45
Ready-Mixed Concrete
Colin L. Lobo1 and Richard D. Gaynor2
Preface
THIS CHAPTER ON READY-MIXED CONCRETE HAS
been a part of ASTM STP 169 since it was first published in
1955. Colin Lobo is the current secretary of ASTM Subcom-
mittee C09.40 on Ready-Mixed Concrete and Richard Gaynor
has been a member of the subcommittee since the early 1960s.
This chapter follows the organization of ASTM Specifica- tion
C 94/C 94M on Ready-Mixed Concrete and provides the
authors’ perspective of the intent of the specification require-
ments, developments in technology that are changing the
ready-mixed concrete industry and how it operates, and the
potential impact on these specifications. This discussion
pertains to ASTM C 94/C 94M-04a, the current version of the
specification at the time of this printing.
Introduction
ASTM International has two specifications covering ready-
mixed concrete: ASTM Specification for Ready-Mixed Concrete
(C 94/C 94M) and ASTM Specification for Concrete Made by
Volumetric Batching and Continuous Mixing (C 685/C 685M).
This paper will cover both specifications, but the emphasis will
be on ASTM C 94/C 94M because of its much greater use.
ASTM C 94/C 94M and C 685/C 685M are specifications
for concrete, as manufactured and delivered to a purchaser in
a freshly mixed and unhardened state. They form the basis for
a contract between a manufacturer and a purchaser [1,2].
History of the Industry
The first concrete mixed off-site and delivered to the job may
have been furnished in 1913, but it was not a recognizable in-
dustry in the United States until the late 1920s when the first
revolving drum truck mixers were developed [3]. ASTM C 94/C
94M was first published in 1933. The volumetric batching with
continuous mixing specification, ASTM C 685/C 685M, was
published in 1971. In 1933, the ready-mixed concrete industry
consumed about 5 % of the portland cement produced in the
United States. In the early days, the competition was with site-
mixed concrete. However, as measured by the amount of
cement used within the United States, the industry’s use grew
from about one-third to two-thirds in the period from 1950 to
1
Vice President of Engineering, National Ready-Mixed Concrete Association, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
2
Retired from National Ready-Mixed Concrete Assocation since 1995, and now a consultant from Silver Spring, MD.
533
1975. In 2003 the industry used approximately 75 % of the total
cement consumption [4]. At that time, the estimated U.S. ready-
mixed concrete production was 405 million cubic yards (310
million cubic meters) [5].
The 1994 edition of this chapter on ready-mixed concrete
[6] indicated a change in trend of the ready-mixed concrete in-
dustry whereby acquisitions and consolidation had resulted in
larger companies that operated across several states. This
trend has continued with larger multinational corporations
establishing vertically integrated company structures that in-
clude cementitious materials, aggregates, concrete and other
building products, and asphalt paving operations. Trends in
industry statistics are better quantified with reporting by pub-
lic companies and information on the Internet. However, there
still exists a large segment of the industry, quantified by the
number of companies that still operate smaller local family-
owned businesses. There also exist a significant number of
large privately held companies that produce in the range of 2
to 5 million cubic yards (1.5 to 3.8 million cubic meters). The
estimated number of companies has changed from about 5000
in 1978 to 3700 in 1994 to about 2400 in 2003 [7,8]. The his-
torical pattern where 10 % of the companies produced 50 % of
the concrete has changed, and now 6 or 7 % of companies pro-
duce 50 % of the concrete. The “average” ready-mixed concrete
company produces about 700 000 cubic yards (535 000 cubic
meters), and operates about 12 plants and 125 mixer trucks.
The average quantity of concrete produced per plant is in the
range of 60 000 cubic yards (46 000 cubic meters) annually in
the United States [8]. These average numbers are quite skewed
due to a wide distribution of company size and structure. At the
present time, small companies operating less than 15 trucks
account for more than half the number of companies and pro-
duce less than 10 % of the concrete.
The changing demographics of companies operating in the
industry also fosters greater technical sophistication and greater
use of performance specifications. Increasingly, the ready-mixed
concrete producer is the concrete technology expert. He is now
relied on as an expert on concrete material technology and in-
novative products by highway departments and other specifiers.
His involvement in standards development, research, and op-
portunities for technology transfer through the American Con-
crete Institute, ASTM International, Transportation Research
Board, and other technical organizations have helped greatly.
Specifications
ASTM C 94/C 94M and C 685/C 685M are specifications for
ready-mixed concrete. As such, the specifications address the
separate and joint responsibilities of the various parties in a
typical job—the owner, specifying agency, contractor, concrete
producer, and testing agency.
The ASTM C 94/C 94M and C 685/C 685M specifications
are used in a number of rather different situations.
In major public and private construction, they are incor-
porated by reference in the job specifications. Here, the basic
contract is between an owner and his representative (the speci-
fier) and a contractor. The concrete producer is a material
supplier who agrees in his contract with the job contractor to
comply with ASTM C 94/C 94M or C 685/C 685M.
At the other end of the scale, in small jobs, these ASTM
specifications form the basis for an agreement to furnish ma-
terial for incidental construction, perhaps to a homeowner.
A third and important use is the protection of the public
interest by incorporation by reference in public building codes.
In this instance, the requirements, which are binding on the
owner, are then passed down to the contractor and finally to
the concrete producer through a purchase order from the con-
tractor. It is, however, the purchaser’s responsibility to invoke
the pertinent code requirements in the construction specifica-
tion and the purchase order for concrete.
Inevitably, circumstances often dictate that job specifica-
tion requirements differ from those in ASTM C 94/C 94M and
C 685/C 685M. Therefore, both specifications include the state-
ment that if there are differences, the purchaser’s specifica-
tions shall govern.
Since the ready-mixed concrete producer functions as a
supplier of materials and often has no binding contract with
the owner, there is a need for close cooperation between the
contractor and the concrete producer. In 1965, the Associated
General Contractors and the National Ready-Mixed Concrete
Association adopted a “Joint Statement of Responsibilities”
that has been found useful over the years and has been re-
viewed by both associations periodically and republished with-
out change [9]. The statement addresses the separate and joint
responsibilities of each party and is helpful in defining the tra-
ditional roles of each. More recently a partnership between the
American Society for Concrete Contractors and the National
Ready-Mixed Concrete Association have produced checklists
for concrete preconstruction conferences and ordering con-
crete that provide guidelines to establish responsibilities and
identify responsible individuals to address specific situations
and make decisions during the course of the job [10].
Basis of Purchase
An early section in both ASTM C 94/C 94M and C 685/C 685M
defines the cubic yard (or cubic meter) of concrete as the ba-
sis of purchases and then describes the method of testing and
calculation of the volume of fresh concrete. The volume of con-
crete is defined as the total weight of the batch divided by the
concrete density (unit weight) as determined by ASTM Test
Method for Density (Unit Weight), Yield, and Air Content
(Gravimetric) of Concrete (C 138). The unit weight used is the
average of the results of three tests made on separate samples
from different loads. Although the density method, ASTM C
138, permits tests in 0.2 ft3 (6 L) air meter bases, ASTM C 94/C
94M requires tests in standard 1/2 ft3 (14 L) unit weight buck-
ets for improved accuracy. There has been some consideration
of deferring to the smaller density measure sizes permitted in
C 138 based on coarse aggregate size, because in real practice
the larger density measures are cumbersome to handle and are
seldom seen on the job site. This might be a revision in future
versions of C 94/C 94M and C 685/C 685M.
Yield or Volume In-Place
A note explains that the volume of concrete delivered may be
less than expected due to waste, spillage, over-excavation,
spreading of forms, settlement in forms, or some loss of air.
Further, the volume of hardened concrete is about 2 % less
than its volume in the plastic state. Because the quantity of con-
crete actually used on a job will be greater than that calculated
from plan dimensions, yield tests must be made early in the job
and appropriate adjustments made in batch proportions if de-
ficiencies are found.
When yield is confirmed by the density test, another possi-
ble source of error is in the weights of materials batched. Scale
accuracy should be checked at three- to six-month intervals and
certified calibrations should be conducted at least annually. If
these checks are made, the concrete discharged from the truck
should be within 1 or 2 % of that determined by the standard
yield test. Due to different tolerances on weighing materials, air
content, and other factors that affect the yield determination, a
tolerance on the yield from the quantity ordered is difficult to
establish. Seldom do the contractors’ initial estimates agree that
closely with the amount delivered by the concrete producer.
The practice of ordering full loads by many contractors practi-
cally ensures that 2 to 3 % more will be ordered than is needed.
Estimates should be revised towards the end of every pour and
communicated to the concrete producer to avoid returning un-
used concrete or ordering short loads. A 6-in. (150-mm) slab that
is 3/8 in. (9 mm) too thick will require 6 % more concrete, and
deflection of bar joist construction, which is not shored, can
produce slabs that average 1 in. (25 mm) too thick [11,12].
Under ASTM C 685/C 685M, for concrete batched volu-
metrically using mobile mixers, a check on the yield is made by
weighing the concrete discharged in a given number of revo-
lutions of the cement feeder and then determining the density
of that concrete by ASTM C 138. The volume of concrete dis-
charged is then the weight of concrete discharged per revolu-
tion times the number of revolutions divided by the density.
Truck Mixer Hold Back
Generally, it is realized that when concrete is batched into a
clean, washed-out truck mixer, it will take 1 to 2 % of a capac-
ity batch to coat the drum and blades. This material is princi-
pally mortar with a negligible amount of coarse aggregate.
Since mixers are washed out and wash water and solids dis-
charged only at the end of the day, this does not significantly
affect the volume of concrete delivered if the truck delivers
four or five batches each day.
However, when a 1 yd3 (0.76 m3) batch is mixed in a clean
10 yd3 (7.6 m3) capacity truck mixer, the effect on concrete pro-
portions can be dramatic. Compared to the batched propor-
tions, if the amount of mortar retained is equal to 2 % of the
weight of a capacity batch, the cement content of the concrete
discharged will drop from 600 to 470 lb/yd3 (356 to 280
kg/m3), and the sand as a percentage of the total aggregate will
decrease from 36 to 26 %. The batch will be harsh to handle
and will have low cement content and low strength.
 The solution is to increase cement, sand, and water
weights up to about 40 % in such small truck-mixed batches, re-
ferred to as short loads. If a clean tilting central mixer is used,
the effect on proportions is much more dramatic since the
gross volume of the drum is about 25 % larger than a truck
mixer, the surface to be coated is much greater, and the hold
back perhaps 50 % greater.
