with mean
xi;j ¼ xi;j þ fck;ref  fck;i ð3Þ 0 (unbiased) and variance r2D.
with
2.2 Operating characteristics in case of multiple
xi,j the original jth test result of family member i,
conformity control
xi;j the transformed (or equivalent) jth test result.

An illustration of this transformation method is 2.2.1 Analytical formulation

provided in Fig. 1. Some practical examples of the
application of the concrete family concept, using this The specified characteristic strength fck, used in
transformation method, can be found in [2, 7, 9]. design and production, corresponds to the 5%-fractile
The transformation may also be based on a strength of the theoretical strength distribution of the consid-
prediction model (e.g. based on the W/C-ratio, the ered concrete class. In practice however, the fraction
cement strength, etc.). In case of an unbiased prediction below fck will be lower or higher than 5% (as
model, the transformation rule can be described by indicated in Fig. 2). This fraction is called the
  fraction defectives h ¼ P½X  fck , with X the com-
xi;j ¼ xi;j þ l
_
^ref  li ð4Þ pressive strength, considered as a random variable.
  The probability that a concrete lot—characterized
xi;j ¼ xi;j þ lref  li þ eD;i ð5Þ by a fraction defectives h—is accepted by the
assessment through a given conformity criterion, is
with
called the probability of acceptance Pa. The func-
_
lref the estimated mean strength of the reference tion Pa(h) is called the operating characteristic
concrete based on the strength prediction model (OC-curve) of the criterion and allows to visualize

Fig. 1 Transformation of
test results according to (3)
1222 Materials and Structures (2011) 44:1219–1231

Fig. 2 Theoretical versus

offered strength distribution

the discriminating capacity of the criterion in order to
distinguish ‘‘good’’ from ‘‘bad’’ production.
In the case of a concrete family consisting of m family
members—each characterized by a number of test
results ni (with i = 1, …, m), a known specified
characteristic strength fck,i and unknown fraction defec-
tives hi—the probability of acceptance of the entire
family Pa(h1, h2, …, hm) becomes a function of m vari-
ables, which corresponds to a m-dimensional surface.
Let us first consider that for the conformity
assessment of a concrete family, an individual crite-
rion of the following type is used:
xn  fck;ref þ k0 r ð6Þ
with
xn the sample mean of all test results, after
transformation
n the total number of available test results
k0 a parameter (which numerical value is given in
an applicable standard)
r the known standard deviation
If the transformation of test results is performed
according to (3) and all family members are supposed
to have the same standard deviation r1 = r2 = …
= rm = r, the exact probability of acceptance is given
by (7), assuming a normal distribution for the concrete
compressive strength.
 pffiffiffi 
P~a ðh1 ; h2 ; . . .; hm Þ ¼ U  nðu~h þ k0 Þ ð7Þ
Under the mentioned assumptions, the calculated P~a
is the probability of acceptance of all (transformed) test
values, resulting from the accepted family members
and as such, it is a function of the m parameters
h1 ; . . .; hm : As an example the corresponding surface is
illustrated in Fig. 3 for a concrete family with 2
members (the reference concrete and another mem-
ber), a parameter k0 = 1.48 and a test sample consist-
ing of n1 = 10 samples for the reference concrete and
n2 = 5 samples for the transformed family member.
If the transformation is performed according to
(5), the calculated P~a reduces to (8) (derived in
Appendix B).
h pffiffiffiffi i
P~a ðh1 ; h2 ; . . .; hm Þ ¼ U  n0 uh;ref þ k0 ð8Þ
with n0 ¼ an n ¼ 1 Pm 1 .
2
nþ i¼2
ðnni rrD Þ

with Uð:Þ the cumulative distribution function of the

Pm
ni uh;i
Pm
standard normal distribution, n ¼ ni ; u~h ¼ i¼1 n
i¼1
and uh;i ¼ U1 ðhi Þ.
Fig. 3 Example of the probability of acceptance P~a ðh1 ; h2 Þ for
For the derivation of this formula, reference is a concrete family consisting of 2 members with parameters
made to Appendix A. n1 = 10, n2 = 5 and k0 = 1.48
Materials and Structures (2011) 44:1219–1231 1223

