You are on page 1of 16



The Institution of Engineers,


Malaysia


Universiti
Teknologi MARA


Universiti Malaya

CONCRETE: PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE


Dr Tam Chat Tim
Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering
National University of Singapore
e-mail: tamct@nus.edu.sg, fax: 65 6779 1635
Abstract
Historically the use of concrete in buildings may be grouped under three periods of practice, Past,
Present and Future. The Past dates back before design in concrete was codified in UK as D.S.I.R.
code in 1934. This is followed by the first issue of the British code of practice, CP 114: 1948 through
CP110: 1972 and BS 8110: 1985 until the current series of Eurocodes in the 2000s. The future covers
further development of binders other than current series of clinker based cements, performance-based
criteria for codified durability design and achieving a sustainable concrete industry. Both the parts on
Past and Future are presented but the main emphasis is on the Present in view of the adoption
of EC2 with the challenges in tropical concreting. The achievement of high performance concrete in
all its three aspects: compressive strength, consistence and durability are more challenging in hot
tropical environment, either singly, in combination of two or all three high performances together.
Based on past fifty years of local experience and studies, selected major issues are discussed and
potential technical solutions proposed with consideration for both the cost effectiveness and locally
availability of technical resources.
1.

INTRODUCTION

Dated around 7000 BC, lime concrete made from quicklime (by burning limestone), water and stone,
was found in 1985 in Israel. In later times, natural pozzolans, e.g. volcano ash, were activated by lime
for building purposes. Although this is the early form of cement, some structures of those ages, e.g.
Theatre in Pompeii (75 BC) are still standing to-day (BCA, 1999). This is in present day term a type
of pozzolanic cement. With the discovery of hydraulic cement by Joseph Aspin in 1824, the
equivalent of modern day concrete was introduced into buildings. However, during the period from
the 1820s to early 1900, buildings were designed and constructed by various architects and builders
based on their individual knowledge and expertise. Their experience was personal and various patents
were filed for the different approaches to the use of concrete in buildings. A good account of most of
these works up to 1935 in United Kingdom and United States of America can be found in a recent
publication by Trout (2013). This is considered as the Past of concrete in buildings. Around this
time, both in United Kingdom and United States of America, consensus had reached the stage of
codified design recommendations. The American Concrete Institute adopted the ACI 318 standard
for buildings in 1941 (ACI, 2004). In United Kingdom, the first code on design of concrete buildings
was published as DSIR code of practice in 1934 (BRE, 1934). This was followed by the first UK
code of practice for reinforced concrete, BS 114 (1948) and subsequently by CP 110 (1972) and its
updated revisions BS 8110 (1985). It was only in the year 2000 onwards that the new Eurocodes are
published. These developments are presented as the Present use of concrete in structures. The
Future phase will include expected developments in both concrete as a construction material and
performance- based durability design.

2.

PAST

The well-known ancient structures made with pozzolanic cement that are still standing today include
the Coliseum and the Pantheon in Rome and the Aqueduct at Pont du Gard in France. The invention
of Portland cement by Joseph Aspdin in 1824 brought concrete into a new phase of development
which continues to this day. However, in those early days, the use of concrete was based on
proprietary systems of individual architects and builders. At that time some even considered concrete

31

as not fit to be used above ground e.g. Dobson as quoted by Trout, (2013), until the introduction of
steel reinforcement in concrete, its use had moved from purely plain concrete as foundations and
walls to whole buildings. One such system which included shear reinforcement was patented by
Hennebique in 1892. During this period, there is already the feeling that dependence on proprietary
systems hampered wide spread adoption of reinforced concrete. This is the beginning that
eventually led to the development of codes of practice based on industry wide consensus of good
practice.
Professor Morice in his lecture at the inaugural meeting of The Concrete Society, UK on October 13,
1966 (as published in The Journal of The Concrete Society, V1, N1, January 1967), proposed the
following sequences in the technical development of concrete:
Period of practical experiment
Period of patents
Period of theoretical justification
Period of sound development
Some prominent researchers and their major contributions leading to publications of design codes and
concrete specifications in this period of time include:
Abrams, A.D. Design of concrete mixtures, Bulletin No. 1, PCA, 1918 (water-cement ratio concept)
Faber, O. and Bowie, P.G. Reinforced concrete design - theory, 1st Ed. 1912, 2nd Ed. 1919
Faber, O. Reinforced concrete design - practice, 1920
Cross, H. Analysis of continuous frames by distributing fixed end moments, Proc. ASCE, May 1930
Cross, H. and Morgan, N.D. Continuous frames of reinforced concrete, 1932
Reynolds, C.E. Reinforced concrete designers handbook, 1st Ed. 1932, latest Ed. 2009
William L. Scott, W.L. and Granville, W,H. Explanatory handbook on the code of practice for
reinforced concrete 1934 (DSIR code, 1934, later CP 114, 1948 and revisions in 1957 and 1965)
Lea, F.M. and Desch, C.H. The chemistry of cement and concrete, 1935, 4th ed. 1998, Ed. Peter C.
Hewlett
The first guidance for concrete design in UK was the publication of the DSIR code of practice in 1934
(BRE, 1934). Although this document was revised in 1939 and 1948, the first British standard code
of practice for reinforced concrete, CP 114 was published in 1948 and revised in 1957 and 1965. The
edition of CP 114 (1957) introduced the concept of ultimate strength design via an approach which
simulated working stress design by means of adopting a load factor. This was not only misleading
in concept but also confusing to users to have two seemingly working stress equations for the same
reinforced concrete section. However, even the revised edition of CP 114 in 1965 still retained the
design method based on working stress (elastic design). This approach was also used in The UK
code of practice for prestressed concrete, CP 115 (1959, revised 1961). The introduction of limit state
design based on CP 110: 1972 put the situation back to a rational approach and further updated with
BS 8110: 1985. Since then this remains as the current state of design practice until the introduction of
the Eurocodes in the 2000s.
Other notable publications include:
Johansen, K.W. Yield line theory, 1931 (English translation, C&CA, London, 1962)
Whitney, C. Plastic theory of reinforced concrete, 1942 (Transaction of ASCE, V107, N1)
Neville, A.M. Properties of concrete, 1st Ed. 1963, 5h Ed. 2011
Freyssinet, E. A general introduction to the idea of prestressing, 1949
Magnel, G. Prestressed concrete, 1954
Lin, T.Y. Design of prestressed concrete structures, 1st Ed. 1955, 3rd Ed. 1981 (co-author Burns, N.)
Further information on the historical development of concrete is available in these recent references:
ACI: A century of progress, ACI, 2004