Ordering Information
Both ASTM specifications include the fundamental elements of
prescription and performance specifications and list the basic
information needed by both parties. However, the purchaser
often includes additional requirements. Sometimes this is an
attempt to ensure quality, perhaps because of past bad experi-
ences or in an effort to provide characteristics that were not
readily available in standard mixes. The growing number of
types of chemical admixtures and supplementary cementitious
materials permits the concrete producer to produce concrete
with properties quite different from the “standard mixes” in
common use a few years ago. Some of the newer applications
are flowing concrete, self-consolidating concrete, anti-wash-out
concrete, low-permeability corrosion-resistant concrete, con-
crete with reduced shrinkage characteristics, fiber-reinforced
concrete, controlled low-strength materials, pervious concrete,
and high-performance concrete. Concrete with three or even
five admixtures is becoming more common. Control of such
mixtures can be a significant challenge for concrete producers,
especially when a variety of concrete types are batched during
a particular period.
The Ordering Information section requires the purchaser
to specify the size of coarse aggregate, slump, air content, unit
weight of structural lightweight concrete, and one of three op-
tions: A, B, or C. The options are as follows:
Option A is the performance format in which the pur-
chaser specifies strength and the producer selects proportions
of ingredients.
Option B is the prescription format in which the pur-
chaser specifies cement content, maximum water content, and
admixtures.
Option C is a mixed format in which the purchaser speci-
fies minimum cement content, required strength, and admix-
tures, if required.
At least at this point, the performance format of ordering
concrete in C 94/C 94M is based on strength. A broader per-
formance-based method that addresses other characteristics to
include durability is most likely covered in job contract docu-
ments, which would apply. The producer should ensure that
the basic information required for the mixture is provided with
the order, although C 94/C 94M indicates that it is the pur-
chaser’s responsibility. The situations can vary but in many
cases the producer may have more expertise or knowledge
than the purchaser on acceptable local practice [13].
Water-Cementitious Materials Ratio in
Specifications
The A, B, and C options do not include a requirement for a
maximum water-cementitious materials (w/cm) ratio even
though Option B does include both cement and water content.
The principal reason that it is not included is the difficulty of
actually measuring the w/cm ratio in practice. From the user’s
perspective, a w/cm ratio is needed to ensure durability, that is,
resistance to freezing and thawing, deicer salts and associated
scaling, sulfate exposure, or intrusion of chlorides in rein-
forced concrete. The maximum w/cm ratios usually cited are
those required in the “Building Code Requirements for Struc-
tural Concrete” (ACI 318) [14] or “Specifications for Structural
Concrete” (ACI 301) [15], which range from 0.50 to 0.40. In
many high-performance concretes, it is possible to produce
concretes with w/cm ratios as low as 0.30 or lower and values
as low as 0.35 are being specified in parking structures for re-
sistance to intrusion of chlorides.
The concrete producer has difficulty conforming to a max-
imum w/cm ratio since the amount of water necessary to pro-
duce a given slump will vary with local ingredient materials
and delivery time, which depends on delays related to traffic or
on the job site. Additionally, the moisture content of the ag-
gregates will vary from batch to batch making accurate meas-
urement and/or adjustments difficult. Another difficulty is that
the procedures used by specifiers to determine compliance
with maximum w/cm ratio specifications are rarely defined;
and if every batch is to be checked, the production and place-
ment schedule will be disrupted.
In practice, specifiers use a number of systems of enforc-
ing maximum w/cm ratio specifications. One of the simplest is
to require submission of laboratory trial batch or previous
field mixture proportions with accompanying test data demon-
strating compliance with the specified maximum w/cm ratio
and then relying on routine strength tests to determine com-
pliance. This system breaks down if the specified strength is
not reasonably consistent with the strength obtained at the de-
sired w/cm ratio. Increasingly, large agencies are requiring 2 to
4 yd3 (1.5 to 3 m3) trial batches instead of laboratory trial
batches to improve the accuracy of the mix approval process.
For all of the above reasons, if the w/cm ratio is to be
strictly enforced in the field, then compliance with a specified
maximum w/cm ratio for field acceptance is inappropriate
without an understood statistical tolerance, not unlike that
used in ACI 318 or in ASTM C 94/C 94M for strength.
On well-controlled jobs, the standard deviation of the
w/cm ratio ranges from 0.02 to 0.03. A concrete producer
would have to furnish concrete with an average w/cm ratio of
as low as 0.35 or even lower to avoid batches that have calcu-
lated w/cm ratios greater than 0.40!
For some time AASHTO has had a test procedure, AASHTO
T 318, for determining the water content of concrete by rapidly
drying a small sample of concrete in a microwave oven [16].
Currently, ASTM subcommittee on Fresh Concrete Tests,
C09.60, has started work on standardizing a similar procedure.
The idea is that the measured water content in the test can be
used with the recorded quantity of cementitious material
batched to calculate a w/cm ratio. Several State DOTs have tried
the method and although they have thought it was useful it has
not been widely used in their specifications. The Port Authority
of New York and New Jersey have used it in specifications that
include payment adjustments in airport construction and feel
that it has helped greatly to improve construction quality [17].
The writers’ opinions on w/cm ratio specifications is that they
should not be used and do not, as a single mixture pa-
rameter, provide better assurance of “durability” than other
much more reliable, more accurately measured performance
characteristics. At a minimum, the strength level specified for
the concrete should be consistent with the specified w/cm ra-
tio, so that the purchaser is at least assured that concrete being
delivered is of the desired quality. This issue is one that has
been under considerable discussion for several years [18,19].
Approval of Mixtures
Under all three of the options of ordering concrete in ASTM C
94/C 94M and C 685/C 685M, if the purchaser requests it, the
manufacturer is required to furnish proportions of ingredients
that will be used. This information is related to that required to
be furnished on the delivery ticket.
The system of requiring submittal and “approval” of con-
crete proportions is firmly embedded in specifications and
codes in the United States. This process started prior to about
1940 when virtually all concrete was furnished as prescription
or cement content mixes—not strength or for other perform-
ance-based requirements. C 94/C 94M does not address mixture
submittals. These are addressed in ACI 318 for mixtures and in
ACI 301 for mixtures and construction means and methods.
Today, most mixtures have specified design strengths.
Once mixture proportions are identified in a submittal, it is dif-
ficult to reduce cement content without generating opposition
or suspicion from specifiers or contractors. The net result is
that there is little incentive for the concrete producer to im-
plement a quality control program that is designed to control
strength with a high degree of uniformity at the target level
that complies with the specified strength, and the concrete is
furnished with higher cement content and much higher
strength than is actually needed.
There has been some question as to the usefulness of a sub-
mittal of mixture proportions in the case of a strength-based
specification. The design professional or specifier rarely “ap-
proves” the submittal, and the strength acceptance criteria of
strength test results during the course of the job govern in any
event. Ideally, for a performance-based specification, the sub-
mittal should furnish mixture pre-qualification test data indi-
cating compliance with specification requirements. The com-
position of the concrete mixture that describes the details of the
ingredients and proportions are really irrelevant. Selected job
site acceptance tests can then be used to demonstrate compli-
ance with the job specification and the pertinent submittal.
Another aspect of adhering to submitted mixture propor-
tions is that adjustments to concrete mixtures are necessary on
a real time basis to accommodate variations in ingredient ma-
terials and seasonal factors. Oftentimes a required resubmittal
can delay construction schedules. If the producer was free to
vary proportions to produce the required performance, the in-
centive would exist for him to invest in sophisticated quality
control processes that facilitate the production, batching, de-
livery, and testing of consistent and uniform concrete batches.
Adoption of performance-based requirements and elimination
of prescriptive mixture proportions are necessary before con-
crete suppliers will have the incentive to adopt more formal
and advanced quality control systems.
There is, in the American Concrete Institute (ACI) Building
Code ACI 318, a provision that permits a producer to recalcu-
late the required over-design when he has accumulated 15 tests
and to make adjustments in proportions to conform to a lower
required average strength level compared to what he would
furnish if he did not have a strength test record. This is at least
a beginning for performance specifications.
Materials
This section includes references to the commonly used ASTM
specifications for cement, aggregates, admixtures, and water. A
number of materials such as fibers, expansive cement, corro-
sion inhibitors, and other ingredients are not included, either
because there is no ASTM specification or because there is a
feeling that the use of the material requires different batching,
mixing, delivering, or testing procedures than those for “nor-
mal” concretes.
Water Quality
In 2004 a specification for mixing water for use in concrete,
ASTM C 1602/C 1602M, was approved and the requirements
for water in C 94/C 94M make reference to this specification.
ASTM C 1602/C 1602M defines water sources as potable, non-
potable, and water from concrete production operations. It rec-
ognizes that one or more of these sources may be combined to
make up the total mixing water used in concrete. Potable wa-
ter is permitted to be used without qualification testing. Quali-
fication requirements and associated testing frequencies are
established for other sources of water. The qualification of wa-
ter sources requires testing for effects of the water source on
strength and setting time when compared to control concrete
made with potable water. The qualification requirements indi-
cate that the strength should not be less than 90 % of the con-
trol and setting time should not be retarded by more than 90
min or accelerated by more than 60 min. The 90 % limit for
strength is intended to allow equivalence to acceptable water
with a statistical allowance for testing variability. The qualifi-
cation criteria apply to the total mixing water with the intent
that when a concrete producer qualifies a certain critical com-
position of water, those compositions of lesser impact on con-
crete properties can be used without qualification testing. For
instance, if a producer conducts qualification tests for a com-
bination of wash water and potable water at a solids content of
50 000 ppm, mixing water with lower concentrations of solids
are thereby qualified for use.
Considerable pressure from evolving environmental regu-
lations is forcing the ready-mixed concrete industry to reuse
more of its process water. These regulations control, and in
many cases prohibit, the disposal of wash water, yard runoff,
and returned concrete. As a result producers are increasingly
reusing wash water as mixing water and are considering in-
corporation of returned concrete or the partially hydrated ce-
ment from returned concrete in freshly mixed concrete.
Mixer Wash Water
ASTM C 1602/C 1602M permits the use of water from mixer
wash-out operations as mixing water in concrete if the water
meets the qualification tests for strength and set time men-
tioned above. The qualification criteria apply to the total mix-
ing water. The specification requires the density of wash water
to be measured daily and establishes testing frequency for
strength and setting time based on the density of the total wa-
ter that the producer intends to use. This recognizes that more
monitoring and control is needed when wash water with a
higher solids content is used.