Table 1 Values for the

Number of family Number of test results rD/r
reduction factor an in case
members m per member ni
of n = 15 and ni = n/m, Vi 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

1 15 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

3 5 1.00 0.55 0.23 0.12 0.07
5 3 1.00 0.63 0.29 0.16 0.09
15 1 1.00 0.81 0.52 0.32 0.21

In case of n = 15 and if every family member has Furthermore, if the transformation is performed
an equal number of test results, some values for the according to (5), the approximate global probability
reduction factor an are given in Table 1. of acceptance is given by (12).
Let us now consider the case where, besides (6), 2 3
also a criterion of type (9) is used to check each 6 uh;ref þ k0 7
concrete family member individually. Pa ðh1 ; h2 ; . . .; hm Þ  U4qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Pm ni rD 2 5
ffi
1
nþ i¼2 n r
xn;i  fck;i þ ki r ð9Þ Y
m  pffiffiffiffi 
 U  ni uh;i þ ki ð12Þ
with i¼1

xn;i the sample mean of the original test results of

family member i, 2.2.2 Computational method
ki a parameter,
r the standard deviation (known and equal for all As indicated in the previous section, a significant
members). dependency exists between different criteria that have
to be satisfied at the same time. In general, an upper
The probability of acceptance P~a corresponding to
and lower boundary for the general probability of
each criterion of type (9) is given by (10) [11, 15].
acceptance is given by (13) [14], where the lower
 pffiffiffiffi 
P~a ðhi Þ ¼ U  ni uh;i þ ki ð10Þ boundary corresponds to completely independent
criteria and the upper boundary to complete depen-
The exact calculation of the global probability of
dency between the set of criteria.
acceptance Pa , corresponding to the combined crite-
ria (6) and (9), becomes difficult since criterion (6) is Y  
P~a  Pa  min P~a ð13Þ
not independent from the criteria of type (9). The k
k