32

Trout, E.A.R. Some writers on concrete, Whittles, 2013


50th Edition of Concrete, Journal of Concrete Society, UK, May 2013

3.

PRESENT

The intervening period between 1985 and 2000 was a time when a large number of advances in both
analysis and design as well as materials technology took place. These advances are reflected in the
updated knowledge introduced into the current series of Eurocodes. For structures, the series of
Eurocodes for design and their related specifications and testing standards introduces a common basis
for the design of different construction materials with a more performance-based approach for
specifying materials. Some of these new approaches on concrete and its constituent materials only are
reviewed in the following sections. A full review of all the aspects is beyond the scope of this
presentation.
3.1

BS EN 1992

This series of design standards brings up-to-date knowledge for designing concrete structures. The
series consists of the following standards:
BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures Part 1-1: General rules and rules
for buildings
BS EN 1992-1-2:2004, Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures Part 1-2: General rules Structural fire design
BS EN 1992-2: 2005, Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures Part 2: Concrete bridges Design
and detail rules
BS EN 1992-3: 2006, Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures Part 3: Liquid retaining and
containment structures
3.1.1 Supporting standards
In support of the above design codes related EN standards for include:
BS EN 206-1: 2000, Concrete Part 1: Specification, performance and conformity
(Revised BS EN 206: 2013 together with BS EN 12350 and BS EN 12390 series for method of
testing fresh and hardened concrete respectively)
BS 8500-1: 2006, Concrete Complementary British standard to BS EN 206-1 Part 1: Method of
specifying and guidance for the specifier (Revision: BS 8500-1:2006+A1: 2013)
BS 8500-2: 2006, Concrete Complementary British standard to BS EN 206-1 Part 2
Specification for constituent materials and concrete (Revision: BS 8500-2:2006+A1: 2013)
BS EN 13670: 2009, Execution of concrete structures
BS EN 13791: 2007, Assessment of in-situ compressive strength in structures and precast concrete
components
(BS EN 12504 series for method of testing concrete in structures)
BS 6089: 2010, Assessment of in-situ compressive strength in structures and precast concrete
components Complimentary guidance to that given in BS EN 13791
3.1.2

Supporting materials and products specifications and test standards

In support of the above standards, materials and product specification standards include:
BS EN 197-1: 2000, Cement Part 1: Composition, specifications and conformity criteria for
common cements (Revised BS EN 197- 2011)
BS EN 197-2: 2010, Cement Part 2: Conformity evaluation (BS EN 196 series on methods of
testing cement)

33

BS EN 450-1: 2005, Fly ash for concrete Part 1: Definition, specifications and conformity criteria
BS EN 450-2: 2005, Fly ash for concrete Part 2: Conformity evaluation
BS EN 13263-1: 2005, Silica fume for concrete Part 1: Definition, requirements and conformity
criteria
BS EN 13263-2: 2005, Silica fume for concrete Part 2: Conformity evaluation
BS EN 15167-1: 2006, Ground granulated blast furnace slag for use in concrete, mortar and grout
Part 1: Definition, specifications and conformity criteria
BS EN 15167-2: 2006, Ground granulated blast furnace slag for use in concrete, mortar and grout
Part 2: Conformity evaluation
BS EN 12620: 2002+A1: 2008, Aggregates for concrete
(BS EN 932, BS EN933, BS EN 1097 and BS EN 1744 series on methods of testing for
general, geometrical, mechanical and physical and chemical properties of aggregates
respectively)
BS EN 934-2: 2001, Admixtures for concrete, mortar and grout Part 2: Concrete admixtures
Definitions, requirements, conformity, marking and labelling
(BS EN 480 series for methods of testing admixtures)
BS EN 1008: 2002, Mixing water for concrete Specification for sampling, testing and assessing the
suitability of water, including water recovered from processes in the concrete industry, as
mixing water for concrete
This presentation does not include the approaches for analysis and design of concrete structure, some
aspects of which are common for design of structures using other forms of construction materials. It
covers mainly issues related to concrete and its constituent materials as indicated under Supporting
materials and products and test methods for concrete. Only selected topics that are new and those
replacing current local practice are considered and highlighted as they enhance quality of concrete and
potential for sustainable concrete construction. Further details and other aspects of structural analysis
and design, control of constituent materials, production control systems, procedures and conformity
criteria are provided in the EN standards listed above. Testing methods related to concrete and its
constituent materials are also not included. They are provided under normative references in the
respective materials standards.
3.2