Optional limits can be invoked by the purchaser on the
amount of chlorides, sulfates, alkalies, and total solids in the wa-
ter. The specification provides for a testing frequency for these
tests. As currently written, ASTM C 1602/C 1602M has an op-
tional limit of 50 000 ppm of solids in total mixing water. Typi-
cally, this permits up to about 15 lb/yd3 (9 kg/m3) of dry solids.
It should be noted that the amount of air-entraining ad-
mixture required to produce the required air content may in-
crease, and even double, if these admixtures are added to high
pH wash water before the water is batched into the mixer. The
air-entraining admixtures should be added either with the sand
or with an increment of clean mixing water. Although it does
not appear that similar problems are experienced when other
commonly used accelerators, retarders, or water reducers are
batched into or at the same time as wash water, this possibility
should not be ignored with the increasingly sophisticated
admixture systems that are being developed and used.
Research and industry experience with the use of wash water
at relatively low solids content has been that effects on product
quality are not significant or important [20–23]. These studies
represent the use of wash water that has been clarified through
a settling pond system.
Increasingly the industry is moving towards zero-discharge
production facilities. Returned concrete and mixer wash water
is processed through concrete recycling or reclaiming units
that wash out and separate the aggregates. The cement and
sand fines are maintained in a slurry suspension in agitation
tanks. This slurry is then used as a part or whole of the mixing
water in concrete. The percentage used will depend on the den-
sity of the wash water slurry, which is related to the solids con-
tent. This operational process eliminates steps of removal of
fines from process or storm water settling basins, drying, and
disposal. Water slurries used at higher solids content, com-
posed primarily of partially hydrated cement, cause an in-
crease in the mixing water requirement for target slump and
can result in lower strength. Hydrated cement also causes ac-
celeration of the setting time of concrete [24–27]. Hydration
stabilizing admixtures (HSA), which suspend the hydration of
cement, have been used very effectively to overcome some of
the negative effects of using recycled water at higher solids
content. The use of these admixtures facilitates the use of a
larger quantity of wash water slurries with higher solids con-
tent without adverse affects on concrete properties. This allows
the producer to maintain a production mass balance whereby
the generated wash water is reused. Complete recycling sys-
tems include accurate water density gages, separate tanks that
feed admixture-treated water at constant solids content, and
computerized systems that automate the process [25,28]. Ef-
fective admixture dosages can be established by determining
the loss on ignition (LOI) of the dried solids from the water
slurry. A low LOI value represents a low degree of hydration of
cement indicating that the HSA is functioning for the storage
duration of the slurry [25]. A simpler qualitative quality control
tool is to monitor the rate of settlement of solids in a column
of water. Unhydrated cement will settle at a faster rate indicat-
ing the effectiveness of the admixture dosage used [28].
ASTM C 1603/C 1603M establishes procedures for meas-
uring the density and solids content of wash water slurries
reclaimed from returned concrete. It establishes methods of
estimating the solids content of water from the measured
density, a property that is easier to measure in production sit-
uations. ASTM C 1603/C 1603M also provides guidance on
blending two sources of water to stay within a predetermined
or specified target solids content or density.
Returned Concrete
ASTM C 94/C 94M is silent on the reuse of returned concrete
but there are efforts currently to address it in the specification.
In this scenario the concrete remaining in a truck mixer is tem-
pered with water at the job-site and fresh materials are batched
on top of it at the plant. Sufficient caution and control should
be exercised to ensure that the resulting concrete mixture
meets the purchaser’s requirements. Factors that affect the
properties of the resulting concrete include the quantity and
age of the returned concrete used, cement factor, and temper-
ature history. Generally, the resulting concrete will be of lower
strength due to a higher water content and will set faster. These
effects are exacerbated when a larger quantity of returned
concrete is used and when the returned concrete has reached
a higher degree of hydration [29,30]. Hydration stabilizing ad-
mixtures (HSA) were originally developed to treat and reuse re-
turned concrete. Returned concrete is stabilized for reuse on
the same day or even the next day. Laboratory studies have
demonstrated that returned concrete can be successfully
treated with HSA without adversely affecting concrete proper-
ties [31–33]. While several concrete producers have installed
systems that allow for the controlled and quantified use of
HSA-treated returned concrete, the operational challenges of
tracking a variety of factors have limited its widespread use.
Slump and Air Content
The section on slump in ASTM C 94/C 94M contains tolerances
in two different formats: a “maximum” or “not to exceed” value,
and a target value. The tolerance varies by level of slump. It also
establishes a 30-min period after arrival on the job during which
the producer is responsible for the slump. The job-site addition
of high-range water reducers (HRWR) to produce flowing con-
crete has created a number of field control problems when the
slump of the flowing concrete is subject to strict slump control
and testing. If job-site adjustment is preferred, a more practical
procedure is to specify the slump of the concrete before addi-
tion of the high-range water reducer and to accept the fact that
the slump of the flowing concrete will vary. New admixture
chemistries for high-range water reducers have reduced the
problems associated with slump loss with time and improved
the linear relationship of dosage to concrete slump level. Slump
retention has also improved with these newer generation
HRWR admixtures. It is more common for high-range water re-
ducers to be added at the plant. Requiring a slump level prior
to adding the admixture at the plant is not practical. With in-
creased use of self-consolidating concrete, alternative measures
of concrete consistency, such as slump flow and other empiri-
cal measures to quantify the rheology of concrete will be nec-
essary. Such methods are in the process of being standardized.
The section on air content contains a table of recom-
mended air contents taken from ACI Committee 211 [34]. The
delivery tolerance is ±1.5 % of the specified air content. When
a preliminary sample is taken prior to discharge and has a low
air content, C 94/C 94M allows the addition of air entraining
admixture followed by 30 revolutions of mixing.
There have been a number of problems that have surfaced
recently in the control and measurement of air content. Some
years ago, Meininger [35] and Helmuth [36] described tests in-
dicating that some fly ashes containing carbon adsorb air-
entraining agent. This caused a higher dosage requirement of
the admixture for the required air content and a reduction of
concrete air content during delivery. Ozyildirim [37] and Hover
[38] have made studies to determine if the pressure meter ac-
curately measures the air content of plastic concrete and
whether the pressure method provides a reasonable estimate of
the amount to be expected in hardened concrete. These issues
are the subject of other chapters in this book. However, the an-
swer generally appears to be that ASTM Test Method for Air
Content of Freshly Mixed Concrete by the Pressure Method (C
231) does provide the desired measurement and that the air
content of hardened concrete is often either lower or higher for
a multitude of reasons. Another aspect is that newer technolo-
gies for air-entraining admixtures create more stable air void
systems but need additional mixing energy to develop the re-
quired air void system and air content. It has been reported that
the air void systems generated from these air entraining ad-
mixtures are of smaller size and could possibly function for
freezing and thawing resistance at lower total air contents. The
primary intent with entrained air is to obtain a proper air void
system in concrete characterized by a proper spacing factor and
bubble size, indicated by the specific surface. These parameters
have been typically measured in hardened concrete specimens
using ASTM C 457. More recently, there have been attempts to
standardize the Air Void Analyzer that measures the distribu-
tion of the size of air voids in plastic concrete [39,40].
Another issue is the observation that much of the initial air
can be lost during pumping, particularly with the newer long
boom pumps with 5-in. (125-mm) lines. The authors believe that
this occurs when a section of the boom is essentially vertical and
concrete slides down from its weight and develops a vacuum in
the pump line. The air bubbles then expand and fail to reform
when the concrete drops out the end of the pump line or im-
pacts an elbow in the boom [41]. The solution has been to insert
some resistance in the line. This can be as simple as inserting a
loop in the flexible hose or laying a length of hose on the deck
[42]. Under normal conditions, the loss of air in pumping
should not exceed 1 or 1.5 %. Air can also be lost when concrete
is dropped or discharged from a belt conveyor. Hover has
demonstrated that even though air content is reduced through
a variety of placement methods that cause concrete to fall
through a certain distance, the volume of air lost is in the larger
size bubbles and the remaining air content is adequate to pro-
vide resistance to cycles of freezing and thawing [43].
C 94/C 94M establishes that the point of sampling for
acceptance testing is at the discharge point from the trans-
portation unit. Some specifications require testing the con-
crete at the point of placement in the job, which makes the
concrete producer, the contractor, and the pumping contrac-
tor responsible for the final results for acceptance of the tests
for air content and strength. The concrete producer prefers
that tests be made on discharge from the truck. If he agrees to
provide 8 % air because 3 % will be lost during placing, it
should be recognized that strength tests will be reduced 15 to
20 % if cylinders are made from samples obtained at the truck
discharge. Likewise, if the test samples are obtained after
pumping with the pump located near the truck with the boom
near vertical, the air content will be reduced. However, if this
concrete is placed at a higher level with a less critical boom
configuration, the air will not be lost and the strength in-place
may be significantly lower. The problem is exacerbated if the
pump location is such that placement occurs both close to the
pump with a critical boom configuration and also a long dis-
tance away where the boom will be in a horizontal position.
The contractor, pumper, specifier, and producer need to work
closely together to determine if loss of air is likely to be a prob-
lem and what procedures will be used. Naturally these are is-
sues that must be resolved in a pre-job conference or earlier.
Another problem is the development of surface delamina-
tions and blisters when air-entrained concrete is steel troweled.
This occurs in industrial floors with mechanical and vibrating
screeds that are mechanically troweled. Although a number of
factors are involved, the solution is to avoid the use of en-
trained air in industrial floors or, at least, to keep the air con-
tent below 3 or 4 %.
Batching and Measuring Materials by
ASTM C 94/C 94M
ASTM C 94/C 94M requirements for measuring materials rec-
ognize both individual scales and hoppers for weighing a sin-
gle material and cumulative scales and an associated hopper
for weighing more than one material. This system, and the ter-
minology that is used, developed from the use of dial scales
where the material weights were accumulated as materials
were weighed. With the increasing use of computerized batch-
ing equipment, it has now become possible to have the
computer do the subtraction and print the weights of the indi-
vidual materials in a cumulative batcher, including a recogni-
tion of the zero reading or tare. A note is needed in ASTM C
94/C 94M to explain the fact that cumulative tolerances apply
to cumulative batchers irrespective of the format used to re-
port the batch weights. This means that the tolerance of any
individual weighing is based on a tolerance percentage of the
intended cumulative weight.
