Cover Photo Credits: IStockphoto 
 

 

 

 

 

 

NIST Technical Note 1783
 

Measurement Science Needs for the 

Expanded Use of Green Concrete 

Kenneth Snyder 

Dale Bentz 

Jeffrey Bullard 

Chiara Ferraris 

Edward Garboczi 

Nicos Martys 

Paul Stutzman 

Materials and Structural Systems Division 

Engineering Laboratory 

http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1783 

February 2013 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Rebecca Blank, Acting Secretary 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Patrick D. Gallagher, Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology and Director 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Certain commercial entities, equipment, or materials may be identified in this 

document in order to describe an experimental procedure or concept adequately. 

Such identification is not intended to imply recommendation or endorsement by the 

National Institute of Standards and Technology, nor is it intended to imply that the 

entities, materials, or equipment are necessarily the best available for the purpose. 

National Institute of Standards and Technology Technical Note 1783 

Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. Tech. Note 1783, 32 pages (February 2013) 

http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1783 

CODEN: NTNOEF 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 

The Inorganic Materials Group at the National Institute of Standards and Technology would like to thank 

everyone who contributed their time and expertise by participating in the Measurements Science Needs 

for the Expanded Use of Green Concrete workshop. This report is based on the presentations and 

discussions that took place at the workshop. Special thanks are extended to plenary speakers, listed below, 

and to the many expert participants, shown on the next page. 

Plenary Speakers 

Ryan Henkensiefken, U.S. Concrete
 

Marc Wanagas, U.S. Navy
 

This workshop and summary report were commissioned by the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST) Inorganic Materials Group, Materials and Structural Systems Division within the 

Engineering Laboratory. The workshop planning, execution, and preparation of this summary report was 

conducted under the direction of Kenneth Snyder, Leader of NIST Inorganic Materials Group, with 

significant contributions from members of the NIST Inorganic Materials Group, Energetics Incorporated, 

and the NIST Conference Program. 

Copies of this report can be obtained by contacting Kenneth Snyder at kenneth.snyder@nist.gov. 

Certain commercial entities, equipment, or materials may be identified in this document in order to describe an 

experimental procedure or concept adequately. Such identification is not intended to imply recommendation or 

endorsement by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, nor is it intended to imply that the entities, 

materials, or equipment are necessarily the best available for the purpose. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS
 

Adams, Thomas – American Coal Ash 

Association 

Ardani, Ahmad – U.S. Department of 

Transportation and Federal Highway 

Administration 

Arnold, Terry – Federal Highway 

Administration - Turner-Fairbank 

Highway Research Center 

Bentz, Dale – National Institute of Standards 

and Technology 

Blair, Bruce – Lafarge 

Bumrongjaroen, Walairat – The Catholic 

University of America 

De La Varga, Igor – Purdue University 

Ferraris, Chiara – National Institute of 

Standards and Technology 

Garboczi, Edward – National Institute of 

Standards and Technology 

Henkensiefken, Ryan – U.S. Concrete 

Juenger, Maria*– University of Texas at 

Austin 

Keiper, Hank – The Sefa Group 

Kinney, Fred – Ceratech Inc. 

Koehler, Eric – Verifi 

Kojundic, Tony – Silica Fume Association 

Kosmatka, Steve*– Portland Cement 

Association 

Kozikowski, Ronald – North Starr Concrete 

Consulting 

Lane, Daniel Stephen – Virginia Department of 

Transportation 

Livingston, Richard – University of Maryland 

Lu, Yang – National Institute of Standards and 

Technology 

Martys, Nicos – National Institute of Standards 

and Technology 

Meininger, Richard – Federal Highway 

Administration - Turner-Fairbank 

Highway Research Center 

Meyer, Christian – Columbia University 

Porter, Jonathan – U.S. Department of 

Transportation and Federal Highway 

Administration 

Silva, Denise*– W.R. Grace 

Snyder, Kenneth – National Institute of 

Standards and Technology 

Stutzman, Paul – National Institute of 

Standards and Technology 

Sutter, Larry*– Michigan Technological 

University 

Tanesi, Jussara – Global Consulting and 

Federal Highway Administration 

Taylor, Peter*– National Concrete Pavement 

Technology Center 

Wanagas, Marc – U.S. Navy 

Weiss, Jason*– Purdue University 

(* = participated via phone) 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 	 Introduction ................................................................. 1 
 Background and Importance of Green Concrete ................................................1 
 Energy and Emissions from Cement Production ................................................2 
 Workshop Scope and Objectives ........................................................................3 
 Workshop Process ..............................................................................................3 
 Report Organization............................................................................................4 
 

2. 	 Characteristics of Green Concrete ................................ 5 
 Overview .............................................................................................................5 
 What Defines Green Concrete?..........................................................................5 
 Materials .............................................................................................................5 
 Green Manufacturing Processes and Methods ..................................................7 
 Concrete Performance ........................................................................................7 
 Life Cycle Sustainability Impacts ........................................................................8 
 Context of Chapter Findings ...............................................................................8 
 

3. 	 Technology Challenges ................................................. 9 
 

Overview of Technology Challenges ..................................................................9 
 Barriers to Use and Acceptance .........................................................................9 
 High Priority Topics...........................................................................................16 
 

4. 	 A Measurement Science Roadmap ............................... 25 
 

Materials Characterization Test Methods .........................................................25 
 Performance-Based Test Methods ...................................................................26 
 Best Practice Guides and Codes ......................................................................26 
 

Appendix A. Successful Examples of Green Concrete ........ 28 
 

Appendix C: References ................................................... 32 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MEASUREMENT SCIENCE NEEDS FOR GREEN CONCRETE – WORKSHOP REPORT 

1. INTRODUCTION 

Background and Importance of Green Concrete 

Concrete materials are the most abundant manufactured materials in the world. 

Concrete is a desirable engineering material because of its high compressive 

strength, its ability to be paired with steel reinforcement to form structural elements, 

its ability to adapt to any form, and its relative durability compared with other 

construction materials. It is used in foundations, pavement, bridges, roads, dams, 

buildings, industrial plants, ports, parking structures, pipes, fences – virtually any 

engineered structure can be built using concrete. 

The primary components of concrete are gravel/stone, sand, water, and portland 

cement. Although the portland cement constitutes only 10 % to 15 % of the total 

volume, it is the critical material system that, upon reacting with water, binds the 

other components together.1 Unfortunately, the production of portland cement is 

energy intensive and emits nearly a kilogram of carbon dioxide (CO2) for each 

kilogram of cement produced. The energy intensity of portland cement production 

makes it the most expensive component of concrete. 

There are numerous portland cement replacement materials that can be used to 

reduce the amount of portland cement in concrete, such as fly ash, slag, and silica 

fume. These supplementary industrial by-product (IBP) materials are among the 

most feasible means of reducing the embodied energy and associated greenhouse gas 

(GHG) emissions. The concrete construction industry has been using IBP materials 

in concrete for more than half a century. The first major breakthrough was the 

construction of Hungry Horse Dam in 1948, which utilized 120,000 metric tons of 

fly ash. Appendix A provides some examples of the successful use of these materials 

in concrete. 

In addition to the energy and emissions benefits, a number of these materials are byproducts of an industrial process that are often destined for disposal in a landfill, and 

can frequently be obtained at a lower cost (on an equal volume basis) than portland 

cement. Therefore, the expanded use of IBP materials could also help to make 

concrete more cost competitive with respect to other construction materials like steel 

or asphalt. The replacement of a portion of the portland cement by a material like fly 

ash can also result in a concrete having improved performance characteristics over 

the corresponding plain portland cement concrete mixture. Current concrete 

construction practices routinely replace up to 30 % or more of the portland cement 

with IBP materials, the most common replacement materials being fly ash and slag. 

- 1 -
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MEASUREMENT SCIENCE NEEDS FOR GREEN CONCRETE – WORKSHOP REPORT 

Reducing the amount of the portland cement in the concrete mixture also creates 

challenges. The concrete construction industry has more than a century of 

experience with the successful design and construction of portland cement concrete 

mixtures. The properties of ordinary portland cement (OPC) concrete, especially 

during the construction phase and during the first few days of strength development 

(which can be critical for maintaining construction schedules), are fairly wellunderstood and reproducible. As more of portland cement is replaced with IBP 

materials the properties of the concrete change, particularly during construction and 

at early ages. 

The primary reasons for the change in these properties are the reactivity and particle 

size of the IBP materials. Generally, slag is slightly less reactive than portland 

cement, and fly ash is less reactive than slag. As a result, setting time and strength 

gain can be delayed with respect to a corresponding OPC concrete mixture. Over 

the long-term, however, these blended systems typically develop less permeable 

microstructures with improved performance and durability. 

The apparent lack of robustness at early ages, combined with the longer time 

required to achieve design strength and unfamiliarity with the unique requirements 

of using high-IBP concrete, have made the U.S. construction industry reluctant to 

freely allow arbitrary replacements of portland cement with IBP materials. This is 

evident in limitations on how much portland cement can be replaced or on the time 

of year when the use of IBP materials are allowed (i.e., due to environmental 

conditions). 

To enable greater cement replacement by IBP, there is a strong need for better 

standards, guides, and tools for designing, constructing, and ensuring the 

performance of green concretes. These will provide the concrete industry with 

methods to assure that the materials will perform reliably both during construction 

and throughout their service life. 