Cementitious Materials

Besides cement that may be blended with other cementitious materials by producers, other
cementitious materials for concrete are covered under separate standards. The specification and
requirements for fly ash, blast furnace slag and silica fume are listed above. One or more of these
cementitious materials may be batched as a component of the total cementitious content at the mixer.
This approach is an alternative to pre-blended cement of the same composition. Guidance on the use
of additions is provided in EN 206-1 for taking into account in concrete composition with respect to
water/cement ratio and minimum cement content requirement, e.g. k-value concept.
3.2.1 Cements
The specifications and testing standards for concrete constituent materials are more performancebased than current local standards. EN 197-1: 2010 covers 27 products of common cements in its
Table 1 and 7 products of sulfate resisting common cements in Table 2. Together they replace the
much smaller number of individual standards for each type of cement. Cements in Table 1 are
grouped into 5 main cement types as follows:
CEM l
CEM II
CEM III
CEM IV
CEM V

Portland cement
Portland-composite cement
Blast furnace cement
Pozzolanic cement
Composite cement

34

Within each main group a range of the main components and minor additional constituents at 0-5
percent by mass is indicated. For sulfate resisting common cements the 3 main cement types are as
follows:
Sulphate resisting Portland cement:
CEM I-SR 0
CEM I-SR 3
CEM I-SR 5

Sulphate resisting Portland cement (C3A content of the clinker = 0 %)


Sulphate resisting Portland cement (C3$FRQWHQWRIWKHFOLQNHU
Sulphate resisting Portland cement (C3A content of the clinkeU

Sulphate resisting blast furnace cements (no requirements on C3A content of the clinker):
CEM III/B-SR
CEM III/C-SR

Sulfate resisting blast furnace cement


Sulfate resisting blast furnace cement

Sulfate resisting pozzolanic cement (C3A contHQWRIWKHFOLQNHU 


CEM IV/A-SR
CEM IV/B-SR

Sulfate resisting pozzolanic cement


Sulfate resisting pozzolanic cement

Additionally, CEM III may have specific performance such as:


Low heat low early strength blast finance cement with a limited heat of hydration and designated as
LH.
Sulfate resisting low early strength blast furnace cement in the strength class indicated by L
With the introduction of these changes specifiers need to have a deeper understanding of the
performance of different cements so as to select the most appropriate type for the requirements of
each specific project. Under specifying of requirements is obviously unsatisfactory but over
specifying requirements leads to unnecessary higher cost and impact on sustainable concrete
utilization.
3.2.2 Supplementary Cementitious Materials
EN 206-1 defines addition as finely divided material used in concrete in order to improve certain
SURSHUWLHVRUWRDFKLHYHVSHFLDOSURSHUWLHV7ZRW\SHVRILQRUJDQLFDGGLWLRQVDUHFRQVLGHUHG
Type 1 nearly inert additions
Type II pozzolanic or latent hydraulic additions
Fly ash and silica fume are pozzolanic additions and ground granulated blast furnace slag is also a
latent hydraulic addition. Other types of additions, e.g. metakaolin, rice hush ash etc may be used
after establishment of suitability by a relevant national standard or provision in the place of use of
the concrete which refers specifically to the use of the addition in concrete conforming to EN 206.
Restricted range of Portland cements and additions which have been combined in the concrete
PL[HU KDV EHHQ GHILQHG DV D FRPELQDWLRQ LQ %6 -1: 2006. Conformity procedure for
combinations under Annex A (normative) of BS 8500-2: 2006 is the procedure for establishing the
suitability of a combination enabling it to be counted fully towards the cement content and
water/cement ratio in designed concrete for durability requirements. However, there is no similar
guidance on heat of hydration requirement in low heat cement for temperature requirements. Result
from a single test sample is at best indicative of its heat of hydration level without any simple means
to relate it to the requirement in terms of characteristic value. User has to rely on assurance provided
by the blended cement producer, based on production conformity data.

35

3.3 Concrete
The specification, performance and conformity for concrete are based on BS EN 206-1: 2000 and BS
8500-1 and BS 8500-2: 2006+A1: 2012, the two complementary British standards to BS EN 206-1,
Part 1: methods of specifying and guidance for the specifier and Part 2: specification of constituent
materials and concrete. Together they provide several new approaches and changes with great details.
Only items which are more commonly needed for specifying concrete and its constituent materials are
selected for presentation.
3.3.1 Types of Concrete
EN 206-1 defines tasks for the specifier, producer and user. It covers 3 types of concrete defined as
follows:
Designed concrete: concrete for which the required properties and additional characteristics are
specified to the producer who is responsible for providing a concrete conforming to the required
properties and additional characteristics
Prescribed concrete: concrete for which the composition of the concrete and the constituent
materials to be used are specified to the producer who is responsible for providing a concrete with the
specified composition.
Standardized prescribed concrete: prescribed concrete for which the composition is given in
standard valid in the place of use of the concrete
Two additional types of concrete have been introduced under BS 8500-1: 2006+A1: 2012:
Designated concrete: concrete with the requirement for the producer to hold product conformity
certification and therefore designated concretes are only applicable where third-party certification is
selected as the option in specifying the concrete.
Proprietary concrete: concrete for which the producer assures the performance subject to good
practice in placing, compacting and curing and for which the producer is not required to declare the
composition.
The requirements for designated concrete indicate it is limited to concrete strength class up to C40/50
and for intended working life of 50 years. These requirements are derived based on UK experience
and materials. Local users need to make appropriate judgement on the relevance/suitability of the
designated concrete for the intended use in the specific service environment conditions
Proprietary concrete permits innovative applications of new materials as well as marginal materials
for which no specific guidance has been established by common consensus. A performance-based
approach may be adopted. Annex E (informative) of EN 206-1: 2010 provides guidance on the
application of the equivalent performance concept of concrete properties.
For each specific
performance, the level of performance (including its tolerance, or range) is to be stated in quantitative
terms in relation to the method of assessment. Characteristic value is to be adopted, where applicable.
3.3.2 Compressive Strength Classes
In the concrete design code, EN 1992-1-1 (Eurocode 2) the compressive strength adopted in the
design equations is the characteristic cylinder strength with specimen aspect ratio (length/diameter) of
2.0. However for conformity control the cube compressive strength (aspect ratio of 1.0) is the
alternate type of specimens. Although cylinder compressive strength is closer to the ideal uniaxial
strength (less end friction influence) but the testing of cube specimens offers some advantages for
production control testing as well as in relation to core testing. These include:

36

(a) No end preparation, e.g. capping or grinding in the case of high strength concrete
(b) Core specimen from existing structures with length/diameter ratio of 1.0 is possible for
structural elements of thickness less than twice the diameter of the core
(c) Less volume of concrete for each standard test specimen as well as for core samples
(supports sustainability)
(d) Lower cost to produce test specimens and core samples as well as cost in disposal of
specimens after testing
The relationship between the characteristic cylinder compressive strength and characteristic cube
compressive strength is provided in EN 206-1 as Table 7 for normalweight and heavyweight
concrete and Table 8 for light-weight concrete. In Table 7 the relationship up to compressive strength
class of C55/67 is approximately based on characteristic cube strength = 1.25 characteristic cylinder
strength and above this, characteristic cube strength is 15 MPa higher than corresponding
characteristic cylinder strength. Table 7 includes compressive class of C100/115 although EN 19921-1 adopts characteristic compressive strength class up to C90/105 only. The relationship for
characteristic compressive strength can be applied to test result (mean of two or more test specimens)
which may be above the characteristic strength.
For determination of compressive strength traditionally it is customary for specimen size to be 150
mm cubes and 150 mm x 300 mm cylinders. The rational for this may be for convenience rather than
technical. As early as BS 1881: Part 108: 1952, the requirement has been for specimen size to be at
least 4 times the maximum size aggregate. ASTM C 192-13 (2013) limits the ratio of cylinder
specimen diameter to maximum aggregate size to 3 only. This limit is also recommended in BS EN
12504-1: 2009 for the ratio of maximum aggregate size to diameter of core with addition information
of the effect of aggregate size and core diameter in Annex A (informative) of the standard. In general,
the maximum aggregate size for pavement concrete is 40 mm (1 in.) and for buildings 20 mm (
in.). Hence 150 mm cubes are able to cater for both maximum aggregate sizes. This choice for 150
mm cubes has gone on for over 6 decades and became a common requirement in specifications. Even
EN 206-1: 2010 only state the use of 150 mm cubes and 150 mm x 300 mm cylinders. However, BS
8500-1: 2006 and the revised BS 8500-1: 2006+A1: 2012, Clause 12.2 Conformity control for
compressive strength states:
If conformity to the specified compressive strength class is determined using 100 mm cubes,
the minimum characteristic 100 mm cube strength shall be that given for 150 mm cubes in BS
EN 206-1: 2000 Table 7 and BS EN 206-1: 2000 Table 8.
For the purpose of production control concretes of a limited range of strength classes using constituent
materials of the same type and source may form a concrete family for the purpose of production and
conformity control. Guidance is provided in Annex K (informative) of EN 206-1: 2013.
3.3.3 Consistence
The commonly used term workability is replaced by the term consistence. In addition to the
traditional tests of slump (S1-S4), Vebe time (V0-V4), degree of compactability (C0-C4) (replacing
compaction factor) and flow diameter (F1-F6), the revised EN 206: 2013 incorporates the additional
rules for self-compacting concrete (SCC) of EN 206-9 (withdrawn). The additional consistence
classes for SCC include slump flow diameter (SF1-SF3), viscosity indicated by t500 (VS1-VS3),
viscosity by V-funnel (VF1-VF2), passing ability by L-box (PL1-PL2), passing ability by J-ring (PJ1PJ2) and sieve segregation resistance (SR1-SR2). Details of test methods for consistence are given in
the EN 12350 series for Testing of Fresh Concrete (Parts 1 to 12). Development in testing of SCC is
continuing, e.g. Chan et al (2010) presented a modification to the J-ring test for assessing passing
ability and dynamic stability by T-box (Esmaeilkhanisan et al, 2014).