Cementitious Materials
Cement, slag, fly ash, and other pozzolans may be weighed cu-
mulatively on a single scale provided cement is weighed first.
The weighing tolerance is ±1 % of the required cumulative
weight. For small batches where the cumulative weight is less
than 30 % of scale capacity, the tolerance is from —0 to +4 %.
The primary reason for weighing cement first is related to the
flow characteristics of fly ash that could cause it to be over-
weighed and result in a lower batched quantity of cement. This
requirement tends to ensure the correct cement weight and, if
anything, an excess of mineral admixtures. Cumulative weigh-
ing of cement and supplementary cementitious materials (also
referred to as mineral admixtures) also has the advantage that
the batcher tends to “rathole” when it discharges into the mixer
and the cementitious materials blend as they are loaded. There
have been a few instances when individual separate batchers
were used for cement and fly ash and the fly ash wound up in
one part of the batch, separate from most of the cement. When
separate batchers are used, which is rare, the batcher discharge
must blend the two materials.
Batching silica fume is not addressed in the current ver-
sion of C 94/C 94M; however, this is currently being considered
since it is a small amount and if it is weighed cumulatively as
the last ingredient it is possible to meet current batching toler-
ances by batching 60 % of the desired amount if 5 % by weight
of cementitious materials is desired. With the load cells and au-
tomation now available it is possible to treat the silica fume as
a separate material and batch it with an accuracy of 0.3 % of
scale capacity. Normally this would be within ±10 % for 5 % of
silica fume and correspondingly less for 10 or 15 % of silica
fume by weight of cementitious materials. Another alternative
might be to weigh the silica fume to 100.3 % of the amount de-
sired with a tolerance of ±0.3 % of the capacity of the scale.
This will slow down the batching process. Producers still using
dial scales and 5- or 10-year-old automation are likely to use sil-
ica fume in preweighed bags. Likewise even those with the
newer systems should not attempt to weigh silica fume for
batches less than about half the batching capacity of the
cumulative system. Naturally if the plant uses a separate indi-
vidual silica fume weigh batcher the tolerance would be ±2 %
of the desired amount. This would speed up batching and pro-
vide some flexibility in controlling the batching process when
silica fume is used.
 Although it is not addressed in ASTM C 94/C 94M, many
concrete plants contain several silos for cementitious materi-
als, and there is always the possibility that material can be
placed in the wrong silo. Producers generally use different col-
ored fill pipes, different sized connections, signs, and distinc-
tively colored bills of lading to distinguish between materials.
In some cases, fill pipes can be at different locations in the
plant. Some producers use keys and locks on fly ash pipes and
control access to the keys. Because fly ash tends to flow freely
through cracks, some specifications [44,45] do not permit com-
mon walls between multi-compartment cement and fly ash si-
los. The space between these double-walled bins needs to be
free-draining with access provided for inspection.
Aggregates
Aggregates can be weighed either in cumulative or individual
weigh batchers. The basic batching tolerance in cumulative
batches is 1 % of the cumulative weight and 2 % of the required
amount in individual batchers. For cumulative weights less
than 30 % of scale capacity, the tolerance is ±0.3 % of scale ca-
pacity or ±3 % of the required cumulative weight, whichever
is less. This means that at less than 10 % of scale capacity, the
3 % tolerance will govern.
Mixing Water
ASTM C 94/C 94M defines mixing water as any water added to
the batch plus surface moisture on aggregates, ice, or liquid
admixtures. The tolerance on batching added water is ±1 % of
the total water content, not a percentage of that being batched.
The tolerance on the total water is ±3 % of the total water con-
tent. This does mean that if a water meter is accurate to about
10 lb (4.5 kg) or 1 gal (3.78 L), and the nominal total water con-
tent is 280 lb/yd3 (166 kg/m3), then the minimum batch size
that can be batched is about 3 yd3 (2.3 m3). The NRMCA Check-
list [46] establishes a tolerance of ±1.5 % on added water and
is considered more realistic. When water is weighed, the pres-
ent ASTM C 94/C 94M tolerances are more easily achieved, but
the ultimate importance to concrete quality is questionable.
The total mixing water consists of that measured in the
plant plus that from free moisture on aggregates, or an ad-
justment for that absorbed by less than SSD aggregate; that
from wash water measured through the batch plant; and that
from certain water-based admixtures that are used in
significant quantities, such as high dosages of high range
water reducing admixtures, corrosion inhibitors, or shrinkage
reducing admixtures. Other sources of mixing water include
that which is in the mixer during a job site wash out, which
is generally quantifiable through the measuring device on the
truck water tank (site gage or water meter), and some mini-
mal quantities that could enter the mixer at the wash-down
rack before the vehicle departs the plant. Additionally, water
may be added from the truck water tank on arrival at the job
site that is within the limit permitted by the specification or
that which controls the strength of the concrete. Often the
delivery ticket will indicate the maximum additional water
permissible. The truck driver is normally advised by the
company to record the amount of job-site-added water on the
delivery ticket and obtain the signature of the person
requesting this addition.
Mixers need to be cleaned at the job site before returning
to the plant. This will require about 40 gal of water from the
truck water tank to wash down the truck chute, interior of
the drum, and fins. When facilities are not provided at the job
site to discharge this water, it is carried back to the plant and
either discharged or used with the next batch with the appro-
priate corrections to the plant batch water. The accuracy of the
quantity in the mixer truck prior to batching is possibly ques-
tionable as this is generally verbally communicated by the
driver to the batch man.
Chemical Admixtures
Chemical admixtures are rarely batched by weight, except
when they are added in prepackaged fixed amounts. Volumet-
ric dispenser systems are quite sophisticated and are inte-
grated into plant automation. Admixtures are required to be
batched to within ±3 % of the desired amount or plus or mi-
nus the amount or dosage required per 100 lb (50 kg) of ce-
ment, whichever is greater.
It should be noted that on small batches of lean concrete
the admixture batching accuracy may be as large as ±25 %
of the amount batched. Even in a 10-yd3 (7.6-m3) capacity
batch, if the dosage rate is 1/2 oz/100 lb (0.3 mL/kg) and the
dispenser is accurate to ±1 oz (30 mL), the overall batching
accuracy will be ±5 %. However, variations of this size would
not change the air content, setting time, or concrete strength.
In a 2-yd3 (1.5-m3) load, the effects will be significant.
Batching Plant
The requirements of ASTM C 94/C 94M for the batching plant
are relatively basic and straightforward. Scales are required to
be accurate to ±0.2 % of the capacity of the scale when tested
with standard weights. C 94/C 94M requires testing the scale at
its quarter points. The scale accuracy requirements of the
NRMCA Check List [46] are the same as in C 94/C 94M, and
those of the Concrete Plant Manufacturer’s Bureau (CPMB)
[45] for new equipment are ±0.1 % of capacity. The scale ac-
curacy and calibration requirements are similar to NIST Hand-
book 44 [47] with some minor differences that were clarified
by a revision to C 94/C 94M in 1992.
Scales in concrete plants generally consist of a container
supported at the four corners and transmit reduced loads
through a system of levers to a load cell.
Calibrated beam or springless dial-indicating devices are
now beginning to disappear. Use of load cells to support the
batchers has the potential to simplify a scale by eliminating
much of the lever system and dial scale that has typically been
used. Earlier load cells were not widely accepted since the dial
scale provides a mechanical backup in case of a failure of the
electronic load cell system in the middle of a placement.
ASTM C 94/C 94M does not define or require different
types of batching controls. The CPMB Standards [45] provide
a consistent terminology for plant control systems.
A manual control is one that is operated manually and is
dependent on the operator’s visual observation of the scale or
meter. A semiautomatic control is one that, when started, stops
automatically when the required weight has been reached. A
semiautomatic interlocked control is similar but contains pro-
visions to prevent discharge of the device until the material is
within tolerances.
An automated control starts and stops automatically and
includes interlocks to:
(a) prevent charging until the scale returns to zero,
(b) prevent charging if the discharge gate is open,
(c) prevent discharging if the charging gate is open, and
(d) prevent discharge until the material is within tolerances.
 These definitions refer to the capability of a control as de-
signed but overrides are in place to allow for manual control
of batching.
A batching system consists of the required combination of
individual batchers. The CPMB Standards define the following
types:
1. Manual—a combination of manual batchers except that
water or admixture batchers may be semiautomatic or
automatic.
2. Partially automatic—includes at least one automatic or
semiautomatic batcher. Interlocks are optional.
3. Semiautomatic batching—a system of semiautomatic inter-
locked or automatic batchers and volumetric devices in
which the interlocks, other than those required for indi-
vidual batchers, are optional.
4. Automatic batching—requires a combination of automatic
devices:
(a) that must start with a single starting mechanism, ex-
cept water or admixture not batched at the same time,
and may have separate starting devices;
(b) where each batcher must return to zero within toler-
ance and reset to start; and
(c) where discharge of any ingredient may not start until
individual batchers have returned to zero and all
weighed ingredients have been batched within
tolerance.
The concrete producer is constantly trying to reduce the
time required for batching and moving truck mixers through
the plant. Several innovations in batching efficiency and plant
configurations have been developed to facilitate this. There are
batching systems that do not exactly follow the definition of
automatic systems above by which the batching of the next
batch is started before the previous batch is completely
charged into a mixer. This sequence allows a higher number
of trucks to be moved through the plant and increases the
production rating of the plant.
The development of computerized batching systems and
control panels has made great strides, and the cost of such
systems continues to decline. These have greatly simplified
the process of recording batch weights and printing delivery
tickets.
Recorders
The CPMB Standards define both digital and graphical
recorders. Graphical recorders were once popular for large jobs
where one mix design was produced for extended periods. This
made it easy to identify mistakes and malfunctions. More
recently, digital recorders have become the norm. They print de-
livery tickets, provide information for billing and inventory con-
trol, and provide a record for the producer to determine what
the scale did for every batch shipped. The CPMB Standards de-
fine three types: “Digital Recorders,” “Digital Batch Documenta-
tion Recorders,” and “Digital Concrete Certification Recorders.”
All require that if target weights, simulated weights, or other
than actual batch weights are recorded, they must be clearly
identified. Digital recorders must reproduce the scale reading
within 0.1 % of scale capacity or within one increment on volu-
metric batching devices. The differences between the types are
the degree to which they record and print tickets, identify the
material batched, give an indication of whether all materials are
within batching tolerances, sand moisture content, and whether
they record and print basic information such as plant, truck,
destination, and space for the driver and purchaser to sign.