Energy and Emissions from Cement Production 

Cement production is an energy-intensive (Watts/$ shipment) process. Currently, the 

U.S. cement industry consumes more than 400 million gigajoules (GJ) annually, 

which is equivalent to the energy required to power more than 3 million homes each 

year. 2,3 As noted, cement manufacturing is particularly energy intensive due to the 

intense heat requirements of kiln pyroprocessing, where reaction temperatures can 

exceed 1500 °C. 

Cement manufacturing contributes more than 5 % of U.S. industrial CO2 

emissions.4,5,6 This large contribution to industrial CO2 is the result of combustion 

emissions (primarily fuel combustion to achieve the high temperatures that are 

required during cement production) and large amounts of process emissions that are 

emitted during calcination. Calcination is the thermal decomposition of limestone 

(calcium carbonate), which is one of the primary raw materials for cement 

production. For each metric ton of cement produced, 0.90 to 0.95 metric tons of 

- 2 -
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MEASUREMENT SCIENCE NEEDS FOR GREEN CONCRETE – WORKSHOP REPORT 

CO2 is released through the construction cycle of the resulting concrete: producing 

the cement clinker, grinding the cement clinker, cement shipment, concrete 

production and delivery, etc.

7,8 

U.S. cement production is expected to reach 100 million metric tons by 2016, a 

production value last approached in 2006. 9,10 Demand for this important building 

and transportation infrastructure material is expected to grow in the years to come 

due to population and economic growth. In a society that increasingly values greater 

energy efficiency and lower CO2 emissions, measurement standards and other 

practices that enable further deployment of green concrete will play an increasingly 

important role in the U.S. economy. 

Workshop Scope and Objectives 

Workshop Definition of 

Green Concrete 

For purposes of the workshop, green 

concrete was defined as concrete 

containing industrial by-product or other 

substitute binder material in place of 

about 30% or more of portland cement. 

Chapter 2: Characteristics of Green 

Concrete provides additional discussion 

as to what constitutes green concrete. 

The mission of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is to 

promote U.S. innovation and competitiveness through measurement science, 

standards, and technology. To promote innovation and competitiveness in the use of 

novel concreting materials, NIST convened a one-day workshop to support the 

expanded use of green concrete throughout the concrete construction industry. The 

goal of the workshop was to identify and prioritize the measurement science needs 

for quantifying and ensuring the short- and long-term performance of green 

concrete—concretes having more than 30 % of portland cement replaced with IBP 

or other substitute binder materials. The workshop solicited input from a diverse set 

of stakeholder experts from the construction industry, research organizations, and 

public sector entities; participants from the U.S. Department of Defense, state and 

federal Departments of Transportation, leading universities, trade associations, 

consultants, and industry attended the workshop. 

Workshop Process 

The workshop was divided between keynote talks and breakout discussion sessions. 

During the workshop, participants provided input on the following topics: 

•	 Characteristics of green concrete 

•	 Major barriers and challenges inhibiting
 

the expanded use of green concrete
 

•	 Approaches for overcoming key barriers
 

and challenges
 

Facilitated discussions on these topics during 

parallel breakout sessions generated a wealth of 

ideas. At one point in the discussions, 

participants were asked to prioritize the major 

barriers or challenges inhibiting the expanded use 

of green concrete. The most critical barriers 

identified through the prioritization process were 

then examined further to understand potential 

- 3 -
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MEASUREMENT SCIENCE NEEDS FOR GREEN CONCRETE – WORKSHOP REPORT 

approaches for addressing the obstacles, including the measurement science needed. 

Report Organization 

The remainder of this report is organized around the topics noted above. The 

following sections are a combination of the input provided during the plenary 

sessions and discussions occurring during breakout sessions. The results presented 

here represent the viewpoints of the participants and stakeholder groups that 

attended the workshop, and are not intended to be all-inclusive of the perspectives of 

the concrete industry. 

In addition to the report sections, appendices provide information on the successful 

examples of green concrete (Appendix A), acronyms used throughout the report 

(Appendix B), and references (Appendix C). 

The information presented in this report helps provide the foundation for a 

comprehensive plan to ensure that measurement science keeps pace with and 

catalyzes technological innovation in the field of concrete construction materials. 

- 4 -
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MEASUREMENT SCIENCE NEEDS FOR GREEN CONCRETE – WORKSHOP REPORT 

2.	 CHARACTERISTICS 

OF GREEN CONCRETE 

Overview 

“Green Concrete” is a term used in the concrete industry that can have many 

different definitions to various stakeholders. It can be defined by the type of 

materials used, the methods with which it was produced, the performance of the 

concrete, and/or the impacts due to displacing the production and use of 

conventional concrete. Due to these varying definitions, it was useful for the 

participants of this workshop to discuss what makes concrete “green,” and the 

associated characteristics that distinguish it from other types of concrete. 

What Defines Green Concrete? 

The key factors that are used to identify whether concrete is considered “green” 

include the following: 

1)	 Amount of portland cement replacement materials 

2)	 Manufacturing processes and methods 

3)	 Performance 

4)	 Life cycle sustainability impacts 

Materials 

The material composition is the most transparent factor defining green concrete as 

distinct from other types of concrete. Concrete is typically composed of portland 

cement, coarse aggregate, chemical admixtures, sand, water, and supplementary 

cementitious materials (SCMs). Alteration from the standard concrete composition 

can improve the environmental, physical, and durability performance of the 

concrete, typically by reducing the amount of portland cement. Materials that can 

replace a portion of the portland cement include fly ash, silica fume, slag (iron blast 

furnace slag as well as other non-steel process slags), ashes from foods (such as rice 

husk ash), cement kiln dust, and raw or calcined natural pozzolans such as calcined 

clay. 

- 5 -
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MEASUREMENT SCIENCE NEEDS FOR GREEN CONCRETE – WORKSHOP REPORT 

Alternative materials—or ratios of materials—for the other concrete components can 

also be used. Using recycled aggregate such as process clays or crushed returned 

concrete is a strategy for reducing embodied energy. Crushed glass in fine particle 

form is another alternative. The water component can be replaced with non-potable 

sources (gray water from sewage or wastewater treatment, sea water if the concrete 

has no embedded steel), if they do not contain dissolved materials that could 

adversely affect concrete performance (i.e., non-potable sources of mix water per 

ASTM C1602 and equivalent European and Australian standards). Water content 

can be reduced through mixture design, but cannot be totally replaced with another 

material. Alternative binders can include geopolymers, mono-calcium silicate, 

magnesium oxide, and metakaolin. An illustrative list of potential alternative 

materials is shown in Table 2-1. 

TABLE 2 1. EXAMPLES OF ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS IN GREEN CONCRETE 

Alternative Binders 

• Fly ash 

– Fly ash from coal-fired power plants 

– At least 30 % to 50 % of fly ash by mass of the cementitious material is considered 

“green” (for purposes of this report) 

• Silica fume 

– Sourced from silicon alloy production by-product 

• Slag from iron blast furnaces in steel production and other ferrous and nonferrous processes 

• Limestone powder 

– There is a 30 % limestone replacement limit in Europe, and a 15 % limit in Canada 

• Ashes from food (e.g., rice husk ash) 

• Cement kiln dust 

• Chemically activated binders: geopolymers 

• Raw or calcined natural pozzolans: calcined clay 

Alternative Constituents 

• Recycled aggregate materials 

– Examples include process clays, crushed recycled or reclaimed concrete aggregate 

from demolition of concrete pavements or structures, crushed returned concrete (from 

the ready-mix truck), some mixed rubble (depending on content), and other postindustrial and post-consumer materials 

– Incorporating crushed concrete can reabsorb CO2 

• Reduced potable water content (via design or non-potable sources of mix water per ASTM 

C1602 and equivalent European and Australian standards) 

Materials use strategies 

• Alternative cement kiln feed materials. Using less limestone as a feed material in cement 

production reduces energy use and generates fewer GHGs (reduced calcination). 

• Use of waste materials as alternative fuels for the cement industry 

• Use of non-hazardous materials: safe to handle, store, transport 

• Use of local materials (less transport fuel) 

- 6 -
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MEASUREMENT SCIENCE NEEDS FOR GREEN CONCRETE – WORKSHOP REPORT 

Green Manufacturing Processes and Methods 

Green manufacturing processes and methods refer to alternative or novel approaches 

or techniques that may be used in the production of concrete. Alternative approaches 

can include more efficient concrete production processes: mix design, testing, and 

manufacturing. Examples include using processes that create a minimum of waste, 

reusing waste materials as alternative fuels, and alternative methods that replace 

calcination or reduce the energy and emissions from the clinker production process. 

Examples of manufacturing and methods processes that are characteristic of green 

concrete are shown in Table 2-2. 

TABLE 2 2. EXAMPLES OF GREEN CONCRETE MANUFACTURING PROCESSES 

AND METHODS 

Manufacturing methods 

• Reducing energy use and GHG emissions from fuel combustion 

• Alternative clinkers: belite cements, calcium aluminate (CA) cements. 

• More-efficient concrete production, including mix design, testing 

• Reduced labor requirements during construction: self-consolidating concrete 

• Using greater percentages of IBP in lieu of portland cement. 