37

For a given project only those tests that are required and the class for conformity need to be specified.
This is useful for the ready-mixed concrete producers to select the appropriate designed concrete that
the plant has developed (particularly if product certification is required by regulation, e.g. BCA
Singapore, or by project specification). Otherwise it is necessary to conduct initial testing of a new
designed concrete to meet the requirements in accordance with the process set out in EN 206-1: 2000,
Annex A (normative) - Initial Test. During initial production the rate of sampling (Table 13, EN 2061: 2000) and conformity criteria (Table 14, EN 206-1: 2000) are adopted until at least 35 test results
are obtained and analysed to meet requirements before production is placed under continuous
production control with its less demanding criteria (shown in the same tables) than initial production.
3.3.4 Durability
Unlike structural design in concrete for which EN 1992-1-1 provides quantitative approach for each
specific action or combination of actions with partial safety factors for the actions and the resistance
required, durability design in concrete is still at the prescriptive level. Currently semi-empirical
approach with guidance for resisting environmental actions and recommended deem-to-satisfied
provisions for resisting qualitatively described (other than for sulfate in the ground) exposure classes
in BS 8500-1: 2006+A1: 2012, Annex A (informative) is intended for UK environment. Chemical
reactions are temperature dependent as indicated by Arrhenius equation and hence the guidance
provided in BS 8500-1: 2006+A1: 2012 needs to be modified for local tropical climate. An example
is the guidance in the Singapore standard SS 544-1 (2009), the equivalent standard to BS 8500-1:
2006 stated as follows:
The specifier should take into consideration the nature of the element, intended working life,
its importance and the cost of maintenance and repair to select the same or higher performance
concrete. Different elements in the same structure may be specified with different concrete to
optimise cost-effectiveness.
An alternative approach to selecting a higher performance concrete is to increase the cover thickness,
but not to the extent of significantly increasing flexural crack width to exceed the design limit. A
combination of both may lead to a more cost-effective solution. However, the current durability
design remains in a semi-quantitative approach with prescribed guidance on the type of cement, its
minimum content and maximum cement content for a given cover thickness. One major step is in
terms of the cover tolerance, the value of 'c to be specified is always positive, (unlike the typical r 5
mm intended for fixing tolerance). A positive tolerance for cover has significant influence on
durability and a very minor, if any, on the ultimate capacity of flexural elements and even less in
axially loaded elements, such as internal columns and load-bearing walls.
3.3.5 Effect of Tropical Climate
Most advances in concrete technology are initiated in the temperate regions and their implementation
in tropical climate often calls for appropriate adjustment for the effect of higher ambient temperatures
throughout the year. Experience of past decades has indicated both challenges and opportunities for
innovative economic solutions, e.g. Tam et al (2008) including the sandwich concept proposed by
Tam et al (2002) in casting of thick raft foundations, and the effects of tropical climate on properties
of fresh and hardened concrete reviewed by Tam (2014). The major effects of higher ambient
temperature in tropical climate relate to reduction of consistence and the faster loss of consistence in
fresh concrete, potential plastic settlement and plastic shrinkage cracking. For thick sections and high
strength concrete, the issues involve producing initial placing concrete temperature well below
ambient temperature to avoid potential delayed ettringite formation at above 70 OC in hardened
concrete and potential early thermal cracking due to high temperature differential between the warmer
interior of thick sections and its cooler outer zone. Although technical solutions such precooling of
constituent materials, injection of liquid nitrogen into fresh concrete and embedment of cooling
systems in hardened concrete may be adopted, but their availability currently is lacking due to their
high initial and operating cost as well as the infrequent demand for them making difficult the return of

38

investing in such technologies. The availability of engineered chemical admixtures to provide desired
consistence and delay in setting and the use of ice and chilling water have enabled the use of
characteristic cube compressive strength up to 60 MPa at 28 days to meet most temperature
requirements. The introduction of low heat of hydration cements containing fly ash, ground
granulated blastfurnace slag and silica fume has also contributed to the solutions on temperature
limits. Challenges remain for strength classes above C50/60.

4.

ASSSESSMENT OF IN-SITU COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH

Assessment of in-situ quality of concrete is one area for which less attention is given during
construction stage unless issues arise from unsatisfactory concrete supplied to the project or some
unforeseen events occurred on site which may have affected the concrete in the structure. On the
other hand, existing structures that have been in service for some time may need to be assessed for its
structural adequacy for change in usage or due to deterioration arising from lack of maintenance for
environmental actions. The use of core tests and some form of non-destructive testing (NDT)
methods have been in practice for a long time. However, a common consensus on the interpretation
of test results of core test and NDT methods is lacking. BS EN 13791 (2007) is the first standard that
sets out the linkage between these test results and the required compressive strength to EN 206-1
which is the basis for design to EN 1991-1-1: 2004. EN 13791: 2007, Table 1 provides the
minimum characteristic in-situ compressive strength for the EN 206-1 compressive strength. The
ratio of in-situ characteristic strength to characteristic strength of standard specimens is set at 0.85.
The ratio is part of the partial safety factor for concrete, Jc, (EN 1991-1-1: 2004. Annex A). National
Annex NA (informative) to DIN EN 13791: 2008-05 (English version) provides Table NA.1
minimum characteristic in-situ compressive strength of light-weight concrete with a closed structure,
for compressive strength classes according to DIN EN 206-1 with the same ratio of in-situ
characteristic strength to characteristic strength of standard specimens (cylinder and cube) of 0.85 and
rounded to nearest 1 MPa.
In addition, the former BS 6089 (1981), which provided only guidance, it has been replaced by BS
6089 (2010), Assessment of in-situ compressive strength in structures and precast concrete
components complementary guidance to that given in BS EN 13791: 2007. The new standard
provides not only additional guidance but also recommendations for interpreting test results. Some
new and useful topics from these documents are highlighted in this presentation and further details
and other areas are available in these two standards.
4.1

Core Test

Assessment of in-situ compressive strength directly from testing of cores constitutes the reference
method, although indirect test methods may also be used. Unlike the guidance in BS 6089 (1981)
when the partial safety for concrete was to be at least 1.2 compared to its value of 1.5 in design (ratio
= 0.80) but with no clear guidance on if the in-situ value needs to the characteristic strength (the risk
is much higher in using mean in-situ strength). EN 13791: 2007 adoption of the ratio of 0.85 is based
on in-situ characteristic strength and hence significantly more conservative than basing on guidance of
the former BS 6089 (1981) withdrawn in 2010, replaced with EN 13791. The advantage that the
core specimen needs to be of aspect ratio 1.0 for assessment based on cube compressive strength has
been mentioned in 3.3.2 above. For in-situ strength to be determined from cores, testing a core with
equal length and a nominal diameter of 100 mm gives a strength value equivalent to the strength value
of a 150 mm cube manufactured and cured under the same conditions. For the equivalent strength of
a 150 mm x 300 mm cylinder the required aspect ratio for a core needs to be equal to 2.0. For this
reason, it is preferable to adoption the cube as the standard specimen for determination of
compressive strength in production control and conformity assessment.