Mixing Concrete
There are three types of mixing operations defined in ASTM C
94/C 94M:
a. Central mixing where concrete is mixed in a central plant
mixer and delivered to the job in a revolving drum truck,
an agitator, or nonagitating unit.
b. Shrink mixing where concrete materials are blended in a
central plant mixer with the mixing completed in a re-
volving drum truck mixer.
c. Truck mixing where ingredients are loaded into a revolv-
ing drum truck mixer for mixing and delivery.
The Standards of Plant Mixer Manufacturers Division
(PMMD) of the Concrete Plant Manufacturers Bureau [45] de-
fine four principal types of concrete plant mixers:
1. Tilting mixers—revolving drum mixers that discharge by
tilting. This is the type used in most ready-mixed concrete
plants. Standard sizes range from 2 to 15 yd3 (1.5 to 11.5
m3). The rated capacity ranges from 30 to 50 % of gross
drum volume.
2. Vertical shaft mixers—these mixers have an annular mix-
ing compartment with rotating blades or paddles. The mix-
ing compartment or pan may rotate or not. Generally, they
discharge through a door or hatch in the bottom of the
“pan.” They were popular several years ago because of
their low overall height and rapid mixing, but because of
rapid wear are little used today.
3. Non-tilting drum mixers—these are revolving drum hori-
zontal axis non-tilting mixers. These are similar to a truck
mixer in operation. There has been some renewed interest
in these mixers recently with demonstrated shorter mixing
cycles, reduced wear, and less noise.
4. Horizontal shaft mixer—these have a horizontal cylindrical
mixing compartment with blades or paddles rotating
about the horizontal axis. A number of new designs have
been introduced recently although the general concept is
not new.
In addition to the recognized PMMD types, there has
been considerable interest in several other high-energy mixing
designs that are reported to provide more efficient mixing at
higher energy levels, presumably shear rates that result in
more efficient dispersion of cement and produce significant
cement savings [48]. One of the most popular is a horizontal
shaft planetary mixer that is used in precast concrete plants.
Another type is a slurry mixer that mixes the cementitious
materials and water prior to charging this mixed slurry into
a truck mixer. It is generally an addition to a truck mixing
operation.
Central Mixing
The choice between central or truck mixing depends on a large
number of factors. The technical advantage of central mixing
is that it provides centralized control of the mixing process and
requires a less-skilled truck mixer operator. However, the
CPMB study of economic factors [49,50] shows that the deci-
sion will depend on a number of other factors, including the
market area, market volume, blade life in trucks, and truck uti-
lization. The percentage of the ready-mixed concrete produced
by central mixing is in the range of 20 to 25 % of total plants.
This contrasts with Europe and Japan where close to 100 % of
ready-mixed concrete is produced in central mixing plants.
The principal advantages of truck mixing are lower capital
investment, lower plant heights, lower electrical costs, and
somewhat greater flexibility when long deliveries are required
in rural areas. With special loading sequences in truck mixing
plants designed to keep cement essentially dry until the con-
crete is mixed at the job site, loss of slump and use of retem-
pering water can be avoided [51,52].
In the mid-1960s, the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) [52,53] conducted mixing efficiency tests of tilting
drum central mixers. Generally, they demonstrated that 45 to
90 s mixing times were feasible if care was taken to blend or
ribbon-load all ingredients as they entered the mixer. The im-
portance of the loading sequences is likely much less if, as in
most ready-mixed concrete operations, the concrete will be
transported in a revolving drum truck mixer. As will be noted
later, loading sequences to ensure uniform mixing in truck
mixers must not attempt to achieve uniform ribbon loading or
blending of ingredients.
Although most State Departments of Transportation
(DOTs) permit 60 or 90 s mixing time in central mixers, ASTM
C 94/C 94M still requires a minimum of 1 min mixing for the
first cubic yard and an additional 15 s for each additional cu-
bic yard. This minimum can be reduced if mixing uniformity
criteria are met after shorter periods.
Shrink Mixing
Early in the development of the ready-mixed concrete industry,
shrink mixing was designed to permit hauling a larger batch in
a truck mixer. The idea was to partially mix and shrink the vol-
ume of concrete before it was placed in a truck mixer for final
mixing. Because of weight laws only a small percentage of pro-
ducers are able to ship a mixer loaded to 80 % of gross drum
volume. A large number of central mix plants use shrink mix-
ing to optimize production cycle times by using a shorter pe-
riod of 30 to 60 s of mixing in the central mixer and complete
the process by additional mixing at mixing speed in the truck
mixer. This also reduces wear in the truck mixers.
Truck Mixing
Two general types of inclined axis truck mixers are in use to-
day: the traditional rear discharge unit, and the front discharge
unit. Because the front discharge unit requires a special truck
chassis, it tends to be a somewhat more expensive unit than a
rear discharge unit. With a rear discharge unit, the mixer can
be more easily positioned on the truck chassis to comply with
the truck weight laws of the various states.
Many contractors prefer front discharge units because the
truck driver can drive into the job with little direction from
contractor personnel, control chute movement, and discharge
from within the truck cab.
The requirements of ASTM C 94/C 94M for truck mixers
are that the volume of mixed concrete not exceed 63 % of the
gross drum volume for truck-mixed or shrink-mixed concrete
or 80 % when used as an agitator for central mixed concrete.
The extra carrying capacity of central mixed concrete is
much less of a consideration with present weight laws and to-
day’s 9 to 11 yd3 (7 to 8.5 m3) mixers. When units were only 5
or 6 yd3 (4 to 4.5 m3) capacity, the angle of inclination of the
drum was greater and mixers would hold 80 % of the gross
drum capacity, even in hilly areas. With the larger units used
today the angle of inclination of the drum to the horizontal is
less and few, if any, can carry 80 % of the gross drum volume
without spilling, especially in hilly areas. The large discharge
openings used on truck mixers designed to discharge low
slump concrete for slip formed and paving applications are
especially sensitive to spilling concrete when they are used to
deliver concrete at a slump higher than about 4 in. (100 mm).
Front discharge units tend to have much larger gross drum
volumes than rear discharge units to allow for the cylindrical
section to clear over and past the truck cab and to avoid spilling
concrete. The result is that the manufacturer’s rated mixing ca-
pacity may be less than half the gross drum volume. The Stan-
dards of the Truck Mixer Manufacturers Bureau (TMMB) [54]
establishes minimum and maximum gross volume require-
ments for standard rated sizes of rear discharge truck mixers.
The same minimum limits apply to front discharge units but the
maximum limits are not applicable. All truck mixers that have a
TMMB Rating Plate conform to C 94/C 94M required maximum
of 63 % of gross drum volume for concrete mixing [54].
ASTM C 94/C 94M requires revolution counters on truck
mixers and that the mixer be capable of mixing concrete in 70
to 100 revolutions.
Uniformity of mixing in truck mixers depends greatly on
the batching sequence used to load cement aggregates and wa-
ter into the drum for mixing.
1. Ribbon Loading. Attempting to ribbon all materials simul-
taneously should not be done, but with several modifica-
tions it is preferred and most often used. The charging
of solids into a mixer should be started with the coarse
aggregate to ensure that about 10 % of the required weight
enters into the head of the drum. Then the coarse aggregate
and sand should be ribbon loaded together with about 10 %
coarse aggregate loaded last to clean off the blades in the
discharge end. Starting the charging sequence with coarse
aggregate helps avoid sand packing in the head of the
drum. The cementitious materials should be ribboned with
fine and coarse aggregate starting after the sand starts, ex-
tending through the charging procedure but ending before
the coarse aggregate to reduce dust. The charging sequence
of the water is important. About 25 % of the added water is
batched as the last ingredient either from the plant or the
rear nozzle from the truck water tank. The other 75 % of the
added water is incorporated prior to the solids and portions
ribboned with the solids. The final water batched washes all
the solids into the mixer and ensures uniform slump and
strength after adequate mixing.
2. Cement-last loadings are typically used for special cements
or when charging cement from a remote bin. This loading
follows procedures similar to ribbon loadings for aggre-
gate except adding a higher percentage of coarse aggre-
gate up front. The charging procedure is sensitive to the
quantity of water added at the tail end and this quantity
may need some adjustments.
3. Slurry Mixing. Today there are two types of slurry mixing,
one where water is batched into the truck mixer first fol-
lowed by the cementitious materials which are then mixed
for a minute or so and then the aggregates are added. Al-
though there is often insufficient water to make a true
slurry, this procedure will always eliminate cement balls.
This procedure slows down the loading process and tends
to produce cement dust, but in mixer drums without large
buildup of hardened concrete and worn blades it pro-
duces uniformly mixed batches of concrete. The other
type of slurry mixing is a process where a slurry is mixed
in a separate high energy mixer in the plant with the slurry
discharged into the truck mixer as the aggregates are be-
ing loaded. The specific loading and mixing procedures
vary with the particular slurry mixer used.
 “Cement balls” and “sand streaks” are sometimes a prob-
lem in truck mixers with the traditional ribbon and cement-last
loadings. Generally what happens is that the sand charging is
started too early, packs into the head end of the drum and does
not get mixed until some of the concrete has been discharged.
Cement balls consist of cement, sand, and coarse aggregate.
They can usually be ground up by mixing concrete with a
slump of 3 in. (75 mm) or less and then adjusting the slump to
the desired level. Concretes with slumps over 6 in. with high ce-
ment factors are more prone to cement balls but usually a load-
ing procedure can be found to avoid them without going to
slurry mixing.
Another sign of improper mixing is the observation of
streaks of sand during discharge and could be related to the in-
ternal condition of the mixer.
Mixing Uniformity Testing
The limits set for mixing uniformity include tests for:
1. air-free unit weight of concrete,
2. air-free unit weight of mortar,
3. air content,
4. slump,
5. coarse aggregate content, and
6. 7-day compressive strength.
Acceptable performance requires compliance with five of
the six tests. Two distinct samples are taken after discharging
approximately 15 and 85 % of the load. For central mixers, the
samples can be taken during discharge or directly from the
mixer at points approximately equidistant from the front and
rear portions of the load.