Informational and policy frameworks 

• Life cycle analyses (LCA) studies and associated metrics that demonstrate “greenness” of 

cement/concrete 

• Decision-making methods for concrete evaluation and purchasing decisions that consider 

social, economic, and environmental factors 

Concrete Performance 

Despite the different materials and methods used in its formation, green concrete has 

performance characteristics similar to standard concrete so it can be employed for 

the same construction purposes. This includes having a high strength-to-mass ratio, a 

significant thermal efficiency/mass, and predictable long-term performance. 

Construction codes for concrete today are based largely on prescriptive 

specifications. Specifications that are performance-based, however, would allow 

green concrete to compete with standard concrete as long as the performance meets 

the buyer’s requirements. The U.S. government has released specification guidelines 

for marine concrete (UFGS 03 31 29, August 2012) that includes a protocol to assist 

in implementing performance-based specifications on projects. Examples of 

concrete performance requirements are shown in Table 2-3. 

- 7 -
 

 

- 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MEASUREMENT SCIENCE NEEDS FOR GREEN CONCRETE – WORKSHOP REPORT 

TABLE 2 3. EXAMPLES OF CONCRETE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS 

• Compressive strength 

• Strength-to-mass ratio 

• Thermal efficiency/mass—heating/cooling of building 

• Level of porosity for concrete for control of storm water (carbonation) 

• Durability under certain exposure classes 

• Mechanical properties (flexural strength, elastic modulus, creep) 

• Transport properties (ionic diffusion coefficient, moisture transport coefficient, 

permeability) 

• Dimensional stability (plastic, autogenous, and drying shrinkage, warping/curling) 

• Resistance to chemical attack 

• Intended duration of service life under field conditions, as determined from validated 

service life computer models 

Life Cycle Sustainability Impacts 

The final important characteristic of green concrete is the collective impact of its 

usage. Green concrete improves the three pillars of sustainability: environmental, 

economic, and social impacts. For environmental and economic impacts, green 

concrete reduces GHG emissions, uses fewer virgin materials, consumes less energy, 

and lasts longer (requiring fewer replacements of structures) than OPC concrete, 

when considering the life cycle of the product. Pervious concrete can also provide an 

environmental benefit by mitigating excessive storm water runoff in urban and 

suburban locations. An illustrative list of green concrete impacts and costs is shown 

in Table 2-4. 

TABLE 2 4. EXAMPLES OF GREEN CONCRETE IMPACTS AND COSTS 

Impacts 

• Significantly reduced lifecycle environmental impact in terms of GHG emissions, water use 

during production, and fuel and energy usage 

• Reduced energy requirements for heating and cooling of buildings 

• Durability and reduced life cycle cost 

• Pervious surfaces that can reduce storm water runoff 

• Financial costs that are comparable to conventional options 

Context of Chapter Findings 

While this chapter broadly defined characteristics of green concrete, the remaining 

portion of this report focuses on expanding the use of green concrete within its 

limited definition for the purposes of the workshop; that is, focusing on the materials 

portion of concrete, and in particular the binder material. The working definition 

concentrates the focus on identifying challenges and opportunities for the 

specification and use of concrete mixtures having IBP or other substitute binder 

material replace 30 % or more of the portland cement. 

- 8 -
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MEASUREMENT SCIENCE NEEDS FOR GREEN CONCRETE – WORKSHOP REPORT 

3. TECHNOLOGY 

CHALLENGES 
 

Overview of Technology Challenges 

Green concrete has the potential to provide numerous benefits, including enhanced 

engineering performance, energy efficiency, and environmental performance. 

However, as with any new technology, green concrete faces challenges to its largescale acceptance and implementation. Green concrete, as defined in the previous 

section, is concrete that uses alternative binder materials while achieving the desired 

performance. Materials, performance, and other technical and non-technical factors 

play important roles in understanding the critical challenges faced when expanding 

the use of green concrete in the construction industry. 

This chapter provides a prioritized set of challenges and barriers that were identified 

as inhibiting large-scale implementation of green concrete. Note that the manner by 

which these ideas were brought forward was a consequence of the number of 

workshop participants. To keep the group sizes optimal, the participants were 

divided between two groups (Group A and B), each developing ideas independently 

of one another. A smaller group size encourages greater participation from everyone 

and often yields the greatest number of different ideas. Another advantage to this 

approach is that ideas that were developed independently would suggest a broader 

consensus. 

Barriers to Use and Acceptance 

The barriers to the expanded use and acceptance of green concrete are broadly 

situated in the categories described below. 

Performance specifications are integral to allowing green concrete to compete 

against standard concrete and other construction materials. Current prescriptive 

specifications often constrain acceptance to traditional concrete mixtures, thus 

preventing alternative materials or mixture proportions with different but otherwise 

acceptable processing requirements or hardened characteristics from being used. 

- 9 -
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MEASUREMENT SCIENCE NEEDS FOR GREEN CONCRETE – WORKSHOP REPORT 

Before broad acceptance of these materials can occur, overly-restrictive prescriptivespecifications need to be overcome, and the performance of green concretes must be 

demonstrated to be either OPC-equivalent or sufficient for the intended application 

(which may require performance beyond that of OPC concrete). 

Performance measures and test methods are needed to ensure that concrete meets 

the necessary short-term and long-term performance requirements. Current test 

methods are often not applicable to these new materials and, therefore, new or 

improved test methods need to be developed. In addition, models are needed that can 

predict the performance of the range of green concretes, as well as life cycle 

analyses to ensure that they will be sufficient or even better replacements for 

traditional concrete. The tools, data, methods, and models do not exist or are 

inadequate, yet they are essential enablers for achieving a greater deployment of 

replacement green concretes. 

Property variability among IBP material types, or even among different sources of 

the same material, can require concrete mixture reformulations. These variations in 

IBP material performance make it difficult to develop IBP material specifications 

that would apply to a wide range of concretes. A main challenge is that green 

concrete’s characteristics and properties vary between products and even between 

sources, including early strength gain and set times. For example, there may be 

difficulties in establishing consistent material combinations and other parameters 

due to variable performance attributes of the IBP materials. 

Characteristics of replacement materials must be better understood. For example, 

concrete mixtures with larger amounts of SCMs typically have slower strength gain 

when compared to similar OPC concretes. If engineers testing the concrete are not 

aware of the inherently slower (yet ultimately sufficient) strength gain, and the 

actual time at which the required strength is needed, they can misinterpret the 

adequacy of the product. 

Codes and regulations can restrict the broader deployment of green concrete 

technology. This covers a range of issues related to regulation, permitting, 

contracting, and incentives. 

Contracting practices can limit the ability of constructors to readily incorporate 

green concrete. Contracting procedures, for example, involve multiple stakeholders 

who all must agree to move forward on a project, which can be difficult when new 

products, regulations, or specifications are introduced. Policies are also lacking to 

assign responsibility for the risks of using green concrete. This creates uncertainty 

about who will take responsibility in the event of failure. 

Education and training on construction practices, performance, benefits, and 

technical issues related to green concrete are needed to foster and facilitate greater 

acceptance and implementation of replacement concretes. In general the 

- 10 -
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MEASUREMENT SCIENCE NEEDS FOR GREEN CONCRETE – WORKSHOP REPORT 

construction industry is conservative and cautious in implementing new technologies 

and practices until reliability and performance are proven. 

The complete set of barriers identified within the above categories is shown in Table 

3.1. The relative importance of these barriers is denoted as high, medium, or low 

priority, and was determined by participants through a group voting process. Note 

that the barriers listed are not intended to be all-inclusive, but represent the 

perspectives of the participating experts. 

- 11 -
 

 

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MEASUREMENT SCIENCE NEEDS FOR GREEN CONCRETE – WORKSHOP REPORT 

TABLE 3 1. BARRIERS TO THE EXPANDED USE OF GREEN CONCRETE 

Performance Specifications 

High 

Priority 

Low • Lack of an alternative set of specifications that are based on performance 

Priority • Understanding, managing, and tracking risk changes 

• Inadequacy and/or absence of performance specifications, including: 

–	 Shortcomings of standards for coal fly ash and raw or calcined natural 

pozzolan for use in concrete: under ASTM C618, only Class F fly ash is 

specified by the UFGS as a partial replacement for portland cement 

–	 Existing specifications that limit the increased use of SCMs 

–	 Lack of adequate performance specifications for concrete (green or 

otherwise) 

–	 Specifications often artificially limit high-volume replacement levels 

based on early age data and lack of confidence in then-new and relatively 

unknown materials 

–	 Specifications often rely upon specific material characterization
 

requirements that were developed for OPC concretes
 

•	 Lack of an actionable roadmap (and priorities) for the acceptance of IBPs and 

SCMs using characterization measurements, enabling performance-based 

specifications 

Differences in Performance 

High 

Priority 

Low 

Priority 

• Apprehension of contractors to use high-volume replacements due to 

unfamiliarity with finishing/placing requirements 

• Potential for slower early strength gain 

• Use of floor-specific codes as true indicators of overall performance of green 

concrete 

•	 Greater variability of green concretes compared to ordinary portland cement 

(OPC) concretes 

•	 Concerns about green concretes meeting requirements for strength and salt 

scaling (i.e., flaking of a concrete surface that, when severe enough, may result 

in lower skid resistance and reduced service life of the concrete) 