39

4.1.1

Factors influencing core strength

Annex A (informative) of BS EN 13791 (2007) provides guidance on some of the factors influencing
the measured core strength. In addition to the correction factors for length/diameter ratio given in the
National Annex NA (informative) Guidance on the use of BS EN 12504-1: 2009, Testing of hardened
concrete Part 1: Cored specimens Taking, examining and testing in compression, the following
factors are selected for highlighting:
Direction of drilling normally the core result should not be modified for direction of drilling
relative to direction of casting (difference of 8% in BS 6089: 1981 and BS 1881: Part 120:
1983, typically between 0 to 8% indicated in Annex A (informative) of EN 13791: 2007).
The correction is intended to cater for the lack of homogeneity for in-situ concrete with respect to
depth of pour, particularly in deep sections. However, in recent years designed concretes have
compositions that are less prone to segregation during compaction by vibration and less settling
before hardening hence the factor may not apply. In the case of self-compaction concrete, such a
correction may lead to non-conservation estimation of in-situ concrete strength for cores drilled
perpendicular to direction of casting (referred to as horizontal cores).
The other factor is the moisture state of the specimen at the time of strength determination:
Moisture content except for where it is not feasible, core shall be exposed to a laboratory
atmosphere for at least 3 days prior to testing. Strength of a saturated core is 10-15% lower
than a comparable air-dried core (moisture content normally between 8-12%).
National Annex NA (informative) to DIN EN 13791: 2008-05 (English version) requires testing to be
carried out on air-dried cores (conditioned for at least 12 hours in standard laboratory atmosphere
prior to testing). It also states that the compressive strength of an air-dried core having a diameter of
100 mm or 150 mm may be deemed equivalent to that of a saturated 150 mm cube.
Reinforcement cores used to measure the strength of concrete should not contain reinforcing
bar. National Annex NA (informative) of BS EN 12504-1: 2009 provides formulae for
transverse reinforcing bars which can be expected to result in a reduction in measured strength.
It is to be noted that Concrete Society Report No. 11 (1987) recommended that where the required
correction is 5% or less the formulae can be accepted as being of adequate reliability and correction
greater than 10% cannot be regarded as a reliable measure of the concrete strength. The tests of Loo
et al (1989) confirmed that embedded transverse reinforcement reduces the strength of cores with a
length/diameter ratio of 2, but at a ratio of 1, embedded steel has no effect on the measured strength of
the core. This is another situation in support of the preference to adopt the cube as the standard
specimen for determination of compressive strength in production control and conformity assessment.
4.1.2 Assessment by Testing of Cores
Two approaches are provided in EN 13791: 2009 for direct assessment with cores. Approach A
applies where at least 15 cores are available from a test region consisting of several test locations.
Approach B applies where 3 to 14 cores are available. It is important to note the definition for test
location and for test region:
Test location limited area selected for measurements used to estimate one test result, which is
to be used in the estimation of in-situ compressive strength
Teat region one or several structural elements, or precast concrete components assumed or
known to be from the same population

40

The choice of structural elements that may be deemed to be from the same population is important to
avoid potential outliers in the test results when information on the concrete used is lacking, e.g. in an
old structure.
Approach A The estimated in-situ characteristic strength of the test region is the lower value of:
fck,is = fm(n),is k2 x s, or fck,is = fis,lowest + 4
where s is the standard deviation of the test results or 2.0 MPa, whichever is the higher value,
ks is given in national provisions or, if no value is given, taken as 1.48
Approach B The estimated in-situ characteristic strength of the test region is the lower value of:
fck,is = fm(n),is k, or fck,is = fis,lowest + 4
The margin k depends on the number n of test results and the appropriate value indicated below based
on Table 2 of BS EN 13791 (2007) and relating it to the k factor in Approach A:
Table 1 k factor
n
10 to 14
7 to 9
3 to 6

k
5
6
7

(Value of s relative to k2 = 1.48 x s in Approach A)


3.58
4.05
4.73

As expected, for smaller number of cores tested, a more conservative interpretation has to be adopted.
However, the value of the standard deviation s in Approach A may be higher than the relative value
indicated for Approach B when close to 15 cores are tested.
4.1.3 Assessment by Indirect Methods
Two alternative methods for assessment of in-situ compressive strength are provided:
Alternative 1 Direct correlation with cores (sub-clause 8.2)
Alternative 2 Calibration with cores for a limited strength range using established relationship
Alternative 1 requires at least 18 pairs of results, 18 core test results and 18 indirect test results from
the same test locations covering the range of strength of interest to establish the relationship. The
relationship is established by regression analysis to obtain a best fit curve and determined as the lower
ten percentile of strength. The use of this relationship gives a safety level where 90% of the strength
values are expected to be higher than the estimated value.
Assessment for each test region is based on at least 15 test locations with the mean and standard
deviation calculated from the test results or 3.0 MPa whichever is higher.
The in-situ characteristic compressive strength of the test region is the lower of
fck,is = fm(n),is 1.48 x s, or fck,is = fis,lowest + 4, where s is the standard deviation of test results
Alternative 2 makes use of a relationship determined from a limited number of cores and a basic curve
provided in EN 13791 (for rebound hammer test, ultrasonic pulse velocity test and pull-out force test).
For each selected test region should have at least 9 test locations for both indirect test and cores. The
basic curve forms the basis for calculating the shift, 'f to obtain the established relationship by
using the difference between the core strength and the value from the basic curve for the indirect