Slump tests of samples taken after the discharge of 15 and
85 % of the load can be made as a quick test of the probable
degree of mixing uniformity. C 94/C 94M also requires mixers
to be examined or weighed routinely to detect accumulations
of hardened concrete. The NRMCA Plant Certification pro-
gram has a process in place for an annual inspection of trucks
that is a requirement for obtaining a Certification of Confor-
mance for the production facility [46].
Generally, it has been found that when blade wear or ac-
cumulations of hardened concrete have become significant
enough to affect mixing uniformity, discharge performance
will also have deteriorated enough to be noticeable, particu-
larly with moderately low slump concrete.
Control of the Addition of Water
ASTM C 94/C 94M recognizes that concrete loses slump with
the passage of time and that either water will have to be added
to restore slump or the slump on initial mixing will have to be
higher than that required at the job. The rate at which slump
is lost depends on a great number of factors, including con-
crete temperature, properties of the cementitious materials,
and the admixtures used. The literature on this issue is exten-
sive [51,55–58].
Under ASTM C 94/C 94M, within the limits set by the max-
imum w/cm ratio, water can be added only once on arrival at
the job. Because of the difficulty of measuring aggregate mois-
ture and inevitable traffic or job site delays, concrete is gener-
ally shipped from the plant at a slump less than the specified
maximum with some water held back to allow for a job site ad-
justment. Repeated tempering or retempering, especially after
discharge of a significant quantity, should not be permitted.
However, initial tempering to obtain the desired slump is
routinely necessary. The “one” addition of water permitted in
ASTM C 94/C 94M should not be taken too strictly and the
driver should be permitted to adjust the amount added over a
period of perhaps 3 to 5 min on arrival at the job site.
The specification requires 30 revolutions at mixing speed
to ensure incorporation of the water. Tests by NRMCA confirm
that the 30 revolutions are necessary if mixing is at less than
about 15 rpm. However, if mixing is at 22 to 25 rpm as few as 5
or 10 revolutions will be sufficient [58]. Many modern day mix-
ers are not equipped to mix at speeds higher than about 20 rpm.
The specifications further require that discharge be com-
pleted within 90 min after the cement is wetted or before the
drum has completed 300 revolutions, whichever comes first.
Both can be waived by the purchaser if the concrete can be
placed without the addition of water. The 90-min time limit has
been one of the more controversial requirements in the speci-
fication. Some time ago an attempt was made to allow 90 min
to the start of discharge with the provision that the concrete
could be used as long as the slump was acceptable for place-
ment and no water was added. The proposal was not accepted
by the ASTM Subcommittee. However, in the authors’ opinion,
it should have been. Both field and laboratory data demon-
strate that concrete strengths tend to improve with time, but
only when water is not added [51,55].
Clearly, the 90-min time limit is too conservative when the
concrete temperature is less than about 70°F (21°C) [59]. At
higher temperatures, the time limit can only be justified by a
concern that the prohibition against water addition, after the ad-
justment on arrival at the job site, cannot or will not be enforced.
The 300 revolution limit can be a problem with longer
haul distances and job site adjustments that require subse-
quent mixing. In the past, keeping within the 300 revolution
limit was a problem with addition of high range water reduc-
ing admixture at the job site. This was done because the older
generation of HRWR admixtures resulted in a high rate of
slump loss. With the carboxylate-based HRWR admixtures,
slump loss is less of a problem and the admixture is added at
the plant to a higher slump such that the desired slump is in
the required range at the job site. Concrete producers also pre-
fer to incorporate the admixture at the plant, and if slump loss
is a problem a small water addition at the job site will be suffi-
cient. It is important to note and recognize that the accuracy of
the slump test deteriorates at these high slump levels.
Except for a very few soft aggregates, the 300 revolution
limit is of no practical consequence. With soft aggregates that
are subject to grinding, the effect will be to decrease slump, re-
sulting in an increase of the mixing water requirement. Sand is
more subject to grinding than coarse aggregate because of its
large surface area. The 300 revolution limit was developed
many years ago when mixers were powered by separate mixer
engines and had only one basic drum speed, about 6 rpm. The
limit on revolutions tended to control delivery time.
C 94/C 94M provides for means to make job-site adjust-
ments for water and air by determining slump and/or air con-
tent on a preliminary sample before a significant quantity is
discharged. At least 30 revolutions are required at mixing
speed to incorporate these additions into the concrete mixture.
These adjustments can add up towards the limits of time and
total number of revolutions.
The ASTM specifications recognize that many of the re-
quirements such as the 90-min time limit can be waived by the
specifier. This is the type of issue that should be discussed at a
pre-job conference [10].
 C 94/C 94M covers concrete furnished in both cold and
hot weather. In cold weather a minimum concrete tempera-
ture requirement is imposed based on the section size and this
is repeated from ACI 306R [60]. C 94/C 94M does not specify a
maximum concrete temperature in hot weather but indicates
in a note that problems may be encountered as concrete tem-
peratures approach 90°F. Local specifications and practices
typically address temperature criteria for concrete.
Volumetric Batching and Continuous Mixing
Volumetric concrete mixers have been available since the
1960s, and are used to produce concrete in accordance with
ASTM C 685/C 685M. The equipment is truck- or trailer-
mounted and consists of individual bins for sand, coarse ag-
gregate, cement, and water. The aggregates are delivered
through calibrated gates that control the amount of material
being delivered. Water and admixtures are controlled with
valves and flow meters. Production rate is inversely propor-
tional to cement content. The materials are fed into an inclined
chute that contains a mixing auger. The auger mixes and ele-
vates the concrete for discharge. The units are available in sizes
from 4 to 12 yd3 (3 to 9 m3). The mixing auger holds about 2
ft3 (0.06 m3) of concrete and mixing time is 15 or 20 s. Slump
is readily adjustable and the unit can be started and stopped as
concrete is needed. ASTM C 685/C 685M requires calibration
at six-month intervals.
The unit is versatile and has been used in a variety of work,
both where the amount of concrete is relatively limited, and for
specialty applications. In somewhat larger work where re-
quirements are less than about 40 yd3 (30 m3) per hour, it has
been used as a job-site mixing plant.
The advantage of the unit is that it produces freshly mixed
concrete. Therefore, strengths and other properties are im-
proved. The units may encounter problems with false setting
cements because of the very short mixing time.
The Volumetric Mixer Manufacturers Bureau (VMMB), an
organization of equipment manufacturers, has established
standards for volumetric concrete mixers that establish mini-
mum bin capacities for rated capacity of concrete that can be
produced. The standard reflects many of the requirements of
C 685/C 685M and requires the manufacturers to conduct a
mixing uniformity evaluation on units of a similar design. Mix-
ers that meet the requirements of these standards are eligible
for VMMB rating plates [61].
Sampling and Testing
Testing Laboratories
Both ASTM C 94/C 94M and C 685/C 685M contain require-
ments that the individual who samples and tests the concrete
be qualified and knowledgeable in the proper conduct of the
test procedures required. This requires an ACI Concrete Field
Testing Technician, Grade I certification, or an equivalent
process. The concept of requiring demonstrated knowledge of
the test procedures has grown rapidly. As of 2004 there were
about 57 000 technicians currently certified under the ACI
Grade I Field Testing Technician program. More recently, C
94/C 94M has included requirements for certification of labo-
ratory technicians who are involved in concrete acceptance
testing. Certification requirements for laboratory technicians
are also a requirement for laboratories that conform to ASTM
C 1077. In 2004 there were about 3000 laboratory technicians
certified through one of the ACI Laboratory Technician
Certification programs. The ACI and the National Institute for
Certification in Engineering Technologies (NICET) personnel
certification programs are becoming increasingly popular.
Requirements for accreditation of laboratory facilities that
conduct acceptance testing are also increasing. Some of the
organizations that sponsor accreditation programs for labora-
tories that conduct testing of construction materials include:
1. AASHTO—American Association of State and Highway
Transportation Officials in Washington, District of
Columbia.
2. A2LA—American Association of Laboratory Accreditation,
in Gaithersburg, Maryland.
3. NVLAP—National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation
Program, in Gaithersburg, Maryland.
The AASHTO Accreditation program is probably the most
recognized by state highway agencies and is generally a re-
quirement for acceptance testing on transportation construc-
tion projects. There are about 900 accredited laboratories un-
der the AASHTO program and all 50 state central laboratories
hold the AASHTO accreditation. Another popular regional
laboratory accreditation program is that of the Concrete
Materials Engineering Council (CMEC), in Orlando, Florida.
The program is required by the Florida Building Code and is
supported by the concrete industry, engineering testing
laboratories, and the Florida Department of Transportation. In
2004 about 110 laboratories in Florida were certified and
accredited by CMEC to comply with ASTM C 1077.
Sampling
Under ASTM C 94/C 94M, concrete samples, except those for
uniformity testing, are required to be taken in accordance with
ASTM Practice for Sampling Freshly Mixed Concrete (C 172).
Generally, this means the sample should be taken at two or
more regularly spaced intervals “during discharge of the
middle portion of the batch.” In practice, this is seldom done
and the sample is taken as a single increment near the start of
discharge. Preliminary tests of air content and slump are per-
mitted if the samples are obtained after at least 1/4 yd3 (1/4 m3)
has been discharged. The procedure in ASTM C 685/C 685M
permits sampling any time after at least 2 ft3 (0.06 m3) has
been discharged.
Sampling at a single point during discharge should be
permitted in ASTM C 94/C 94M and C 172. The risk is that
when cement is the last ingredient loaded in the mixer and the
concrete is not well mixed, the first concrete discharged can
have high strength and will not be representative of the
majority of the batch. More often, the first portion of concrete
discharged is of a more fluid consistency than the bulk of the
load and samples from this portion are more likely to have
lower measured strengths.
Compressive Strength Testing
ASTM C 94/C 94M requires air, slump, and density tests when
strength specimens are made. If either falls outside the
specifications, a retest of a new sample is required before the
concrete is considered to have failed. Additionally, if the air
or slump is low, additional air-entraining admixture or water
can be added. The density test is considered useful for yield
calculations and additional information in the case of
problems with test results. This section of C 94/C 94M allows
density tests to be conducted in accordance with C 138/C
138M, which will allow the measurement with the base of a
pressure air meter.
 Both ASTM C 94/C 94M and C 685/C 685M require that
strength specimens be made in accordance with ASTM Test
Methods of Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens in
the Field (C 31), cured under standard moist curing proce-
dures and tested by ASTM Test Method for Compressive
Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens (C 39). A test is
defined as the average of results from two cylinders made
from the same sample and tested at the same age. ASTM C
31 indicates that 6 by 12 in. (150 by 300 mm) is the standard
size, but allows 4 by 8 in. (100 by 200 mm) specimens when
required by the project specifications. Increasingly, 4 by 8 in.