exact calculation of Pa is complicated and uses

However, the error that occurs by application of these
Monte Carlo simulation techniques (see next section).
boundary limits for compound criteria, in combination
However, when the dependency of the criteria is
with the expressions derived in the previous section, is in
neglected, a lower bound for Pa can be derived under
most cases significantly large. Furthermore, the formu-
the same assumptions as mentioned before. Taking
lae in the previous section have been derived for a
into account (7) and (10), this leads to (11), in case of
known standard deviation and thus are not applicable to
a transformation method based on (3).
Y conformity criteria based on a sample standard devia-
Pa ðh1 ; h2 ; . . .; hm Þ  P~a ðh1 ; h2 ; . . .; hm Þ tion. Because of these reasons, Monte Carlo simulations
k are used in order to obtain accurate OC-curves, which
 pffiffiffi  Ym  pffiffiffiffi  inherently take into account any dependency that exists
¼ U  nðu~h þ k0 Þ  U  ni uh;i þ ki
between an arbitrary set of criteria.
i¼1
Using a random number generator, 100,000 groups
ð11Þ
of n random numbers are generated. In order to obtain
with k the number of individual criteria (which are ni observations of the m family members, these
supposed to be independent). random values are transformed into observations of
1224
18m different normal distributions, each with a dif-
ferent set of fraction defectives (h1, h2, …, hm).
Based on these simulations, the probability that a
concrete lot is accepted based on a certain set of
criteria, can be calculated in 18m different points,
yielding Pa(h1, h2, …, hm). Furthermore, this com-
putational method allows to take into account any
autocorrelation that exists between consecutive test
results.
2.2.3 Taking into account autocorrelation
In many analyses consecutive concrete strength
values are considered to be independent. However,
investigation of extensive concrete strength records
from concrete plants revealed the presence of a
significant autocorrelation between consecutive
results [13]. This autocorrelation can be modelled
using an autoregressive process of order 2, also called
a Yule series, with parameters derived in [10] based
on the analysis of extensive concrete strength records.
In the framework of Monte Carlo simulations, this
AR2 model is implemented using (14) for the
calculation of consecutive random realizations of a
standard normal distribution.
uk ¼ 0:4  uk1 þ 0:2  uk2 þ ek ð14Þ
with
uk the kth autocorrelated standard normally
distributed number
ek a normally distributed random number with
mean 0 and variance 0.8
In [10, 12, 15] this model was used to analyse the
influence of autocorrelation on OC-lines for confor-
mity criteria applicable to an individual concrete.
2.3 A parameter evaluation criterion, based
on the AOQL concept
In order to make a parameter selection or evaluation,
the AOQL concept (Average Outgoing Quality
Limit) can be used, which indicates the degree of
protection that is offered through conformity control,
by providing information about the quality of the
accepted lot [1]. This concept is most frequently used
for inspection by attributes. However, there is no
principle objection in using it for inspection by
variables too [6, 10, 15]. The AOQL is the highest
Materials and Structures (2011) 44:1219–1231
average fraction defectives in the accepted products,
including accepted lots and rejected lots which have
been screened. The AOQL concept stems from the
relationship between the fraction defectives before
inspection (incoming quality) and the fraction defec-
tives after inspection (outgoing quality) when inspec-
tion is non-destructive and under the assumption that
all defective units in the accepted lots are retained in
the lots while all defective units in rejected lots are
identified and either repaired or replaced by non-
defective units. The fact that all rejected lots have
to be made free of defects is no major problem for
concrete since rejected lots are subjected to more
detailed inspection. In case of low strength, upgrad-
ing measures will be taken in order to assure adequate
structural safety.
The limit of the average outgoing quality AOQ of
a certain family member is set to 5%, corresponding
to the definition of the characteristic strength used in
common semi-probabilistic safety formats. If hi is the
incoming quality of the ith family member, (15) has
to be checked for each family member separately [3].
8i 2 f1; . . .; mg
: Pa ðhi jh1 ; . . .; hi1 ; hiþ1 ; . . .; hm Þ  hi  0:05 ð15Þ
with Pa ðhi jh1 ; . . .; hi1 ; hiþ1 ; . . .; hm Þ the global prob-
ability of acceptance as a function of hi, condition-
ally on the outcomes of h1, …, hi-1, hi?1, …, hm.
Equation 15 formulates that on average, no more
than 5% of the population of each family member,
that passes the conformity criteria, should be lower
than the specified characteristic strength of that
member, irrespective of the fraction defectives of
the other family members. Based on (15), for each
member it thus has to be checked if the ‘conditional’
probabilities of acceptance Pa ðhi j. . .Þ remain lower
than a boundary curve defined by the AOQL
Pa  hi = 0.05, which specifies an ‘unsafe’ region.
This choice for a parameter evaluation criterion is
quite fundamental since—in line with the semi-
probabilistic safety format—we are interested in the
average fraction defectives of the outgoing lots. No
arbitrary assumptions had to be introduced for
evaluating an operating characteristic, and no discus-
sion about balancing risks between different parties is
necessary. Furthermore, the consequences of changes
in sample size are balanced between the two parties
involved [11, 15].
Materials and Structures (2011) 44:1219–1231
3 Evaluation and discussion of current EN 206-1