41

method used Gf = fis fR, v or F and the mean Gfm(n) for the n results and the sample standard
deviation s. The shift, is schematically shown in Figure 1 of EN 13791 (Figure A.1 of Annex A),
with 'f = Gfm(n) k1 x s where k1 is taken from the table shown below.
Table 2 (Table 3 of BS EN 13791) Coefficient k1 dependent on the number of paired tests
Number of paired test results (n)
9
10
11
12
13
14


Coefficient, k1
1,67
1,62
1,58
1,55
1,52
1,50
1,48

The basic curves are shown graphically (Figures 2 to 4 in EN 13791, 2007) as well as presented in the
following mathematical functions of the curves for numerical calculation:
(Rebound hammer, Figure 2, EN 13791)):
fR = 1,25 x R IRU5DQGIR = 1,73 x R IRU5
(Ultrasonic pulse velocity, Figure 3, EN 13791):
fv = 62,5 x v2 [YIRUY PV
(Pull-out force, Figure 4, EN 13791):
fF = 1.33 x (F  IRU) N)
The approach adopted for Alternative 1 for assessment of in-situ compressive strength also applies to
the use of Alternative 2, i.e. based on at least 15 test locations for each test region and method for
establishing the in-situ characteristic compressive strength. The minimum characteristic in-situ
compressive strength for EN 206-1 compressive strength classes are provided in Table 3 (Table 1 of
BS EN 13791 (2007).
One of the objectives in assessment of in-situ compressive strength is to establishing relationship by
indirect methods to select test locations to cover the range of strength of interest. One suggested
approach is included as Annex B (informative) Sample test plan in SS 592: 2013, the Singapore
complementary standard to SS EN 13791: 2009. A multi-stage plan is proposed to assist in selecting
potentially upper, middle and lower range of strength values. More guidance on the approach is
provided by Tam (2006).
EN 13791 (2007) also provides assessment where conformity of concrete based on standard tests is in
doubt, e.g. from limited number of identity test values for concrete supplied under certification. The
purpose is to ascertain if the in-situ concrete is with adequate strength and the concrete in the test
region conformed to EN 206-1 but not to verify if the concrete is in compliance with the specified
characteristic strength based on testing of standard test specimens.
For a test region comprising many batches of concrete with 15 or more core data the requirements are:
fm(n),is  Ick + 1.48 x s) and fis,lowest  Ick 4) MPa where s = standard deviation
Alternatively, by agreement between the parties, where there are 15 or more indirect test data
(preferably from ultrasonic pulse velocity tests) and at least two cores taken from the locations that
indicate the lower strengths, the region may be deemed to contain concrete with adequate strength, if:
fis,lowest  Ick 4) MPa

42

Table 3 Minimum characteristic in-situ compressive strength for EN 206 compressive strength
classes
Compressive strength
class according to EN
206-1

Ratio of in-situ characteristic strength to


characteristic strength of standard
specimens

C8/10
C12/15
C16/20
C20/25
C25/30
C30/37
C35/45
C40/50
C45/55
C50/60
C55/67
C60/75
C70/85
C80/95
C90/105
C100/115

0,85
0,85
0,85
0,85
0,85
0,85
0,85
0,85
0,85
0,85
0,85
0,85
0,85
0,85
0,85
0,85

Minimum
characteristic in-situ
strength (N/mm2)
fck, is, cyl
fck, is, cube
7
9
10
13
14
17
17
21
21
26
26
31
30
38
34
43
38
47
43
51
47
57
51
64
60
72
68
81
77
89
85
98

NOTE 1 The in-situ compressive strength may be less than that measured on standard test specimens
taken from the same batch of concrete
NOTE 2 The ratio 0.85 is part of Jc in EN 1992-1-1: 2004


When the test region is deemed to contain concrete with adequate strength, the concrete shall be
deemed to have come from a conforming population. Where the strength is less than 0,85(f ck 4)
MPa, the design assumptions are not valid and the structure should be assessed for structural
adequacy based on the estimated in-situ compressive strength.

5.

FUTURE

Although the recent introduction of approaches based on Eurocode approach or its equivalent has
contributed to a significant update on the use of concrete in structures as indicate in the selected topics
presented above, there is amble room for further development. The current activities in drafting of
performance-based durability criteria for corrosion due to carbonation and ingress of chloride will
eventually lead to quantitative models for the design against each of these exposure conditions and
their combination. However, it will be necessary for each climatic region to gather sufficient data on
the environmental action and the long term performance of specific concretes to calibrate the design
formulae under consideration.
Temperature is a major factor as all chemical reactions are
temperature dependent. Carbonation may be simplified to one based on the square root of time
approach but the carbonation constant and the required concrete are factors yet to reach common
consensus. Chloride ingress is likely to be in terms of Ficks second law but the factors such as water
soluble or acid soluble chloride in the concrete is to be adopted and the required concrete for adequate
performance are factors to reach common consensus. Local data on both environmental action and
history of concrete performance are lacking and it is time to initiate such long term monitoring to
enable the developed models to be applied.
In terms of new concrete construction the current knowledge on assessment of in-situ should be
applied to determine the quality of concrete achieved in different site conditions, both in terms of
structural safety and durability performance. Concrete in the cover zone of structural elements needs

43

to be assessed differently from the bulk concrete, as the former affect durability and the latter
structural adequacy. An appropriately established correlation between rebound hammer hardness is
more suitable for assessing cover concrete, whereas that for ultra-sonic pulse velocity is more related
to the bulk concrete. Such correlation may begin from the stage of initial testing in the laboratory for
new concrete and further monitored for in-situ concrete for various site conditions on such factors as
degree of compaction and curing history.