(100 by 200 mm) cylinders are being used for concretes with
specified strengths greater than about 8000 psi (55 MPa). This
is because few compression testing machines are available
with load capacities greater than 300 000 lb (1335 kN), that
is, 10 600 psi (73 MPa) on a 6 by 12 in. (100 by 300 mm)
cylinder.
Several years ago, an unsuccessful attempt was made to
modify the section of ASTM C 94/C 94M that required dis-
carding the result of a test of a single cylinder if it “shows def-
inite evidence, other than low strength, of improper sampling,
handling, curing, or testing.” A proposal was made to set a limit
on the range of pairs of cylinders that are averaged for a test
and permit discarding the low value.
The average within-test coefficient of variation of 6 by 12
in. (150 by 300 mm) cylinder tests, for strength levels less than
about 8000 psi (55 MPa), is about 2.9 %, as indicated in the pre-
cision statement of ASTM C39, or even a little better [62]. Data
has shown that the multilab coefficient of variation of strength
test results, developed from several labs testing specimens
made from the same batch, is in the range of 5 % [63]. Within-
test coefficient of variation of 4 by 8 in. (100 by 200 mm)
cylinders is in the range of 3.0 % [64].
If the range between two cylinders exceeds 8 or 9 % of
their average more than 1 time in 20, the test should be con-
sidered suspect. Here is some general guidance that is the opin-
ion of the authors:
1. If the higher of the two values is more like the other tests
of this concrete, and the 7-day result is normal, discard the
lower result. If neither cylinder is unusually high or low,
average the two and accept the result.
2. And whether or not the lower or higher test is disregarded,
consider the possibility that the sampling and testing may
be poor (see Table 1 [62]). Testing with a within-test coef-
ficient of variation of 4 % will have one range in three ex-
ceeding 5.5 %! Improve testing.
Table 1 can be used to evaluate cylinder testing data, but
recognize that whether a single low test is sufficiently un-
usual to discard the result depends on “normal” quality of the
testing on that job. What this means is that when 15, 30, or
TABLE 1—Standards for Evaluating Perform-
ance of Testing Using Within Test Coefficient
of Variation [62]
Excellent Below 1.5 %
Very good 1.5 to 2.0 %
Good 2.0 to 3.0 %
Fair 3.0 to 4.0 %
Poor Above 4 %
60 pairs of cylinders have been tested, calculate the ranges
and convert the average range to the estimated coefficient of
variation.
F × R̄
Cv= ——
X̄
where
Cv = coefficient of variation, %;
R̄ = average range, psi (MPa);
F = factor used to estimate standard deviation from average
range: 0.8865 for two cylinders; 0.5907 for three cylin-
ders; and
X̄ = average strength.
If the coefficient of variation is much over 2.9 %, realize that
many, if not most, jobs (laboratories) can do better. Note also
that if you have less than 60 pairs of results, the frequency of
large ranges can be larger than indicated in Table 1. With only
ten results, the ranges in Table 1 would be about 10 % larger
[65].
There is some concern that the within-test coefficient of
variation may be larger for very high strength concretes; but in
the writers’ opinion, this is the result of problems of capping,
curing, and testing these concretes. With careful attention, it
should be possible to obtain a within-test coefficient of varia-
tion of 2.9 % or less. However, sulfur mortar caps must be less
than 3/32 in. (2.4 mm) thick and probably should not be per-
mitted on concrete with strength greater than about 10 000 psi
(70 MPa). Neat cement caps are an option and often ground
ends are not sufficiently flat to give optimum results. Use of un-
bonded caps, C 1231, is now permitted for concrete strengths
up to 12 000 psi (80 MPa).
In 2005 ASTM C 94/C 94M and C 685/C 685M will be re-
vised to conform to the two acceptance criteria used in the ACI
318 building code:
1. The average of any three consecutive strength tests should
be equal to or greater than the specified strength, f’c.
2. No individual strength test should be more than 500 psi
(3.4 MPa) below the specified strengths up to 5000 psi [35
MPa] or less than 0.90 f'c for specified strengths equal to
or greater that value.
A table provides advice on the “over-design” needed to
meet these requirements, depending on the standard deviation
expected. The values given have been calculated from the equa-
tions given in ACI 318–02 [14], with correction factors for in-
stances where the standard deviation is calculated from be-
tween 15 and 30 tests.
Failure to Meet Strength Requirements
A section in both specifications requires that, if the concrete
was properly tested, the manufacturer and purchaser confer to
see if they can agree on what adjustments, if any, should be
made. If they do not agree, then a decision is to be made by a
panel of three engineers. An arbitration process is preferred
and recommended as the first course of action.
NRMCA Publication 133 [66] outlines an orderly and de-
liberate process for determining the strength of the concrete
in the structure and for developing information on the as-
signment of responsibility for deficiencies, if any. The prac-
tice suggests that if the cause of the low strength was im-
proper testing, the party responsible should bear the cost of
the investigation.
Closure
A statement in the 1994 version of this chapter recognized that
if everyone would accept responsibility for quality, not just the
quality control department, things will change greatly. The
quality focus has been emphasized from the federal and state
agencies through initiatives like the National Partnership for
Highway Quality and the FHWA “Highways for LIFE” Pro-
gram. The ready-mixed industry has made great strides to-
wards the goal of higher level of quality and this commitment
is clear at the highest levels of companies. There is a clear
recognition that an effective means of promoting the increased
use of concrete is to make certain that the quality assurance
process is in place, that the producer is confident that the prod-
uct will perform, and that the customer is assured of the pro-
ducer’s reliability. Towards that end the industry has increased
its investment in its people by requiring education and indus-
try certifications of drivers, plant operators, sales force, quality
control personnel, and middle and upper management.
There are new challenges on the regulatory front that
changes the way the concrete industry can function. Many of
these have an impact on the technical aspects of the product.
The industry has evolved to highly automated solutions of
environmental management that facilitates the processing and
reuse of returned concrete and wash water. To the extent that
innovations have been developed, the specifications have not
kept pace. A significant aspect in the future is the focus on
sustainable and “green” construction. This will offer new
challenges relative to the ingredients we use to make concrete.
Sustainability not only includes recycling but also conservation
of energy and resources and prolonged service life.
Self-consolidating concrete is likely to be the norm for
most structural concrete in the future and this will require the
development and revision of existing standards to allow for
its acceptance and use. Construction defect litigation has
developed a high level of caution and conservatism within the
construction industry and this stifles innovation. This has also
resulted in a reluctance by some entities to accept responsibil-
ity for certain aspects of projects.
There is a strong desire of the more technically competent
concrete producers and contractors, both small and large, to
evolve construction specifications to achieve a higher empha-
sis on performance while eliminating prescriptive limits,
especially when they create conflicts in specifications or cause
problems with the placement or service life of the structure.
This desire to attain more control of the product they produce
will also require a higher level of technical competence and
acceptance of responsibilities. The future of concrete con-
struction will only get better with these initiatives in place.
In 2005, ASTM International and NRMCA published a
more detailed discussion of ASTM C 94/C 94M that analyzes
the requirements and intent of every clause in the specification
supported by figures and numerical examples [67]. This refer-
ence will be of interest to readers of this chapter.
References
[1] Cement and Concrete Terminology, SP-19 (90)/ACI 116R01-90,
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI 1991, p. 116R-1.
[2] “327320 Ready-mixed Concrete,” North American Industry
Classification System, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of
the Census, Washington, DC, http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/
naics.html.
[3] Pictorial History of the Ready-Mixed Concrete Industry,
National Ready-Mixed Concrete Association, Silver Spring, MD,
1964, p. 44.
[4] “Cement in 2004,” Minerals Yearbook—Cement, U.S. Geologi- cal
Survey, http://minerals.er.usgs.gov/minerals.
[5] NRMCA Industry Fact Sheet, National Ready Mixed Concrete
Association, Silver Spring, Maryland, 2004, www.nrmca.org.
[6] Gaynor, R. D., “Ready Mixed Concrete,” Significance of Tests
and Properties of Concrete and Concrete-Making Materials, ASTM
STP 169C, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 1994,
pp. 511–521.
[7] Fredericks, N. J., “Foreign Ownership of U.S. Ready Mix Firms,”
Concrete Products, June 1991, pp. 27–29.
[8] “Ready-Mixed Concrete Industry Data Report—2004 (2003
data),” National Ready-Mixed Concrete Association, Silver
Spring, Maryland, 2004.
[9] “Joint Statement of Responsibilities,” National Ready Mixed
Concrete Association and Associated General Contractors of
America, Silver Spring, MD, Jan. 1980, p. 1.
[10] “Checklist for Concrete Pre-Construction Conference” and
“Checklist for Ordering and Scheduling Ready-Mixed Con-
crete,” NRMCA-ASCC, National Ready Mixed Concrete Associa-
tion, Silver Spring, Maryland, 18 pp.
[11] “Discrepancies in Yield,” CIP 8 Concrete In Practice, National
Ready-Mixed Concrete Association, Silver Spring, MD.
[12] “Standard Specifications for Tolerances for Concrete Construc-
tion and Materials (ACI 117-90),” American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI.
[13] “Ordering Ready-Mixed Concrete,” CIP 31 Concrete in Practice,
National Ready-Mixed Concrete Association, Silver Spring, MD.
[14] “Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI
318-02) and Commentary (ACI 318R-02),” American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2002.
[15] “Specifications for Structural Concrete for Buildings (ACI 301-
99),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1999.
[16] AASHTO T 318 “Test Method for Water Content of Freshly
Mixed Concrete Using Microwave Oven Drying,” Standard
Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of
Sampling and Testing, 23rd Edition, 2003.
[17] Bognacki, C. J., Marsano, J., and Baumann, W., “Spending
Concrete Dollars Effectively,” ACI Concrete International, Vol.
22, No. 9, September 2000, pp. 50–56.
[18] Mather, B., “How to Make Concrete that Will Be Immune to the
Effects of Freezing and Thawing,” Paul Klieger Symposium on
Performance of Concrete in Aggressive Environments, ACI
Convention, 29 Oct. 1989, pp. 1–24.
[19] Barton, R. B., “Water-Cement Ratio is Passe,” Concrete
International, Nov. 1989, p. 75–77.