Performance Measures and Test Methods 

• Insufficient durability test methods 

–	 Lack of sufficient test methods prevents acceptance 

–	 Lack of appropriate test methods for performance-based specifications 

• Existing models and test methods must be modified for novel materials 

–	 Validated computer models are useful for predicting durability; however, 

they are not widely used and tests cannot be used as real-time QA/QC High checks for concrete Priority –	 Lack of understanding of how to accelerate aging for any kind of concrete 

–	 Existing test methods may not necessarily reflect field performance 

•	 Acceptance of life cycle cost /total ownership cost for structures built for 30 

plus years of service versus initial cost 

•	 Reliance on old or superseded data, which limits replacement levels despite 

better and larger body of knowledge supporting high replacement levels 

- 12 -
 

 

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MEASUREMENT SCIENCE NEEDS FOR GREEN CONCRETE – WORKSHOP REPORT 

TABLE 3 1. BARRIERS TO THE EXPANDED USE OF GREEN CONCRETE 

•	 Performance indicators for OPC concretes that may not be valid for highvolume replacements 

• Limited track record of proven long-term performance of novel green concrete 

•	 Inadequate understanding of the link between fly ash composition and concrete 

performance (i.e., performance predictors are needed) 

•	 Continued use of a slump test (a long-established empirical quality control test 

that may not be applicable without modification) inhibits acceptance of highvolume SCMs 

•	 Lack of a test method for deicer scaling that represents the actual performance 

of high-volume SCMs 

• Lack of robust test methods and proficiency testing programs to ensure 

unbiased, reliable results that are accepted by the industry as credible for the 

development of innovative new concretes 

• Lack of real-time test data during concrete production (e.g., slump, 

temperatures, calorimetry), as well as sufficiently qualified staff to make 

adjustments 

– Test data needs to be available for every batch of concrete; typically, once 

confidence is established, acceptance testing can be spaced out 

• Inability to quickly determine the cause(s) of failures for new materials 

Characteristics of Replacement Materials 

•	 Using new materials (that typically have slower strength gain) for fast track 

construction that requires high early strength 

–	 High-percentage SCM mixtures are perceived to have low early strength 

–	 Some Class C fly ashes have dramatic detrimental effects regarding 

acceleration or retarding concrete set times 

–	 There is potential for unanticipated deleterious reactions 

–	 There is a wide misconception that Class F fly ash reduces strength and 

delays set time 

–	 Some SCMs have a history of interfering with air entrainment, and this 

stigma remains 

–	 Early high strength is not always required; accelerators can sometimes be 

used to overcome slower strength gain (at a cost) 

–	 High percentage of SCM mixtures that bleed water more slowly; however, 

this can aid in finishing concrete with smaller crews 

•	 Poor controls on fly ash production, due to power utilities optimizing for power 

output rather than fly ash quality, which can lead to variability of the source 

material, even from the same power plant 

–	 Lack of incentives for producers to generate uniform and predictable fly 

ash due to the disconnect between suppliers and users 

•	 Lack of tools to assess material selection options for optimal long-term 

performance 

–	 Inability to assess for compatibility in mixing, placing, and finishing 

–	 Uncertainty in long-term performance for characteristics such as strength 

and permeability 

•	 Lack of mineralogical characterization of IBP/SCM (e.g., fly ash); new 

reference standards and materials are needed 

• Characterization of phases (e.g., glassy vs. crystalline) 

Medium
 

Priority
 

Low 

Priority 

High 

Priority 

Medium
 

Priority
 

- 13 -
 

 

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MEASUREMENT SCIENCE NEEDS FOR GREEN CONCRETE – WORKSHOP REPORT 

TABLE 3 1. BARRIERS TO THE EXPANDED USE OF GREEN CONCRETE 

•	 Lack of knowledge of how IBPs will interact with portland cement; constituents 

are optimized, rather than optimizing the system 

• Lack of a sustainable, available supply of high-quality SCMs and other alternate 

Low materials 

Priority – Insufficient supply of suitable material of uniform character 

–	 Markets limit supply to a specific area or customer due to logistics 

• Inability to produce materials in volume 

• Inability to get competitive bid or a sole supplier 

Contracting Practices 

Medium
 

Priority
 

Low 

Priority 

•	 Lack of adequate contracting methods that enable green concretes to compete 

with traditional concrete 

–	 Limited timeframe to qualify materials 

–	 Too many contracts that are overly complex and inflexible 

–	 Too many people involved (including the producer, pump operator,
 

finishing contractor, engineer, owner, prime contracts architect,
 

specification bodies) who all must agree to move forward
 

–	 Protecting proprietary data, and innovative research and development 

(R&D) 

–	 Intellectual property issues involving research (i.e., right to publish) 

•	 Lack of clarity about who is responsible for performance or failure (a barrier 

particularly relevant to a State DOT); uncertainty as to who assumes the risk 

(owner, contractor, etc.) 

–	 Incorrect information is often communicated post-failure, even when 

reasons for failure and responsibility are understood 

–	 Liability concerns that make all parties risk-averse and resistant to change 

• Cost-effectiveness of SCMs 

–	 Lack of a plan for extra categories to accommodate IBP materials 

•	 Lack of incentive to use greater than 30% portland cement replacement 

materials 

• Tendency to blame fly ash when systems fail 

Codes and Regulations 

Medium
 

Priority
 

• Lack of regulations requiring a minimum level of SCMs 

•	 Legacy or reclassification risk; i.e., the potential that fly ash may be classified 

as a hazardous material 

•	 Building code that restricts SCMs to a 25 % limit in the presence of de-icing 

chemicals which is based on aggressive lab tests that do not necessarily match 

field performance 

–	 Concern of engineers and specifiers about using over 25 % as they are 

unaware that the limit only applies to scaling (i.e., mass concrete uses are 

commonly greater than 25 %) 

- 14 -
 

 

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MEASUREMENT SCIENCE NEEDS FOR GREEN CONCRETE – WORKSHOP REPORT 

TABLE 3 1. BARRIERS TO THE EXPANDED USE OF GREEN CONCRETE 

• Uncertainty in the requirements of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) CCR Subtitle Ca11 

Low 

Priority 

• Specifications requiring the submittal and approval of the mix design that limit 

the ability of the producer to make changes to the mix design as materials 

change 

• Lack of capital investment and permitting for equipment for alternative cements 

(e.g., silos, bins, and dispensing equipment in concrete plants) 

Education, Training, and Industry Culture 

High 

Priority 

• Inadequate education in the construction industry regarding the use of cement 

replacement materials 

– Lack of training for mixture proportioning 

– Lack of knowledge about benefits and risks, especially among contractors 

• Conservatism in the industry and cautious approach to new technologies and 

practices 

– Educating the construction community on how to work with high SCM 

concretes 

– Assuring the community that high SCM concretes can be beneficial 

– Communicating how new concretes behave differently from the existing 

well-established concretes (overcoming aversion to change) 

• Workforce adaptation 

– Some construction practices may have to change; workforce may need to 

adapt current practices 

Medium 

Priority 

• Insufficient understanding/awareness of alternative mix options by the 

American Concrete Institute (ACI) which creates standards for mixture 

proportioning 

– Insufficient guidance for mix designers of blended systems 

– Performance-based alternatives are too prescriptive 

• Training and improved education of the educators 

– Educating specifiers with respect to green concrete benefits and 

performance 

– Resolving confusion regarding terms and calculations such as with the 

terms “total cementitious material,” “substitute,” and “replacement” 

Low 

Priority 

• Lack of technical understanding of concrete and the root causes of failure; root 

causes and the consequences of failures must be communicated to the public 

• Misconception in the flooring industry that high levels of SCMs interfere with 

floor adhesives, causing premature failure of floor coverings 

• Lack of clarity on who receives the benefits of using green concrete (e.g., 

contractor, designer, buyer, producer) 

a Under the EPA Coal Combustion Residues (CCR) Subtitle C proposal, coal ash destined for beneficial use would 

retain the current Bevill exemption, and so would not be subject to regulation under Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act Subtitle C. Thus, coal ash used in concrete and other products would not fall within the scope of 

EPA’s proposal to “list” coal ash, either during or after the useful life of the concrete product. When the concrete 

product is discarded at the end of its useful life, it would be treated the same as any other solid waste. Source: 

http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/ccr-rule/ccrfaq.htm 

- 15 -
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MEASUREMENT SCIENCE NEEDS FOR GREEN CONCRETE – WORKSHOP REPORT 

High Priority Topics 

For the most critical barriers identified in Table 3-1, small groups of two or three 

people worked together to enumerate the approaches and technical objectives to 

overcome them, along with recommended roles for stakeholders. These efforts 

resulted in the set of high priority challenge topic categories outlined below and 

detailed in Figures 3-1 through 3-6. Ideas from Group A and Group B were 

consolidated where necessary to eliminate overlaps. 