6.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The short review on history of the development on the use of concrete in structures from the past to
the present has indicated the progress made so far. Some indications of the needs for the future have
been highlighted. It is up to the combined effort of all the stakeholders in the concrete industry to
take up the challenge to ensure that sustainable concrete industry will be achieved for the economic
development of the whole world in the years to come for the future generations of human kind.

7.

REFERENCES

ACI (2004), ACI: A century of progress, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hill, MI, 123pp
ASTM C192/C192M 13, (2013), Standard Practice for Making and Curing Concrete Test
Specimens in the Laboratory, Vol. 04.02, ASTM International, W. Conshohocken, PA., 2013
BCA (1999), Concrete through the ages, British Cement Association, Berkshire, UK, 37pp
BRE (1934), DSIR Code of practice for reinforced concrete, Department of Scientific & Industrial
Research, UK, 1934
BS 114 (1948), The structural use of concrete in buildings, British Standards Institution, London,
1948
BS 6089 (1981), Guide to the assessment of concrete strength in existing buildings, British Standards
Institutions, London, 1981 (withdrawn in 2010)
BS 6089 (2010), Assessment of in-situ compressive strength in structures and precast concrete
components complementary guidance to that given in BS EN 13791: 2007, British Standards
Institutions, London, 2010.
BS 8110 (1985), Structural use of concrete, British Standards Institution, London, 1985
BS EN 206 (2013), Concrete Specification, performance, production and conformity, British
Standards Institution, London, 2013
BS EN 12504-1 (2009), Testing concrete in structures, Core specimens, Taking, examining and
testing in compression, British Standards Institution, London, 2009.
BS EN 13791 (2007), Assessment of in-situ compressive strength in structures and precast concrete
components, British Standards Institution, London, 2007
Chan, K.D., Ong, K.C.G. and Tam, C.T., (2010), Passing ability of SCC improved method based on
the P-ring, Proc. 35th OWICS, 25-27 August, 2010, Singapore, CI-Premier, Singapore, 2010,
pp9-16.
Concrete Society, (1987), Technical Report No. 11, Concrete core testing for strength, London, 1987,
44pp
CP 110 (1972), The structural use of concrete, British Standards Institution, London, 1972
CP 115 (1959), The structural use of prestressed concrete in buildings, British Standards Institution,
London, 1959.
Esmaeikhanisan, B., Feys, D., Khayat, K.H. and Yahia, A., New test method to evaluate dynamic
stability of self-consolidating concrete, ACT J. of Mat., May-June, 2014, pp299-307
Loo, Y.H., Tan, C.W. and Tam, C.T. (1989), Effects of embedded reinforcement on measured
strength of concrete cylinders, Magazine of Concrete Research, Vol. 41, No. 146, 1989, pp1118.
SS 544-1 (2009), Concrete Complementary Singapore standard to SS EN 206-1 Part 1: Method of
specifying and guidance for the specifier, SPRING, Singapore, 2009

44

SS 592 (2013), Assessment of in-situ compressive strength in structures and precast concrete
components complementary guidance to that given in SS EN 13791: 2009, SPRING,
Singapore, 2013
SS EN 13791 (2009), Assessment of in-situ compressive strength in structures and precast concrete
components, SPRING, Singapore, 2009
Tam, C.T, (2006), Monitoring of in-situ quality of concrete from construction to demolition, Special
OWICS Lecture, Proc. 10th Int. Conf. on Inspection, Appraisal, Repair & Maintenance of
Structures, 25-26 Oct. 2006, Hong Kong, CI-Premier, Singapore, pp1-8
Tam, C. T. (2014), Challenges and opportunities in tropical concreting, Invited Paper, 2 nd
International Conference on Sustainable Civil Engineering Structures and Construction
Materials, 23-25, September, 2014, Yogyakarta, Indonesia , 2014 (accepted for publication).
Tam, C.T., Harsono, E. and Swaddiwuddipong, S., (2008), Concreting in the tropics: precautions and
opportunities, Keynote Paper, Proc. 7th International Congress, Concrete: Constructions
Sustainable Option, Conference 3: Concrete Durability: Achievement and Enhancement, Theme
1: Retaining and Extending Performance, Dundee, Scotland, 8-12 July, 2008, pp
Tam, C.T., Swaddiwuddipong, S., Ho, D.W.S. and Seow, S.S., (2002), Strategy for casting of raft
foundations in tropical climate, Journal, Institution of Engineers, Singapore, Singapore, V42,
N6, pp6-11
Trout, Edwin, A.R., (2013), Some writers on concrete, Whittles Publishing, UK, 279pp

ANNEX A

Figure A.1
(Figure A.1 corresponds to Figure 1 of BS EN 13791: 2007)

45

You might also like