[20] Gaynor, R. D., “C 94/C 94M and C 685/C 685M Requirements for
Quality of Mixing Water,” unpublished memorandum to ASTM
Subcommittee C09.03.09 Methods of Testing and Specifications
for Ready Mixed Concrete, ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 16 June 1975, p. 9.
[21] Parker, L. C. and Slimak, M. W., “Waste Treatment and Disposal
Costs for the Ready-Mixed Concrete Industry,” Journal, Ameri-
can Concrete Institute, Vol. 74, No. 7, July 1977, pp. 281–287.
[22] Pistilli, M. F., Peterson, C. F., and Shah, S. P., “Properties and
Possible Recycling of Solid Waste from Ready-Mixed Concrete,”
Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 5, No. 3, May 1975, p. 249.
[23] Ullman, G. R., “Re-use of Wash Water as Mixing Water,” Back
Engineering Report No. 72-1, National Ready Mixed Concrete
Association, Silver Spring, MD, 30 March 1973, p. 4.
[24] Meininger, R. C., “Recycling Mixer Wash Water—Its Effect on
Ready-Mixed Concrete,” Back Engineering Report No. 72-2,
National Ready Mixed Concrete Association, Silver Spring, MD,
30 March 1973, p. 7.
[25] Lobo, C. and Mullings, G. M., “Recycled Water in Ready-mixed
Concrete Operations,” Concrete In Focus, National Ready
Mixed Concrete Association, Spring 2003, pp. 17–26.
[26] Thomas, M. D. A., Pratt, M., and Rhead, D., “Use of Slurry Water
in Concrete—Field and Laboratory Investigations, Implications
for Standards,” Personal communication and presentation to
CSA,1998, summary in Ref 25.
[27] Sandrolini, F. and Franzoni, E., “Waste Wash Water Recycling in
Ready-Mixed Concrete Plants,” Cement and Concrete Research,
Vol. 31, No. 3, March 2001, pp. 485–489.
[28] Nakamura, S. and Roberts, L. R., “A Novel Method of Recycling
Returned Concrete Using Extended Life Admixtures – A
Japanese Experience,” Proceedings of Congress the European
Ready-Mixed Concrete Organization (ERMCO), 1998.
[29] Lobo, C. and Gaynor, R. D., “Reusing Non-Admixtured Returned
Concrete,” The Concrete Producer, September 1998, pp. 621,
623.
[30] Borger, J., Carrasquillo, R. L., and Fowler, D. W., “Use of
Recycled Wash Water and Returned Plastic Concrete in the
Production of Fresh Concrete,” Journal of Advanced Cement
Based Materials, Vol. 1, 1994, pp. 267–274.
[31] Kinney, F. D., “Reuse of Returned Concrete by Hydration
Control: Characterization of a New Concept,” ACI SP-119,
Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on Superplasticiz-
ers and Other Chemical Admixtures in Concrete, Ottawa,
Canada, 1989, pp. 19–40.
[32] Ragan, S. A. and Gay, F. T., “Evaluation of Applications of DELVO
Technology,” Technical Report (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Vicksburg, Mississippi) CPAR-SL-95-2, December 1995, 192 pp.
Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA.
[33] Lobo, C., Guthrie, W. F., and Kacker, R., “A Study on the Reuse
of Plastic Concrete Using Extended Set Retarding Admixtures,”
Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, September–October 1995, pp 575–589.
[34] “Standard Practice for Selecting Proportions for Normal,
Heavyweight, and Mass Concrete (ACI 211.1–89),” American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1989.
[35] Meininger, R. C., “Use of Fly Ash in Air-Entrained Concrete—
Report of Recent NSGA-NRMCA Research Laboratory
Studies—Series J 153,” Technical Information Letter No. 381,
National Ready-Mixed Concrete Association, Silver Spring,
MD, 3 April 1981.
[36] Helmuth, R., “Fly Ash in Cement and Concrete,” SP040.01T,
Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IL, 1987, pp. 79–82.
[37] Ozyildirim, C., “Comparison of the Air Contents of Freshly
Mixed and Hardened Concretes,” Cement, Concrete and
Aggregates, Vol. 13, No. 1, Summer 1991, pp. 11–24.
[38] Hover, K. C., “Some Recent Problems with Air-Entrained
Concrete,” Cement, Concrete, and Aggregates, Vol. 11, No. 1,
Summer 1989, pp. 67–72.
[39] Magura, D. D., “Air Void Analyzer Evaluation,” FHWA-SA-96-
062, Federal Highway Administration, 1996.
[40] Crawford, G. L., Wathne, L. G., and Mullarky, J. I., “A ‘Fresh’
Perspective on Measuring Air in Concrete,” Proceedings 3rd
International Symposium on High Performance Concrete, PCI
National Bridge Conference, October 19-22, Orlando, FL,
2003.
[41] Yingling, J., Mullings, G. M., and Gaynor, R. D., “Loss of Air
Content in Pumped Concrete,” ACI Concrete International,
October 1992, pp. 57–61.
[42] Ksaibati, K., Zeng, M., Sellers, F. R., and Dolan C. W, “Air
Change in Hydraulic Concrete Due to Pumping,” presented at
the 82nd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research
Board, CD-ROM, January 2003, Washington DC.
[43] Hover, K. C. and Phares, R. J., “Impact of Concrete Placing
Method on Air Content, Air-Void System Parameters, and
Freeze-Thaw Durability,” Transportation Research Record TRR
1532, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 1996,
pp. 1–8.
[44] “Civil Works Construction Guide Specification CW-03305,” U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Office of the Chief of Engineers,
Washington, DC, Jan. 1985, pp. 3–28.
[45] “Concrete Plant Standards of the Concrete Plant Manufac-
turer’s Division,” CPMB 100-00, 12th revision, Concrete Plant
Manufacturers Bureau, Silver Spring, MD, www.cpmb.org,
November 2000.
[46] “Plant Certification Check List,” Publication QC 3, 9th revision,
National Ready Mixed Concrete Association, Silver Spring, MD,
October 2005, www.nrmca.org.
[47] Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements
for Weighing and Measuring Devices, NIST Handbook 44, U.S.
Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and
Technology, Washington, DC, 1990, pp. 1–274.
[48] Mass, G. R., “Premixed Cement Paste,” Concrete International,
Nov. 1989, pp. 82–85.
[49] “CPMB Does Cost Survey on Central Versus Transit Mixing,”
Concrete Products, Nov. 1974, p. 41.
[50] “A Study of Economic Factors of Central Mixing in the
Production of Ready-Mixed Concrete,” CPMB Publication 103,
Concrete Plant Manufacturers Bureau, Silver Spring, MD, 1976.
[51] Meininger, R. C., “Study of ASTM Limits on Delivery Time,”
Publication 131, National Ready Mixed Concrete Association,
Silver Spring, MD, Feb. 1969, pp. 1–17.
[52] Bozarth, F. M., Granley, E. C., and Grieb, W. E., “A Study of
Mixing Performance of Large Central Plant Concrete Mixers,”
Research and Development Report, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Bureau of Public Roads, Office of Research and
Development, Washington, DC, July 1966.
[53] Bozarth, F. M., “Case Study of Influence of Imbalances in
Charging of Cement and Water on Mixing Performance of an 8-
Cubic Yard Central Plant Mixer,” U.S. Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Bureau of
Public Roads, Washington, DC, July 1967.
[54] “Truck Mixer, Agitator and Front Discharge Concrete Carrier
Standards,” TMMB 100-01, Truck Mixer Manufacturers Bureau,
Silver Spring, MD, 2001, www.tmmb.org.
[55] Gaynor, R. D., “Effects of Prolonged Mixing on Properties of
Concrete,” Publication 111, National Ready Mixed Concrete
Association, Silver Spring, MD, 1963, pp. 1–18.
[56] Ravina, D., “Retempering a Prolonged-Mixed Concrete with
Admixtures in Hot Weather,” Journal, American Concrete
Institute, Vol. 72, No. 6, June 1975, pp. 291–295.
[57] Beaufait, F. W. and Hoadley, P. G., “Mix Time and Retempering
Studies on Ready-Mixed Concrete,” Journal, American Concrete
Institute, Vol. 70, No. 12, Dec. 1973, p. 810; and Discussion,
Journal, American Concrete Institute, Vol. 73, No. 4, April 1976,
p. 233.
[58] Gaynor, R. D. and Mullarky, J. I., “Mixing Concrete in a Truck
Mixer,” Publication 148, National Ready Mixed Concrete
Association, Silver Spring, MD, Jan. 1975, pp. 1–14.
[59] Gaynor, R. D., Meininger, R. C., and Khan, T. S., “Effect of
Temperature and Delivery Time on Concrete Proportions,”
Temperature Effects on Concrete, ASTM STP 858, ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA, June 1985; also
Publication No. 171, National Ready Mixed Concrete Associa-
tion, Silver Spring, MD.
[60] “Cold Weather Concreting”, ACI 306R-88 (2002), American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI.
[61] Volumetric Mixer Standards of the Volumetric Mixer Manu-
facturers Bureau, VMMB 100-01, Volumetric Mixer Manufac-
turers Bureau, Silver Spring, MD, www.vmmb.org.
[62] “Simplified Version of the Recommended Practice for Evaluation
of Strength Test Results of Concrete, (ACI 214.3R-88),” American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1991, p. 214.3R-1.
[63] “Summary of Multilab Precision from Strength Testing Round
Robin Programs,” Research Report at ASTM International RR:
C09-1027, 2004.
[64] “Report of Within Test Precision of 4 × 8 in. Cylinders from
CCRL Reference Sample Program,” Research Report at ASTM
International RR: C09-1027, 2004.
[65] Harter, L., Order Statistics and Their Use in Testing and Estima- tion,
Vol. 1, Aerospace Research Laboratories, U.S. Air Force, NTIS
Document Acquisition No. ADA058262.
[66] “In-Place Strength Evaluation—A Recommended Practice,”
Publication 133-99, Committee on Research, Engineering and
Standards, National Ready-Mixed Concrete Association, Silver
Spring, MD, 1970, revised 1979, 1999, 10 pp.
[67] Daniel, D. G. and Lobo, C. L., “User’s Guide to ASTM Specifi-
cation C 94/C 94M on Ready-Mixed Concrete,” Manual 49, ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA, 130 p., 2005; also
available from NRMCA, Publication 2P MNL 49, Silver Spring,
MD.