conformity criteria for concrete families
3.1 EN 206-1 criteria for concrete families
In the current European Standard EN 206-1 [4], 3
conformity criteria for compressive strength are men-
tioned for the continuous production control of
concrete families. Criterion 1 and 2 are given in
Table 2. Criterion 1 checks the conformity of the
group mean (based on the transformed test results),
while criterion 2 is a minimum value criterion that
needs to be applied on each individual (non-trans-
formed) test result. To confirm that each individual
member belongs to the family, the mean of all non-
transformed test results for a single family member
must be assessed against criterion 3 [4], described in
Table 3. The derivation of the parameters for crite-
rion 3 can be found in [5], and is based on the lower
boundary of a 99% confidence interval and an
assumed standard deviation r = 5 MPa for the
family members.
For the application of criterion 1, r has to be
estimated on the basis of at least 35 consecutive
transformed strength values, taken over a period
exceeding three months and which is immediately
prior to the production period during which confor-
mity is to be checked [4]. This r value may be
introduced in criterion 1 on condition that the sample
standard deviation of the latest 15 transformed results
(s15) does not deviate significantly from r. This is
considered to be the case if (16) holds, which is the
Table 2 Criterion 1 and 2 for continuous production accord-
ing to EN 206-1
n Criterion 1 (MPa) Criterion 2 (MPa)
15 xn  fck;ref þ 1:48r xi,j C fck,i - 4a
a
With xi,j test result j of family member i
Table 3 Criterion 3
ni Criterion 3 (MPa)
according to EN 206-1
2 xn;i  fck;i  1:0
3 xn;i  fck;i þ 1:0
4 xn;i  fck;i þ 2:0
5 xn;i  fck;i þ 2:5
6 xn;i  fck;i þ 3:0
1225
95% acceptance interval of s15. If (16) is not satisfied,
a new estimate of r has to be calculated from the last
available 35 test results.
0:63 r  s15  1:37 r ð16Þ
3.2 Analysis of a concrete family with 2 members
For practical reasons with respect to a parameter study
and the visual and tabulated representation of results,
a concrete family with only 2 members is considered
in order to evaluate the previous described compound
conformity criteria which are mentioned in EN 206-1
[4]. This analysis illustrates the foregoing probabilis-
tic evaluation methodology, provides a comparison of
different alternative implementations and enables to
quantify the influence of different parameters.
In case of a concrete family with 2 members—a
reference concrete (indicated with ‘1’) and a second
member (indicated with ‘2’)—the criteria mentioned
in the previous section can be written in the form of
the compound criterion (17).
8
>
> x15  fck;ref þ 1; 48r
>
>
>
< xn;1  fck;1 þ k1
>
xn;2  fck;2 þ k2 ð17Þ
>
>
>
> x1;min  fck;1  4
>
>
:
x2;min  fck;2  4
with ki according to Table 3, xi,min the smallest non-
transformed test result of family member i, r satis-
fying (16) and fck,1 = fck,ref.
At first, a family composed of n1 = 10 test results
of a reference concrete (with unknown fraction defec-
tives h1) and n2 = 5 results of the second member
(with unknown fraction defectives h2) is considered
in order to investigate these criteria. The standard
deviation for the random generation is supposed to be
known and r1 = r2 = r = 5 MPa for the random
number generation. The global probability of accep-
tance Pa(h1, h2) is calculated by Monte Carlo simu-
lation, assuming that no autocorrelation exists
between consecutive test results and a transformation
method based on the difference between the specified
characteristic strengths according to (3) is used. The
calculated OC-surface is shown in Fig. 4. The
average outgoing qualities (AOQ) corresponding
to Pah1 and Pah2 are illustrated in Figs. 5 and 6
respectively.
1226
Fig. 4 OC-surface Pa(h1, h2) corresponding to EN 206-1 for
a concrete family with 2 members (n1 = 10, n2 = 5) and
r1 = r2 = r = 5 MPa
Fig. 5 The AOQ Pah1 of the reference member corresponding
to the OC-surface in Fig. 4
Based on the results from Fig. 5, it is found that
the specified quality (based on the AOQL concept) is
obtained for the reference concrete, because the
average outgoing fraction defectives in the domain
(h1, h2) is nowhere higher than 5%. However, in case
of the second member, Fig. 6 proves that the
specified quality is not obtained (i.e. an average
outgoing fraction defectives larger than 5%) in a
Materials and Structures (2011) 44:1219–1231
Fig. 6 The AOQ Pah2 of the non-reference member corre-
sponding to the OC-surface in Fig. 4
large area of the domain, namely when the quality of
the reference concrete is good (with a percentage
defectives 5% or lower). This is due to the fact that
with the current conformity criteria bad test results
mask good test results. The maximum value of Pah2
is 11.8%, which certainly does not correspond to the
definition of the characteristic strength in case of the
second member.
3.2.1 Influence of family composition and standard
deviation
In order to quantify the influence of different family
compositions and different assumed standard devia-
tions r1 = r2 = r for the random generation, the
conditional probability Pa(h2|h1 = 0.1) is compared
for different simulations. In Fig. 7, these probabilities
are compared for all relevant compositions of a
concrete family with 2 members (and n = 15). All
curves cross the boundary corresponding with the
AOQL Pah2 = 0.05, leading to the conclusion that
none of the compositions leads to a satisfactory
probability of acceptance which is in correspondence
with the definition of the characteristic strength of the
second member. The same conclusions can be stated
for the results given in Fig. 8, when the influence of r
on Pa(h2|h1 = 0.1) is evaluated in case of a family
Materials and Structures (2011) 44:1219–1231 1227