Code and Specification Limitations: Building codes and some State Departments of 

Transportation (DOT) limit the use of SCMs. For example, in the ACI 318 building 

code, fly ash is limited to 25 % of the total cementitious material when the concrete 

will be exposed to deicers. This limitation references publications that were 

published before 1990, and does not incorporate the significant amount of work that 

has been done in this field since. There is currently a test that can be used for 

scaling resistance and deicing salts that is considered a good predictor of 

performance in the field. Yet some evidence suggests that this test is overly 

restrictive and aggressive and can give false positives that would prevent the use of 

more SCMs. There is a need for measurement science to develop a better test or to 

validate tests for scaling resistance in the presence of deicer salts (see Figure 3-1). 

Similarly, State DOTs may limit the use of SCMs after a certain date in the year 

based on anecdotal evidence for set time or early age strength limitations. This 

conservative approach has been adopted due to a lack of reliable test methods and 

guides for accurately predicting potential problems. Education is also necessary to 

overcome this barrier; when SCMs are limited in one particular instance, it does not 

necessarily mean that the use of SCMs has to be limited in the rest of the project. 

Life Cycle Tools and Sustainability Metrics: The lack of life cycle tools and 

sustainability metrics leads to limitations on being able to quantify the benefits and 

disadvantages of using different materials in concrete mixtures (see Figure 3-2). To 

overcome this barrier, it is necessary to be able to quantify sustainability, including 

service life, CO2 footprint, embodied energy, and environmental costs and benefits. 

For each of these quantities, it is important to consider not just one stage of the 

material use, but all stages, including building, operation, and disposal (including the 

possibility for recycling the material again). For example, embodied energy must 

include the initial energy to build a particular project and the energy required for 

operation. The successful creation of sustainability metrics relies on the 

development and validation of new service life tools and performance prediction 

models that can incorporate the multiple degradation mechanisms that pertain to a 

particular application. 

Predictive Performance Models: Reliable models that can accurately predict the 

performance of IBP concrete mixtures, both during construction and over the long-

- 16 -
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MEASUREMENT SCIENCE NEEDS FOR GREEN CONCRETE – WORKSHOP REPORT 

term, must be developed and validated to build confidence in the mixtures. The 

development of these models will involve multiple iterative steps: develop a 

systematic approach for evaluating IBPs in concrete mixtures, develop the actual 

model, and then validate the model (see Figure 3-3). It is preferable that these 

performance models be based on materials science principles, but should not be 

overly restrictive. Current OPC concrete is based primarily on empirical data. In 

order to predict concrete performance based on IBP characteristics, the interaction of 

IBPs with other components of the concrete mixture must be well understood. 

Outreach and/or education will likely be necessary for the standards community to 

accept and be confident in these new performance models. Finally, there is a need 

for improved test methods that will yield data as inputs to these models. 

Improved Test Methods: The reluctance of industry to use high-volume replacement 

concretes is primarily based on the uncertainty and unfamiliarity with IBP materials. 

Test methods that are understandable to technicians/lay engineers, practical, and cost 

effective should be developed, and the repeatability and reproducibility of those test 

methods must be understood (see Figure 3-4). 

Materials Characterization Tests: The current practice of characterizing IBP 

materials by their oxide content is insufficient for understanding whether a concrete 

mixture made with a particular IBP material will perform as intended. Current tests 

based on a pozzolanic (strength activity) index are not reliable for mixtures with 

large SCM replacements. New standard test methods and certified reference 

materials should be developed for materials such as fly ash, glasses, and minerals 

that give a better indication of performance, such as the proportion of glassy and 

crystalline material or calorimetry data for mixtures of controlled proportions (see 

Figure 3-5). The development of blended binder materials also requires the 

quantification of various material properties such as component content and 

component composition. Knowing what property to measure, however, depends 

upon having a sufficient understanding of the processes involved. 

Understanding of Hydration Reactions: A central barrier, and one that relates to 

many of the technical challenges already noted, is the lack of a fundamental 

understanding of the reactions that occur during the hydration process in concretes 

made with IBP materials. The IBP materials are largely glassy (amorphous 

structure), and these glass reactions are not fully understood, particularly in the 

presence of portland cement. From the field of cement chemistry, it is known that 

proper sulfate balancing is needed to achieve desirable properties during 

construction. From the field of glass chemistry, researchers have an inherent 

understanding that alkalis and alumina phases play important roles, especially as the 

portland cement replacement moves beyond 50 %. There is also evidence that fine 

limestone powder can be used to engineer setting time, even in the absence of 

- 17 -
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MEASUREMENT SCIENCE NEEDS FOR GREEN CONCRETE – WORKSHOP REPORT 

evidence that the limestone is reacting chemically.b Activities addressing this 

challenge are woven into several of the priority topics described. 

Stakeholder Education and Awareness: The construction industry, which is risk 

averse by nature, has a strong preference for using traditional methods and 

technologies, posing a challenge for introducing the innovative technologies that are 

common in green concrete (see Figure 3-6). There is currently a significant lack of 

understanding regarding new concrete materials, especially regarding benefits, costs, 

risks, and characteristics such as strength and durability. During construction, these 

materials can behave differently from OPC concretes, especially with respect to 

bleeding and the appropriate finishing plan, and contractors need reliable tests and 

tools to ensure the best possible product. Training, tutorials, showcases, and life 

cycle analysis tools are all necessary for the construction industry to learn how to 

work with SCMs. 

b See for example: Gurney, L., Bentz, D.P., Sato, T., and Weiss, W.J., Using Limestone to Reduce Set 

Retardation in High Volume Fly Ash Mixtures: Improving Constructability for Sustainability, 

Transportation Research Record, 2012 

- 18 -
 

MEASUREMENT SCIENCE NEEDS FOR GREEN CONCRETE – WORKSHOP REPORT 

- 19 -

Figure 3-1. CODE AND SPECIFICATION LIMITATIONS: 

Effects of High-Volume SCMs on Concrete Properties Impacting Constructability 

TECHNICAL)OBJECTIVE:)Improve)predictive)tests)and)strategies)to)mitigate)the)adverse effects of)

high?volume)supplementary)cementitious)material)(SCMs))on)concrete))

Technical)Challenge/Barrier:

Impacts!of!SCMs!on!early!

strength!development

Technical)Challenge/Barrier:

Impacts!of!SMCs!on!finishing!

activities!(e.g.,!time!to!set,!

bleeding,!and!segregation)

Technical)Challenge/Barrier:

Understanding!the!effect!of!SCMs!

on!air!entrainment

• Development!and!improvement!of

strength!prediction!based!on!maturity!

methods!

• Acceleration!of!calcium!silicate!

hydrate!(CASAH)!growth!in!oneA,!twoA,!

and!threeAday!time!periods

• Improved!test!methods!for!maturity

• Technology!showcase!of!current!best!

practices

• Field/rapid!tests!to!predict!set!times

• Field/rapid!tests!to!predict!the!degree!

of!bleeding

• Education!for!engineers!and!specifiers!

on!the!use!of!SCMs!at!higher!

replacement!levels

• Accurate!and!repeatable!standardized!

test!method!to!predict!the!effect!of!

SCMs!on!airAvoid!system

• Better!characterization!of!carbon!in!fly!

ash!(e.g.,!particle!size,!texture,!

adsorptivity)!

• New test!methods!for!foam!index

• New!test!methods!for!characterization

of!fly!ash!carbon

• New!knowledge!on!initial!set!

characteristics

• Set!time!nomograph!

• New!modeling/simulation!method!to!

determine!when!bleeding!is!complete

What)new)technologies)or)information/data)are)needed)to)overcome)this)challenge/barrier?

What)measurement)science)solutions)are)needed)to)implement)each)new)technology)or)data?

Stakeholders)and)Roles

Government:)Support!R&D programs!related!to!SCM!

properties!and!testing

National)Laboratories:)Evaluate!and!improve!existing!

test!methods;!develop!new!test!methods

Industry:)Promote!technical!expertise!and!peer!review

Trade)Organizations:)Solicit!and!facilitate!industry!

participation!(e.g.,!through peer!reviews)

Standards)Organizations:)Develop!and!publish!test!

methods

Academia:)Develop!and!execute!research!programs!to!

enhance!understanding!of!the!SCMAportland!cement!

interaction!and!property!development

Potential)Impacts

Material)Cost:)Varies,!but!reduced!life!cycle!costs

Production)Cost:)Reduced!rejected!concrete!loads;!

improved!labor!usage

Construction)Cost/Risk:)Reduced!low!strength!

events;!improved!finish!labor!usage;!reduced!

grinding

Material)Variability:)Greatly!improved!air!void!

consistency,!compressive!strength,!flatness,!and!

levelness

Construction)Quality:)Greatly!improved!with!

prediction!and!ability!to!make!rapid!adjustments

Long?Term Performance:)Greatly!improved!(longer!

life,!less!maintenance!activity)

Other:)More!consistent!air!voids!will!reduce!freezeA

thaw!damage!potential
 

 

 

MEASUREMENT SCIENCE NEEDS FOR GREEN CONCRETE – WORKSHOP REPORT 

Figure 3-2. LIFE CYCLE TOOLS AND SUSTAINABILITY METRICS: 

Life Cycle and Sustainability Analysis for Green Concretes 

TECHNICAL)OBJECTIVE:)Quantify)sustainability)for)properties)such)as service)life,)carbon)dioxide)(CO2))

footprint,)embodied)energy,)and)environmental)costs and)benefits

Technical)

Challenge/Barrier:

Quantifying!service!life!for!

buildings,!sidewalks,!drainage,!

parking!lots,!streets,!etc.