3.2.2 Influence of the applied transformation method

and definition of the reference concrete

In the previous paragraphs, a transformation method

Fig. 7 Conditional OC-curve Pa(h2|h1 = 0.1) in case of
different compositions of a concrete family with 2 members
Fig. 8 Conditional OC-curve Pa(h2|h1 = 0.1) in case of
different values of r
composition with n1 = 10 and n2 = 5. Furthermore,
the choice of r has only a small influence on the
conditional probabilities under consideration.
based on the difference between the specified char-
acteristic strengths according to (3) was used in
combination with the definition of a reference
concrete as the member with the highest number
of test results. In this section, the influence of a
transformation method based on a strength prediction
model is investigated, together with the influence of
the alternative definition of the reference concrete as
the member with the lowest sample mean compared
to its the specified characteristic strength according to
(1). Again, a family consisting of 2 members with
respectively 10 and 5 test samples is used in order to
evaluate the EN 206-1 criteria for concrete families.
The standard deviation for the random observations is
r1 = r2 = r = 5 MPa. In Table 4 the results of the
simulations are given in terms of the maximum
average outgoing qualities (Pah1)max and (Pah2)max.
Apparently, the problem with the outgoing quality
of the non-reference member is not due to the applied
transformation method and even is worse when a
transformation rule other then (3) is used. In case of a
transformation method according to (3), the alterna-
tive definition of the reference concrete according to
(1) has no significant influence. However, when a
transformation method based on an unbiased predic-
tion method (5) is used, in combination with the
alternative definition of a reference concrete accord-
ing to (1), the alternative definition of the reference
concrete does have a significant influence and the
average outgoing quality limit of 5% is satisfied for
both members, even when rD = 10 MPa. The aver-
age outgoing qualities Pah1 and Pah2, based on a

Table 4 Comparison of AOQ (Pah1)max and (Pah2)max for different transformation methods and definitions of the reference concrete
Independent observations Autocorrelated observations
Reference concrete Reference concrete Reference concrete Reference concrete
with highest ni (%) according to (1) (%) with highest ni (%) according to (1) (%)