Technical)

Challenge/Barrier:

Quantifying!CO2 footprints!

(components,!and materials)

during!initial!construction,!

operation,!and!disposal!phases

Technical)

Challenge/Barrier:

Quantifying!the!embodied!

energy!and!energy!efficiency!

(initially!and!during!operation)

What)new)technologies)or)information/data)are)needed)to)overcome)this)challenge/barrier?

Technical)

Challenge/Barrier:

Quantifying!environmental!

benefits!and!costs

•	 Data!on!accelerated exposure,!

aging,!and!weathering

•	 Exposure!environment!

characterization

•	 Models!with!multiple!

concurrent!corrosion

degradation modes

o Reaction,!freezeAthaw,!
 

sulfate,!deicers 
 

•	 Consideration!of!the!effects!of!

loading!and!use!

o Abrasion,!fatigue,!creep

•	 Standard!methodology!for!

measurement

•	 Initial!footprint!on!materials,!

methods,!energy!operational!

footprint!for!infrastructure!

such!as!buildings,!pavement,!

bridges/transportation!

structures,!and!dams

•	 What!technologies/practices!

reduce!energy!required!for!

production!

•	 Use!of!waste!materials!such!as!

fuel!or!clinker!(controlled!

product)!for!kiln

•	 Determine!what!to!measure!

and how!to measure!it

•	 Better!understanding!of!

potential!risks during!

construction,!use,!and!disposal!

or!recycling!at!end!of!life

What)measurement)science)solutions)are)needed)to)implement)each)new)technology)or)data?

Stakeholders)and)Roles

• Online!quality!control

• Materials!characterization

• Performance metrics

Potential)Impacts

Material)Cost:)Minimal!impact,!some!savings!potential

Production)Cost:)Quality!assurance/quality!control;!increase!

capital!investment

Construction)Cost/Risk:)Owner!of!risk;!reduced!perceived!risk

Material)Variability:)Reduced!variable!materials!via!online!

measurement!(potentially)

Construction)Quality:)Improved

Long?Term Performance:)Improved

Other:)System!that!transcends!concrete!to!all!construction!

materials

•	 New!knowledge!and!new!test!

methods

•	 Databases!and!classification!

schemes

•	 Validation!data!sets!and!new!

models

•	 Integration!of!existing!and!new!

models

•	 Performance!metrics on:

o Mining/acquisition/!

production

o Transportation

o Construction!!

•	 Reference!examples!

(educational)!

•	 Computerized!calculations

Government:)Support!research programs

National)Laboratories:)Conduct!collaborative!research;!propose!

tests!and!models;!coordinate!partnerships

Industry:)Reduction!to!practice;!evaluate!inputs;!improve!

efficiency

Trade)Organizations:)Educate,!communicate,!and!certify;!

coordinate!technology!transfer

Standards)Organizations:)Create!new!standards;!train!and!

educate;!create!codes;!design!standards

Academia:)Research;!educate!engineers,!architects,!and!workers!

at!community!colleges

- 20 -
 

MEASUREMENT SCIENCE NEEDS FOR GREEN CONCRETE – WORKSHOP REPORT 

- 21 -

Figure 3-3. PREDICTIVE PERFORMANCE MODELS: 

Reliable Predictive Models for Concrete Mixtures Containing IBPs 

TECHNICAL)OBJECTIVE: Develop)and)validate)reliable)predictive)performance)models

Technical)Challenge/Barrier:

Lack!of!a!systematic!approach!

to!evaluating!IBPs!in!concrete!

mixtures

Technical)Challenge/Barrier:

Development!of!reliable!

predictive!models

Technical)Challenge/Barrier:

Validation!of!reliable!predictive!

models

• Standard!method!to!characterize!

IBPs

• Data!on!the!interaction of!IBPs!with

the environment!(e.g.,!

cement/concrete!components)!

• Evaluation!of!macro!properties!!

• Evaluation!of!durability!

• Develop!performance!metrics

• Measurements!and!test!methods

• Certified!reference!materials!for!

tests

• Interaction!between!IBP!

characteristics!and!concrete!mixture!

performance!based!on!materials!

science

• Education!of!standards!community!to!

use!models!as!test!method

• Basic!set!of!results and!criteria!for!

the!evaluation!of!models

• Results!to!refine!models

• Certified!reference!materials

• Technical!data!to!input!into!models!

and!validate outputs!

• LongAterm!exposure!site

• Technical!data!to!calibrate!models

• Iterative!refinement!based!on!an!

experimental!test!program

• LongAterm!controlled!environment!

test!beds

What)new)technologies)or)information/data)are)needed)to)overcome)this)challenge/barrier?

What)measurement)science)solutions)are)needed)to)implement)each)new)technology)or)data?

Stakeholders)and)Roles

Government:)Conduct!longAterm!exposure!tests!beds

National)Laboratories:)Create!longAterm!exposure!

test!bed!reference!materials;!fundamental!material!

science research

Industry:)Develop!data!for!material!characterization

Trade)Organizations:)Provide!source!of!IBPs

Standards)Organizations:)Standardize!models!and!

incorporate!into specifications

Academia:)Educate!about!methods,!models,!and!

fundamental!materials!science

Potential)Impacts

Material)Cost:)No!impact

Production)Cost:)Reduced; able!to!use!cheaper!IBPs

Construction)Cost/Risk:)Reduced!risk;!more!reliable!

performance

Material)Variability:)Will!still!exist!(but!performance!

will!be!better!predicted)

Construction)Quality:)Improved

Long?Term Performance:)Improved

Other: N/A
 

 

 

over!time •

MEASUREMENT SCIENCE NEEDS FOR GREEN CONCRETE – WORKSHOP REPORT 

Figure 3-4. IMPROVED TEST METHODS: 

Performance Tests for High-Volume Replacement Concretes 

TECHNICAL)OBJECTIVE: Develop)more)reliable)performance)test)methods)(durability,)aging,)

field)performance)

Technical)Challenge/Barrier:

Identification!of!the!

suite!of!durability and!

performance!!

issues

Technical)Challenge/Barrier:

Identification!of!the!appropriate!

test!methodology

Technical)Challenge/Barrier:

Development!of!reliable,!trusted!

test!methods!and!predictive!

models (when!appropriate)!for!

new!materials!

• Industry!survey!for!data!of!durability!

issues

• Definition!of boundary!of!

applicability!to!materials!such!as!

geopolymers,!belite!(C2S)!cements!

and!other!cementitious!systems

• StrawAman!survey,!forums,!or!other!

mechanisms to!obtain!feedback!

from!stakeholders!including!state!

DOTs,!owners,!contractors,!and!

material!producers

• Direct,!proxy,!virtual,!and!laboratory!

tests

• Tests for!accurate!prediction!of!

durability!and!field!performance

• Reliable!prediction!of longAterm!

performance!(accelerated!aging)

• Durability!data!on!freezeAthaw,!

deicing,!carbonation,!environmental,!

and!alkaliAsilica!reaction!(ASR)!gels

What)new)technologies)or)information/data)are)needed)to)overcome)this)challenge/barrier?

What)measurement)science)solutions)are)needed)to)implement)each)new)technology)or)data?

•	 Ability!to!determine!whether!a!

particular!test!is!appropriate!to!the!

material

o i.e.,!early!testing!on!high!volume!

fly!ash!concrete!

•	 Basic!understanding!of!new!

materials!!

o i.e.,!microstructure!chemistry,!

phase!changes!of!geopolymers!

•	 Understanding!of relationship!

between!chemistry,!microstructure,!

and!degradation!mechanism

•	 Understanding what!to!measure

o determining if!measurements!

should!be!direct!or!proxy

•	 Factors!that!contribute!to!

uncertainty in!testing

•	 New!measurement!technology

•	 Test!methods!that!are!practical,!

scienceAbased,!!simpler,!

standardized,!and!costAeffective

•	 LongAterm!performance!data!for!

new!materials

•	 Ways!to!accelerate!field!tests;!field!

proxy!tests and!field!

demonstrations

•	 Basic!environmental!research

•	 Guides!for!dissemination!to!users

Stakeholders)and)Roles

Government:)Survey,!identify!the!issues,!and!assist!

with!workshops

National)Laboratories:)Assist!with!methodology!and!

test!development;!create/evaluate!tests,!generate!

data!from!field!tests

Industry:)Supply!historical!data!and!materials!for!

testing!and!validation;!generate!field!data!from!pilots

Trade)Organizations:)Support!the!development!of!

guides!and!specifications;!disseminate!data/guides

Standards)Organizations:)Assist!with!the!creation!of!

precision!statements!and!guides;!publish!test!

methods

Academia:)Assist!with!test/methods!development

Potential)Impacts

Material)Cost:)Reduced;!quantitative!data!will!

identify!most!costAeffective!solution!(thus!

preventing!overAdesign)

Production)Cost:)Potentially!reduced!over!time;!

reduce!life!cycle!cost also!reduced

Construction)Cost/Risk:)Reduced!risk;!materials!will!

be!better!understood

Material)Variability:)Could!improve/be!reduced

Construction)Quality:)Could!improve

Long?Term)Performance:)Improved

Other:)N/A

- 22 -
 

MEASUREMENT SCIENCE NEEDS FOR GREEN CONCRETE – WORKSHOP REPORT 

- 23 -

Figure 3-5. MATERIALS CHARACTERIZATION TESTS 

Methods and Reference Materials for Fly Ash, Glass, and Minerals 

TECHNICAL)OBJECTIVE:)Develop)methods)and)reference)materials)for)concrete)replacement)

materials)such)as)fly)ash,)glass,)and)minerals

Technical)Challenge/Barrier:

Limits!of!ASTM!coal!fly!ash!and!pozzolan*!

standard!specification!C 618,!which!reveals!little!

about!material!performance;!ASTM!C!311!creates!

numbers!to!populate!C!618,!but!does!not!reflect!

field!performance

Technical)Challenge/Barrier:

Unreliable!performance!tests!for!fly!ash!cement!

mixtures,!including!pozzolanic!(strength!activity)!

index

• Quantification!of!the!following!methods:!

o Glass!content

o Glass!composition

o Mineral!content

o Mineral!composition

o Laboratory!tests!that!predict!field performance

• Standard!test!methods!for!fly!ash,!glass,!and!minerals

• Reference!materials!for!fly!ash,!glass,!and!particle!size!

distribution

• PerformanceAbased!test!for!Class!C!fly!ash!ASR!evaluations

• Conduction!calorimetry

• Dynamic!shear!rheometry

• Calcium!hydroxide!consumption!(TGA!or!XRD)

• Standard!test!protocols!for!mixtures

• Standard!reaction!model

• Reference!materials to!support!test methods

• Improved!test!methods!for!scaling!resistance!in!the!

presence!of!deicer!salts

What)new)technologies)or)information/data)are)needed)to)overcome)this)challenge/barrier?

What)measurement)science)solutions)are)needed)to)implement)each)new)technology)or)data?

Stakeholders)and)Roles

Government:)Identify!opportunities!for!demonstration!

projects

National)Laboratories:)Develop!reference!data!and!

conduct!precision!statement!studies

Industry:)Provide!historical!data;!supply!materials!to!

researchers

Trade)Organizations:)Develop!guides!and!draft!

standards!and!codes

Standards)Organizations:)Develop!new!test!methods!

and!codes

Academia:)Develop!new!characterization!techniques

Potential)Impacts

Material)Cost:)N/A

Production)Cost:)Fewer!overtime!days

Construction)Cost/Risk:)Reduced!uncertainty!in!

scheduling

Material Variability:)Unanticipated!delayed!set!times!

are!avoided

Construction)Quality:)N/A

Long?Term)Performance:)N/A

Other:)N/A

*Pozzolan!refers!to!class!of!siliceous!or!siliceous!and!aluminous!materials!which possess!little!or!no!cementitious!value!

independently!but!which!will,!in!finely!divided!form!and!in!the!presence!of!water,!react!chemically!with!calcium!hydroxide!at!

ambient temperature!to!form!compounds!that!have cementitious properties!(ASTM!C618).
 

 

•

MEASUREMENT SCIENCE NEEDS FOR GREEN CONCRETE – WORKSHOP REPORT 

Figure 3-6. STAKEHOLDER EDUCATION AND AWARENESS: 

Educating Industry and the Public about Working with SCMs and the Benefits 

TECHNICAL)OBJECTIVE:)Educate)the)industry)on)how)to)work)with)SCMs;)build)confidence)in)the)use)of)new)

materials;)and)educate)stakeholders)and)the)public about)their)benefits

Technical)Challenge/)

Barrier:

Construction!industry!culture!

of!conservatism!and!inertia!

toward!new!technology!and!

changes!in!construction!

practices

What)new)technologies)or)information/data)are)needed)to)overcome)this)challenge/barrier?

Technical)Challenge/)

Barrier:

Limited understanding!of

green!concrete!features!(e.g.,

strength,!set!time,!and

durability)

Technical)Challenge/)

Barrier:

Educating!the!educators

Technical)Challenge/)

Barrier:

Understanding!of!benefits!of!

green!concrete!and!

comparison!of!real!and!

perceived!costs

• Education!and!training!tools

• Experience!and!case!studies!on!successful!applications!of!SCMs

• Life!cycle!analysis!tools

• Sustainable!side!of!construction practices,!i.e.,!how!green!concrete!contributes!to!sustainability,!now!and!in!the!future

• Solid!body!of!literature!on!new!materials!and!performance!

• Guidelines!for!stakeholders!(Federal!Highway!Administration,!State!DOT,!etc.)

• Project!database!accessible!to!stakeholders!that!includes!past!experiences

• External!viewpoints!and perspectives!(other!than!from!the!construction!industry)

• Educational!outreach mechanisms!at!all!levels

• Technical!data!and!reference!materials

• Feedback!loop!that!will!help!to!verify!that!the!new!information!or!data!has!arrived!(absorbed)!–!(ACI!training!courses)

• Metrics!that!!measure!benefits in!a!transparent!and!understandable way

• Methods!and!data!to!aid!in!understanding!the!behavior!and!properties!of!SCMs

What)measurement)science)solutions)are)needed)to)implement)each)new)technology)or)data?

Stakeholders)and)Roles Potential)Impacts

Government:)Create!laws or!rules!to!foster!use!(similar!to!

Leadership!in!Energy!and!Environmental!Design)!

National)Laboratories:)Generate!materials,!data,!and!

information!for!education!and!training;!support!

government;!gather!and!share!information

Industry:)Provide!funding!for!education!and!training;!share!

information;!participate!in!education!and!training

Trade)Organizations:)Provide!funding!for!education!and!

training

Standards)Organizations:)Develop!standards!for!materials!

and!testing!methods

Academia:)Educate!students;!conduct!research!for!general!

population!consumption;!refine!objectives!for!

sustainability

Material)Cost:)Will!depend on!the!cost/benefit!ratio—each!

material!is!different

Production)Cost:)Will!depend on!successful!case!studies!and!

past!experience

Construction)Cost/Risk:)Will!depend on!successful!case!

studies!and!past!experience

Material)Variability:)Educated/experienced!work!force!will!

help!guarantee success

Construction)Quality:)Educated/experienced!work!force!will!

help!guarantee success

Long?Term Performance:)Educated/experienced!work!force!

will!help!guarantee success

Other: Quality!of!life!has!potential!for!greater!improvement;!

sustainability!issues!are!of!growing importance

- 24 -
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MEASUREMENT SCIENCE NEEDS FOR GREEN CONCRETE – WORKSHOP REPORT 

4. A MEASUREMENT 

SCIENCE ROADMAP
 

New measurement science is needed to support progress in the High Priority Topic 

areas discussed previously. These needs include a number of measurement science 

areas: new understanding as a basis for new measurement technologies and methods; 

new standardized tests to support changes in specifications and codes; and new 

industry best practice guides to support educational programs. 

The following is a brief summary of the needs that are aligned with the High Priority 

Topic areas. Although the list below does not span all of the technical needs 

identified in this report, they contribute directly or indirectly to the topic areas 

identified. Moreover, it is hoped that this summary can form the basis of future 

collaborations, both nationally and internationally. 

Materials Characterization Test Methods 

One of the overwhelming challenges to working with IBP materials is adapting to 

variability in the properties of these materials. The challenge is two-fold: 

understand what parts of the glassy phases have the greatest impact on performance; 

and develop test methods to address known complexity (crystalline and 

heterogeneous glassy composition). The first challenge is very broad and will 

require collaboration among multiple contributors. In the short term, there are a 

number of known important characteristics for which there are no standardized test 

methods. For example, having a test method to identify and quantify the crystalline 

phases in a fly ash would allow one to determine, by subtraction, the average oxide 

composition of the glassy phases present. 

–	 Develop collaborations among researchers to understand the chemical and 

physical reactions that occur when IBP materials react in an alkaline solution 

–	 Identify critical characteristic of IBP materials that impact performance 

during construction and over the long-term. 

–	 Evaluate the use of ASTM C188 for determining the densities of IBP
 

materials
 

–	 Develop reference materials for glassy materials to aid in calibration of 

devices 

- 25 -
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

–	 Develop a standard test method for chemical (oxide) analysis of IBP
 

materials
 

–	 Develop a standard test method for identifying and quantifying the crystalline 

phases present in mixed (glassy and crystalline) IBP materials like fly ash. 

–	 Develop a reference material that would replicate both the chemistry and the 

mineralogy of IBP materials 

Performance-Based Test Methods 

A majority of the existing standardized test methods were developed based on the 

characteristics of ordinary portland. For example, a number of durability tests begin 

exposure after 14 days of hydration, whereas concretes with increasing cement 

replacement levels hydrate more slowly. Even during construction, the (often) finer 

particle sizes of IBP materials can reduce bleed rates to the rate of water 

evaporation, thus confounding the expectation of the ideal time to finish the surface. 

Existing test methods should be re-evaluated to identify the factors that contribute to 

a performance failure, and identify improvements to the test methods that will 

ensure that the performance of a concrete mixture is characterized accurately. 

–	 Develop test methods that can more accurately indicate the ideal finishing 

time for concrete mixtures containing elevated replacement levels of IBP 

materials. 