Transformation method (Pah1)max (Pah2)max (Pah1)max (Pah2)max (Pah1)max (Pah2)max (Pah1)max (Pah2)max
according to
(3) 4.9 11.8 4.9 11.7 5.5 13.0 5.5 12.8
(5) with rD/r = 0.5 3.4 13.8 3.8 4.0 3.8 14.0 4.8 4.8
(5) with rD/r = 1 3.0 13.7 3.4 4.2 3.5 14.0 4.2 4.8
(5) with rD/r = 2 2.4 12.5 2.7 4.5 2.9 13.0 3.3 5.1
1228
Fig. 9 The AOQ Pah1 of the reference member, based on a
transformation method of type (5) with rD/r = 0.5 and a
definition of the reference concrete according to (1)
Fig. 10 The AOQ Pah2 of the non-reference member, based
on a transformation method of type (5) with rD/r = 0.5 and a
definition of the reference concrete according to (1)
transformation method of type (5) (with rD/r = 0.5)
and a definition of the reference concrete according to
(1), are illustrated in Figs. 9 and 10 respectively.
Until here, observations of consecutive test results
were supposed to be independent. In order to evalu-
ate the influence of autocorrelation on the previous
Materials and Structures (2011) 44:1219–1231
results, the AR2 model—described by (14)—was
used. The corresponding results are also mentioned in
Table 4. The average outgoing fraction defectives
slightly increases due to a decrease in information
because of the autocorrelation between test results,
which is in accordance with the results in [10–12, 15]
in case of the conformity control of individual
concrete lots (not grouped into a family). Again, the
alternative definition of the reference concrete accord-
ing to (1), in combination with transformation method
(5), leads to a significant improvement of the average
outgoing quality of lots which are assessed through
the EN 206-1 conformity criteria.
Further, Tables 5 and 6 illustrate the acceptance
probabilities of the concrete family for different
combinations in quality of the composing concrete
family members, respectively for independent and
autocorrelated observations. With respect to the false
rejection rate (which is associated to the producer’s
risk), it can be noticed that the probability of
acceptance Pa(h1 = 1%, h2 = 1%) is only slightly
influenced by the applied transformation method (3)
or (5) with rD/r = 0.5. However, it is seen that the
false rejection rate decreases significantly if the
prediction error associated to transformation method
(5) increases to rD/r = 1 or rD/r = 2. Moreover, it
is found that in the latter two situation the probability
of acceptance decreases in general. In case of a
transformation method according to (3) or (5) with
rD/r = 0.5, the producer’s risk is smaller than 10%.
With respect to the consumers risk, Tables 5
and 6 illustrate that the probability of acceptance
Pa(h1 = 10%, h2 = 10%) is only slightly influenced
by the applied transformation method and the defi-
nition of the reference concrete.
When both family members have a low fraction
defectives (i.e. h1 = 1% and h2 = 1%) or a high
fraction defectives (i.e. h1 = 10% and h2 = 10%), the
effect of the definition of the reference concrete is
rather small. The consumer’s risk in case of a
transformation method according to (3) or (5) with
rD/r = 0.5 is approximately 30%, which is compara-
ble to the consumer’s risk achieved by the EN 206-1
criteria for the conformity evaluation of individual
concrete mixes [15].
However, in case of an intermediate situation (i.e.
if one concrete family member has a fraction
defectives of 1%, while the other member has a
fraction defectives of 10%), Tables 5 and 6 clearly
Materials and Structures (2011) 44:1219–1231 1229

Table 5 Comparison of acceptance probabilities Pa(h1, h2) for different transformation methods and definitions of the reference
concrete
Independent observations
Reference concrete with highest ni (%) Reference concrete according to (1) (%)

Transformation method h1 ¼ 1%; h1 ¼ 1%; h1 ¼ 10%; h1 ¼ 10%; h1 ¼ 1%; h1 ¼ 1%; h1 ¼ 10%; h1 ¼ 10%;
according to h2 ¼ 1% h2 ¼ 10% h2 ¼ 1% h2 ¼ 10% h2 ¼ 1% h2 ¼ 10% h2 ¼ 1% h2 ¼ 10%
(3) 98.0 76.5 49.6 32.2 97.5 77.5 48.6 31.8
(5) with rD/r = 0.5 96.1 87.0 30.9 30.2 95.8 35.5 32.8 29.8
(5) with rD/r = 1 88.9 80.7 27.5 26.4 88.7 38.9 28.4 29.5
(5) with rD/r = 2 74.4 67.9 22.7 21.5 73.7 39.7 23.4 24.3

Table 6 Comparison of acceptance probabilities Pa(h1, h2) for different transformation methods and definitions of the reference
concrete
Autocorrelated observations
Reference concrete with highest ni (%) Reference concrete according to (1) (%)

Transformation method h1 ¼ 1%; h1 ¼ 1%; h1 ¼ 10%; h1 ¼ 10%; h1 ¼ 1%; h1 ¼ 1%; h1 ¼ 10%; h1 ¼ 10%;
according to h2 ¼ 1% h2 ¼ 10% h2 ¼ 1% h2 ¼ 10% h2 ¼ 1% h2 ¼ 10% h2 ¼ 1% h2 ¼ 10%
(3) 96.7 77.3 54.3 40.7 96.4 43.7 31.5 29.3
(5) with rD/r = 0.5 94.2 83.5 38.2 37.0 95.2 45.0 44.7 37.1
(5) with rD/r = 1 88.9 79.8 35.1 33.1 88.8 44.5 38.8 32.8
(5) with rD/r = 2 74.1 66.3 28.7 26.2 74.8 43.7 31.5 29.3