–	 Develop standardized test methods for reporting the temperature dependence 

of setting time and strength of a concrete mixture 

–	 Develop a standardized test that accurately reflects the scaling performance 

of HVFA concrete mixtures 

–	 Develop test methods that can accurately reflect the long-term performance 

of concrete mixtures containing elevated portland cement replacement levels; 

this may involve developing accelerated test methods 

Best Practice Guides and Codes 

Improved industry best practice guides could form a foundation for improved 

industry-wide performance, and for informing the industry that concretes with 

elevated portland cement replacement levels can be constructed reliably, and can be 

expected to perform for the intended service life. 

–	 Work with the ACI-relevant committees to develop alternative mixture 

design guidelines, including volumetric proportioning options (such as the 

aggregate suspension mixture proportioning method currently under 

development within ACI 211) 

–	 Develop guides for selecting concrete mixture designs based on the
 

temperature dependence of setting time and early age strength.
 

- 26 -
 

 

 

 

 

 

–	 Develop guides for developing and qualifying innovative mixture 

proportioning for green concretes such as HVFA ternary blends consisting of 

fine limestone powder, ordinary portland cement, and (coarse) fly ash 

–	 Work with ACI Committee 318 to more accurately reflect the conditions 

under which concrete mixtures with elevated portland cement replacement 

levels can/cannot perform satisfactorily 

- 27 -
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX A. 

SUCCESSFUL EXAMPLES 

OF GREEN CONCRETE 

While a number of challenges exist to using replacement concrete materials, many 

real world successes using green concrete have been documented (HighPerformance, High-Volume Fly Ash Concrete, V.M. Malhotra and P.K. Mehta, 

2012). The Unified Facilities Guide Specifications (UFGS) now provides guidance 

allowing marine concrete projects for the Navy, Army, Air Force and NASA to use 

performance-based green concrete mixtures based on over 7 years of experience on 

large concrete projects with a specified service life. The use of supplemental 

cementitious materials, such as fly ash, is encouraged. For example, Class F fly ash 

may be used up to 50% as a partial replacement for Portland cement. By definition, a 

concrete mixture containing a minimum of 50% fly ash is defined as a high-volume 

fly ash (HVFA) concrete (Malhotra & Mehta, 2012). The use of green concrete in 

structures offers numerous direct and indirect benefits including lifecycle cost 

savings, extended service life, little or no cracking, reduced greenhouse gas 

emissions by displacing portland cement, and reduced energy consumption. 

U.S. Navy Use of Green Concrete 

The U.S. Navy’s Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) has been a 

leader in developing and using performance specifications and green concrete 

mixtures on large projects since 2005, when they utilized 40% fly ash in a modular 

hybrid pier test structure at San Diego, CA. Performance specifications, 

characterization of green concrete mixtures, and the use of service modeling tools, 

have been developed and validated by the U.S. Navy. There are already examples of 

demonstrations that support the feasibility and constructability of using greener, 

cheaper, and more corrosion-resistant concrete mixtures for use in Navy structures. 

As expected, the Navy has use for green concretes that can be used in waterfront 

projects. A pier at Naval Base Kitsap in Bremerton, WA involved the use of a 

concrete mixture containing 15% fly ash and 7.5% silica fume. However, higher fly 

ash composition concrete mixtures are also being explored. Three test beams were 

designed and fabricated to represent a reinforced concrete pile cap for a Navy pier. 

Two of the beams were made from HVFA concrete with 50% fly ash and one 

- 28 -
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

control beam was made from traditional concrete. During the production of the 

beams, slump tests were satisfactory and the concrete showed good consolidation 

and finished well. After being sent to a waterfront test site, the beams have shown no 

cracks so far. 

As another 

example, a 

contractor for the 

Navy completed 

the construction 

of a biofuel 

containment slab 

at a biodiesel 

plant located at 

the National 

Environmental Test Site at Naval Base Ventura County in Port Hueneme, CA. This 

slab was constructed using HVFA concrete which contained 50% fly ash and 50% 

cement. Compared to conventional concrete mixtures, the contractor noted that it 

was easier to patch curbs when using the HVFA concrete. Other benefits were seen 

by using the green concrete including that there was less cracking and it was easier 

to create a flat finish. The labor cost of the construction project was reduced by 15% 

and the crew was able to have a longer set-up time. Also, the cost of the HVFA 

concrete was the same as that which would come from a ready mix supplier. The use 

of green concrete was so successful for this project that the contractor noted that this 

material is preferred for all their future Navy projects and will possibly be used for 

commercial construction projects. 

Green Concrete in Construction Projects at the University of California, 

Berkeley 

A number of noteworthy 

construction projects have 

been completed utilizing 

green concrete in and around 

the San Francisco Bay Area, 

especially at the University of 

California, Berkeley (UCB). 

In 2012, UCB completed a 

seismic retrofitting and 

renovation of the University 

of California, Berkeley 

Memorial Stadium in 2012. 

The Memorial Stadium was a major construction project and utilized over 50,000 

cubic yards of concrete. Portions of the stadium, including the mat foundations, 

footings, grade beams, columns, shear walls, and pile caps, were constructed using 

HVFA concrete which contained 50-55% fly ash in place of portland cement. 

Although the floor and roof slabs utilized conventional concrete due to concerns by 

HVFA concrete biofuel containment slab at a biodiesel plant in Port 

Hueneme, CA
 

University of California, Berkeley Memorial Stadium 

- 29 -
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the contractor that strength gain would be too slow, HVFA concrete could have 

successfully been used without delaying the project. In October 2012, there were no 

cracks larger than 0.006 inches wide for all of the elements that were constructed 

using HVFA concrete, showing a successful implementation of the green concrete. 

In contrast, typical cracks in the roof and decks which were not made of HVFA 

concrete showed cracks in excess of 0.02 inches. 

In 2001, UCB completed a 

seismic rehabilitation of 

Barker Hall. The material 

used was also HVFA 

concrete, where 50% of the 

portland cement was replaced 

with fly ash. Using green 

concrete to complete the 

building’s rehabilitation 

avoided the emissions of 1300 

tons of carbon emissions and 

the use of 1300 tons of 

portland cement. Eleven years after completion, the largest crack found was 0.007 

inches wide which is within acceptable limits. 

UCB has completed other 

construction projects using 

green concrete in the last 11 

years in addition to the 

Memorial Stadium and Barker 

Hall. These notable projects 

include the seismic retrofit of 

Wurster Hall in 2001 and 

construction of the building 

headquarters of the Center of 

Information Technology 

Research in the Interest of 

Society (CITRIS) in 2007. 

The CITRIS building used the 

same concrete mix as was used for the rehabilitation of Barker Hall, and five years 

after construction, there were no cracks found in the exterior of the walls. 

University of California, Berkeley Barker Hall 

University of California, Berkeley CITRIS Building 

- 30 -
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX B: ACRONYMS
 

ACI American Concrete Institute 

ASR alkali-silica reaction 

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials 

CO2 carbon dioxide 

DOT Department of Transportation 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

GHG greenhouse gas 

HVFA high volume fly ash 

IBP industrial by-product 

LCA life-cycle analysis 

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology 

OPC ordinary portland cement 

R&D research and development 

SCM supplementary cementitious material 

SRM® Standard Reference Material 

- 31 -
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX C:
 

REFERENCES
 

1 Portland Cement Association, “Cement & Concrete Basics - Concrete Basics,” 

Accessed October 2, 2012, www.cement.org/basics/concretebasics_concretebasics.asp. 

2 William T. Choate, Energy and Emission Reduction Opportunities for the Cement 

Industry, prepared by BCS, Incorporated, Columbia, MD (Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Energy, 2003), 

www1.eere.energy.gov/manufacturing/industries_technologies/imf/pdfs/eeroci_dec03a.pdf. 

3 Energy Information Administration, “Energy in Brief: How Can We Compare or 

Add up Our Energy Consumption?” (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy, 

March 12, 2009), 

www.greatlakesenergyservice.org/documents/comparing_energy_consumption.pdf. 

4 Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 2008, DOE/EIA0384(2008) (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy, 2009), 

www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/archive/038408.pdf. 

5 Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2009, DOE/EIA0383(2009) (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy, 2009), 

www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/0383(2009).pdf. 

6 Energy Information Administration, Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United 

States 2007, DOE/EIA-0573(2007) (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy, 

2008), www.eia.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/pdf/0573(2007).pdf. 

7 Hendrik G. Van Oss, 2007 Minerals Yearbook: Cement [advanced Release] 

(Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey, 2009), 

http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/cement/myb1-2007-cemen.pdf. 

8 International Energy Agency, Tracking Industrial Energy Efficiency and CO2 

Emissions (Paris: International Energy Agency, 2007), 

www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2007/tracking_emissions.pdf. 

9 Peter Edwards, “Cement in the USA,” Global Cement, May 14, 2012. 

www.globalcement.com/magazine/articles/698-cement-in-the-usa. 

10 Ed Sullivan, “Cement Outlook,” (presentation, Portland Cement Association 

Spring Meeting, April 2012), 

www.ficem.org/boletines/informa/pca_junio_2012/boardspring_20124_PCA.pdf. 

11 Environmental Protection Agency, “Frequent Questions: Coal Combustion Residues 

(CCR) - Proposed Rule,” Environmental Protection Agency, accessed October 2, 2012, 

www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/ccr-rule/ccrfaq.htm 

- 32 -