indicate that the definition of the reference concrete
according to (1) reduces the acceptance probability
significantly, enabling an improved detection of a
family member with high fraction defectives.
Finally, from the comparison of Tables 5 and 6, it
is noticed that the influence of autocorrelation on the
acceptance probabilities is rather limited in this case.
Based on the previous conclusions, the use of a
transformation method based on a strength prediction
method is suggested, in combination with a definition
of the reference concrete as that member which has
the smallest difference between its sample mean and
its specified characteristic strength.
4 Conclusions
The concrete family concept can be used for the
conformity control of concrete strength in order to
combine data from several concrete mixes which
have only a limited number of test results available.
The principles behind this concept and the different
possibilities for the definition of a reference concrete
are explained. Different transformation methods
are available in order to transform test results to
an equivalent value of a reference concrete. These
transformed results are then subsequently used for the
conformity assessment of the entire family.
For some specific conformity criteria, an analytical
formula for the operating characteristic was derived.
However, more complex criteria are calculated using
Monte Carlo simulations, which also enable to take
autocorrelation between consecutive test results into
account. In order to evaluate operating characteristics
corresponding to conformity criteria for concrete
families, the commonly used AOQL concept is
extended and applied.
The described analysis was used in order to
evaluate the current conformity criteria for concrete
families in the European Standard EN 206-1. Based
on the analysis of a concrete family with 2 members,
the influence of different family compositions, trans-
formation methods and definitions of the reference
concrete is investigated. Based on these simulations, a
transformation method based on a strength prediction
model, in combination with a definition of the
1230 Materials and Structures (2011) 44:1219–1231

reference concrete as that member which has the Appendix B

lowest sample mean compared to its specified char-
acteristic strength, is suggested. In case the prediction If the transformation of test results is based on
error is limited, the average fraction defectives in the (5), the probability of acceptance P~a correspond-
accepted concrete lots is in accordance to the defini- ing to a criterion of type (6) can be calculated as
tion of the characteristic strength and the consumer’s follows.
and producer’s risks are comparable to the conformity
criteria for individual concrete mixes. P~a ðh1 ; h2 ; . . .; hm Þ
Pn1 ¼nref P Pni 

Acknowledgements Robby Caspeele is a Research Assistant r¼1 xi;r þ m i¼2 j¼1 xi;j
¼P  fck;ref þ k0 r
of the FWO Research Foundation of Flanders. The authors wish n
to thank the FWO for the financial support on the research Pn1 Pm Pni Pm  
project ‘‘Probabilistic formulation of the influence of r¼1 xi;r þ i¼2 j¼1 xi;j þ i¼2 ni l1  li þ eD;i
¼P
conformity control on the strength distribution of concrete n
and the safety level of concrete structures by means of Bayesian

updating techniques’’.  fck;ref þ k0 r

P Pm
n1 x1 þ m i¼2 ni xi þ i¼2 ni eD;i
¼P  fck;ref þ k0 r
Appendix A n
Pm

i¼2 ni ðl1  li Þ
If the transformation of test results is based on (3), the 
n
probability of acceptance P~a corresponding to a 2 3
Pm Pm
criterion of type (6) can be calculated as follows. 6 fck;ref þ k0 r  i¼2 n
ni ðl1 li Þ
 i¼1n 7
ni l i
¼ U6
4 rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
  5
7
P~a ðh1 ;Ph ; . . .; h Þ P P n 2 r2 Pm n 2 r2
2n1 ¼nref m
1
þ i
þ r 2
r¼1 xi;r þ m i¼2
ni
j¼1 xi;j
 n n1 i¼2 n ni D
¼P  fck;ref þ k0 r 2 3
Pn 1 Pnm Pni Pm   Pm Pm
r¼1 xi;r þ i¼2 j¼1 xi;j þ i¼2 ni fck;ref  fck;i 6 nfck;ref þ nk0 r  i¼2 ni ðl1  li Þ  i¼1 ni li 7
¼P ¼ U4 qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 5
n P  2 

n1 r2 þ m 2 2
i¼2 ni r þ ni rD
 fck;ref þ k0 r 2 3
P Pm  

n1 x1 þ m i¼2 ni xi ni fck;ref  fck;i 6 nfck;ref þ nk0 r  nl1 7

¼P  fck;ref þ k0 r  i¼2 ¼ U4 qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi5
n P
2 Pm Pm 3n r2 n þ r2D m 2
ni ðfck;ref fck;i Þ ni l i i¼2 ni
6 fck;ref þ k0 r   i¼1n 7
i¼2
n
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 2 3
¼ U4 P   ffi
m ni 2 r 2
5  
i¼1 n ni 6 nfck;ref þ nk 0 r  n f ck;ref  u h;ref r 7
¼ U4 qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Pm 2ffi 5
2 2
r n þ rD i¼2 ni
Based on the definition of the fraction defectives 2 3
 
as h ¼ P½Xi  fck  ¼ U fckrl i
the mean strength of 6 uh;ref þ k0 7
i
¼ U4qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Pm ni rD 2ffi5
the ith family member can be written as li ¼ fck þ 1
nþ i¼2 n r
U1 ðhÞ ri ¼ fck þ uh ri ; yielding:

P~a ðh1 ; h2 ; . . .; hm Þ
P   Pm  

nfck;ref þ nk0 r  m i¼2 ni fck;ref  fck;i  i¼1 ni fck;i  uh;i r

¼U  pffiffiffi
r n
Pm
Pm 

nk0 r þ i¼1 ni uh;i r pffiffiffi i¼1 ni uh;i

 pffiffiffi 
¼U  pffiffiffi ¼U  n þ k0 ¼ U  nðu~h þ k0 Þ
r n n
Materials and Structures (2011) 44:1219–1231
References
1. Ang AH-S, Tang WH (2007) Probability concepts in
engineering, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York
2. Böing R (2002) Konformitätskontrolle der Druckfestigkeit
nach DIN EN 206-1/DIN 1045-2. Beton 2002(6):306–311
3. Caspeele R, Taerwe L (2008) Conformity control of con-
crete based on the ‘‘concrete family’’ concept. Beton- und
Stahlbetonbau 103:50–56
4. CEN (2000) Concrete—part 1: specification, performance,
production and conformity. EN-206-1
5. CEN (2000) The use of the concept of concrete families for
the production and conformity control of concrete. CEN
Technical Report
6. Govindaraju K (1990) Single sampling plans for variables
indexed by AQL and AOQL. J Qual Technol 22(4):310–
313
7. Grübl P, Rühl M, Berger A (2005) Ratgeber für den
Konformitätsnachweis für die Druckfestigkeit von Beton
nach DIN EN 206-1 und DIN 1045-2 (Teil 3). Beton
2005(3):100–105
8. Harrison TA (1999) The use of concrete families in the
control of concrete. In: Proceedings of international
1231
congress ‘Creating with concrete’, ‘Utilising ready-mixed
concrete and mortar’, pp 269–276
9. Helm M, Zeh D (2007) Konformitätskontrolle unter Nut-
zung des Betonfamilienkonzepts –ein Beispiel für die
praktische Umsetzung. Beton 2007(5):210–219
10. Taerwe L (1985) Aspects of the stochastic nature of con-
crete strength including compliance control (in Dutch).
Doctoral thesis. Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
11. Taerwe L (1986) A general basis for the selection of
compliance criteria. IABSE Proceedings P-102/86,
pp 113–127
12. Taerwe L (1987) Influence of autocorrelation on OC-lines
of compliance criteria for concrete strength. Mater Struct
20:418–427
13. Taerwe L (1987) Serial correlation in concrete strength
records. Special publication ACI SP-104. In: Lewis H.
Tuthill international symposium on concrete and concrete
construction, Detroit, pp 223–240
14. Taerwe L (1988) Evaluation of compound compliance
criteria for concrete strength. Mater Struct 21:13–20
15. Taerwe L, Caspeele R (2006) Conformity control of con-
crete: some basic aspects. In: Proceedings of 4th interna-
tional probabilistic symposium, Berlin, pp 57–70